Replies

Got it.
Some have already been clarified, but here are the running discrepancies:
1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)
2. superscripts not generally available
3. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
4. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top
5. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.
6. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
7. 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.
8. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.
9. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
10. Words run over consistent with word processor.
11. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
12. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.
13. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
14. No letterhead
15. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
16. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
17. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).
18. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #8)
19. 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).
20. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. 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)
21. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).
22. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1/Lt" not "1st Lt"
23. Subject matter bizarre
24. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
25. Kerning was not available
26. 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.
27. Language not generally used by military personnel.
28. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
29. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
30. 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).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
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! He would not have received correspondence.
34. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
35. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?
36. Acronym should be ORT, not ORET.
37. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added!
38. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.
39. Lt Col Killian didn't type
40. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
41. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
42. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
43. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")
44. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)
45. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms)
46. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity.
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.
48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum