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

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

[John Locke]

You might want to add a reference to this site. It lists all the fonts available with the IBM Selectric, and links each font to a .gif file of the complete alphabet.

Those in a hurry can simply observe that Times New Roman was not supported - it couldn't be, because The Times of London owned the rights to that font, and it was licenced only to their two typesetting companies, Linotype and Monotype.

Those not in a hurry can go through the referenced .gif files, and satisfy themselves in detail that it is impossible to replicate the memos on this machine.

[John Locke]

With reference to your Item 5 above, concerning the letter "4".

On the IBM Selectric, the following fonts do indeed have a closed-top "4":

10-pitch: Bookface Academic 72, Delegate, Courier 72
12-pitch: Adjutant, Courier 12 Italic, Courier 12, Letter Gothic
Other: Light Italic, Script

Note that none of the above resembles the font used in the memos.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Witnesses and Experts Confirm Forgery: (or some such title! for a section on other experts: )

Add:

William Flynn, a nationally renowned forensic document expert, said, “These sure look like forgeries … these documents could not have existed” in the 1970s. Flynn concludes that the documents are a “hoax.”

Richard Polt, a professor at Xavier University and an expert on typewriters, said, “… they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I’m a Kerry supporter, but I won’t let that cloud my objective judgment. I am 99% sure these documents were not produced in the early 1970s.”


These are quoted from

A Desperate Campaign, an Eager Media, and Fraudulent Documents
OpinionEditorials ^ | September 13, 2004 | George C. Landrith

[Ichneumon]

11. Words run over in a manner within CBS Memos that is consistent with a Word Processor.

What the heck does this mean? Needs to be clarified. What does "words run over" mean, exactly?

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

#36
I really wish this could be verified and included. It may be the most important "find" #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??)]
Also, somewhere on FR there was a link to some blogs circa 2000 where folks who had paid $7 for the download were complaining that the docs were forgeries.

[Fredgoblu]

One point I didn't see here relates to typing styles:

xx. In the four new documents, sentences are all followed by single spaces…not double spaces. Double-spacing was the standard throughout the 1970's.

Dan's superscript "proof" document from Friday night provides a good example of the standard. If you scan through the document to some of the text passages, you'll note that after each sentence, the author double spaced before starting the next sentence.

I can't say exactly when the typing standard was changed to single spacing after sentences (heck, some of us are only now learning that our double spacing is considered wrong), but I'd guess it came in with the advent of the computer, proportional types, and touch typing…sometime in the mid-80's. Regardless, I can vouch for the fact that double spacing was taught in 1974-75. So, certainly, LTC Killian would have learned it this way.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Continuing!

[Lee'sGhost]

Keep up the good work. Hope something comes of it.

[Robert A Cook PE]

xx. correction to your "double space" addition.

According to his family, Col Killian never learned to type, and could not use a typewriter well, and did not like to use to use a typewriter.

Therefore, any qualified, trained clerk who typed these documents for Col Killian would have used two spaces between sentences, since was the required style at the time.

Col Killian, if he typed them himself using single spaces, typed all four documents with no errors, overtypes, corrections, or misspelling, or typographic changes at all.

[DietCoke]

.

[Robert A Cook PE]

AFM 35.

We need to resolve this absolutely.

A DNC press release, from the Kerry-Edwards website dated April 27, 2004 specifically cites this exact manual, using exactly the same terms and conditions as teh forged memo's.
---
DNC 4/17/2004 CLAIM: Bush Was Suspended From Flight Duty For Failing To Take Mandated Medical Exam.

On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush’s suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush’s local commander “will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination.” [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m]

DNC 4/17/2004 QUESTION: Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush’s Absence From The Exam?
---
DNC 4/17/2004 CLAIM: The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: “Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush…from flying status are confirmed…Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972, emphasis added]

Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.” [Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13, emphasis added]

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

Good find! Now we need to establish if such a manual exists. If it does not, then BINGO.

[Robert A Cook PE]

So far, this is the only reference to that manual anywhere (Other than lots of people citing the Bush records, where the TexANG Headquarters used it!) OK:

From a Google search, I found this reference to a 1956 Inspection of an Air Base. AFM 35-12 is specifically cited as a reference on Enlisted Personal records.

