From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:05 +0000, LH wrote:   
      
   > There are mathematical ways that one could use to correlate the accuracy   
   > of the image to the alleged text.  I know enough about image processing to   
   > know that if the Air Force wanted to figure out what that document said,   
   > they could processes it well enough to get at least pieces of it decoded.   
      
   I beg to differ.  Some letters, perhaps.   
      
   > The fact that they said there's nothing usable there is Bull Shit.  If   
   > you've got eyes to see with, you can see that there are letters and words   
   > there. With the proper application of technology I'm certain they could   
   > get information from it.  Their position doesn't add up with what I can   
   > see.!.   
      
   Look at from their perspective - why _would_ they spend even one minute   
   trying to find something there?   
      
   If it "proves" the existence of the original memo, and they can prove   
   that the memo was written by the claimed author, and they can prove that   
   he was writing about what he had seen, then they'd (possibly) prove that   
   they'd been lying to the public, and congress for years.   
      
   So they probably wouldn't be too keen to do that.   
      
   If, OTOH, they could decode it, and it's someone's shopping list, no-one   
   would believe them.   
      
   I believe you'd call that a lose-lose situation, so it's pretty obvious   
   why they're not interested.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)