Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Goose] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Ah Ollie North, the last bastion of Republican political integrity"

Yes, of course, let's not bother with the facts, let's just talk about what a scumbag Ollie North is...

Keep wavin' that white flag, Goose...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you want to read the page out of the Navy Awards Manual, I'll be glad to give you a website--http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/two.pdf --where you can download it. The Silver Star is ONLY given out in combat situations, unlike the Bronze Star which can be earned in both combat and non-combat situations. Therefore, awarding of the Combat "V" (actually called the "Combat Distinguishing Device") for the Silver Star would be superfluous--much as would be putting it on the MOH or Navy Cross. If you read the instruction, you will note that the SS does NOT have a section discussing the CDD, while the BS does. It (wearing the CDD on the SS) has NEVER been authorized. End of story.
Last edited by: tri_bri2: Sep 10, 04 19:52
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"It (wearing the CDD on the SS) has NEVER been authorized. End of story. "

You've taken a page directly out of the "Cousin Elwood manual on being right all the time." No I don't need your help with the Navy Awards Manual, I've read it. I also know that most guys don't check the manual for every award they write, and I also know that things like the details of award writing tend to get passed over during war. The Navy Awards Manual does not say that you can not give the Combat "V" with the Silver Star, it just doesn't say that you can give it. Also, even if you take that to mean it's not supposed to happen, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that it might not have happened due to an oversight completely outside of Sen Kerry's control or influence. Lastly, I haven't seen anywhere on Sen Kerry's website where the Combat "V" is mentioned in association with the Silver Star. It's not on the citation, or in the paragraphs mentioning the award. It's also not mentioned on the SVBT site that I could find. So what's the deal?

Also, if you're going to tell me that something has "never" been authorized, you really ought to do better than to give me the link to an undated pdf of a manual from a site that is dated Jan 2002.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Last edited by: slowguy: Sep 10, 04 20:36
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"No I don't need your help with the Navy Awards Manual, I've read it."

Are you an attorney? A politician? Your answers sure read like one of those two.

Interestingly, it looks like Kerry has fixed the error on his website, the Combat V was there ten days ago. Purely coincidence, I'm sure, just like he's now admitted (or his spokesmouths have) that his first PH was bogus, but you still think three in 90 days is an everyday occurance.

Some time back, I asked you a simple question, which you've never answered, so let me ask it again:

If you had to bet on it, and the amount was something you couldn't afford to lose, which side would you take, 3 legit PHs, or a scam? C'mon, you're basically an honest guy, but you hate to admit an error. Just this once, admit that you find the 3 PHs in 90 days somewhat hard to swallow.

And what's this with Kerry claiming TWO tours of duty in Nam? Is a tour of duty 45 days? Did he leave and come back?


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
-----
Top is a copy of the alleged document, bottom is the reproduction. See any differences? Neither did I.
-----

Compare the first character pairing of the documents (the "18").

Huge difference. The tracking is way off on the typed document but is perfect on the Word document.

Look how high the superscript is on the Word document. Notice how it is level with the top of the top of capital letters in the typed document?
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [SOUP!] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Get out of my head, man. No wonder Tibbs confused you for me. You're a genius! hahaha

As a trained print tech and journalismo I see big differences between those two texts. The bowed text in "SUBJECT", the multiple different "m" looks. That is stuff you can't do in Word. In Quark or InDesign or something other print layout package, yeah, but not in Word.

But the superscript doesn't line up with the top of the CAPS, though, no typewriter was like that either, the superscripts were designed to move a little above, though not as much as in word processing machines and modern text applications like Word. Not hard to do

There are maybe 17 billion print utilities in the world and the counter experts choose Microsoft Word? What planet am I on where someone would try to trick a major media organization uses Microsoft Word? And where does he get a World-compatible printer that prints slanted upwards right to left?

This might be faked, but it is almost too lame looking to be forged. I could make a more realistic forgery in 20 minutes. I would use a damned typewriter and flake some chopped-up pencil lead onto the ribbon (or into the ink well, whatever you're using) to make it look dirty and/or old. And I'm an idiot. Either these documents are real or we have some of the most inept forgers of all time.

You could do proportional fonts, superscripts and swirly punctuation using typewriters a long time before the early '70s. We've got some old equipment in the bowels of the CMA (even a working linotype, pimp ass) and Monday I'll dig around to see if I can check out some old IBM Selectrics or something. Though I would bet Cousin Elwood's virginity on it without even double-checking.

Also (and correct me if I am wrong) didn't the CBS document expert determine their veracity using handwriting analysis on the signatures that appear above each page? That is a far more exact science than jerking off over Internet .pdf versions of scanned and multiple-copied typewriter pages.

And also, is it the least bit controversial that Bush got into his squad because of connections? Is it difficult to believe that political pressure could've been exerted to make sure he got through with nice looking reports even if he wasn't Audie Murphy?

