To: AmishDude
I still keep coming back to the point that the PO Box is 34567. Couldn't they have come up with something more original?
To: DarthDilbert
I sometimes wonder if the DUmmies were right and this was a plant just to embarass Rather. Like some FReeper wanted to see how far this would go. It's either the case that Rather was duped by a clever hoaxer who wanted to show up Rather or an idiotic hoaxer who wanted to show up Bush.
23 posted on
09/12/2004 2:45:59 AM PDT by
AmishDude
(This post not approved by the Ravingnutter Sanitarium.)
To: DarthDilbert
I still keep coming back to the point that the PO Box is 34567. Couldn't they have come up with something more original? There are about 25 things wrong with the memo, but this isn't one of them-- the PO Box is 100% legit. Numerous threads on this point from a couple of days ago. (On the other hand, it was still almost unheard of to USE a PO Box in a military document rather than the physical address.)
34 posted on
09/12/2004 4:10:52 AM PDT by
NYS_Eric
To: DarthDilbert
I still keep coming back to the point that the PO Box is 34567. Couldn't they have come up with something more original? Was that really the PO? Hasnt anyone checked out whether that WAS the actual PO used for the TANG at that time. By the way, since when do military services use PO's and not APO's and/or the like? But I digress. This should be a relatively easy fact to check out.
1) Is this PO on any actual "known" docs (e.g. docs KNOWN to be authentic) and
2)If not (that's awful enough) but are the other Letterheads on those TANG docs as perfectly centered as the one from CBS?
This bothers me, too. A typewriter (e.g. a person who was type- writing) would have done an awaful lot of math to produce that result. So there should have been pre-printed letterhead that ALL docs were written on and, if so, all TANG docs at the time should match up.
61 posted on
09/12/2004 5:10:58 AM PDT by
N. Beaujon
(sera@ix.netcom.com)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson