Replies

Nonsense.

A USAF officer, writing a supposed "memo" to himself, typing it BY himself (and typing it perfectly - I might add!) would NOT under any circumstances, go around REPLACING typewriter balls to "specially type in" TWO letters in HIS OWN UNIT ID designation for a memo that was NOT TO BE EVER PRINTED OR DISPLAYED AGAIN!

This is a memo FOR HIM to "cover his ass" (CYA - remember?) ... Is he (typing on his own (no clerk initial!) going to go around replacing typewriter balls?)

He (the supposed writer) is a military officer during a shooting war! He is a comabt-retrained FIGHTRE PILOT! I don't even believe ANY FIGHTER SQUADRON COMMANDING OFFICER would go around writing any excess memo's (to himself in particular!) about an officer who is leaving his unit on temporary assignment elsewhere!

And he would definitely not go around do it himself.

Further, the OFFICIAL WAY that Bush's unit designated itself (in all of the "real" documents from that base, at that time, form that office) used "111th F.I.S."

NO superscript! EVER!

"A USAF officer, writing a supposed "memo" to himself, typing it BY himself (and typing it perfectly - I might add!) would NOT under any circumstances, go around REPLACING typewriter balls to "specially type in" TWO letters in HIS OWN UNIT ID designation for a memo that was NOT TO BE EVER PRINTED OR DISPLAYED AGAIN!
"

Who's talking about balls. The Selectric of 1972 did NOT have proportional spacing.

I'm talking about the IBM Executive Model D, which DID have proportional spacing. It WAS available with the superscript "th" as a character above one of the number keys.

I don't know if this is a forgery or not. I'm just saying that it's possible that it is not, and all this stuff about proportional spacing and a superscript "th" is not valid, since both did exist at the time.

Who is to say this was even done at the TANG base. Did Killian have another job? Maybe he dictated these things to a secretary there. I have no idea.

My only question about these being forgeries is why didn't they make them incriminating?

I agree that these look like modern word processing documents and the fact that there are no mistakes makes it even more likely that they are fake.

There are people that do this for a living, I wonder how long it will take for an actual document expert to tell us whether these are the possible result of a 1972 typewriter.

Maybe there are other forged documents that they plan to release later? and they wanted to make sure they were going to get away with it on these innocuous documents first?

This is a mystery to me.