SwiftVets.com

Mastour · Seaman Recruit Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 32

There are some out there in the MSM and DNC that are already spinning this as an RNC thing or Bush thing. Incredible!!

This to me proves the Kerry camp and those in league with them will do anything, say anything, and discredit anybody to get that freakin blow hard Kerry into office.

I say a prayer everyday for our guy over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hey, there is always a possibility I'll have to take a trip of to Iraq, much to my wifes dismay. I'll do what I must for what I truly believe is a noble cause.

I'm attempting to keep the faith, but you can't keep up with the othersides spin. I'm gonna get sick with all the spinning.
_________________
Everybody has their own truth. The facts are what matter and you can't fudge the facts!

SangRun Hunter · PO1 Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 462 Location: Zinzinnati

Mastour,

I just joined here today, but I knew Kerry from his liberal anti-gun ways being in the NRA for sometime and being a gun owner most of my life.

There are many here who do not want to see that POS get the white house in November.

I have to admit I live in middle America, but the word is spreading and people are starting to read Unfit for Command now that more copies are shipping.

I know only 1 person who will admit they want him to win and she is a big demon-cat koolaid drinker. She thinks the Democratic party is the party of family values for Christ sake!

volosong · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:12 pm Post subject:

Can't remember exactly which thread I read it, but I'll post my comments here as the most appropriate place.

1. The P.O. Box 34567 address:

Turns out that it is real. This address is on one of the docs released by Bush. This is form DD44 (Record of Military Status of Registrant) dated 1 Dec 69 and signed by Personnel Staff Officer Rufus G. Martin, Capt, TexANG. The "FROM" address is:

Commander, 147th Ftr Gp (TEXANG)
P. O. Box 34567, Houston, Tx 77034

The "fake" CBS doc dated 01 August 1972 shows the same address, but for the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron.

(Did the 147th Fighter Group and the 111th Fighter Inceptor Squadron share the same address?)

2. I wondered about the 5000 Longmont #8 address. It turns out that it was Mom and Dad's address. Did George Jr. use dad's address in May of 1972? I know that during my Navy years I used my parent's address.

3. All Bush released docs show his AFSN as FG3244754. ALL of them! One of the "fake" CBS docs (Suspension of Flight status) show his serial number as "3244754FG, i.e., the alphas following the digits instead of the official docs where the digits follow the alphas. Wouldn't the commander of the unit, even if written for his own, private usage, know enough to get the serial numbers in the right order?

- - - - -

Just a couple of random thoughts . . .

neverforget · Vice Admiral Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 875

>>Can someone tell me why there is not a Federal Investigation about this? It is clearly a forgery of Government documents with the intent to commit fraud.<<

There very well may be an investigation. I would hope we wouldn't know about it.

Mastour: I thought you said you were Air Force intelligence, so I don't understand your later reference to working with NCIS. Perhaps I'm confused due to old age? I would have guessed AFSS.
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971

rparrott21 · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:54 pm Post subject:

Hate to let the air out of the balloon, but the documents may be real, found a picture of Col. Killian typewriter.

http://www.coathook.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lino/linotype.gif

Sonar5 · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:56 pm Post subject:

rb325th · Admiral Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 1334

Sonar5, even to my untrained eye the difference in Signatures is blatantly obvious. Notice the K in particular, where the upper angle sweep in opposite directions. One is so off from the other examples it is unreal that any "expert" could call it the same persons writing.
My cursive is very distinct and my signature has gone unchanged in decades. Signatures especialy after the millions of times you sign it, become second nature and with probably monor differences you do it the same way every time.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

vet_supporter · Lt.Jg. Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 114

Hugh Hewitt has posted a couple of e-mails from a computer science professional that states that the documents are forged and that no typewriter could ever kern letters due to the complex nature of the alogrithms.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

This guy apparently was in on the ground floor of computers and word processing back in the '70s.

wally626 · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:15 am Post subject:

The site http://www.selectric.org/selectric/ has a couple examples of selectric type from the 70's versus the May 4th memo.

