Posted on 09/14/2004 4:06:29 PM PDT by dickmc
Thanks for all your help.
As you may know a thread was started friday evening to attempt to summarize
the important forgery points. The extension of the original thread and its
continuations is at Evidence Against Rather and can be found here.
This was initiated by SkyPilot and I agreed to help out. This the final draft of
the work of a number of FR posts and analysis. If you want to find something on
an intermediate thread, simply go the above first link and look for the continuation
links at the end of each thread.
Hint: Probably the best way to review it is this 60Minutes Forgery Facts is to:
select, copy, and paste into something like word.
The information below needs your final review, analysis, and suggested changes.
If you see things that should be changed including typos, wording, etc
please retype the suggested revision including the bullet number in a new reply.
While we have tried to capture the hundreds of comments and posts in the last few days,
the likelihood is that we may have gotten something wrong or missed an element.
This is why your final review would be most helpful.
CAUTION: FOR YOUR REVIEW, COMMENT, CHANGE, AND CORRECTION ONLY AT THIS TIME. SOME ITEMS MAY CHANGE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS NOT BE POSTED ELSEWHERE UNTIL WE ARE DONE
CBS 60MINUTES DOCUMENT FORGERY FACTS
A. ERRORS IN THE FONT, TYPE, TYPOGRAPHY, EQUIPMENT, ETC IN THE CBS MEMOS
To understand these issues it is important to understand some key issues that in effect are equivalent to the CBS Memos "DNA" that irrefutably confirm that the CBS Memos could not have been written in the years state. Ordinary typewriters give a fixed space to each letter. Thus, a group of ten characters like iiiiiiiiii versus WWWWWWWWWW both take up the same space. This makes for unattractive documents but has a great advantage in that the letter is always in the same place so that corrections can be made with whiteout and typed over. As you can see the spacing in this document is different because it has a type of proportional spacing. There was an IBM Executive typewriter that did have a kind of limited proportional spacing where letters were sorted into four widths. However, with the advent of computer TrueType for Microsoft Word in April, 1992 documents finally became attractive for monitor display and printing. TrueType actually uses a lookup table to find the previous letter and set the point where the next letter begins as for example with "TRTRTRTR" versus "fifififi". This gives a computer produced document a distinct spacing signature just like "DNA".
But the analogy does not stop there. The next "DNA" fact is that, for example, computer Word Processors have the capability to produce true superscripts like the "th" in the "2. Report to the 111th F.I.S. administrative officer…" line of the CBS Memo 04 May. Note, that the "th" extends above the top of the 111 on that line. The width of the "th" superscript and the top of it relative to the "111" in the CBS Memo 04 May is a signature of a computer Word Processor and modern computer printer. The only other typewriter device that even come close to this is a Selectric Composer that cost more than a car in 1972. The TANG did not have such a device. Even if they did, Lt Col Killian--who barely knew how to type--would never have been able to operate it. This is further discussed below.
The third fact that you need to know about in order to deal with a document's "DNA" is something called a type font. These have names to describe the some 4,000 different fonts. A type face is a coordinated design for a set of type, for example "A….Za....z1234567890-=*/etc". The design has to do with the looks of the type such as thickness, roundness,feet, etc. Each type font is distinctive in many ways such as whether or not the top of a "4" is closed. The type face is a distinctive signature and for example Times New Roman has characters that look different from Times Roman. This is the third aspect of a document's "DNA". The fourth fact of a document's "DNA" is that is actually replicable and you can make a new "cell (document)" identical with the old "cell (document)". For Microsoft Word, typing and printing a document at its default settings, for all intent and purposes always produces the same document. If you print a document twice, overlay the copies, and hold them up to the window, the two copies will be identical.
As you can appreciate, there are experts in Microsoft Word computer printing technology, just like everything else. Having said all this and if you don't want to read more technology, the only thing you need to know is ………….
Dr Joseph Newcomer, who virtually invented most of this computer type and printing, has examined the CBS Memos and says the following: "There has been a lot of activity on the Internet recently concerning the forged CBS documents. I do not even dignify this statement with the traditional weasel-word “alleged”, because it takes approximately 30 seconds for anyone who is knowledgeable in the history of electronic document production to recognize this whole collection is certainly a forgery, and approximately five minutes to prove to anyone technically competent that the documents are a forgery. I was able to replicate two of the documents within a few minutes. At time I am writing this, CBS is stonewalling. They were hoaxed, pure and simple. CBS failed to exercise anything even approximately like due diligence. I am not sure what sort of "expert" they called in to authenticate the document, but anything I say about his qualifications to judge digital typography is likely to be considered libelous (no matter how true they are) and I would not say them in print in a public forum."
"The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft’s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero."
By the way, if you are looking at the CBS Memos on a 17-inch computer monitor, it contains around 750,000 pixels. That's a lot of comparison points and why a reproduction comparison using Microsoft Word reproduction of the CBS Memos is so telling. For more information on this analysis you can go to Dr Newcomer's analysis and comparison at http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm Further sources are detailed below if you need even more information.
If you want to do your own CBS Memo fake confirmation, simply retype a CBS Memo in Microsoft Word using its default settings (Times New Roman 10 point, 1 1/2-inch margins), covert the document to a pdf so that it matches the CBS memo, print out the pdf you made, overlay the CBS Memo, and hold it them up to the widow.
1. Typewriter proportional spacing was not available in 1972 with the Times Roman font, the timeframe and font style of the CBS Memos. The IBM Executive had a pseudo proportional spacing but not the typeface used in the CBS Memos. There is no confirmation that even this expensive typewriter was available at TANG, see below for a discussion of the Selectric Composer which is a printshop device.
2. Superscripts not generally available. These are individual characters in smaller case that extend above the printed line in the CBS Memos. (The underlined "th" cited by CBS in it's defense in the Chronological Listing of Service, which does NOT extend above the characters, is technically a single key element known as a monospaced ligature and is not a true superscript like the CBS Memos.) If anything, the superscript "th" in the CBS Memos versus the single key element even further indicates that the CBS Memos are a forgery. See http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm and many other web references.
3. Apostrophes in the CBS Memos are curled. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
"4. The number ""4"" produced on a other genuine TANG documents by typewriters are open at the top an uniformly spaced. 4's on the CBS Memo are closed and proportionally spaced. D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs. For further information see http://www.indcjournal.com/
" 5. The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, is not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computer driven type Word Processors and printers.
6. The words end on each line in the CBS Memos in a manner that is identical with the default settings for Microsoft Word. Also there are no hyphenated words which is also how Microsoft Word operates unless the user intervenes. This is not the way a person using a typewriter would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned the carriage. Numerous examples of hyphenation appear in the real TANG memos done on typewriters.
7. While CBS says Times Roman has been available since 1931, that statement is disingenuous or reveals no understanding of type faces and their history. Times Roman was only available only in linotype printshops and possibly some Selectric typewriters. It was not until 1991 when Apple developed the TrueType font, known as Times New Roman, that is used in the CBS Memos. The actual application of Microsoft TrueType Times New Roman for Windows occurred in 1992. Overlay of CBS Memos is an EXACT match for Microsoft Word Processor printed text at the "DNA" level and confirms that the 60Minutes CBS Memos are a forgery. See http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm for further information.
8. It would have been nearly impossible to center a proportionately typed letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killian, who did not type, highly improbable). Further, doing this centering identically in memos two months apart, CBS May 04 and CBS August 01, absent a Word Processor is extremely unlikely.
9. The only device that could have come close to producing superscripted “th” in that period and proportional type in that timeframe would have been a Selectric Composer. This is not a typewriter but is used for special publication composing. It cost some $4,000 then ($23,000 today) and was incredibly difficult to operate. The machine basically consisted of an IBM Selectric typewriter with a 3-1/2 ft. high upright case containing the magnetic tape reader reading long spools of magnetic tape in cartridges. It also needed a special IBM service person above and beyond repairing typewriters. The operating manual is here at http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs.htm. Moreover, D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, said: "...the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the Selectric Composer that was available and the questionable document.... ... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..." It is not clear that the AirForce had even these units at that time and the TANG clearly did not. To suggest that Col Killian, who could barely type and even if he could, would have been able to operate one of these machines is absurd. For further information see http://www.indcjournal.com/ for the font discussion and also http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm and many other web references.
10. The CBS Memos don't doesn't match the TANG Lt Bush official evaluation that was signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TANG have a new typewriter just for Col Killian's memoranda.
11. Looking at all of the groups of numbers in the CBS Memos reveals two with miniature “th” superscripts. Four have spaces between the numbers and suffix, and five without a space, all of which include a digit of 1 (probably a lower case L in the cases of "lst"). Putting spaces between the numerals and the suffix is NOT how typists were or are trained. The only reason for spaces generally occurring after numbers in the CBS Memos is to suppress MS Word's auto-superscript function when the Spacebar or Enter key is pressed. The most parsimonious explanation for the features shown in the CBS Memos is that of a forger intending suppress the auto-superscript function (which he didn't know how to turn off by typing Ctrl-Z immediately after superscripting occurred) but knew enough to use lower case L's in imitation of old typists or to insert spaces after other numbers. He simply missed two instances and MS Word automatically turned the “th” into superscripts. That being the case: why are there two instances of non-subscripted numbers "111th" in the headings? Probably, the forger simply made an additional mistake in addition to the one, of course, of forging official military documents. This could have occurred because of an idiosyncrasy of MS Word which will only superscript something like 111th if you immediately hit the Spacebar or Enter key after having typed the "h". In this case the forger probably made a mistake and typed "111 Fighter" and then realized that the "th" was missing. The forger went back and typed the "th" and then clicked on the end "r" in Fighter. In that case MS Word did not see a Spacebar or Enter press at the "111th" and did not, therefore, superscript the added "th". The forger could not remember what he had done to suppress the superscripting elsewhere except by using a lower case L in "lst" or a space as in "147 th".
12. Certain of the CBS Memo signatures look faked even to the untrained observer: such as cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released. Other document examiners not affiliated with CBS are increasingly concurring that the CBS Memo signatures to not match known specimens of Lt Col Killian's signature as outlined in the Experts section.
B. ISSUES THAT CAN ONLY BE SATISFIED BY A BETTER OR ORIGINAL COPY
13. Potential paper size issue: Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
14. 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)
C. ERRORS RELATING TO CUSTOM AND USAGE OF TEXT IN THE CBS MEMOS
"To outsiders differences of how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. However, within the military, however, such details are highly regulated by rules and tradition as is the format of memos and orders. Thus, these kinds of areas are of great significance in assessing the veracity of the documents. The CBS memos contain a number of key stylistic examples that are significantly at odds with standard procedures in the Texas ANG." 15. USAF letterhead has been in required use since 1948. Instead the CBS Memos have typed letterhead. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
16. CBS Memo letterheads gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "ELLINGTON AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS" in all caps. Air Force did not generally use street addresses for their offices on letterheads. The 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was renamed "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (Training), abbreviated 111th FIS(T), prior to1 May 1972. Any letterhead, of any kind, dated after 1 May 1972 must include the NEW 111th FIS(T) designation. However, none of the CBS Memos of Lt Col Killian's paperwork use the new designation.
17. According to Lt Col Campelli (USAF ret), the CBS Memos 4 May and 1 August both have a letterhead for the wrong organization. Correspondence and orders in those days would have been issued in the name of the parent organization -- the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group -- rather than by the squadron. Moreover, the letterhead in the CBS Memos is typed. The unit used PRINTED ANG letterhead. Moreover, where written orders were issued they were on standard USAF orders forms. They were NOT in the CBS Memo format. For further information see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts
18. CBS Memos have the unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S. as in CBS Memo 04 May
19. Day in the date of the CBS Memo 04 May should be "4" and NOT "04"; in the CBS Memo 1 August it should have been "1" and NOT "01". This is a tell tale artifact of a Word Processor default setting which was not been changed.
20. CBS Memos are not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders are not given by a Memo. Also, CBS Memos contain language not generally used by military personnel and were not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
21. CBS Memos on 4 May and 1 August have no distribution list as needed for orders and have no receipt confirmation box.
22. CBS Memo 04 May and 01 August used incorrect terminology in stating "physical examination" instead of "medical". Furthermore, a medical is due the last day of the Birth Month which be 31July; not at the May 14th date ordered in the CBS Memo 04 May. Moreover the May 14 date is a Sunday.
23. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented by the CBS Memos. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format with left hand justification as follows: FROM: Lt Col Killian, Jerry B. (space) SUBJECT [or SUB]: Annual Physical Examination (Flight) (space) TO: 1Lt Bush, George W. Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.
