Posted on 09/09/2004 11:53:17 PM PDT by Mark Noonan
Let's revisit the P.O. box number issue again for a moment. I believe Rich may have been a little hasty in rejecting it as another indication of forgery. Yes, the consecutive sequence of digits may have aroused initial suspicion which was dismissed upon learning that P.O. Box 34567 is indeed correct for the TANG 111th FIS at Ellington Field in Houston. But as with other such elements of this forgery, it is not the substance but the format that has been the perpetrator's undoing. Perhaps we have become all to familiar with ZIP+4 since its introduction in the 1990s. Prior to that time, P.O. boxes were numbered 1 through 999. There were none with numbers over 999. If an area was that populous, the Postal Service opened a new branch office and assigned it a new ZIP code. The use of five-digit P.O. box numbers did not come into use until the advent of ZIP+4!
The five-digit box numbers are derived from the last two digits of the ZIP code for its branch post office and the three digits of the individual box numbers. ZIP codes for Houston range from 77001-77099 and 77201-77299. The ZIP code for Ellington Field is 77034. Its branch post office bearing this ZIP code is a mere two miles away on Palmway Street. This took me only minutes on the usps.com and mapquest.com to verify.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsforbush.com ...
If that P.O. which apparently is the TANG Houston P.O. now was not the P.O. of TANG Houston in 1972, that is it. There is no more quibbling about fonts and superscripts, they are fakes.
There were PO Box numbers larger than 999. I'd like to check the addy against all of the docs previously released.
Keeps getting better......
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-2_2000_Personnel_File.pdf
see page 16 of these official docs...zip is 77034
I note that USA Today's site now says "document not found" for the forged memos - seems that USA Today is thinking better on having them on their website.
For all intents and purposes, the documents CBS used for its 60 Minutes II report have been proven forgeries. Follow the link back to Blogs for Bush for the whole story, if you like.
Now close yo mouf - ya'll cole BUSTED!
Not to nitpick, but I worked at small town Post Office (until a few weeks ago when I retired) and in the mid-80's we had PO boxes that were higher in number than 999. Also, Zip plus 4 had nothing to do with that.
I'm confused. Shouldn't there be plenty of authentic documents with that P.O. Box to check this against? I can see why they doubt that that was the same P.O. Box number back then, but shouldn't it be a matter of minutes to look for other documents intended for that address and find a difference?
Qwinn
Like finding an ancient Roman coin with the date "64 B.C." written on it!
Check the mint mark... Might be a special edition Delphi... /humor
links still alive and kicking..
over at DU they are having a hissy fit that President Bush didn't disclose he was reportedly "detained" by Princeton Police for attempting to tear down goalposts..what a smoking gun...the cops probably told him to get down and get out of town not detain him..LOL...
Paul Lewis at Blogs for Bush did not do his homework. Documents posted months ago by the White House include letterheads with the 5-digit post office box number.
The blogs are great, but sloppy research does not help our efforts to bring out the truth.
I was talking about the "See the memos" link on this page.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm
under where it says:
In September, documents emerged showing a National Guard commander criticizing Bush in memos. The commander, who died in 1984, concluded that Bush was failing to meet standards for fighter pilots, but the commander felt pressure from superiors to "sugar coat" his judgments.
See the memos.
That link takes you here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/commander%20in%20the%20Texas%20Air%20National%20Guard%20concluded%20that%20Bush%20was%20failing%20to%20meet%20standards%20for%20fighter%20pilots,%20but%20the%20commander%20felt%20pressure%20from%20superiors%20to%20%22sugar%20coat%22%20his%20judgments,
Which says "The requested document was not found."
I had found it before.
Thanks.
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.