Evidence Against Rather (cont'd): Please Review these FR Talking Points

Over 1500 FR posts and replies :-) | dickmc, skypilot, and tens of others

[dickmc]

As you may know a thread was started friday evening to attempt
to summarize the important forgery points. The extension of the original
thread is at Evidence Against Rather (cont'd): FR Forgery Talking Points and can be
found here. 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. Typewriter proportional spacing was not available in 1972 with the Times Roman font, the timeframe and font style of the CBS Memos. The IBM Executive had a pseudo proportional spacing but not the typeface used in the CBS Memos. (No confirmation that even this type of technology was available at TANG, see below for a discussion of the Selectric Composer which is a printshop device)

3. Superscripts not generally available. These are individual characters in smaller case that extend above the printed line in the CBS Memos. (The underlined "th" cited by CBS in the Chronological Listing of Service, which does NOT extend above the characters, is technically a single key element.) If anything, the superscript "th" in the CBS Memos versus the single key element even further indicates that the CBS Memos are a forgery.

5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush TANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to CBS 60Minutes' forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top

6. Apostrophes in the documents are curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.

9. Margins look like a computer's Word Processor 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 in a manner within CBS Memos that is consistent with a 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. Overlay of CBS Memos is an EXACT match for Microsoft Word Processor, versions disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.

19. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, compared with 1970's typewritten documents.

22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a proportionately typed letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killian, who did not type, highly improbable). Further, doing this centering identically in memos two months apart, CBS May 04 and CBS August 01, absent a Word Processor is extremely unlikely.

26. Kerning was not available in any office typewriter. For kerning photographic analysis of memo see http://www.manchuriancandidate2004.com/kern.jpg

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.

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 TANG 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. It 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, would have been able to operate one of these machines is absurd. The operating manual is here at http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs.htm.

b. Issues that can only be processed by a better or original copy

17. Potential paper size issue: 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. The CBS Memos just have rank beneath the name.

10. CBS Memos have dates inconsistent with military style. Months should have three letters or in the form 110471.

15. No letterhead

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 are not given by a Memo!

33. Why no two hole punches evident at the top of the page? …or even three or five on the side of the page?

37. In the CBS Memo 18 August, the acronym should be OER, not OETR.

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. CBS Memos on 4 May and 1 August have no distribution list as needed for orders.

43. Subject line in memos was usually, but not always, CAPITALIZED in the military

44. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")

48. CBS May 4, 1972 "order" Memo and the CBS May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TANG have a new typewriter just for Col Killian's memorandum.

54. USAF letterhead has been in required use since 1948. Instead the CBS Memos have typed letterhead. 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: JERRY 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 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, Jerry 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 would not be 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. Moreover the May 14 date is a Sunday.

72. Day in the date of the CBS Memo 4 May should be "4" and NOT "04"; in the CBS Memo 1 August it should have been "1" and NOT "01". This is a tell tale artifact of a Word Processor default setting which was not been changed.

75. According to Lt Col Campelli (USAF ret), the CBS Memos 4 May and 1 August both have a letterhead for the wrong organization. Correspondence and orders in those days would have been issued in the name of the parent organization -- the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group -- rather than by the squadron. Moreover, the letterhead in the CBS Memos is typed. The unit used PRINTED ANG letterhead. Moreover, where written orders were issued they were on standard USAF orders forms. They were NOT in the CBS Memo format. For further information see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts

79. Consideration of all ordinal numbers occurring in the CBS Memos reveals two with miniature “th” superscripts as suffixes, four with spaces between the numerals and suffix, and five without a space, all of which include a digit of 1 (arguably a lower case L). Putting spaces between the numerals and the suffix is NOT how typists were or are trained. The only reason for spaces generally occurring after ordinals is to suppress MS Word's auto-superscript function. The most parsimonious explanation for the features shown by the ordinals in the CBS Memos is a forger intending suppress the auto-superscript function (which he didn't know how to turn off) but knew enough to use lower case L's in imitation of old typists or to insert spaces into other ordinals. He simply missed simply missed two instances and MS Word simply turned the “th” into superscripts.

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 Lt Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written). The address that the CBS Memo o4 May should have used is: 2910 Westheimer Rd. Apt 4. Lt Col Killian certainly would have known the correct address.

24. Subject matter is bizarre

25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices. For example, HQ AFLC/CC is for Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.

27. In the CBS Memo of August 18, 1973 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 on March 1, 1972. General Staudt was no longer in the food chain!

