Killian Signed a Doc with a Different Typeface and Other Diffs One Year Later (FR EXCLUSIVE)

Bush ANG Doc Dump Feb. 2004 ^ | February 14, 2004 | Bush ANG Doc Dump Feb. 2004

[litany_of_lies]

So, I wondered, what does the document dump from six months ago have in it that would support or refute the CBS Killian docs?

I posted a clearly contradictory doc on one of my URLs as a JPEG that all should be able to see.

This is Page 16 of Document 15 listed on a page containing the Bsush-ANG docs that I am not allowed to link to per FR rules (sorry), which is why I had to post it myself (Admin mod, this is public record stuff, so I see no reason why you kill this thread).

On Page 16 of that PDF document is a note, clearly pre-typed (secretary's initials are redacted below where W's signature would have been), where W is asking for discharge and reassignment.

Below the space for W's signature is the space for Kilian's with the indicator "SIGNED."

Note that for starters:

1. the doc is in a traditional courier font.

2. it's signed "JERRY B KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG (line break), Commander" vs. "JERRY B. KILLIAN (line break) Lt. Colonel" on CBS's probable forgeries.

3. the dating style is different (5 Sep 1973 in the USAT doc vs. 01 August 1972 in one of the CBS docs)

Re each item:

1. I'm supposed to believe that Killian's secretary DOWNGRADED to an old-tech typerwriter between August 1972 and Sept. 1973.

2. In a highly regimented environement, I'm supposed to believe that there is such a big difference in how a commanding officer would sign documents.

3. The dating style has been mentioned before, but calling the first of August "01" is, I belive something no one did until computers became widely used and databases started demanding two digits for every date.

I'm sure there are other points to be made here, so have at it.

[litany_of_lies]

This is one more brick in the wall supporting the case that the CBS docs are forgeries (every little bit helps).

NEED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE!:

Could a FReeper please post the JPEG into this thread so all can see (and I don't burn up all of my allowed bandwidth)?

Thanks in advance.

[Josh in PA]

[dalebert]

bump

[dalebert]

bump

[Howlin]

FYI.

[litany_of_lies]

Thanks for jumping on it so quickly.

[VRWCTexan]

I too have been to a site where GWB ANG records are posted -the signature and block for Killian do not match the CBS Hoax - I can e-mail them to someone as a word attachment for posting

[Izzy Dunne]

You just guaranteed his bandwidth will be strangled.

[Rokke]

How do you figure the secretary's initials were redacted? Also, is this memo in proportional type like the fake CBS memo's?

[stockpirate]

No super script in the 111th.

[Josh in PA]

DOH!! I'm a buffoon.


Somebody with power, delete my message..

CRIPES! :(.. sorry.

[AZamericonnie]

Texes? I'm I seeing this correctly?

[oolatec]

Also... compare the redacted info in this document, compared to the May 4th, 1972 redaction... you can actually read the redacted information in the May 4th, 1972 document as I have illustrated here after increasing the brightness... http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

[okie01]

One more nail in the coffin containing Dan Rather's reputation.

RIP, MF.

[isthisnickcool]

This looks more like a real doc to me.

[litany_of_lies]

This memo (now visible) is in an "equal-space" font (older-tech). It's NOT proportional, which is what my point #1 refers to.

[11th_VA]

We're getting closer - check out this thread ...

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

The date really stands out:

6 Sep 73 on the authentic memos

vs

18 August 1973 on the CBS memos

[TexasNative2000]

The memo from Bush is NOT in proportional font. Pick any two words - one above the other - on the page. Note that each letter and space line up exactly with the letter and space above/below it.

"I respectfully" and "and reassignment" from lines 1 and 2 line up precisely - no proportionality.