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

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

[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.