24. Subject line in memos was usually, but not always, CAPITALIZED in the military.
25. CBS Memos have an incorrect signature block. Killian's signature block should read: JERRY B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG Commander This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block. Also in the CBS Memos, Lt Col Killian's signature should have been aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard. The CBS Memos just have rank beneath a name on the right hand side.
26. Rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly. For example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2LT and 1LT. In any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
27. 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).
28. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD". However, Lt Col Killian is known to have relied on hand written notes on scraps of paper and not gratuitous memos to files.
29. The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is would not be spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
30. The CBS Memos, all of which have proportional type spacing, do not match the typeface and letter spacing of the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Furthermore, the easy to recognize CBS Memos' proportionally spaced typing does not match any of the hundred other pdf's of Lt Bush records that are available on the internet, none of which have proportional spaced type. Or does the TANG have a new special typewriter just for Col Killian's memoranda.
31. CBS Memos do not, but should have had, two hole punches evident at the top of the page? …or even three or five on the side of the page?
D. ERRORS IN THE CBS MEMOS RELATING TO MEMO CONTEXT (PEOPLE RETIRED, DAY OF WEEK, ANG POLICY, ETC.)
32. The address listed in CBS Memo 04 May for Lt Bush is wrong. The address in the CBS Memo is 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. However, Lt Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written. The correct address that the CBS Memo o4 May should have used is: 2910 Westheimer Rd. Apt 4. Lt Col Killian certainly would have known and used the correct address in the purported memo.
33. CBS 04 May Memo: Lt Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birth Month which was July! He would have received a routine letter notifying him of the pending requirement, month or date by which the flight physical was to be completing, and advising him to call the flight surgeon's office to schedule the appointment. There would not have been an 'order' issued and certainly not by May 14th in advance of July, his Birth Month. Moreover, if any orders ever are issued in writing, they are NOT issued via a Memorandum.
34. The CBS Memo 19 May to the file that is supposedly written by Harris or Killian states: "Says he wants to transfer to Alabama to any unit he can get in to. Says he is working on another campaign for his dad". The CBS Memo is pejoratively inconsistent with the Lt Bush 26 May 1972 Performance Appraisal which states under OTHER COMMENTS: “Lt Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted a position as a campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and the Air National Guard in the business world. His abilities and anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset. He is a member of the National Guard Association of the United States and Texas."
35. CBS Memo 1 August says "I recommended transfer of this officer to the 9921 st (sic) Air Reserve Squadron in May and forwarded his AF Form 1288 to 147 th (sic) Ftr Intcp (sic) Gp headquarters. The transfer was not allowed." The 147th Ftr Gp (Tng) actually endorsed Lt Bush's AF Form 1288 application for reserve Assignment on 24 May 1972 with “Recommend approval. Request this organization be notified on date of appointment." Texas ANG headquarters approved this endorsement 5 June 1972, and AF Form 1288 was returned to the 147th Ftr Gp and filed in June 1972. Lt Col Killian could NOT have written in CBS Memo 04 Aug that "The transfer was not allowed" on 1 August if the Texas ANG headquarters already approved it.
36. CBS Memo 1 August which Killian writes: "I recommended transfer of this officer…Officer has made no attempt to meet…or flight physical." This is inconsistent with the Lt Bush official performance evaluation dated 26 May 1972 in which Major Harris writes: "Lt Bush should be retained in his present assignment. He has gained valuable experience in the operations area and would be a welcome addition to any fighter squadron." Lt Col Killian signed off this evaluation on the same day.
37. CBS Memo 1 Aug says "I recommended transfer of this officer to the 9921 st (sic) Air Reserve Squadron in May and forwarded his AF Form 1288 to 147 th (sic) Ftr Intcp (sic) Gp headquarters. The transfer was not allowed." The 147th Ftr Gp (Tng) actually endorsed Lt Bush's AF Form 1288 application for reserve Assignment on 24 May 1972 with “Recommend approval. Request this organization be notified on date of appointment." Texas ANG headquarters approved this endorsement 5 June 1972, and AF Form 1288 was returned to the 147th Ftr Gp and filed in June 1972. Lt Col Killian could NOT have written in CBS Memo 04 Aug that "The transfer was not allowed" on 1 August if the Texas ANG headquarters already approved it.
