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.
LOL Now I want to create my own.
bmp
Also, aren't dates on memos rubber-stamped with a library style dater?
I made an addition to the original post I think is important and belongs with the analysis.
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 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.
6--Bush had already cleared Ellington AFB for AL on May 15, 1972. Why is there a memo dated May 19, 1972 that notes such things as Bush "working with staff to come up with options and identified a unit that may accept him"? Obiviously if he had already cleared the base for AL he had already found a unit to accept him. Whoever wrote these memo's had no idea when Bush had already departed Ellington AFB.
I have just pulled out my military records for 1966-1972.
Where ever this font is used it is either upper case "TH" or lower case "th". Nowhere is there a font as shown on the 60 minutes forms.
I do recall one other thing. The Army had some different rank abbreviations from the Air Force. "Capt." was the accepted abbreviation for Captain in the AF. "CPT" was what I recall my Army counterparts were designated in official documents. Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Also, I reviewed one additional document other than the "01 August 1972" memo. My last post mistakenly indicated otherwise.
Hank
That must be why it bothered him not at all that Bill Clinton was a blue letter liar.
I note CBS had completely dropped references to this "scoop" this afternoon on their hourly radio newscasts. Dan Rather was positively panting this morning. Ha-ha.
As a former AF admin super, I agree with you - they look phoney! The MFR was used to document thoughts, an idea, clarification or an understanding, but NEVER to order someone to do something. In 1971 EVERY agency had letterhead printed by their local base repro shop.
You would be amazed that I still write out the date, even after being out since 89...
Got a link???
Just what are you insinuating here?
Random thinking here but...
If I was a PA on 60 Minutes charged with creating the digital graphics for this story the following might happen:
After scanning the original documents I find they are illegible digitally. So I retype verbatim screen shot, bring it into PhotoShop, paste, apply a dimestore old XEROX filter, then photoshop out the signature and place it. Deadline met, the stylized graphic for production has been created. In general the networks do not require the actual document be shown, they have often in the past insisted it is ok to display the actual text in whatever format meets their production needs. So long as the content is not changed.
It needs to be confirmed that those images on the web, and in the show are images of the actual documents before this story goes on.
-- l8s
-- jrawk
Nice collection - shows how dramatically the common typeface of the day changed over the years. No way I'd get exactly the same results in 10 seconds with MS Word 2002 today as someone with totally different technology 30 years ago.
SAF Ping
1. Rather & staff wanted the docs to be real so badly that they deceived themselves
2. Rather & staff know for certain they were forgeries but nonetheless went to air with them intentionally
3. Rather & staff participated in the forgeries
When the force of this reaches critical mass, Rather will fall back on a modified number 1, saying that their source was extremely credible and they were fooled. They will refused to expose their source. (No way they'll out a Kerry-Edwards staffer.)
Not only did they air provably fake information, they have proven once and for all that they are totally biased and are a defacto arm of the Democratic Party.
That is the funniest damn thing I've seen all day! Send it to Rush.
Why would the original, typed documents be illegible? And why not create a text version that is legible to be shown side-by-side? I don't think it's likely--especially not the cutting and pasting of the signature.
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.