This is kind of like attacking the source on something you know is already likely. Do not look behind the curtain! :)
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I wasn't actually responding to you. I know you can't help yourself, but bI stopped arguing with you over this issue for a reason. You have zero ability to look at any argument from more than one persepctive, and you are convinced that you are right, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is either misled, stupid, or lazy. It doesn't matter if you are proven to be wrong.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"You have zero ability to look at any argument from more than one persepctive..."

Actually, I see the other side, I just don't feel a need to join the amen chorus of major media sticking up for Kerry.

Meanwhile, speaking of guys who won't give an inch, you're still not ready to admit that 3 PHs in 90 days is highly improbable? ALL of the combat vets I've talked to (I don't know if you've been there, so maybe it's all but you) say it's absolutely impossible. C'mon, buddy, meet me halfway...

And I saw where you lost your cool with SOUP the other day. You see, it can happen to even you (although you didn't go off like I did, it was comforting to see that even you have your limits.)


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [adamb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"But the superscript doesn't line up with the top of the CAPS, though, no typewriter was like that either,"
- - Typewriters (some fancy ones) could raise a superscript, but NONE could make the smaller letters. That alone makes this a computer generated document. The fact that some of the alignment seems off doesn't surprise me as I've seen computers that will do that, and the document has been photocopied almost to death, which can skew things as well.

"is it the least bit controversial that Bush got into his squad because of connections"
- - Nope, same thing Gore did to get his cushy gig. I'd be willing to bet that every son of a politician (Dim or pubbie) got the kid glove treatment.

"I could make a more realistic forgery in 20 minutes."
- - Ditto. My guess is this was somebody's freelance brain-fart and an overenthusiastic Dan Rather picked it up and ran with it because he wanted it to be true. The guy's credibility is zero. He should stick to doing opinion pieces and STOP slanting the news.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"And I saw where you lost your cool with SOUP the other day. You see, it can happen to even you"

Yes, I lost my cool when SOUP suggested that US Foreign pollicy was to have soldiers rape little boys. I don't actually feel all that bad about my reaction to that.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First of all, let me add that I have been a USN employee for the past 25 years, and for 5 of those years the awards branch of a large headquarters, serving over 50,000 military personnel, was under my direct supervision. So I know a little bit about awards. If someone ever authorized the wearing of the CDD on a Silver Star, they were WRONG! Since the Silver Star gets approved at the SECNAV level, where the awards people know what they are doing, I doubt that it ever happened. We had award nominations kicked back from SECNAV routinely because they are picky, VERY picky, about what goes on them. They go over them with a fine-toothed comb. And, as far as the Awards Manual is concerned, if it doesn't say something IS allowed, then it ISN'T.


Second, as I have stated before, I was a USMC active duty officer from 1976 to 1979. During this period, right after Vietnam, there were a lot of Marine officers I met who had the Siver Star. None of them had the "V" on there. I was also my squadron's Assistant Admin Officer for some time--again, supervising an awards section.

So question my integrity and knowledge if you must, but give me your bona fides on this subject and we can compare.

As far as Kerry wearing it or not, I don't know whether he has or hasn't. I am just trying to give you (all) the straight scoop with no political spin on what is/isn't authorized in wearing of the award.

Here is what I think happened afetr reviewing the documents. If you will look at the section on wearing the CDD in the Navy Awards Manual, it does say that the citation MUST specifically state that the CDD is authorized. Neither of the two SS citations I saw on Kerry's website contained that specific language. However, his DD214, signed by a Ltjg AdminO type, says that he IS authorized the SS with the Combat "V." Probably an administrative error by whoever typed up the DD214. So, Kerry reads the DD214 and thinks--Hey, it's authorized (even though it's not). BUT--and this is a big BUT, under military regulations, THE WEARER is the one responsible for proper display of awards. So, it is still Kerry's responsibility to straighten out any error. Just as it was for ADM Boorda who was wearing the CDD on a BS because he "thought" it was authorized, but wasn't.
Last edited by: tri_bri2: Sep 11, 04 12:31
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
-------
Typewriters (some fancy ones) could raise a superscript, but NONE could make the smaller letters.
-------

Grab an IBM Selectric from the mid-60s onward and have a look. Those things were everywhere and they did superscripts and proproritonal fonts. There are even other Bush records from the NG with superscripts.

You are wrong, just wrong. I'm not going to argue my whole life away with you, but you don't seem to have any idea of what you are talking about. You are regurgitating what you've read on some right-wing blogs or something. I have some amount of training in this field and I will say the only intelligent thing an "expert" could say looking at some freaking Internet copies, "It could be a forgery, it could be genuine, there is no way of telling either way without the originals."

The content of the letters is uncontroversial anyway. This is all smokescreen to keep the issues hidden.
Last edited by: SOUP!: Sep 11, 04 12:13
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fighter Squadrons don't have PO boxes.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Yes, I lost my cool when SOUP suggested that US Foreign pollicy was to have soldiers rape little boys. I don't actually feel all that bad about my reaction to that."

No reason why you should. Sometimes it's appropriate to call a dick a dick. I just found it interesting to note that you could be goaded to that level. Makes me feel like you're normal!!

I know, my threshold is much lower. That's because I'm older than you, and more crotchity. I'm a curmudgeon in training, on may way to becoming a bitter old bastard. Hey, the job openings are out there...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [SOUP!] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Grab an IBM Selectric from the mid-60s onward and have a look. Those things were everywhere and they did superscripts and proproritonal fonts. There are even other Bush records from the NG with superscripts.
- - Moron! I HAD A SELECTRIC IN THE LATE 60s. They didn't have any small characters on them. They just didn't.

"You are wrong, just wrong. I'm not going to argue my whole life away with you"
- - Please don't. A couple of bloggers have offered $10,000 to anyone who can replicate the CBS memo on a typewriter. If you can do it, go get 'em.

"but you don't seem to have any idea of what you are talking about."
- - Not only was I using a typewriter in that era, I was also in the printing business. So what I know about type fonts and typesetting you'd need twenty years to learn.

Like slowguy says, you're a dick!!


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"So question my integrity and knowledge if you must"

First of all, I never questioned your integrity. You need to be a little less sensitive. Second, I have no problem saying that Sen Kerry should have checked out his awards and made sure they were good to go. I haven't seen him wearing them, or advertising the CDD, but that's not to say he didn't. My point is that the common argument on this forum is "I've never seen it or heard of it, therefore it never has happened," or "No one I've talked to has ever heard of it, so it never happened." I agree that if I read the manual while working in SECNAVs office, I would interpret it to mean the CDD wasn't supposed to be given with the Silver Star, because it would be redundant. However, that doesn't mean that someone didn't give it to Sen Kerry, and that he didn't think it was ok. Mention of it on a DD214 or by Sen Kerry isn't evidence of some sort of grand conspiracy started when he was 25, aimed at getting him elected to the presidency 30 years later. So who really cares? What does it have to do with the election, and why does it keep getting brought up? And, why do people who don't have the experience that you do, feel free to speak authoritatively about the issue?

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [adamb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Adam, no fighter squadron uses PO boxes. All Guard and USAF bases are set up on street addresses. Any mail sent from one officer to another would go from one squadron orderly room to another using street addresses. It is unshakable fact that squadron officers do not use PO boxes for official papers. The address is a fraud.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Another thing I just noticed. The letterhead would have the wing and the base in it. Pull out the Quill and Ink and take a look.

What I am not getting is why is anyone surprised? A news show got fooled, big deal. If this were Fox I would put money that SOUP! would be screaming it was a fake.

You know what the real story is? If real or fake...


NOBODY GIVES A SHIT!!! I sure as hell don't.

Bush used daddy to get in the guard and learned to fly jets and got an honorable discharge. Kerry did go to Vietnam did inflate his medal count with questionable accounts but was legally given his awards and his honorable discharge. Both served. Both did some shady stuff. Both got honorable discharges. So in the end want to know what all this means?

NOTHING! NO ONE GIVES A SHIT!

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Last edited by: Mr. Tibbs: Sep 11, 04 16:31
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very true Tibbs, but at least when one is elected and the economy is still in the toilet, the US continues to deal with a terrorist threat, and Florida dissappears under a ceaseless deluge of hurricanes we can say...Kerry / Bush served their country and that will make all the difference...or not.
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [SOUP!] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Grab an IBM Selectric from the mid-60s onward and have a look. Those things were everywhere and they did superscripts and proproritonal fonts. There are even other Bush records from the NG with superscripts."
- - Your ignorance astound me. I already told you, hot dog, I HAD A SELECTRIC in the 60s. They could print superscript as raised letters, but in the same type size, because the type balls only had one size on them.

"You are wrong, just wrong. I'm not going to argue my whole life away with you, but you don't seem to have any idea of what you are talking about. You are regurgitating what you've read on some right-wing blogs or something."
- - Read my lips you smiveling little jerk: I HAD A SELECTRIC IN THE EARLY 60s. I believe you were attached by the lips to your mothers nipple back then, so shut up and try to learn something.

"I have some amount of training in this field"
- - No you don't. You're making that up, and it isn't even remotely plausible.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Relax Elwood I have already proven the letter was a fraud.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Casey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It looks like Hagel/Mcain GOP ticket in '08.

I'm really hoping for a major political realignment by then.

Hopefully the Isreali spy scandal (among other things) will bring an end to the Neo con, Christian doomsdayer era of the GOP.

I am looking forward to 2008, hopefully we can get an administration with integrity in office.
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Relax Elwood I have already proven the letter was a fraud."

Yes, I believe you have. Not that anyone on the Kerry side is willing to concede...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: GW Bush NOT taking a beating on FORGED documents! [YabYum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I am looking forward to 2008, hopefully we can get an administration with integrity in office."

Don't hold your breath!


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply

Prev Next