AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Home Built (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=2470)

Corky Scott September 23rd 04 12:48 PM

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:07:49 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:

Marian Carr Knox, Corky. Killian's secretary, You know, the one who says
the memos are forged, but also says the CONTENT of the memos is accurate?


Sorry, taking the word of an 86 year old woman about something that
may or may not have been in some peoples minds 32 years ago is not
confirming anything.

Sorry, bubba, but you can't have it both ways. There's only one person
alive who knows both those facts.


You keep skewering yourself with your own words. CBS went to press
with documents they now admit they cannot prove are authentic.
Whether the content is or is not accurate doesn't mean anything
because the documents are forgeries. In order for the documents to be
accepted as evidence, they MUST be the originals, and must be
verifiable by anyone's expert.

CBS is publically eating crow because everyone on earth knows this.
Except you.

Corky Scott

ChuckSlusarczyk September 23rd 04 02:21 PM

In article , Corky Scott says...

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:07:49 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:

Marian Carr Knox, Corky. Killian's secretary, You know, the one who says
the memos are forged, but also says the CONTENT of the memos is accurate?


Sorry, taking the word of an 86 year old woman about something that
may or may not have been in some peoples minds 32 years ago is not
confirming anything.


Your right about that Corky. I'd love to see what jaun would say if I forged
documents but said my recollection of what happened is accurate.



Sorry, bubba, but you can't have it both ways. There's only one person
alive who knows both those facts.


You keep skewering yourself with your own words. CBS went to press
with documents they now admit they cannot prove are authentic.
Whether the content is or is not accurate doesn't mean anything
because the documents are forgeries. In order for the documents to be
accepted as evidence, they MUST be the originals, and must be
verifiable by anyone's expert.

CBS is publically eating crow because everyone on earth knows this.
Except you.



It would seem that he has some need to defend what the rest of the civilized
world knows is dishonest.He's had lots of practice defending zoom and BD, now
he's extending that trait to CBS. I don't think he's as clueless or dumb as he
pretends to be but I do think he has another need and that is to be contrary for
contrary's sake.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"it's amazing how far someone will go just to ruin their credibility" chucks


Juan Jimenez September 23rd 04 02:23 PM

Corky Scott wrote in
:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:07:49 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:

Marian Carr Knox, Corky. Killian's secretary, You know, the one who says
the memos are forged, but also says the CONTENT of the memos is accurate?


Sorry, taking the word of an 86 year old woman about something that
may or may not have been in some peoples minds 32 years ago is not
confirming anything.


Oh, I get it, but taking her word that the memos are not real is? chuckle
That's funny! Except this one remembers the Shrub very well, Corky.
Extremely well, Which also shows that there's no reason why she would not
remember her boss' frame of mind and comments about the Shrub. Is it your
position that no 86 year old woman's recollection can be trusted? You do
know that's not only sexist, it's a pretty dangerous position to take.

Sorry, bubba, but you can't have it both ways. There's only one person
alive who knows both those facts.


You keep skewering yourself with your own words.


You wish! :)

CBS went to press with documents they now admit they cannot prove are
authentic.
Whether the content is or is not accurate doesn't mean anything
because the documents are forgeries.


Get real, Corky. This argument wouldn't stand up in a third grade debate
class. I've got a piece of paper in a book here in my library that says it
is the US Constitution, but it's a forgery. The content is quite accurate.
The same goes for the documents that CBS presented. The memos are
forgeries, but the contents are very accurate, as verified by the secretary
who worked for YEARS with Killian.

In order for the documents to be
accepted as evidence, they MUST be the originals, and must be
verifiable by anyone's expert.


Wrong.

CBS is publically eating crow because everyone on earth knows this.
Except you.


Wrong again! ding! That's two strikes, care to take another futile swing?

Next!



Corky Scott September 23rd 04 02:58 PM

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:23:21 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:

Get real, Corky. This argument wouldn't stand up in a third grade debate
class. I've got a piece of paper in a book here in my library that says it
is the US Constitution, but it's a forgery. The content is quite accurate.
The same goes for the documents that CBS presented. The memos are
forgeries, but the contents are very accurate, as verified by the secretary
who worked for YEARS with Killian.


Ah HA HA HA HA HA, oh man, thanks for a good laugh. Once again, your
words are prophetic: You are absolutely correct, your argument will
not stand up even in a third grade debate.

No one knows if the content of the memos is accurate or not. We have
the testimony of an 86 year old woman who has stated that the memo's
are definately fake. She conjectured that in her opinion, they
accurately reflect the sentiment of her boss. In a court of law, this
type of testimony is called "hearsay" evidence and is not allowed
because it's opinion, not verifiable fact. Your third graders would
recognize that even if you do not.

In order for the documents to be
accepted as evidence, they MUST be the originals, and must be
verifiable by anyone's expert.


Wrong.


Well apparently CBS does not agree with you.

CBS is publically eating crow because everyone on earth knows this.
Except you.


Wrong again! ding! That's two strikes, care to take another futile swing?


