Posted on 09/11/2004 5:33:30 PM PDT by dickmc
As you may know a thread was started yesterday morning to attempt to summarize the important forgery points.
This original thread is at Evidence Against Rather
This was initiated by SkyPilot and I agreed to help out. This is a continuation of that thread.
The information below needs your review, analysis, and suggested changes
in the form of final edits. If you see things that should be changed,
please retype the suggested revision including the line number in a new reply.
While we have tried to capture the hundreds of comments and posts in the last few days,
the likelihood is that we may have gotten something wrong or missed an element.
This is why your review would be most helpful.
The table below shows where we are at this point:
CAUTION: FOR YOUR REVIEW, COMMENT, CHANGE, AND CORRECTION ONLY AT THIS TIME. SOME ITEMS MAY CHANGE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS NOT BE POSTED ELSEWHERE UNTIL WE ARE DONE!
ISSUES RELATED TO 60 MINUTES DOCUMENTS.
a. Font, type, typography, equipment, etc issues that can be processed from the pdfs alone.
1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)
3. superscripts not generally available
4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top
6. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
9. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.
11. Words run over consistent with word processor.
12. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops and some Selectric typewriters...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
13. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.
16. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
18. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).
19. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #8)
22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killian, who did not type, improbable).
26. Kerning was not available in any office typewriter. For kerning photographic analysis of memo see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1212812/posts Post 15
35. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.
51. The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, is not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computer driven type word processors and printers.
52. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum.
68. The only device that could have produced the superscripted “th” in that period and proportional type in that timeframe would have been a Selectric Composer. This is not a typewriter but is used for special publication composing and cost some $4,000 then ($23,000 today) and was incredibly difficult to operate. The machine basically consisted of an IBM Selectric typewriter with a 3-1/2 ft. high upright case containing the magnetic tape reader reading long spools of magnetic tape in cartridges. It also needed a special IBM service person above and beyond repairing typewriters. It is not clear that the AirForce had even three units at that time and the TANG clearly did not. To suggest that Col Killian, who could barely type and even if he could, he would never have been able to operate one of these machines is absurd. The operating manual is here at http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf.
69. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.
b. Issues that can only be processed by a better or original copy
17. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
31. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
c. Issues that relate to custom and usage of text within the documents
8. Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.
10. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
15. No letterhead
23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1stLt"
28. Language not generally used by military personnel.
29. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
30. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
37. Acronym should be OER, not ORET.
38. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added!
46. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms).
41. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
42. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
43. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
44. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")
45. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)
48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum
50. The manual cited in the forged document "AFM 35-13" doesn't exist. That line of text reads: "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)IAW AFM 35-13". "IAW" means "In Accordance With" and "AFM 35-13" would mean "Air Force Manual 35-13". There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13.
54. AF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
55. The typed Letterhead gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "Ellington AFB, Texas".
56. Killian's signature block should read: RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG Commander This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.
57. Lt Col Killian's signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.
58. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt. In any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
59. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.
60. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD". However, Lt Col Killian is known to have relied on hand written notes on scraps of paper and not gratuitous memos to files.
61. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format with left hand justification as follows: FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B. (space) SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight) (space) TO: 1Lt Bush, George W. Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.
62. The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
70. Physical is due the last day of the birth month which be 31July; not at the May 14th date ordered in the memo.
d. Issues that relate to the context of the document (people retired, day of week, ANG policy, etc.)
20. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
24. Subject matter bizarre
25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
27. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
34. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
63. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is extremely doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.
e. Other issues (veracity of experts, etc.)
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
7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
14. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
32. The Killian family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
39. CBS validator was only signature expert, not a typewriting expert. Also seems emerging issues on signature. Signature authenticity http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213174/posts
40. Lt Col Killian didn't type
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.
53. Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he WROTE them that's what he felt." Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud". http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
64. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian's "personal files", yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of "personal file" when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file's existence and it is not in their possession.
65. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.
65. These memos are totally inconsistent with the glowing OERs for Mr. Bush.
66. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son relate that Killian wasn't a typist. If he needed notes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn't paper-oriented, and certainly wasn't a typist.
67. Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering was dated Aug. 18, 1973. Col Staudt was no longer in the food chain.
Elements that have been deleted from above list
21. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News) [THE BOX NUMBER IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS].
36. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies? [THIS NEEDS VERIFIED WITH A LINK (CACHED??)]
.
.
.
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.