1. Airmen’s Military Personnel Records, AF Form 7 (Chapter 2, Section G, AFM 35-12):

1. Summaries in Item 30 for prior service in some cases were not in accordance with AFM 35-12, and NEAC letter, subject: "New Airman Military Personnel Records Systems," dated 23 September 1955.
2. TAFMSD in some cases was incorrect in that it indicated the number of months and days active duty as of a specified date instead of giving the definite service date.
3. There was no evidence of improper determination of UAFSC. However, some records contained the entry pertaining UAFSC but there was no authority indicated.
4. Several airman serving in higher temporary grades than their permanent had no entry on the record by which a determination could be made as to eligibility for the award of the next permanent grade, i.e., Temporary T/Sgt. and permanent A/1C, record contained no entry for the temporary S/Sgt. rating.
5. Some airmen, due to length of time in service, obviously were eligible for medals or decorations not recorded on the AF Form 7.
6. Item 30 in many cases did not contain an entry to indicate time spent at the ZI POE.
7. Records of personnel assigned to the 6631st Radio Relay Squadron did not indicate their attachment to the 920th AC&W Squadron for administration.
8. The number of discrepancies noted was not considered of such magnitude as to indicate any trend toward improper records maintenance although they were considered in excess of normal operational error. It was evident that all records were given a good screening prior to the conversion and incoming records are screened prior to being filed.

[Robert A Cook PE]

This is the text from CBS'S forged memo's:

"SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)

1. You are ordered to report to commander, 111 F.L.S., Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972 to conduct annual physical examination (flight)IAW AFM 35-13."

This is the text from the Apr 27 dnc press release:

" On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush's suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush's local commander "will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." (Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m)"

--

See anything in common? /sarcasm

[Robert A Cook PE]

The Apr 27 Kerry-Edward (dnc) press release next has:

"The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: "Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush from flying status are confirmed Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. (Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972)

-- Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: "When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1.... (1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer's failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual's major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination." (Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13) "

There is only one other contemporary AFM 35-13 reference that I can find anywhere.

http://www.ec47.com/varorder.htm

Each of the following airmen, Det. 2, 6994 Scty Sq, APO San Francisco 96337 holding a
principal duty assignment in a First Priority (crew member) AFSC and having completed
a minimum of ten (10) combat missions is awarded the Basic Aircrew Member Badge (Permanent). Authority: AFM 35-13, para 5-9a(2).

Notice that the forged CBS memo's duplicate these phrases as well, indicating the forger either read the TexANG order suspending Bush from flight status, or had read the dnc's press release.

[Robert A Cook PE]

There is only one other reference to AFR/AFM 35-13:

"Don Sensing dug up AFR 35-13 (cited as authority although as AFM 35-13, which is pretty suspicious anyway). It was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605:

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."

[Robert A Cook PE]

The only source, or reference to AFM 35-12 or AFM 35-13 on the Internet is the DNC press release of 27 April 2004.

No other source is available.

No other source, anywhere, lists any "internal paragraph numbers" for either document.

Thus, the only two people who can read that manual anywhere is CBS's forger and the guy who wrote the Kerry-Edwards press release on April 27.

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

How do we get a copy of AFM 35-13 (or AFR 35-13)?

[Robert A Cook PE]

"How do we get a copy of AFM 35-13 (or AFR 35-13)?

I'm stumped.

The democrats were quoting this manual (or think they are quoting this manual) book, line, and paragraph on the Kerry-Edwards website on April 27, 2004.

The forger is quoting the same manual, the same paragraphs, the same lines in June, 2004.

The forger quotes Col. Killian quoting the same manual book, line, and paragraph in August, 1972.

Dan Rather is quoting the forger quoting Col Killian quoting the same manual, the same book, lines, and paragraph.

And nobody else anywhere can even identify the manual, much less read it.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Outside Experts:

Brit Hume interview with Sandra Ramsey Lines, Document Expert, 9-13-2004

Showed signatures from the docs

What can you tell us? These two sigs were compared to known docs from Jerry Killian, from WH docs.

She compared the WH docs and all four of those appear to be consistent. Compared CBS doc's containing Killian's signature, determined conclusively (without any doubt) that they were both forgeries.