Comparing those two signatures, I would say they were not written by the same person. And I do that all the time.
The signatures are not even close. But, I ask again, how are the memos damaging. What is the point that CBS and Barnes wanted to make?
Can someone post the fake memos. I can't seem to open them.
nick
Is this a joke? No way are those penned by the same hand. It's not even close.
Absolutely these are bogus.
Handwriting expert?
A valid sig is about the easiest thing to fake when one
is creating an n-th generation forgery, as long as the
forger has access to a genuine sig to scan and drop into
the fake.
A question that arises here is, what is the paper trail?
Was this forgery Berger'd into the US archives, or did
someone create it downstream, before it got to CBS?
Thanks for putting them together like that. Should've thought of that.
I originally looked for a document from the same time period with Killian's name on it so I could compare type face, and then I saw the signature...
But take a look at the type faces anyhow. Definitely different machines.
I pulled the scanned copy of the document from one of those moronic anti-bush sites, but I don't believe they altered any of the documents. It was the most expedient source, when I realized there were significant differences.
Those signature blocks also offer a good look at the difference between a uniformly spaced font, like Courier 10, and a TruType font, like Times New Roman. Look at the serifs on the "I"s in Killian on the actual signature. Those exagerrated serifs are there to make the type look even, when a typeset I would take up less room. Now look at the "m"s in Commander on the actual signature. The lower case "m" was the worst letter in Courier 10. It had to have vestigal serifs, or else it would have looked completely out of place. But with the serifs, there is nowhere near enough room for the double humps. A second generation copy will yield an unreadable lump, which the experienced reader know is a whole mess of "m"s.Hot damn!
I did not even read this thread yet, in detail, but just was drawn to the post with the two signatures. Not even knowing what the details are, I would say, two different people signed those signatures. They are different in many regards.
First I saw of this. Not only are the fonts modern but their 'expert' should take a look at the change in style the commander is using and the color range of these documents.
And the note on the left WAS typed. What pea brained "handwriting expert" didn't notice any difference in the signatures? I looked at some old school work of my dad's once. his signature has changed only a tiny bit from the time he was 12 years old. FORGERY!
Another note. The sig on the left looks like a fountain pen. The one on the right is either ball point or rollerball. Did they have rollerball pens in 1972? Also the script looks like that of a left hander, with an almost feminine light touch c/w the other sig.
Having worked for the USAF at the Pentagon for 10 years from 1977-1987, I have typed many a letter/memo for the record. One does not EVER put punctuation in rank abbreviation, as in Lt. Col - it is properly typed Lt Col or LTC. Also, we didn't have proportional spacing until early to mid 80s.
Killian has the "y" from "Jerry" be the starting point for the "K" in "Killian." That's what gives the long diagonal part of his "K" its particular curvature: it started from the lower left. In the signature over the proportional font, it looks like it was written starting from the upper right. It is concave upwards, like it's trying to reach the vertical line, rather than get away from it as in the first sample. Another reason is probably started in the upper right corner is that it is directly connected to the other diagonal line.
The first signature looks more efficient too. I wonder if he did the 'V' part of the "K" as part of "Jerry," then did the "c" first before completing the "K." In the second one, it's mostly a blob, but the starting point for the second part of the "K" is so much farther away. Besides, the second signature looks like it's squeezed together to fit the proportional font. I wonder why that one doesn't have "TexANC" underneath it either.
The second signature looks feminine to me and nowhere close in comparison to the first.
There is NO WAY that the man that signed the first signed the second.
And the second guy looks like a Clintonoid (high sex drive) from the J loops