Killian Signed a Doc with a Different Typeface and Other Diffs One Year Later (FR EXCLUSIVE)

Bush ANG Doc Dump Feb. 2004 ^ | February 14, 2004 | Bush ANG Doc Dump Feb. 2004

[litany_of_lies]

Thx.

Check out "my" latest past about the botched attempts by the forger to reference AF manuals:

"More stylistic errors in CBS memos (Piling on CBS with GREAT research)"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211815/posts

[tortoise]

The dating style has been mentioned before, but calling the first of August "01" is, I belive something no one did until computers became widely used and databases started demanding two digits for every date.

I learned to do things this way in the military many years ago, and still do it to this day out of habit. The reason for always using two digits was to eliminate any possibility of confusion or errors i.e. to make it unambiguous and difficult to alter. The DoD also liked to do things to make it difficult to "re-purpose" blank sections on documents.

[tortoise]

The lead zero did not become necessary for the first nine days of a month until database entries became more commonplace in the 1990's. Databases require dates in data fields to be in a two digit day format in order to conduct calculations.

Nonsense. Computers do not read typewritten memos, so it wouldn't have been "necessary" for anything.

I was taught to always use two digits for the date back when everything was done on Selectric typewriters. I still do the "09Sep2004" format out of habit. But I also saw a lot of the single digit version of the same.

Going back over my old military and DoD papers, I actually find both formats (padded and otherwise) in common use. I also see the month written out on some memos and abbreviated on others. So apparently it wasn't so standardized after all. My enlistment documents have examples of many different date formats.

We were told to pad out the date with a zero as a check against errors and alteration, which makes perfect sense for the correctness anal military.

[litany_of_lies]

I get it on the date part, but what about the four-digit year?

[Political Junkie Too]

What, you don't think they were being Y2K savvy back in 1972?

-PJ

[RetSignman]

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Here's the link, although I hate to direct anyone there.

Could this be "Fontgate"?

[Looking4Truth]

Are you familiar with the 702XX AFSC? I am, and everything you and others are saying about the formatting of an official AF (or ARNG I presume) document vs. the obvious commie media fake is true.

[mabelkitty]

lying ping.

[1Old Pro]

I wonder when CBS will post the document we all want to see. The Dan Rather pink slip.

[tortoise]

I get it on the date part, but what about the four-digit year?

I find it done both ways on my Army docs, depending on the usage in the documents.

To tell you the truth, now that I'm looking at them, I seem to recall things being a lot more standardized than they actually are. As for typesetting in 1972, the Army and DoD was still using those damn Selectrics for just about everything well into the 1990s. They weren't exactly early adopters of office technology.