Per FoxNews: Pentagon questioning PO Box Number

FoxNews | 10 SEP 2004 | me

[aft_lizard]

James Rosen just reported that the Pentagon questions the use of a PO Box on a memo, and that the PO Box may never have been used by that unit saying it seems highly unlikely that they would have PO Box containing sequential numbers. Standard military practice has always been to place the actual physical address on the letter head.

[aft_lizard]

Another question, being an army guy I may not know this, but why dont they put the building number on these since they were on a base? Does the AF not use building numbers?

[MeanWestTexan]

Call the postmaster at the 77034 Post Office I linked to above. He will confirm the existance of POBOX 23456, albeit with zip 77234.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Please rember my caveats!!

I do NOT infer that the doc is legit! I only offer that there is at least one other document on the internet (supposedly from GWB to Killian) that uses the PO Box & ZIP Code that is contained in the CBS memos. This very well may have been the actual postal adress of the unit - but - as the Pentagon states, it is HIGHLY unusual to see it used on an official order.

[twigs]

This note requesting permission for duty in AL is dated Sept. 5, 1972. I thought that the period in question in AL began in May, 1972 and it's beginning then that GB wasn't seen. This note indicates that he wanted to be there Sept-Nov. What am I missing?

[aft_lizard]

Should have asked him about po 34567, since thats the number in question.

[BobS]

RE- "Why would the squadron have the same P.O. Box as the Group?

I have some more examples of military addresses:

(1980)
From DOD National Agency Check Request (background check):

THRU HQ USAF/DIA
F4001
3507ACS/DPKSI
LACKLAND AFB,TX 78326

(1983)
From Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station - Military

384 AVIONICS MAINT SQ (SAC)
MCCONNELL AFB KS 67221

I knew I had a reason to pull these files out. And they are getting a yellow tinge. The basic forms are 8"x10.5" also.

[MeanWestTexan]

I did ask him about the correct number; I just cannot type (former Army officer, you know). LOL

[RetroSexual]

Maybe so, but would typing that letter on the IBM Executive have the *exact* overlay that typing it on MS Word does? I think not.

The spacing between letters, both horizontally and vertically, is a function of the font, or typeface. So it is possible that the docs could line up.

Knowing IBM, their implementation of Times was probably perfect. Knowing MS, well...maybe not. Then again, perhaps the doc was produced on a Mac, which would probably be right.

My point is simply this: we seek proof, not speculation, and it seems to me that there are better indicators than the typography that this doc was forged.

[CDHart]

Well, so much for the USPS website!

Carolyn

[TexKat]

I just did a search on the USPS zip code page and it came back that there is no p o box with the # 234567 in Houston. Of course, I guess there might have been back then?

I hope that you did not spend a lot of time since the P O Box 34567 not 234567.

[SOSCEO]

Sorry, but you are not correct. The IBM Executive model, which was in common use during the 1970s, was capable of all of these things. It was famous for having proportional typing capabilities. Centering was as simple as setting a tab stop and using the correct keys to backspace half of the line length

Look at the centering. There are 3 lines perfectly centered. How can you back space from a center tab stop proportionally and get perfect results like this? The typewriter does not know what you are going to type. I remember when Wordstar came out for the PC, and this multi-line centering stuff was really gee-whiz tehnnology.

[MeanWestTexan]

Or, the website is right, and Leroy at the Post Office is wet.

Actually, I think the POBox is not currently in use. (I called on the pretext if the Box was available for rent.) That may be why it's not in the directory.

[rit]

34567 on a phone pad spells “films” so I suspect the forger is Michael Moore.

The CBS expert played 34567 in reverse (76543) and determined the docs were "solid".

[Eagle of Liberty]

Some ZIP code history:

http://www.usps.com/history/his2_75.htm
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.htm

Entering "34567" in the USPS ZIP code lookup gives me the following result:

The ZIP Code you entered could not be found in our database. Please confirm the ZIP Code and try again.
If you are certain the ZIP Code you entered is valid, please send an email to incsc@email.usps.gov describing the problem.

[Shermy]

See the document at 114.

Could the "Box 34567" on the document to Killian be some kind of personal box unique to him, or a "mailing address"?

And, if personal, would this "box" designation be found on the letterhead of a document purporting to come from a flight group? Did the forgers slip up, using a legit address for Killian himself but not one that would be reflected on flight group documents?

[TexKat]

POBOX 23456

The P O Box # is 34567, not 234567.

[DaveMSmith]

Sounds like a 3^rd rate forgery.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And Ra^ther is STILL sticking to his story.

Dan Ra^ther lied! CBS Died!

[twigs]

I doubt that the typewriter would have identical line spacing compared to the word processed version.

I think that's true. When I first came to work where I am now, all of our docs were in MS Word 2.0. When we moved to MS Word 6.0, we had a real problem at first because the line spacing defaults were not the same. I can't imagine that what was typed on a t/w 30 years ago would match a word processed doc today.

[Shermy]

"pay attention: the discussion is the use of a PO Box on LETTERHEAD. If physical address is used on letterhead, then it suggests that the person who wrote the docs looked to these very records when typing these papers up for See BS..."

What do you think of my #175? Not only "a" box, but would it be the wrong box?