Posted on 09/10/2004 12:47:25 PM PDT by WoodstockCat
Hannity just said a story will be filed later today that from sources inside CBS that the source of the documents is also the one who provided the Abu Grihab prison photos.
The superscript "th" found in the CBS document also differs from the superscript "th" produced by typewriters in other military documents. The kerning and height are substantially dissimilar.
In other words, a superscript from a 1973 typewriter do not seem to match the superscript found in the CBS document.
At any rate, there are too many other inconsistencies beyond the superscript issue as you already pointed out.
MineralMan, I know what you mean. This is either the clumsiest forgery ever, or it was meant to be discovered.
I do think that one plausible explanation might be that the original 'creator' didn't think that the document copies would be displayed by CBS via the internet where they could be thoroughly vetted. Someone mentioned this on FR today, and it makes sense to me. Therefore, they didn't work very hard to make them believable - only enough to be believable to CBS or some other friendly media. Also, if this was done by an amateur, someone young and not too clever, and NOT knowledgeable about the military, they simply may not have realized how easy this was going to be to debunk.
Here's another possibility: Perhaps someone is trying to throw a cloud of suspicion over ALL government documents from that era, by producing 'plausible forgeries' that are actually easily shown to have serious holes. Why would they do this? Maybe because they know that out there - in the hands of the Swifties, for example? -- there are extremely damaging government documents that they want to claim are forgeries when they come out. Obviously, no one (except the originator(s)) knows right now, but it's a possibility.
The in-depth article will post at Talon News on Monday morning. There is much more to this story. Mary Mapes is just the beginning.
Where is the Breaking News!...???
Khan, if this document has been floating around on the internet since January, wouldn't the White House be aware of it? I think this needs it's own thread.
You have to tell us more than that.....are the docs a hoax?.....please!!
Here you go. I'm keeping it updated, so please Freep me for additions/clarifications:
Some have already been clarified, but here are the running discrepancies:
1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - small "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
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.
7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - may be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors and whiteout
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
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)
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.
21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"
22 - Subject matter bizarre
23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
24 - kerning was not available
25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military
27 - Not signed or initialed
28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
29 – Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).
31-The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
32-Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
33-Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July!
The appearance of PO Box 34567 in a January document is "nothing," because that address appeared on a document released by Bush before January of this year.
Is there anyway to get a ping or heads up when it's published? I'm on pins & noodles here.
Look at the space (or lack thereof) between f and y. That's kerning.
Yes, good question. We have no clues as to who the author of the forgery is. Could be a bit player in the Texas DEM Party, could be a prank grown large.
But there is NO escaping the ramifications of CBS's action and reaction. They are in the tank for the DEM party.
Good job, Jeff!
The Pentagon made a statement about it earlier today.
They stated that it would not have been written with p.o. box (maybe they were referring to that specific correspondence).
I can't wait to see it.
Any chance for an advance copy???? :-)
And doesn't that just nail CBS's claim that these are "never before seen documents"? Danny boy is in a world of trouble.
Sufficiently teased. Time to get the drool off my keyboard.
If this is true then it was Hackworth
They stated that it would not have been written with p.o. box (maybe they were referring to that specific correspondence).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