Here's a couple of paragraphs from AP television writer David Bauder:

"NEW YORK - CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in
its story questioning President Bush (news - web sites)'s National
Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that
several experts have dismissed as fakes.

The network said it would appoint an independent panel to look at its
reporting about the memos. The story has mushroomed into a major media
scandal, threatening the reputations of CBS News and chief anchor Dan
Rather."

Further: "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the
documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic
standard to justify using them in the report," Heyward said. "We
should not have used them."

CBS says it was an error in judgement to use the memo's because they
could not be authenticated, and at HUGE expense to their nationwide
and worldwide news reporting reputation, they publically apologized.
But Juan Jimenez says it's ok to use the information anyway. Why am I
not surprised?

Corky (your words reveal your ethics) Scott

Jerry Springer September 24th 04 02:16 AM

Juan Jimenez wrote:
Corky Scott wrote in
:


On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:07:49 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:


Marian Carr Knox, Corky. Killian's secretary, You know, the one who says
the memos are forged, but also says the CONTENT of the memos is accurate?


Sorry, taking the word of an 86 year old woman about something that
may or may not have been in some peoples minds 32 years ago is not
confirming anything.



Oh, I get it, but taking her word that the memos are not real is? chuckle
That's funny! Except this one remembers the Shrub very well, Corky.
Extremely well, Which also shows that there's no reason why she would not
remember her boss' frame of mind and comments about the Shrub. Is it your
position that no 86 year old woman's recollection can be trusted? You do
know that's not only sexist, it's a pretty dangerous position to take.


Sorry, bubba, but you can't have it both ways. There's only one person
alive who knows both those facts.


You keep skewering yourself with your own words.



You wish! :)


CBS went to press with documents they now admit they cannot prove are
authentic.
Whether the content is or is not accurate doesn't mean anything
because the documents are forgeries.



Get real, Corky. This argument wouldn't stand up in a third grade debate
class. I've got a piece of paper in a book here in my library that says it
is the US Constitution, but it's a forgery. The content is quite accurate.
The same goes for the documents that CBS presented. The memos are
forgeries, but the contents are very accurate, as verified by the secretary
who worked for YEARS with Killian.


Why should we believe her over Killians own son?


Juan Jimenez September 24th 04 02:31 AM

Corky Scott wrote in
:

Ah HA HA HA HA HA, oh man, thanks for a good laugh.


Easily amused, the mark of a someone who walks into a battle of wits,
unarmed. :)

No one knows if the content of the memos is accurate or not.


Wrong again. Marian Carr Knox knows. Keep swinging, you're bound to hit the
ball sometime this week. :)

We have the testimony of an 86 year old woman who has stated that the
memo's are definately fake.


And we have the testimony of the _same_ 86 year old woman who stated (not
conjectured, not opined, not surmised, not imagined):

"However, the information in those is correct."

Well apparently CBS does not agree with you.


ROFL! You wish! :)

Further: "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the
documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic
standard to justify using them in the report," Heyward said. "We
should not have used them."


Exactly. Thank you so much for walking right into that one and proving my
point beyond a shadow of a doubt, They said they cannot prove the documents
are authentic, not that the content of the documents are false.

Keep swinging! Maybe next week, kiddo! :)


Juan Jimenez September 24th 04 02:32 AM

Jerry Springer wrote in
ink.net:

Why should we believe her over Killians own son?


Because Killian's son did not spend every day with his father at work,
handling all his memos and interacting with him on every matter that came
across his desk.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, unless you have a hidden
but very transparent agenda.


Corky Scott September 24th 04 01:00 PM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:31:33 GMT, Juan Jimenez wrote:

Exactly. Thank you so much for walking right into that one and proving my
point beyond a shadow of a doubt, They said they cannot prove the documents
are authentic, not that the content of the documents are false.

Keep swinging! Maybe next week, kiddo! :)


I don't think so. I'm taking my own advice which I've offered many
times before in regards anyone attempting intelligent conversation
with you and halting my participation.

Corky Scott

RobertR237 September 24th 04 02:02 PM

Jimenez wrote:

Exactly. Thank you so much for walking right into that one and proving my
point beyond a shadow of a doubt, They said they cannot prove the documents
are authentic, not that the content of the documents are false.

Keep swinging! Maybe next week, kiddo! :)


I don't think so. I'm taking my own advice which I've offered many
times before in regards anyone attempting intelligent conversation
with you and halting my participation.

Corky Scott


Just do what I did, set the filter to eliminate him!

FLUSH the **** down the toilet.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)


Juan Jimenez September 24th 04 11:03 PM

richard riley wrote in
:

:Why should we believe her over Killians own son?

And wife


Who also didn't spend every day with him at the office.

and commanding officer (Gen Hodges)


Who only confirmed that the document was not authentic, not that the
content was innacurate.

and the retired General that was supposed to be pressuring them (Staudt).


Who is refusing to comment on the matter.

There's not a single piece of evidence or testimony that Bush got
special treatment or didn't do what was required that hasn't been
completely disproved.


Wrong again. No evidence has been found that the Shrub showed up for duty
in his Alabama Guard unit in the time that has been disputed. None.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com