34. Regarding CBS 04 May Memo: LT Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birth Month which was July! He would have received a routine letter notifying him of the pending requirement, month or date by which the flight physical was to be completing, and advising him to call the flight surgeon's office to schedule the appointment. There would not have been an 'order' issued and certainly not by May 14th in advance of July, his Birth Month. Moreover, if any orders ever are issued in writing, they are NOT issued via a Memorandum!.

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.

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.

76. According to Lt Col Campelli: “Jerry Killian never went near a typewriter. In the Air Force, in those days, notes -- if anyone kept them at all -- were handwritten.” All the CBS Memos supposedly by Lt Col Killian are typed. Also, bureaucrats -- not fighter jocks -- write "CYA" memos. For further information see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts

74. The CBS Memo 1 August which Killian writes: "I recommended transfer of this officer…Officer has made no attempt to meet…or flight physical." This is inconsistent with the Lt Bush official performance evaluation dated 26 May 1972 in which Major Harris writes: "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 this evaluation on the same day.

77. According to Lt Col Campelli: “Orders -- like the purported CBS Memo 04 May order to take the flight physical wouldn't normally have been signed by Killian. They would have been signed by a senior sergeant ‘by order of’ Killian’.” For further information see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts

78. The CBS Memo 19 May 1972 to the file that is supposedly written by Harris or Killian states: "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". The CBS Memo is pejoratively inconsistent with the Lt Bush 26 May 1972 Performance Appraisal which states under 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."

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. Moreover, CBS's own validator, Marcel Matley, wrote in the September, 2002 issue of the journal, "The Practical Litigator": "In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original ..."

4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG) [REDUNDANT. SEE 3.]

7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied a number of times which is a common tactic of forgers. (copying of the CBS Memos was stated in the 60Minutes broadcast).

14. No apparent errors or whiteouts. (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 there now seem to be emerging issues on the signature itself. For signature authenticity doubts see http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213174/posts

53. Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the TANG, told 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. The CBS Memos are totally inconsistent with the glowing performance reviews for Mr. Bush.

71. CBS 60 Minutes' says validator Matley vouched for all four CBS Memos; Matley says he only vouched for one.

73. CBS 60 Minutes has not stated any provenance for the memos. This add further questions to the authenticity of the CBS Memos.

Elements that have been deleted from above list

18. Overlap analysis is an exact match [NOW COVERED IN 16.].

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].

23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1stLt" [IT APPEARS TANG NEEDED A STYLE GUIDE AS OTHER DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS ARE ALL OVER THE MAP, BUT NONE ARE SUPERSCRIPTED!]

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??)]

38. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added! [UNCLEAR. DOES THE GROUP WANT THIS IN OR OUT???]

40. Lt Col Killian didn't type [DUPLICATED ELSEWHERE]

45. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders) [OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT A DISTRIBUTION LIST SUBSTITUTES]

47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't. [NOW COVERED IN 2.]

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. [DUPLICATE OF 2.]

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. [IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THIS MANUAL EXISTS OR NOT AND WHAT IT IS FOR]

67. Col Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS Memo describing Staudt as interfering was dated Aug. 18, 1973. Col Staudt was no longer in the food chain. [DUPLICATE OF 27.]

69. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually. [DUPLICATE OF 22.]

FreeRepublic.com, a member of the NEW Main Stream Media……………………………September 12, 2004 9 PM EDT

.

Those of us working on this really appreciate all of your continued help and input.

If you have a change or suggestion:

If it is a CHANGE, at the end of your reply simply type the line such as:
29. This is mdjoi jid jdojoiod.

If it is a DELETION, at the end of your reply simply type the line such as:
29. DELETE.

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 easily review, comment and agree/disagree.

Our plan is that I or another Freeper will pick up any changes
and finish it off tomorrow. We will renumber sequentially and
probably also make a Microsoft Word document and park it
in some location for your use. At that point we will take the
CAUTION off so that you can use it with others as
you see fit.

Thus, it is important that we get all of your review and comments.
Hint: An easy way to review is to select the table and paste in MS Word!

It would also be helpful if we can get input as to which of
the items are most important and therefore which should be at
the top of the lists; and which should be at the bottom.

Thanks,

Dick

.

.

[mc6809e]

Some people have pointed to the selectric typewriter as evidence that it could have been used to produce the proportionally spaced text.

This is impossible and easy to show.

Take a look at the 18 August 1973 memo. Compare the length of the words "Bush's" and "period".

www.ibmcomposer.org has a table showing the widths in units of all the characters indenpendent of font or pitch.

With the Selectric, "Bush's" should be 7+6+4+6+3+4=30 units long and "period" should be 6+5+4+3+6+6=30 units long. So they should be equal in length.

