• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Topic: Wow.. Forgery!

  1. #1

    Wow.. Forgery!

    sponsored links

    Eric Doggett
    MoonDog Media

  2. #2

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    And the republicans are the ones accused of doing anything to win this election.

    Here is the "original" memo
    (Notice it uses the Times New Roman font which was not available in Gov't typewriters in 1973. ALso notice the superscript "th" which simply could not be done on typwriters in that time period).

    Here is the same memo typed using DEFAULT values in Microsoft Word.
    (Notice how the default word wrap spaces match exactly...wow...what a coincidence)

    Here are the two memos superimposed:

    WAY TO GO CBS AND 60 MINUTES!!!!! I am sure it will be a cold day in hell before they issue a retraction and an appology to Pres. Bush.

    Combine this with the complete media fabrication from a partisan hack at the AP that Bush supporters "Booed" former Pres. Clinton at a Bush Rally when Pres. Bush wished him well and states that Bush "did nothing to stop them". Combine that with the media cutting off Cheney's speech to Bush supporters early and taking it out of context to make it seem like he said a vote for Kerry was a vote to ensure another terrorist attack.

    What we have here are three great examples of not only the liberal bias in the media trying to make Bush look bad and do whatever they can to win this election for Kerry...but of the complete and utter desperation of the left...who see this whole thing slipping away from them before their very eyes.
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  3. #3

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    hahaha very good!
    Eric Doggett
    MoonDog Media

  4. #4

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    Oh, but don't you know? The major corporate media is nothing but lapdogs for the Bush administration! Oh, and I have a bridge I want to sell you too, BTW.

  5. #5

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    This memo is weird for many reasons. First, I've never heard of "Memo to file", nor would an officer normally put "CYA" in the title. If you're going to cover your @ss, you wouldn't come right out and say it. I know because I've written a few "Memos for Record" to cover my own butt.

    The really weird part is that they refer to Bush by surname only, which is only common when the name is so recognizable that it cannot be misconstrued to mean someone else (ie when the man is the President). Notice that they didn't even include the rank. I would expect a real military memo to include at least one reference to full name (first and last) and rank.

    Moreover, the memo doesn't speak to any particulars of the OER. If Bush was not there, how could they possibly rate his performance? I'm mainly familiar with current OERs (now referred to as OPRs) which have something like 18 lines or so that have to be filled in with bullets describing what the officer did during the rating period and the outcome that resulted from that peformance. Who rates and backdating are immaterial if you don't have any bullets to put in the blocks.

    I read that the giveaway is the superscript "th" in "187th" Fighter Wing. Typewriters back then did not have superscript capability.


  6. #6
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Out of my Mind

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    Wow! Someone IS forging documents! Hmmm...

    Here are the real ones:

    Don't trust just the right wing blogs ladies.
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  7. #7

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    I guess we'll have to see what "60 Minutes" uses.

  8. #8

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    Got to love "Developing Stories".
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  9. #9

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!

    Forgery - Hah... SMALL change for the Puke_'N_Rebuke politics of the left.

  10. #10

    Re: Wow.. Forgery!


    So you're saying that someone is posting fake copies of the originals, and then claiming the originals are fake, and using an analysis of the fakes to back up the claim?

    In any case, I'm curious as to where the copies of the documents came from? Were they posted somewhere? Did CBS post the originals on their site?

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts