Posted on 09/09/2004 12:16:21 PM PDT by Hank All-American
Okay, guys and gals. As a former Air Force officer and special agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), I have reviewed the documents released by CBS and can say with a high degree of confidence they are fake.
1--the month in a military date is always three letters. August is spelled out.
2--no one issues an "order" through a "memo." Maybe a letter, but nothing as informal as a "memo."
3--the signature (initials) of Lt. Col. Killian is clearly a cut-and-paste job. The last letter ("K") is cut off at the top, where two lines start to curve toward each other in a loop. Impossible to to do by hand. This signature was cut from another document and pasted or taped on the document.
4--No letterhead. Do you really think commanders typed out a the squadron on every letter? No. Letterhead was used.
5--No way there were superscripts back then. No way. Even if it was theoretically possible (which it wasn't), the national guard isn't exactly an early-adopter of technology. This ability wasn't even available at any price for several years.
Conclusion. I think they're fake. As a lawyer, I can also tell you this kind of thing is far more common than people think.
Got you. I have no idea what those are for.
Anyway, my general point is to be cautious with the evidence of proportional spacing (certainly available and not uncommon at the time) and the superscript "st" (which may or may not have been available - some here recall using such a key, but one would need IBM catalog or other material to prove it was available) as proof of forgery.
They have been caught several times faking stories, and they are still there.
Kudos for the freepers Shawn Hannity just gave us a big thumbs up for uncovering this story. Some freeper sent him a heads up on this. Also said Drudge has it as lead story.
(I exclude myself from those kudos since I am mostly a reader/griper)
Others have said that the IBM Executive typewriter did have superscript th and st.
Others say, no way would the TANG have such up-to-date equipment. Be careful. The Lt. Col. wrote this on plain paper. Remember, NG guys were weekend warriors. Is there any proof that he used a TANG typewriter? Or could he possibly have typed it at home or at his job?
The format is wrong.
The correct format in the 70"s would be:
RTAO: (Reply to Attention Of)
Subject:
TO:
Also, the signature block would be on the left margin.
Retired Chief. Have a great Air Force day.
Regarding the PO Box number, a search on '"p o box 34567"' shows up five pages of results, mostly in Africa.
'"p o box 34567" squadron' and '"p o box 34567" ellington' (the 111th was based at Ellington AFB) return zero results.
Here's something interesting:
http://www.hd.co.harris.tx.us/pcd/ViolationNotices/1991HCPCDVNs.htm
This is a 1991 list of Texas Health Department violations, and it gives PO Box 34567, Houston, as the address of "Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated."
Some one already beat you to it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1211227/posts?page=29
Post 29 on this very thread
Here's an example of a letter from 1972 evidently done on the same kind of typewriter:
http://www.genetunney.com/letter8.html
This font thing may not have legs.
Isn't it likely that Dan won't be in today? I'm think John Roberts will conviently be at the desk tonight.
Yes. I was talking to him and reacting to his fine work.
The 1972 letter you posted looks real. The ANG docs do not. The question is not whether Times New Roman was available in 1972, the question is whether Times New Roman was available with superscript and smart quotes in 1972. The answer is no.
Also, look at the size of the font in the 1972 letter you posted. Much larger, as would be expected.
You may be able to explain away one discrepancy at a time, but remember folks, its the totality of them that counts.
Welcome to FR
I thought people were arguing that the font style is anachronistic as well as proportionalality. That seems clearly not to be the case.
So now the argument revolves around the superscript and quotes?
It's already been established that typewriters with proportional typefaces were available in the early 1970s.
Incidentally, the Tunney letter is clearly not written in the same typeface as the alleged memos: the "legs" of the "M" appear to slant outwards, the downstroke of the "7" is curved, the downstroke of the "9" reaches below the line, and the "P" and "B" appear to be wider.
I never discussed the font, if you will notice. I think it's unlikely that font would have been used, in that size, but I did not use that as an indicator. I think superscripting and smart quotes are much stronger. But remember, there are a number of other discrepancies, too. The last time I saw a P.O Box numbered 34567, it was from a deposed general from the Congo who needed me to help him secretly move millions of dollars from a Nigerian bank account. But look, no matter what, the signature on the "01 August 1972" memo was cut and pasted. No question about it.
There are many things about this story, but "clear" is not one of them. The case is falling apart and then what are we left with? Downplaying the content of memos that we previously said were crass forgeries by political operatives?
I also had an idea, what if we were to organize into a ping list of freepers who will try to contact as many as possible in the up coming days. We all know what kind of full of $#it slime-bags Rats are, they are only going to get more desperate as they see their traitor Johns get flushed. A ready and willing group of freeper minutemen who will help mount a get out the truth campaign at a minutes notice may be helpful.
We could also recruit some who know how to set up form letters and petions that can be posted for freepers to simply sign and send.
bookmarking
The thing that gets me is the BG's involvement in this. They are the ones that said GIs raped Iraqi women on the basis of a really not credible picture.
And the fact that it is a dead guy and a well known Bush hater (Rather) and a well known Kerry fundraiser (Barnes) makes everyone suspicious.
You would think "they" would have had an old retired company clerk review this stuff before "they" publish this trash.
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.