"What's The Typeface, Kenneth?"

400 North Capitol Street | DC Newsie

[nutmeg]

bttt

[Robert A Cook PE]

Got two fixes there:

Bush DID live on 5000 5000 Longmont, but had moved several years BEFORE the memo was supposedly typed up. #8 (?)

Box 34567 is legit, if you check other real records for the Sqd.

Add:

Other (legitimate) letters and documents ALL used "111th F.I.S." in regular fonts with standard letters.

"GRP" is a odd, non-standard abbreviation for Gp (which the other documents DID use!), but the writer typed NLT and then wrote Not Later Than - which is a standard abbreviation and DOESN'T have to be explained to anybody receiving orders.

Killian, a senior fighter pilot, could not type.

Private memos about the personal records of other officers could not be removed from the office files and "stored" at home, as CBS claims they were.

No plausible reason for copy-of-a-copy-of-copy-of-a-copy duplication. CBS should have been able to get the orignal, since they claim that it was received rom the files directly.

Centering of three lines in the header is EXACTLY in the middle of the page in proportional font: which is impossible for a non-typist to do with the varying points' width of each letter in proportional fonts.

[Robert A Cook PE]

PLease add this quote also: From a fellow Freeper research.

AFI36-2605

This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.

Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.

From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.

Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:

A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).

B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.

So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.

[Libertina]

"Just bought it all, hook, line and sinker stinker."