It clear, however, that in the CBS document, "Bush's" extends beyond "period". Hence the Selectric could not have been used to create the memo.

So I would add something like:

70. Though proportional spacing was available on the IBM "Selectric" Composer, certain words in the memos do not have the expected length. In particular "Bush's" and "period" of the 18 August 1973 memo should be the same length, yet "Bush's" appears longer than "period". Therefore the memo could not have been produced on IBM "Selectric" Composer.

[T'wit]

BT^thT

[Texasforever]

Demand CBS produce a typewriter from that era that they say had the features shown in the memos. Give that machine to an impartial expert to reproduce the memos.

[hoosiermama]

IIRC that is the type of typewriter my father still uses occationally....IBM/with the ball? We call it "Big Blue" because of it's size and color....I'll check with him tomorrow.

[ArmyBratproud]

I came across the following.

THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT! THE ORDER FOR PHYSICAL MAY CONTAIN A FAULTY REGULATION NUMBER!
The Regulation cited in one of the documents, AFM 35-13, may NOT be a regulation citing order for physical.

(It has already been said that Bush's physical would not be in May anyway..but in his birth month (AF Policy) and he would have up to 3 months after that date. A Flight Surg in Bama says he saw Bush. PHYSICAL?. )

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212771/posts?q=1&&page=151

Post 159-
Nothing definative but a search of the Air Force Publications Website - www.e-publishing.af.mil -- for obsolete Regulations returned the following :
AFR 35013 was replaced 10/1/1990 by AFI 36-2605

Found no reference to AFM 35-13 in Obsolete search

That said -- AFI 36-2605 is AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL TESTING SYSTEM and has to do with procedures for administering and protecting Controlled TESTING MATERIAL for promotion or performance testing of Air Force Personnel.

Doesn't mean that AFM 35-13 didn't exist or wasn't a different doc in 1972, but the last version of AFR 35-13 had to do with Testing procedures, not Flight Physicals. And there are no toher references on the AF Pub site for AFR 35-13 or AFM 35-13.

As an aside, I checked AFR 35-10 MILITARY STANDARDS (which would have existed in 1972), it cross checked to AFI 36-2903 MILITARY STANDARDS, which is the Doc we use today.


POST 153 SAME THREAD-
You've seen "AFM 35-13" or you've seen "AFR 35-13"?
Actually I found both. Seem to be same document, was changed from an Air Force Reg AFR to Air Force manual at some point. But it does look like it existed in 1970's as AFM 35-13.

Here is AFM 35-13 reference in Special Orders from 1970 for 6994th SS

Here is AFR 35-13 in special Orders from 1954 for 7551st PSS.

Notice that these are good examples of how Special Orders are created. This format is still in use for group Orders today.

AFR/AFM 35-13 looks to have had something to do with SPecial Orders, not sure how it would pertain to the "memo" Orders in the Bush Docs.

I now want to find a copy of AFM 35-13 and find out EXACTLY what paragraph 2-10 says.

POST 135 SAME THREAD-

South, hope You don't mind me nitpiking some of your points, but I want to make some minor corrections as a current military member (USAF 23 years). I cannot vouch for procedures in 1972, but just want to clear up some things as they are done today.
6--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.

Correct (Almost) - Official Military signature block is as follows
Name, RANK, DEPARTMENT (IE USAF, TXANG)
Title
Killians signature block would have been
Jerry B. Killian, Lt Col, TXANG Commander

8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.

YEs and no. Usually would be 18 Aug 1972, but could be written 18 August 1972 -- it is Writers prerogative. However You never see 04 MAY 1972, it would be 4 MAY 1972. 04 would only be used on COMPUTERIZED forms where 2 digits are required.

19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. 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-However, many documents on John Kerry’s website show same)

PO BOX is legit (see posts above), but was for 147 FIG not 111 FIS.

21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"

Exactly. KIllians would have been Lt Col not Lt. Colonel

23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.

Don't know about 1972 but today all Correspondence/letterhead MUST contain the street address of the unit. WOuld be in the format HQ AFLC/CC, 101 Something St., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 26 - Language not generally used by military

I have certainly never used language like that

28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.

Offical orders have a set format, However a Direct order from Supervisor/commander to subordinate can be written in a MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD, with a SUBJECT line of something like "Order to report for Physical"

A Memo with a direct order would however not just be signed by the Commander/supervisor it would also have a ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECIEPT on the bottom of the page SIGNED by the person recieving the order!

36-Acronym should be ORT, not ORET

Doc refers to OETR, correct abbreviation is OER - Officer Evaluation Report. Have never heard of an OETR.

