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

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

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Robert A Cook PE]

section d. Addition.

The lllth Fighter Interceptor Squadron was renamed "lllth Fighter Interceptor Squadron (Training) (abbreviated lllth FIS(T) prior to 1 May 1972. Lt Bush's final personal files include this specific "reassignment" by explicitly naming the new Squadron.

Any letterhead, of any kind, dated after 1 May 1972 must include the NEW lllth FIS(T) designation. However, NONE of Lt Col Killian's paperwork uses the new designation.

[omstrat]

Wow , just read the Flounder site post ..Cant argue with that guy. Case closed as I see it ..FRAUD..We have to get this guy some air time somehow.maybe Hannity needs to hear about this site http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

[VRWCTexan]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214283/posts

This newly posted article cites "eye-whitness" accounts of GWB on duty in Alabama ANG - may want to incorporate their names and basic circumstances

[Robert A Cook PE]

d. addition.

FALSE CHARGE: CBS's memo's specifically claims that Col Straudt was trying to influence Killian to "sugarcoat" Lt Bush's 72-73 Officer Effectiveness report (OER).

REPLY: The actual OER for the entire period from May 1972-May 1972 was signed by Major Martin as "Not Observed." (Lt Bush was in Alabama serving with the 187th during part of this time. A "Not Observed" OER is routinely used for long periods of detached duty period like this.

All of President Bush's service time is correctly accounted for by these OER's. No discipline or missing drill times are noted, as they would have been required to be for discipline problems.)

Lt Bush's two-sentence May 1973 OER was terse and for administrative accounting of time served. It was ABSOULTELY NOT "sugarcoated".

Lt Col Killian DID NOT sign the May 1973 OER.

Col Hodges did NOT sign, endorse, or review the May 1973 OER.

Lt Bush's May 1973 OER was NOT backdated or altered. It was properly signed, dated, stamped and is correctly filed with Lt Bush's records in Nov 1973.

[Robert A Cook PE]

d. Errors of Fact.

Add: CBS's memo of 4 May 72 orders Lt Bush to take a physical examination IAW AFM 35-13.

It has been established this designation is incorrect and inconsistent.

CBS's memo of 01 Aug 72 claims Killian conveyed verbal orders to 147th "with request for orders for suspension and convening of a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13.

The same AFM 35-13, whatever it is, could not be used for both physical examinations and disciplinary administrative hearings like flight review boards.

[js1138]

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

[js1138]

Regarding kerning and other typesetting issues you really need to see the masterpiece at flounder.com. It is such a work of art that it makes all other arguments superfluous.

Basically the CBS memos have TrueType letter spacing, a unique and propriatary spacing that wasn't invented until 1981.

The article is long and technical, but it explains why all attempts to match the documants with Executives or Composers are DOOMED.

[Robert A Cook PE]

d. ERRORS of FACT, CONTRADICTIONS, and INCONSISTANCIES.

CBS's memo dated 1 Aug 72, paragraph 3, is repeated below:

"I recommended transfer of this officer to the 9921 st (sic) Air Reserve Squadron in May and forwarded his AF Form 1288 to 147 th (sic) Ftr Intcp (sic) Gp headquarters. The transfer was not allowed."

From Bush's real records, the 147th Ftr Gp (Tng) (note the correct unit designation!) actually ENDORSED Lt Bush's AF Form 1288 application for reserve Assignment change 24 May 1972.

"Recommend approval. Request this organization be notified on date of appointment.)"

Texas ANG headquarters approved this endorsement 5 June 1972, and AF Form 1288 was returned to the 147th Ftr Gp and filed in June 1972.

Lt Col Killian could NOT have written "The transfer was not allowed" on 1 August if the Texas ANG headquarters already approved the change on 5 June.

[dano1]

Great list. Here are some additional ideas which you may wish to consider.

1. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would have actually saved documents such as these for thirty years. Office paperwork is usually tossed out after a few years.

1.a.) Government procedures specify what documents are archived and for how long. Documents like this would not have been archived, or certainly would not have been kept beyond a few years. Then they would have been destroyed.

1.b.)The family has already said that Killian did not keep the files at home. Who in the world would have bothered to save these documents for over 30 years, if not the National Guard or the family?

2. Why were only these particular documents saved?

3. I think you could say more about the lack of typo's. For a non-typist like Killian to produce these four perfect-looking memos on a typewriter would have been virtually a miracle, even using correction fluid or correction tape. Had a secretary typed the memos, his or her initials would have been in the signature block.

[dano1]

4. If these documents are authentic, why does the person who held them for over thirty years have to remain anonymous?

[Robert A Cook PE]

A. addition:

Real documents from Lt Bush's verified records frequently confirm that typists of the period, typically clerks and airmen, frequently used a lower case "l" to replace the "1" in typed titles, lists, and squadron ID numbers. Such "L" usage was common at the squadron level, at the group level, and (apparently) even at th state level. See Lt Bush's AF 1288 form dated 24 may 1972.

This is because many typewriters of the period, in actual use at that squadron every day, did NOT even have a numeric "1" key, and the lower case "L" had to substitute.

It is absurd to presume that that some one else at the squadron, particularly a fighter pilot who could not type, would have learned to use an expensive, difficult-to-use, complex type-setting machine. (Changing balls, changing type settings, changing spacing, etc.)

Much less assume that fighter pilot used that high-end type-setting machine for personal memo's that were specifically intended for his private use.

[wattsup]

Dates would have been written as 4 May 72 or 4May72 not
04 May 1972 or 4 May 1972 everybody knew what century it was. (USAF 1972-1993)

[Diddley]

It seems that one enemy of Bush is a disgruntled, retired Army National Guard soldier. He has been involved in this issue (Bush's "AWOL" charge) for years, and has written extensively about it.

Is it possible that some of the terminology used could be more of an Army type than Air Force (Memorandum, etc)?

For example, is there an AM (Army Regulation/manual) 35-13 that details Physical Exams vs. Medicals?

Are there ny Army people who might know something about this out there?

[wildbill]

D27 contains this line: "General Staudt was no longer in the food chain!"

Suggest you change to: General Staudt was no longer in the military chain of command.

Food chain sounds a little sophomoric and chain of command is a technical word of art.

As a writing teacher, I also caution against using exclamation points. It also looks amateurish. You don't need to emphasize something if it's correct and a telling point. The content will do that for you.

[wildbill]

One of the most impressive sections would be one giving the names and resumes of various experts who have called the documents forgeries.

One of the best I have seen is Joseph Newcomer at http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

His analysis and resume are definitive in my mind. I think you refer to it in one of the items--but what I'm proposing is an entire section devoted to Experts.

Of course, much of what they say about fonts and technology is repeated in the various points in other sections.

[BnBlFlag]

Wow! Great work. Thanks!

[wildbill]

In another post I recommended that you include a new section on experts who have called the documents fakes or forgeries and include their resumes.

I'm sure you have a list somewhere, but just in case here is the name of another one. She was cited in an AP article.

That superscript, however," countered The A.P., "is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos." It consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."