38. In the CBS Memo 18 August 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 on March 1, 1972. General Staudt was no loner in the military chain of command.
39. CBS Memo18 August is titled CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is extremely doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.
40. CBS Memo 18 August specifically claims that Col Staudt was trying to influence Killian to sugarcoat Lt Bush's 72-73 Officer Effectiveness report (OER). Col Straudt had retired by then. The actual OER for the entire period from May 1972-May 1972 was signed by Major Martin as "Not Observed". Lt Bush The actual OER for the entire period from May 1972-May 1972 was signed by Major Martin as "Not Observed." Lt Bush was in Alabama serving with the 187th during part of this time. A "Not Observed" OER is routinely used for long periods of detached duty period like this. The actual OER for the entire period from May 1972-May 1972 was signed by Major Martin as "Not Observed". Lt Bush was in Alabama serving with the 187th during part of this time. A "Not Observed" OER is routinely used for long periods of detached duty period like this. All of Lt Bush's service time is correctly accounted for by these OER's. No discipline or missing drill times are noted, as they would have been required to be for discipline problems. Lt Bush's two-sentence May 1973 OER was simply a terse and for administrative accounting of time served. It was ABSOLUTELY NOT sugarcoated. Neither Lt Col Killian nor Col Hodges signed, endorsed, or reviewed the May 1973 OER. Lt Bush's May 1973 OER was NOT backdated or altered. It was properly signed, dated, stamped and is correctly filed with Lt Bush's records in Nov 1973.
41. CBS Memo 18 August uses the term OETR whereas the proper term would be OER. 42. According to Lt Col Campelli: “Jerry Killian never went near a typewriter. In the Air Force, in those days, notes -- if anyone kept them at all -- were handwritten.” All the CBS Memos supposedly by Lt Col Killian are typed. Also, bureaucrats -- not fighter jocks -- write "CYA" memos. For further information see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212092/posts
43. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son relate that Killian wasn't a typist. If he needed notes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn't paper-oriented, and certainly wasn't a typist.
E. CBS MEMO AUTHENTICATION ISSUES (VERACITY OF EXPERTS, ETC.)
44. The four CBS Memos had NO errors or whiteouts or overtypes or corrections or misspelling or typographic changes visible in any of the documents. It stretches credulity to believe that Lt Col Killian, who did not type much if at all, could use an unforgiving manual typewriter to type all four relatively complex documents without making a single mistake.
45. 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. Moreover, CBS's own validator, Marcel Matley, wrote in the September, 2002 issue of the journal, "The Practical Litigator": "In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original ..." See http://d2d.ali-aba.org/_files/thumbs/components/PLIT0209-MATLEY_thumb.pdf
46. CBS 60 Minutes' says validator Matley vouched for all four CBS Memos; Matley says he only vouched for one.
47. CBS Memo validator Matley was only signature expert, not a typewriting expert. Also there now seem to be emerging issues on the signature itself. For signature authenticity doubts see http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213174/posts
Ding. I'm glad someone other than me picked up on this.
Add this:
If you take this PDF:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardMay4.pdf
load it into PaintShop Pro. Grayscale it. Change brightness/contrast to -134/76. The result can be
seen at:
http://www.medved.net/mike/crumpled.gif
You can clearly see that there was an attempt to
"age" the document by crumpling it and straightening
it out again.
The next time you encounter that claim, point them to this thread....
Good point. FR has 50,000 editors. How many do YOU have Blather?
There is some discussion on whether AFM 35-13 was the proper document to use.
The document located at:
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003652.php
references para 2-10 and 2-29a AFM 35-13.
This appears to be a legitimate reference.
Don't use either technical terms like DNA or fingerprint UNLESS you have these very specific items--or unless you use quote marks to show they are simply being used as metaphorical descriptions. You might also use tracks or traces. A forger might leave "signature" markers or tracks that would be part of a continuing "method of operation", usually shortened to "M.O."
One of the things you are fighting is imprecision or 'errors' in promulgating documents.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12527#c0275
It appears that the PO Box 34567 is for real and also the ZIP code. See the link and view the gif attached at the link for documents by Lt Bush using that PO Box.
BTTT
I believe the default margins in Word are 1 1/4 inch, not 1 1/2 inch.
bflr
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.
