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??)]
.
.
.
I'm afraid afm 35-13 does exist. see bush's records
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-4_2004_Personnel_File.pdf
the manual is referenced on this document and others in bush's records
I read that AFM 35-13 does not exist, but I don't have any personal knowledge about it.
I also read that AFR 35-13 relates to additional payment for foreign language proficiency (again no personal knowledge of this).
AFM = Air Force Manual
AFR = Air Force Regulations
Perhaps this information could be checked out by a freeper in or retired from the Air Force.
FOX News: Pentagon Says CBS Memos Fake!
The primary source on the matter is the Pentagon. The Pentagon refutes the memoranda - case closed.
Even if the Pentagon were to state they cannot attest to the authenticity of the documents, that is sufficient to refute the CBS presentation. All oither witnesses are non existant, deceased or unnamed by Rather.
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.
My apologies to all for the double posting. It was unintentional.
Also, when I was in the service (pre-1970), I don't recall phrases like 'Your are ordered to report ...".
Rather (no pun intended), the order just said "You will report ..."
And as noted above, an "order" wouldn't be in a Memorandum.
section c:point 10
Someone had mentioned on the threads that using the date 01 August 1972 was a giveaway in the CBS Memorandum For Record doc, not only because of the wrong date format but the use of '01' for the first of the month. This is a 'word processor' thing and not used in the military for a typewritten first-of-the-month date.
I found this theory corroborated in the genuine Lt Bush 1972 performance appraisal dated 26 May 1972.
- Period of report from 1 May 71 to 30 Apr 72
- Note "1 May 71" NOT "01 August 1972" format!!
As I understand they were supposed to get their medicals in the month of their birth, they had the whole month.
BTTT!
It seems like the word "ordered" was used to support their argument that Bush "disobeyed an order".
New point to do with content: Lt Bush 26 May 1972 performance appraisal (genuine) vs 19 May 1972 Memo to File (fraud)
19 May 1972 Unsigned Memo to file written by Harris or Killian
- "Says he wants to transfer to Alabama to any unit he can get in to. Says he is working on another campaign for his dad".
26 May 1972 Performance Appraisal
- "OTHER COMMENTS: Lt Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted a position as a campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and the Air National Guard in the business world. His abilities and anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset. He is a member of the National Guard Association of the United States and Texas."
Inconsistency --> "working on another campaign for his dad" vs campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate (which was not George HW Bush).
- Also look at tone of performance evaluation vs tone of Memo to File. Both documents are dated only a week apart but it's like reading comments about two different people!
Thanks....there must be archives of the older regulatons.......note to self..continue the search.
I guess we have even more work to do re an ignored thread. However, the info is very informative. The post is copied below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts
THE CBS PAPERS [Jed Babbin]
I spoke to Col. Bill Campenni (USAF ret) earlier this morning. As I've written before, Campenni was a member of the President's
squadron and flew with him often. Campenni told me that there are a whole slew of reasons -- beyond those being debated now
-- to question the authenticity of the CBS papers:
1. The 4 May 1972 order and the 1 August 1972 memo both have a letterhead for the wrong organization. Correspondence and
orders in those days would be issued in the name of the parent organization -- the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group -- rather than
the squadron. The letterhead is typed. They used printed ANG letterhead;
2. Orders were issued on the standard USAF orders form. (I still have a stack of my old ones. There's not a "memo" among them).
Campenni remembers that orders weren't issued as "memos" like the 4 May 72 document;
3. The Killian "CYA" memo of August 1973 refers to pressure by Gen. Standt. The problem with this is that Standt retired in 1972.
Why would anyone be worried about pressure from him?
4. Jerry Killian, according to Campenni, never went near a typewriter. In the Air Force, in those days, notes -- if anyone kept
them at all -- were handwritten. That raises questions about both the 19 May 72 and the 18 August 73 memos. And, lest we
forget, bureaucrats -- not fighter jocks -- write "cya" memos.
5. Orders -- like the purported 4 May 72 order to take the flight physical - wouldn't normally have been signed by Killian. They
would be signed by a senior sergeant "by order of" Killian.
If, as it appears, someone faked these papers they did a bad job of it. I can tell you that in the early to mid-1970's when I was on
active duty, the active service didn't have anything fancier than the earliest models of the IBM Selectric typewriter, and many
offices didn't even have those. The reserves and national guard had our cast-offs, so it's terribly unlikely they could have
produced anything as fancy as these papers. (Is it just my imagination, or is Dan Rather's nose growing longer every day?)
Consideration of all ordinals numbers occuring in the documents reveals two with miniature th superscripts as suffixes, four with spaces between the numerals and suffix, and five without a space, all of which have a last digit of 1 (arguably a lower case L). Putting spaces between the numerals and the suffix is not how typists were or are trained (a fact MS Word uses to reognize ordinal suffixes and turn them into miniature superscripts).
The only reason for spaces generally occuring in ordinals not ending in 1, and no spaces often occurring for ordinals ending in 1 is that a space or use of a lower case L as a 1 will suppress MS Word's auto-superscript function. The most parsimonious explanation for the features shown by the ordinals in CBS's documents is a forger intending suppress the auto-superscript function (which hs didn't know how to turn off) knew enough to use lower case L's in imitation of old typists and to insert spaces into other ordinals and missed two.
Any explanation of these features as those of genuine 1972/3 vintage documents strains credulity, as it must account for a perfect coincidence between the ordinal suffixes and the behavior of MS Word, and the peculiarities of one of the superscript-free memos in which only some ordinals have spaces, and those which do not have spaces all end in 1. A real typist would of habit either put a space in all ordinals or in none. (None, actually, as the spaces are not efficient and typing training, as evidence by undoubtedly genunine documents of the era, taught typing ordinals without a space.) A forger working around MS Word's defaults, might well insert spaces only after genuine digits.
LOL!
Good catch on the "01 August 1972" reference. I had not thought about that until you mentioned it but you are right... typically they did type 1 August 1972 and the 0 was not referenced that way until computer format added it. I have been through the Bush military records and can not remember seeing a date referenced with an 0 before it.
LGF reports another issue. 19 May 1972 mentions that Bush is working on a campaign at that time. There is no record of such a campaign in Bush's biography.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12555_CBS_Docs-_Bush_Working_on_Nonexistent_Campaign
Study later Bump
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.