Posted on 09/11/2004 5:56:56 PM PDT by The Bandit
Look at the justification of Kerry's Silver Star Citation that was written in 1969. A fake as well?
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Silver_Star.pdf
The reason Kerry's Silver Star is fraudulent is not because it was forged, it was because misrepresented his record to get it.
I am only grasping at straws if you can show how the Navy could produce such perfect justification compared to all other citations of the era. This thread is about the QUALITY of the JUSTIFICATION!!!!!!
That's what I'm wondering too. Italicized proportional (and fully justified) type would have been extremely uncommon in 1969. Hell, I was born in 1969 and my birth certificate was typed. I'm more interested in the PDF that shows the silver star with a V.
Yeah, but the first page of the Kerry PDF isn't courier. It's a serifed font with proportional spacing.
Of course it did. Typesetters could do all sorts of things. Look, people, the Killian forgery scandal arises from the fact that they were supposedly composed on a typewriter which is far less capable than a typesetter.
It's odd because the second page shows the correct monotype for that time period.
There is no "correct" monotype. There were plenty of fonts to choose from in that time period.
Notice, too, that the first page has typed letters at the bottom that are also monotype. Why would one document contain two different type styles?
Umm, because it can?
This is ABSOLUTELY NUTS, man. Give it up.
Posts 21, 23, and 30 are all justified as well as Kerry's. Yeah some of them use hyphenation but that doesn't matter, that's a choice of the layout editor.
Absolutely. In fact that is almost certainly what happened.
It makes sense that some admin person would fill in portions and then an officer would finish it up. But hey, this is so much fun!
You guys may be wondering why I'm making such a big deal of this.
The reason is this: it hurts the credibility of the Killian forgery investigation if we go trotting off and practicing our newfound forgery-detection skills on every written document we see.
Why? Because honestly, we have acutally been WRONG about 50% of the time in the various conclusions we have drawn. For example, first there was the claim that typewriters couldn't do proportional spacing. FALSE (IBM Executive, for example). Second, there was the claim that typewriters couldn't do justification. FALSE (IBM Selectric Composer, for example). Then there was the claim that no printer could produce a small "th" (One of Bush's own records contradicts that, though it is important to not that it is not superscripted.)
So basically, even though our hunches were entirely justified, and have proven correct OVERALL, the fact remains that we've been throwing everything at these Killian documents to see what sticks; and not much of it is doing so. Fortunately, enough of it IS sticking that we're coming up with a winner.
But if we practice the same pseudo-science in all these other documents, we're going to come up short, guaranteed.
Kerry's certificates WERE NOT FORGED. They were obtained fraudulently, but they were not forged.
Dunno... I'm not familiar enough with military procedure to be able to tell.
I find a few random DD214's via google and couldn't find one with two fonts.
Can I ask why you think that? Were you in the military?
I'm not confronting you, I actually hope you are right. We have enough on our plates right now without worrying about Kerry's documents being forged, too. I'd just like to know for sure from somebody with military experience before we discount it entirely.
I'm relying on a combination of Occam's razor and common sense here. Even if people are unwilling to assume that all of Kerry's documents are legit, I think it is silly not to assume that most are. Once you make this assumption you realize that you need far more than a suspicion here and a suspicion there to make a provable forgery case. Killian's documents on the other hand are literally FULL of problems. FULL of them.
And if I needed more evidence to make me feel better, I would likely start poring through other documents from the time per
Interesting.
The BIG Deal in my mind is this citation was clearly produced at a later time. The BIG DEAL also is WHY? Was it to edit something out, like going behind hooch which in 1996 Kerry announced did not ever happen? Has anyone ever seen the Hyman citation prior to say, 2000? Has Kerry ever given an explanation to why he has THREE citations for the same award?
The original, Hyland memo? Clearly produced at a later time? NONSENSE. What is your evidence? If you say its justification, I'm gonna come over there and slap you. (Just kidding about that.)
Seriously, the justification argument has been blown out of the water. 3 other examples from the same time period have been produced on this very thread showing that professional justification was commonplace on such awards. And the fact that all 3 used different typefaces makes it reasonable to believe that yet another typeface was employed on Kerry's.
So again you have no typographical evidence that this memo was not produced in its proper timeframe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.