Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dates on dubious documents likely wrong
9/10/2004 | train152

Posted on 09/10/2004 6:44:47 PM PDT by train152

I was in the Air Force and now am in the Air National Guard. Looking back at official documents from the late 1980s that I have from the Air Force, I can conclude that the font is definitely different in that period. It appears that Arial was the font of choice.

"Tongue and Quill" is book that is used by the Air Force to prescribe formats and methods for producing official documents. I would expect that Lt. Col. Killian would have ascribed to this book. Most telling on these documents, save the superscript, is the date format. 01 August 1972 on the fake would have been 01 AUG 72 on an original. The military didn't concern itself with the century part of the year until the Y2K scare and the widespread use of computer databases required such.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bush; cbs; fakedocuments; forgery; killian; rathergate; selectricgate

1 posted on 09/10/2004 6:44:48 PM PDT by train152
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: train152

You are quite correct! BUMP!


2 posted on 09/10/2004 6:55:28 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: train152

IIRC: The standard type used was Courier 12, not Arial.


3 posted on 09/10/2004 6:59:18 PM PDT by ProxyAccount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProxyAccount

Right on. Ariel is proportional; Courier's not.


4 posted on 09/10/2004 7:01:25 PM PDT by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: train152
The military didn't concern itself with the century part of the year until the Y2K scare and the widespread use of computer databases required such.

Incorrect. I've got orders, promotion warrants, training certificates, et al, dated 19XX.

5 posted on 09/10/2004 7:03:40 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zip

ping


6 posted on 09/10/2004 7:03:53 PM PDT by Mrs Zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Zip

I have to tell you AFR 10-1 was the bible for AF correspondence when I worked for the AF and to this day I still have my copy of Tongue & Quill which was written by a student at the Air Command & Staff College at Maxwell AFB, AL. those are what were used (and still being used for all I know)...and these four documents do not appear to have been written based on either of these two manuels....and I just watched Alan Colmes and he makes me want to puke!


7 posted on 09/10/2004 7:08:20 PM PDT by BamaDi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: train152

According to this article "Tongue and Quill" wasn't available until 1975. You had peaked my curiosity about this and I was just looking to see if it is online. Maybe you know whether or not this is true.

Revised 'Tongue and Quill' now available online

by Carl Bergquist
Air University Public Affairs

8/18/2004 - MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. (AFPN) -- What started as a research paper here nearly 30 years ago has become the Air Force’s leading reference on writing and speaking.

In 1975, then-Air Command and Staff College student Maj. Hank Staley submitted as his research paper the first version of what is now “The Tongue and Quill.”

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008442


8 posted on 09/10/2004 7:23:10 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: train152

I just checked my husband's discharge papers from the National Guard in 1972. And you're right, the dates are written: 18Nov72. Just like that--no space in between.


9 posted on 09/10/2004 7:28:54 PM PDT by spitlana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

Correction:

Courier 10 was the official type in use (State Department used Courier 12), but pica was an alternative (date unknown).


10 posted on 09/10/2004 7:35:45 PM PDT by ProxyAccount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: train152
Re: 01 August 1972 on the fake would have been 01 AUG 72 on an original. The military didn't concern itself with the century part of the year until the Y2K scare and the widespread use of computer databases required such.

Although I think the documents are fake, I cannot agree with this part of your analysis. I have worked for the Army for 39 years and in that time the correspondence rule for dates has been that if the Month is abbreviated then the year is abbreviated. If the month is spelled out, the year is also in long form, i.e,. 01 Aug 72, or 01 August 1972. That's my experience with the Army. Perhaps the Air National Guard has a different rule.
11 posted on 09/10/2004 7:44:14 PM PDT by RexRichard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexRichard

I agree. I'm am confused, however, at why it was written with an "01" for the date.

Don't know what the conventions were in the military back then, but in 21 years in the military I've never seen someone write 01 August...it would be just 1 August 1972.

Any ideas?


12 posted on 09/10/2004 7:50:52 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: train152
I will pull mine and my husband's DD 214 out tomorrow and check to see how it is written. They were both written in the 70's
13 posted on 09/10/2004 10:31:44 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (Another military family for Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson