The document "Chronological Listing of Service" where you can find "superscripting" on line two is interesting. Either it is also a forgery designed to show the "gap" in service that the Dems talk about or it was done on a typewriter that could "superscript." Notice the difference between this "superscript" and the purported Killian memos. In this document the superscript is super small and does not extend above the previous character as they do in the purported memos. I wonder if this is not an example of a cut and paste that corrected a mistake? We used to do it by cutting out a portion of a document where the same text was and then photocopying it and shrinking it repeatedly until we got it to a size we needed, then scotch taping in the correction. Then we would photocopy the original and discard it. It is hard to say how this was done. But I don't think it was possible to "reduce" the size of a copy on most copy machines in the early 70s. Any ideas? Notice also the dating format of the last listing. Why would they not follow the format of the previous entries? Since reducing technology was probably not available, in fact, they may not have even had copy machines back then, it is possible that this form is also a forgery that someone has inserted into Bush's file at a time when copy machines were available. Why would they do that? To create a gap in service and then be able to say Bush was AWOL? To create an example of superscript so that it could be used later to certify other documents already created? Who would do that and why did they even need to correct the "th" in the first place? Seems strange. Since we know that someone got into Bush's file according to Burkett, is it possible that the people that he says cleaned the file were not really Republicans? Or was it Burkett himself who created the forged documents and also "cleaned" Bush's file. Who's at the scene of the crime? Burkett. Who is it that is claiming the Bush documents were messed with? Burkett. Maybe he's the one who messed with them. There is another person with an axe to grind as well.
Using MSWord, Prestige Elite Type and with some selective double spaces you can make the last entry look like it was done on a typewriter:
1 Oct 73 HD TR TexANG Per ANGR 36-05, SO ANG-A 158, State of Texas AG Dept, Austin, Tx, and transferred to
ARPC (ORS), 3800 York St, Denver, CO 80205 effective 2 October 1973. (BUS TexANG 1 Oct 73).
Using MSWord, Courier New Type and with some selective double spaces you can also make the last entry look like it was done on a typewriter:
1 Oct 73 HD TR TexANG Per ANGR 36-05, SO ANG-A 158, State of Texas AG Dept, Austin, Tx, and transferred to
ARPC (ORS), 3800 York St, Denver, CO 80205 effective 2 October 1973. (BUS TexANG 1 Oct 73).
Using MSWord, Times New Roman doesn't work:
1 Oct 73 HD TR TexANG Per ANGR 36-05, SO ANG-A 158, State of Texas AG Dept, Austin, Tx, and transferred to
ARPC (ORS), 3800 York St, Denver, CO 80205 effective 2 October 1973. (BUS TexANG 1 Oct 73).
The question then is how would it look if done on a typewriter compared to the entry above? I suspect it might have been courier typeface that was used on the document above and that is not available on my MSWord version but was probably used on many typewriters. I am not an expert, but I think I recall using typewriters with such a font. If these documents were tampered with on a computer, the culprit was much more capable at forgery he may have been the inspiration for the other person that created the CBS memos who didn't know how to make it look like a typewriter and probably didn't know that it was not possible with proportional fonts. FYI, Courier New and Prestige Elite appear to be fixed font MSWord typefaces as you can see. My point is that the Texas files may themselves be forgeries or have been tampered with to some degree in order to create the idea that there was a problem with Bush's service.
Also: http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003652.php
Regarding the CBS Memos: On this site we found the following:
George W. Bush's Military Records
Documents Obtained by Walter Robinson, Martin Heldt and other researchers through the Freedom of Information Act:
Here is the link to the entire page:
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp (It may not be up very long BTW)
among which you find:
1972-1973
*Memorandum from Lt. Col. Killian to Lt. Col. Harris, 2/2/72 (page two): "Update me as soon as possible on flight certifications - specifically Bath and Bush."
*Memorandum from Lt. Col. Killian to Lt. Bush 5/4/72: "You are ordered to report to Commannder, 111th F.I.S. Ellington AFB, no lather than 14 May 1972 to conduct annual physical examination (flight)..."
*Lt. Col. Killian Memo to File 5/19/72: "I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment."
and *Lt. Col. Killian Memorandum for Record, 8/1/72: "...suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (Flight) as ordered...Officer has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical."
Question: If these gentlemen obtained these documents from FOIA procedures, as they indicate, why have they not spoken up? Why not ask them for their documentation proving that they obtained them from the government. If they have no such documentation, perhaps we have come to the end of the trail.