I looked through the big Selectric Composer manual someone posted, and superscripting was not mentioned except for special numbers when using special technical and scientific letter balls. None of the example typefaces came close to matching the times font either.

I think the Composer could do the memo if the correct type ball was ever produced but I have seen no evidence of one. Also of course it was so complex that no normal office would have one. Just looking through the section on centering text makes me think that a document important enough in normal office correspondence to use that feature would be rare indeed.

Also don't normal government memo file copies have all sorts of junk typed after the Sig. about routing, who typed it and that sort of thing.

Even today they don't let us mere engineers type (print) official memos or letters, only clerk typists are allowed to. Since Killians son has said he didn't type. The normal method would have been to have the clerk type the memo, he would review it then it would be sent along, with a couple of copies being retained for records in various places. I know I do not have an orginal piece of correspondance in my files. They are all copies of the file copies. Even letters from outside get copied and date stamp etc. before I see them.

SangRun Hunter · PO1 Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 462 Location: Zinzinnati

It looks like even CNN is finding fault as well as NBC too as posted on Drudge.

It would be one big ball of fun to see Rather taken down by his own type like Wolves turning on one of the pack.

Personally, I thought Rather was extra arrogant tonight on his story.
_________________
Mad as Hell!

1AD · Lt.Jg. Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 138

Saw Dan on the News. As Sean Hannity predicted he ignored the fact that they (CBS Evening News) had spoken to Killian's wife and daughter and ignored what they had to say about the documents. The wife and daughter doubted their authenticity. Among other things Killian did not have an office at home! Where did the documents come from?

Dan also ignored that the documents "break" as if they were typed on a word processor. Ignored that a sample typed on a processor fits exactly over the "authentic" documents. Ignored that the documents are centered like they would be on a word processor. Dan's expert said the signatures were authentic but he ignored the other evidence showing they were done on a processor. Ignored the proportionality spacing. Ignored the kerning.

On Fox the person speaking to Jim Angle said Staudt was gone so why would Killian worry about Staudt. The descriptive acronym for the unit was not correct.

However, Dan did say that one document released by Bush did show the superscript. Can anyone find that document? As far as that document in a prior post there is no date so when was it done??? For the run for governor, Congress, 2000, when? Saw the entire page of an official document. The superscript is not the same as on the 04 May 1972 memorandum. I know we are all on the same side but we all need to know what document Dan used. And as we all agree Dan ignored other facts unfavorable to him. Again, an old lawyers trick. Highlight the favorable, i.e., his experts statements, give passing lip service, if any to the unfavorable. Set up straw men and knock them down. Same thing they tried to do with Kerry's exploits. Then declare victory. Not so fast Mr. Rather

We cannot let Dan get away with this.

MACVJOE · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:46 am Post subject:

Just did a Google on Walter Staudt Ref on 73 Memo. He was BG in Texas Air Guard. He retired in 1972. Not only is there a problem with signatures, and font sytle capabilities. The signature block is in wrong position. Signature blocks were left justified. Just looked at Bush files, no documents from Texas Guard unit had superscript.
Wonder who Dan the man is taking the fall for?
_________________
Retired 86 Army
MACV Upper Delta 68-69

Mona · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:52 am Post subject:

Instapundit links to ABC news, and Maj. Gerneral Hodges is repudiating what CBS said about his having endorsed the content of the memos, says he was misled, and he declares his belief that the documents are computer generated frauds. ABC link here:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
_________________
--Mona--

SangRun Hunter · PO1 Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 462 Location: Zinzinnati

I think all these question are going to compound on CBS by tomorrow evening. It will be interesting to see what spin they use to justify their mistake.

It's so good to see the internet community invetigating this 6 ways from Sunday.
_________________
Mad as Hell!

GT · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 90

One of the memos says "Subject: CYA". I'm wondering when the slang term CYA was first put into common use as a familiar term. I don't remember people using it in 1972-73, the dates these memos were written. Does anyone know?