Posted on 09/10/2004 3:24:24 AM PDT by The Bandit
Would appear some democrat by the name of coldfeet has made very similar documents as those CBS used. Notice the use use of the superscript in the below sample document. A article on Bush AWOL on democrat.com that was written in 2000 links to it (a href=http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157>Click Here.)
Let me paste a background quote from the page here:
As Marty Heldt points out in TomPaine.com, a document entitled "Military Biography of George Walker Bush" shows that Bush was subsequently assigned to headquarters in Denver from October 2, 1973 to November 21, 1974. He concludes that Bush was "punished" with 6 months of additional inactive duty beyond his original scheduled termination on May 26, 1974.
Perhaps some freepers can give this a close examination to see if they are the same fonts (I would but I am brain dead at this hour.)
hey bandit,
when was this document supposedly created??
Must been 2000 since the document that links to it is from 2000. How can I fix that link now that it is posted?
Irrelevant. It has already been proven the bogus documents correspond to all word spacing, wrapping, and font rules used by Microsoft Word.
As a close inspection note, yes, it looks similar. However, examine it in relation to "o" and "t" (ot) letter combinations, it does not sandwich (kearn?) the letters into empty spaces like the word processed documents were.
This document is NOT from 1972. It is a summary of GWB's war record typed much later.
No one said superscripts did not exist at all back then - they said they weren't available on common typewriters typically found in a local Guard base. A doc like this would have been more likely generated by the Air Force.
Yes, I know. Its a retype by an insane liberal desperately trying to cling to a fantasy world.
I'm explaining why the documents are absolute fakes and could never ever be replicated by common typewriter.
The FOIA reference indicates it is recent.
The flawlessly centered heading would have been a pain (possible, but undesireable to do) with a typewriter - but trivial with a word processor.
The frequency of boldface indicates recent creation. 30 years ago on a typewriter, boldface was either double-struck (making it darker, or wider in one dimension, but not wider in both dimensions as is the case here) or done with a different type ball (a hassle to swap, and certainly not swapped as often as used in this short document). Underlining or capitalization would be used instead.
This is a fixed-width font (except the superscripts).
So there is nothing interesting here.
How many typewriters have bold print??? Your posted document has bold print in selected locations.
Oh, yeah. Duh on me.
I dug out my husband's orginal DD-214, and everything he kept in a special folder from his active duty during the same time period.
The type is totally different from what you show.
And he served a lot longer than Kerry. Four years, not four months.
FYI it's "kern".
Hey wait a minite guys, maybe this isn't such a cold lead after all. Look at the guy's other documents:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
Might be something there that will provide a clue to the author of the fakes (MAYBE.)
Obviously this fellow coldfeet and his so-called FOIA document dump is a fraud.
Looking at Kerry's recommendation for his bronze star, in the commentary part, there is a place where it says PFC-51 1st LT Jim Rassman.....there is no subscript at work in that document. If the Navy used such a typewriter as this, I would suspect the AF used the same thing.
FYI, notice that the document says that it was released pursuant to the FOIA. This means that Bush had signed his SF180 before this document was even produced. Ergo, it is circa 2004, not circa 1972
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.