SwiftVets.com

[SBD]

I have found something interesting in John Kerry's "Official Record Copy" documents. There are about 6 PDF's that have "file://D:/viewDocument.html" dated 3-10-2004. This means that the document was created from a web browser and the viewDocument.html page.

If the document was from an actual original, there is no reason to put it into an HTML page to convert it to a PDF. The "file://D:/viewDocument.html" shows up because whoever made the document did not remove the Header and Footer settings located under file-->Page Setup in Internet Explorer.

Link to Pages in Question.
http://server1.reelectbushin2004.com/docfile/JohnKerryMilitaryRecords-1.pdf
http://server1.reelectbushin2004.com/docfile/JohnKerryMilitaryRecords-2.pdf

It's possible that they used a background image for transparency purposes that had the "Official Record Copy".
I made one of the CBS docs using this background as an illustration.
Here is the HTML page
http://server1.reelectbushin2004.com/DocumentView.html

Here is the PDF produced
http://server1.reelectbushin2004.com/DocumentPages.pdf

This is a link to the Lehman Bronze Star Citation from John Kerry's website before and after it was altered.
http://idexer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56&highlight=bronze+star

I would be interested to know if anyone can explain the reason for the HTML to PDF conversion.

SBD

[Becky]

How interesting! I would like to know the answer myself.
I never noticed that until you pointed it out.

[lrb111]

[tvaughan]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

The campaign has been superimposing all those "official copies" labels.

That is fascinating. Why would they do that? Why would they need offial documents to look more "official"?
_________________
Talking point #1: Sign 180
Talking point #2: Sign 180
Talking point #3: Sign 180

[Skypilot]

Suspects???



On The Trail Of The Forger
I'd planned on sitting on this information until tomorrow to do more research, but developments are moving fast, so I think it's time to shine some light on one of the most likely suspects behind the CBS memo forgery.

Marty Heldt (or someone known to him)

Why? Three recent developments.

Development #1

The previous article at Wizbang notes that USA Today independently obtained copies of the memo's that CBS had six weeks ago. Interestingly enough they had six memos (as opposed to CBS's four), and it's the first of those that is the first plank in identifying the forger. The first of the new memos is shown below:


View Full Size Image

Notice that this memo attempts to lay the groundwork for subsequent memos. In making the case for forgery it presents difficulties because the other name (Bath) is redacted in the version of Administrative Order 87 the White House released [View image].

A forger relying on the records released by the White House wouldn't know Bath's name making it unlikely that they would have been able to recreate this document. There is one man, an Iowa farmer named Marty Heldt bent advancing the theory that George W. Bush's was a deserter who was in possession of an unredacted version of Administrative Order 87 (All the way back in August 2000), as received in response to a FOIA request [View image]. Notice that James Bath's name is NOT redacted in the FOIA copy (paragraphs 6 and 7).

Development #2

In January 2004, former Democratic political consultant Brooks Gregory identified Marty Heldt as peddling a bogus set of documents that Gregory had easily proved were forgeries. The original thread is here, but the relevant paragraph is shown below:

When all of this crap began back in 1999, I was a political consultant for several Democratic candidates, as well as later being a senior consultant for Janet Reno in her run for Governor. I bought the document package from Marty Heldt and we subjected them to the most thorough investigation one could imagine. Why? Because if there was anything there, we damn sure wanted to use it. But guess what? Only two of those documents proved to be authentic and they were not even related to the charge being levelled. Many of them are so blatant in their alterations it is almost funny. Several purport to be signed by real live military personnel, yet they don't even know the proper format for a military date.
I'm attempting to get the same set of memos the Gregory claims to have received from Heldt, but circumstantially the trail of evidence leads directly to one person who fits the shadowy description of "unimpeachable." From the time-lines it is possible that Heldt was selling a set of documents before he had received his FOIA requested documents.

Another person who was in contact with Marty about the authenticity of his documents in 2000 has this to say about the CBS documents:

The memos are forgeries. The story is bogus. The memo were done on a modern word processor or computer, and not on 1970's era typewriter.

I have the same evidence I used to discredit Marty Heldt in 2000. It is almost comical some of the obvious alterations and these documents came from the exact same place.

Just one little item. The address PO Box 34567, is a bit dubious, and that's what tipped me off back then. I talked to Marty Heldt about that. His answer was that this was Killians home address. So, I decided to check. This address was, at the time shown on the document, unassigned. Further, the address was a po box at the main post office in Houston, Texas. The zip code was for a small town in Texas, Genoa, Texas that did NOT have po boxes.

From, there, I went on to prove the document titled "Chronological" had been altered, and done by someone that had no idea what a military date format looked like.

That took me about 3 days after which, Marty stopped communicating with me. I think I know who dummied up all of these documents but I can't prove it. But I just have this feeling that if the culprit is ever found out, he will come from a small town outside of Boston, Mass. And I'm not talking about John Kerry either.


Development #3

Who do Salon and David Brock's Media Matters trot out as their rebuttal witness against the forgery charges? None other than "independent researcher" Marty Heldt.

Conclusion

It's a circumstantial case at this point, but Heldt (or someone known to him) is looking pretty good. There's more information on the way on this story, but new tips and leads are always welcome.

Update: The PO box argument, as presented in the quoted text, is not conclusive. It's been shot down here, and here. It's only presented in the context of this article to give an accurate account of the comments found.

Update 2: Heldt is certainly not the only suspect. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard member and the person who claims to have witnessed shredding of Bush's Guard records is also high on the list. Tim Blair, Ace of Spades, and JustOneMinute all have more on the Burkett angle.

Interestingly Heldt and Burkett, were they to have worked together, would have had the insider knowledge; background in the minutia of the official documents; and the technical skills necessary to have made a pretty convincing set of memos.
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003652.php




Full text relating to development #2

This is part that these jerks don't seem to understand. Just how many
individual, honest, hardworking true American GIs are involved in signing
off on ones' discharge. It is a disgrace that anyone would slander those
guys just to try to make someone think they got bought off in order to give
some fellow they would only know as a serial number an Honorable Discharge.

These jerks should be ignored for the shameless bastards they are. They are
traitorous, treasonous bastards that have no bearing on what true Americans
believe.

When all of this crap began back in 1999, I was a political consultant for
several Democratic candidates, as well as later being a senior consultant
for Janet Reno in her run for Governor. I bought the document package from
Marty Heldt and we subjected them to the most thorough investigation one
could imagine. Why? Because if there was anything there, we damn sure wanted
to use it. But guess what? Only two of those documents proved to be
authentic and they were not even related to the charge being levelled. Many
of them are so blatant in their alterations it is almost funny. Several
purport to be signed by real live military personnel, yet they don't even
know the proper format for a military date.

These jerks push this kind of crap because they are worthless and know it,
suffering a guilt complex because of their own failures and just plain
ignorant of the ways of military affairs. They hurt us Democrats in the last
cycle because it just made it look like we would lie and cheat and commit
fraud and anything else it took to get our people elected. Voters are
smarter than that.

So, I say, don't worry about it. It failed last time around and it will
again. Slandering those guys that put their lives on the line to do that
which they swear an oath to do, "obey the orders of their Commander in
Chief" has never worked, and never will.


--
In politics, it's a very simple concept.
If you don't vote, you don't count.

Brooks Gregory

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hqRRb.6819198%24Id.1110093%40news.easynews.com&output=gplain
_________________
Please Mr. Kerry Sign Form #180 Now!
Let the truth set you free? NOT!

[Stevie]

I'm not seeing this... I pulled up those sites...maybe my computer is to slow for me to actually see it....
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged.

[Stevie]

oh my goodness!!!! I saw !!!! I pulled up the html one again and saw the body of the doc show up...... and then the 'official doc....'
wow! I don't know how they could do that??? I would think they would just put an 'overlay' on the citation prior to scanning it.... but then it would show up as one.....

[Absolut]

Just playing devil advocate here... but

Could it be because that's how they handle scanning of documents now? Without blowing this all of out proportion, might this be the method to giving official copies of documents in the Navy these days? Anyone care to jump in and let us know?

</devil

[lrb111]

[FF1047]

notice how the OFFICIAL RECORD COPY gets cut off at the margin ... if this was photocopied onto paper with that watermark it would go all the way to the edge of the paper ... (I think ...)
_________________
JJC
USNA class of 1980

[jalexson]

I've never attempted to change a .pdt document, but I suspect that an .html document would be easier to change, such as adding a "V" to a silver star. I notice that the link on other threads to the after action report on the silver star incident is .html rather than .pdf so possibly Navy is releasing documents in .html and Kerry changed documents to make them look more official.

All the more reason for the need to get all Kerry, or Bush, related documents directly from the Navy instead of from the Kerry campaign or some unidentified sources.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain

[SBD]

Documents released under FOIA to Judicial Watch have no "Official Record Copy" on them. In addition, the Bronze Star Citation signed by John Lehman clearly does not have the "Official Record Copy" on it as stated in my earlier post. It was added recently to give it more of an "official" flavor.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/navykerryresponse.pdf

SBD

[Wing Wiper]

That brings up the question of whether or not overlaying a statement stating "Official Record Copy" is akin to falsifying an offical government document. Are we sure the copy on Kerry's Web site is an actual, exact copy of the one in the Navy files? I would imagine so, but they have done so many stupid things up to this point, you really have to wonder. This guy just never ceases to add gingerbread to everything around him, does he? What a runaway ego.