From the following:
A POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO STRESS
http://www.indcjournal.com/
* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.
I am copying this from a poster at another website. I concur with his statements:
The letter CBS posted about 1st Lt Bush is an obvious fake. Apparently someone-likely the retired officer in question took old letter head stationary that he had in his file cabinet (or in a pumpkin) and created this document to include adding the 'th' when such a superscript was not possible on military typewriters of the time--I know I used them.
But MOST GLARING is the omission of an 'SSCI' code the Standard Subject Classification Indicator code which is found on every piece of US military correspondence. The SSCI must appear in the upper right hand corner and include a subject code, the originator's initials, the clerk-typist's code and the date. Every official military document must include an SSCI--this officer (who most likely never typed an official document in his career) forgot to include it and probably could not even remember the correct subject abbreviation code.
ALSO ON US MILITARY CORRESPONDENCE THE SUBJECT LINE IS ALWAYS CAPITALIZED-no self respecting military clerk typed this forgery. and no clerk would type the military style date '14 MAY 1972' as 14 May,1972'.