The charge was "Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???"

The Person that typed the originals says these are not the originals and tells of several innacuracies as proof.

That is evidence that they were forged.

When this evidence is presented, the charge is denied and the new charge is "the data is correct" even it the documents are forged, an admission that they were forged.

My charges still stand, unanswered by liberals who try to change positions deny what was said when cornered.

Is this "an important advance in philosophy" or proof that liberals are ninnies?

If the facts are true, why would the documents be forged? Just pull out the real ones and the whole thing will be layed to rest. If we do not have the original ones to go by how do we know the facts are correct?

Why were they artificially aged? Why were authentic looking signatures forged on these documents?