Posted on 09/11/2004 5:33:30 PM PDT by dickmc
btt
When I look at the pdf files it shows them to be 8.31 x 10.36 in.
Hoo boy! Do I ever agree with you.
The Executive came in 12 different fonts. While none of them was NAMED TImes New ROman, one or more of them no doubt are based on Times/Times Roman/Times New Roman.
As for the kerning, keep in mind the documents we are playing with have some distortion, and while they have some appearance of kerning, I wouldn't hang my hat on that. I think stronger evidence is in the DETAILS of the characters, e.g., open v. closed 4, height/proportion/location of various features on each letter, etc.
dickmc: as to the assertions made by the bloggers, they make mistakes too. That's why I'm a fan of obtaining source citations, and of not jumping to conclusions. The MSM does a stunningly bad job of reporting facts, on every thing.
No Officer would put his complicity in a crime on paper.
Every document refers to the CO as Commanding Officer not
Commander.
One of the signatures looks like he was having a stroke.
It's hard to believe that since January until recently these copies of so called authentic documents went from Tom Paine to the DNC, to Kerry, to CBS, to Rather and no one along the way questioned their authenticity? Oh wait... we're talking about the Democratic party and the liberal media here. In that case... it's not so hard to believe. After all, that's what the majority of Dems have turned toward... deception, avoidance and misdirection to their own demise.
NEW POINT for section D:
Lt Bush official performance evaluation dated 26 May 1972
- Major Harris writes: "SELECTED ASSIGNMENTS: Lt Bush should be retained in his present assignment. He has gained valuable experience in the operations area and would be a welcome addition to any fighter squadron. "
- Lt Col Killian signed off on this evaluation on same day
The supposed Memorandum for Record dated 01 August 1972
- Lt Col Killian writes: "I recommended transfer of this officer..in MAY...
- The May end annual performance evaluation recommends Lt Bush be retained in his present assignment NOT transferred <-- shows definite inconsistency with supposed Memorandum
Exigencies are situations that demand our attention, that we ignore only at some cost.
Please note that the use of the word "exigencies" is identical to a document where it was used both for GWB and another National Guard Member.
Some minor items I saw:
Section C:
33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
--Offical AF records didn't use three holes at the top, it was only two. Somewhat larger than the standard binder size, they were used to fit over two long metal tabs that folded over to hold the documents in one place. There was one for each side of the records folder.
42. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
--Air Force documents didn't at the time, use today's common 'CC:'. They used a 'distribution list' and it was generally on the bottom right (I think) in caps with the number of copies to each person on the list. I.E.:
DISTRIBUTION
1 Commander
1 Section Commander
2 1st Sergeant
5 Member
Section E:
49. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original document signatures can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively.
Seems to be a duplicate of #2 same section.
If you have a change or suggestion:
1. If it is a CHANGE, at the end of your reply simply type the line such as:
29. This is mdjoi jid jdojoiod.
2. If it is a DELETION, at the end of your reply simply type the line such as:
29. DELETE.
3. If it is a NEW item, at the end of your reply simply type the line such as:
xx. This is mdjoi jid jdojoiod.
That way everyone can review, comment and agree/disagree.
Thanks,
Dick
This may be grasping (not necessary given all of the other evidence), but would it be possible to look in an officers file for like signatures to find one exactly the same as the one on the document. My point is that even if the same man is signing, no two signatures will be exactly alike will they?
Also, don't typewriters have certain "signature characteristics" similar to a fingerprint that would tend to point to a single, individual one? If such characteristics are not evident (to the trained eye), then wouldn't this be further damning information?
If they have to admit that the documents came from the Kerry campaign then I would expect to see the FEC get HEAVILY involved.
"2. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity"
It's actually even better than that. True, you cannot postively authenticate a copy. In addition, though, you CAN positively DISPROVE the authenticity of a COPY. EVEN CBS'S EXPERT PREACHES THESE TWIN CONCEPTS. He wrote a paper for the American Legal Institute - American Bar Association. URL for his paper is http://d2d.ali-aba.org/_files/thumbs/components/PLIT0209-MATLEY_thumb.pdf
This is so much fun....lol
Check out :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211815/posts
by litany of lies posted 09/09/2004.
AFM 35-13 relates to additional payment for foreign language proficiency.
Thanks.......
checkout the header for the 147th fighter group.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/114_2004_Personnel_File.pdf
It has the same address as shown on the memo. i'm guessing it would be unusual for the group to have the same address as one of its squadrons.
It is interesting to note correct title is the 147th fighter group not the 147th fighter interp group as listed in the disputed memos.
Posted on 09/09/2004 11:57:05 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. Manuals relate to operational procedures, not enforcement of standards. Especially would a "flight review board" not be convened IAW a manual. Enforceable regulatory authority in the military derives only from two sources: the Uniform Code of Military Justice and orders. Regulations are a type of written order issued under the authority of a flag-rank officer. (In the Army, for example, regulations are issued under the authority of the Chief of Staff down to installation-commander level.)
What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.
So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:
35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).
So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.
Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.
From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.
Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:
A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).
B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.
So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.
Update, 9-10: It seems there really was an AFM 35-13 after all. Scott Forbes comment-linked to a page that reproduces orders from 1970 that cite AFM 35-13. Also, Cecil Turner comments about how a manual could be relevant to this matter.
So it seems now that citing a manual could well be valid. But that doesn't overcome the style and format errors that are numerous and obvious, to say nothing of the typeface problems.
As for part "c" (Issues that relate to custom and usage of text within the documents), don't get too wrapped around the axle with things like signature conventions (name, rank, unit) or other formalistic matters. While they are interesting points and cumulatively chip away at the credibility of the documents, they are also easy to answer.
If the document was a CYA memo to file, there would be no need to adhere strictly to the conventions of the Tongue and Quill (the official USAF style manual). As for the purportedly official memos, CBS can claim mere sloppiness on the part of Killian or his staff, and John Q. Civilian will buy it.
Bottom line, these are footnote points, not principal arguments.
Let's keep this steamroller steaming and rolling!!
My printing company had two of the selectric composers for several months. In addition to being impossible to use, they didn't work too either. The quality of their typesetting was awful. My father finally told big blue to take them back or he was putting them at the curb.
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.