40-The forged documents had no initials from a clerk

Would only have clerk initials if they were officially filed in the persons PIF (Personal Information File). If they were personal Memo's they might not be initialed.

41-There was no CC list (needed for orders)

Correct to the best of my knowledge

42-Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military

Word SUBJECT would be capitalized, the actual subject of the memo would be typed in upper and lower case.

43-The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")

Correct. We get Medical Examinations not Physical Examinations. Actually today they are Periodic Health Assessments _ LOL.

44-There was no "reciept confirmation box" (required for orders)

Correct , as I stated above there would have been an acknowledgement line for Bush to sign.

47-the manual cited in the first forged document on line 2 of the first point #1 of "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.

There is currently no AFM 35-13. I believe there was one back then, I have seen references to it before.

[Flashlight]

5. I'd DELETE, or else back up with some evidence or something. did all typewritten 4's have an open top in '72? anyways, I'd have to assume there are word processor 4's with open tops (I'm sure there are with some fonts). If you mean only with "Times Roman" font, then say that.

26. explain that with some letter combinations like fi in Times Roman the vertical spacing of the letters actually overlap (is it true that no typewriter was capable of the vertical-spacing overlaps?) I'm not sure if that's the same as "kerning". maybe it could be explained better.

[Blowtorch]

Someone pointed out that the forged memos use "1973" when the convention at the time was just to use the year, i.e. '73. I didn't see this on the above list.

[Logical me]

Try this site.

http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

Rather, CBS, and their parade of crap is DONE.

[SteveH]

#24 and #28 are vague without specifics-- the reader of the list is not given enough info from the list alone. (Sorry, more informed folks than I might be able to provide constructive suggestions. I'm just skimming here, but trying to help anyway.)

Also, Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It seems from all the other problems mentioned that the memos generally fail that particular test.

[Physicist]

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.

That was probably CBS's redaction, for its legal purposes. The photocopy they were given probably didn't have the redaction. They blacked out a copy and scanned it for their PDF, which is how it ended up visible in the online version. This doesn't address the issue of whether the document is forged.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Check me on this, but I understand (and can't find the actual thread) that the AFM 35-13 in CBS's memo's, would be used in a "court of inquiry" (after the fact investigation) to determine reasons for loss of flight capacity.

The actual flight physicals were done IAW a different regulation.

In other words, it is as if Killian is ordering Bush to take a flight physical AW the regulation that you use after you fail a flight physical.

(However, from a forger's standpoint, perhaps this makes sense.)

[Tennessean4Bush]

#22 needs a little more explanation. I think it perhaps is one of the most damning of all. There is no way on earth that each memo, written months apart, could have been centered into an exact match down to the pixel. Impossible. http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm totally rocks on this point (among many others).

[pgobrien]

ping for reference.......sweet work Freepers

[Bonaparte]

To all involved in this worthy project, great job!

One suggestion - all claims footnoted to a "notes" section at end of report, showing all sources -- hyperlinked where applicable.

[rwilson99]

Part a

New

80. Smart quotes (",') not common

please research, but I believe these are a modern phenomenon of word processors, not '70s typewriters.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Excellent job. Thank you.

A local newspaper editor has STRONGLY recommended that you re-order the priorities:

She says it was easier for her understand what you saying when i described the sections differently:

The "Errors in fact" should come first. (This established something "different" than boring typewriter fonts that people have already hear about .. I kind of agree with her. CBS has already tried confusing the issues by talking about typewriters and "potentially using" fonts, etc. Time magazine and AP already are repeating these false assumptions, etc. to discredit the whole story.)

Then the "Factual errors in people, timelines, and CBS validation" section.

Then "Factual errors in USAF Regulations and procedures"

Then "Factual errors in formatting and writing." (Or something like that.)

Finally, at the very end she suggested that the last topic be, "Other Symptoms of Forgery" (This is where you finally bring in complex fonts and processes. All the way through that section, keep repeating, "CBS refused to prove an unskilled typist using this (typewriter, process, paper, typewriter ball, whatever) actually could produce these documents.)

[DBrow]

bump

[Iam1ru1-2]

Keep up your excellent work. Be sure to email a copy of the final format to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Mike Reagan, Hugh Hewitt, etc. It will be sweet to see how these demonicrats will try to explain all these discrepancies.

[Dont Mention the War]

Excellent work. I have just one comment: I don't like the phrase "talking points." The term, to me, has always implied that the speaker is using distortions, or at least spin, to make his points. We don't need talking points; what you have compiled above are the facts.