Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

[Gemma13]

Kevin created a Gofundme on 13 November 2018 to help with the documentary and then made a support video which he tweeted on 4 March. So far he has 527 of 10,000 pounds.

https://www.gofundme.com/thekevinmooreshowdocumentaries

@1:05 he says the Mark Richards and Channelling documentary will be free "by the look of it".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A43e9uTbi_w

[geofffxdwg]

Posted by Joe (here)
That’s interesting regarding your info about funding for the documentary and that the funding came in August or September. Because I asked Kevin last November where the funding came from and he said it was funded by money left over from the channeling documentary.

Who is the person funding the film and what motivations do they have, and what influence or say do they have in the production?

Posted by Joe (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
oh sorry Joe I got you to mixed up - man your question was long - what are you trying to asking me in a shorter version ?

No worries. My post was in general about what motivated you to make this documentary. You started out making the documentary I think called “They Call Us Channelers”, then at some point focused on this Mark Richards documentary instead. So why the switch to this topic.

And then my second question was with regards to the funding of this project, where did the money come from for making this film. It is no doubt expensive for traveling and shooting, coordinating, and editing, etc. Are you in communication with any of the major funders of this project, what if any input or suggestions have they made?

Thanks for your input!

Kevin’s response - post 272 on this thread:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1257688

My channeling one is being edited and I had some money left over from the channeling documentary and no I didn't care about what the donors from the channeling doc thought and were the rest of the money went even through it went towards the Mark Richards one - I did not care - Mark Richards needed exposing ASAP FOR MR BALDWIN ____YEAHHHHH TEAM BALDWIN - if he was a pedo well thats so bad but I no were and how this idea come from.......all will be in the doc

I will not disclose who lent Kevin the money for the documentary nor their motivations as I do not know their true motivations other than discernment. I have no problems with the person that gave Kevin the loan and will respect their wishes to remain anonymous. I assure everyone it was not any type of Government agency ect. You will just have to take my word for it.

As for their influence, apparently they don't have much influence at all other than to get the truth out about who Mark Richards really is and to get the documentary finished and released. The documentary should have been released last October but Moore decided to ride his gravy train another year.

[Bill Ryan]

Jo Ann Richards has asked for this to be posted, in response to Kevin Moore's most recent video.

~~~

Kevin released another 'update' about his nasty documentary and I finally said something. I've attached my list of numerous points about how he is off the mark with his information and methods. If you would be so kind, please post it to your Forum. Hopefully it will clear up a few issues for now.

My comments on Kevin Moore’s YouTube update dated 4-19-19.

I would like to comment about several things that Kevin has reported to all of you:

1. The family home in Marin: Mark inherited it from his mom. Since he's incarcerated, it has to be held in trust for him. I became one of the trustees before we were married; hence, the use of my maiden name. Since we are married, I can't do anything to the house without Mark's permission since CA is a community property state. I work very hard and cover all the expenses of maintaining this property: repairs, upkeep, property taxes, utilities, etc. I am not living 'the gravy train' as Kevin puts it.

2. Mark's mom died peacefully in her Marin home, although Kevin would have you believe that she died in a trashy single-wide trailer park in Central CA. Yes, we suggested that Lois move there (we didn't force her) as I was her only means of visiting Mark at that time; she was no longer driving. She lived in a lovely double-wide mobile home in a nice senior park; nothing trashy about it. I was able to take her often to see him. When he was transferred to a Southern Calif. prison, I moved with her back to the Marin home to help care for her.

3. In Oct. 2018, Kevin got into a New Mexico conference where I was speaking. Before the conference, he was refused permission to attend by the conference organizer. He snuck into my talk, illegally filmed part of it, and then heckled me during Q&A. He made a scene trying to convince the audience that Mark and I are liars. They did not appreciate it. He left, with hotel security making sure he did, and I filed a police report. His main question was about Mark's timeline, esp. the date of his high school graduation. He was convinced that it was 1972 which would then throw off all other dates we've mentioned.

4. Mark graduated from high school in June 1971. I have proof of that. Mark has just sent to me additional proof as well - prison documents that verify his high school graduation and five college degrees. I will post these documents soon on my blogsite. I should also soon have their verification of his military career. If they can find it, why can't Kevin?

5. I would like to point out that Mark's friends in the 70s and early 80s did not know of his military activities because he was not allowed to tell them. That is how one was to protect their family and friends. So, just because ex-wife Caryn didn't know the real reason why he would be gone for weeks at a time does not mean that he wasn't in the military.

6. Just because ex-wife Caryn did not have children with Mark does not mean that Mark has no children. Kevin has already underhandedly tried contacting some of them. Thankfully, they knew better than to talk to him. Kevin tried to imply to Caryn that Mark cheated on her while they were married - not true at all.

7. Kevin has also contacted some of Mark's prison inmate friends and associates. One man, a science fiction writer was duped by Kevin who led him to believe that he wanted to talk to him about his writing. After a while on the phone, Kevin started talking about Mark. That was the real purpose of getting the guy to call Kevin. What I would like all of you to think about is this: how did Kevin get those names? Names of friends and associates are not public record. Yes, once you have the names, you can find out their inmate number and the prison where they are, but not their housing information. Someone had to provide that information to Kevin.

8. I have all the court documents, too, and all the reports from police interviews. When the time is right, I shall point out flaws in what Kevin has been reported.

9. My purpose for speaking in the UFO community has been to share information about the military history behind UFOs, aliens, and space. It's to educate people about little-known history about a cool topic. I'm not doing it to make my husband famous. It certainly has not been a get-out-of-jail ticket. It has certainly not made me rich.

10. I am not trying to deceive anyone. Most people appreciate the information that I share. I don't expect everyone to believe it and they don't. Our point has always been to people - try to disprove it, and they can't. Kevin says he has evidence. Bring it on. All I see so far is discussions with people who knew Mark, but didn't know about his military work; plus, the discussions with researchers who don't know us, have never or barely ever talked to me, and yet they have very strong opinions about the issue.

11. Another question for people to ponder: the prison issue aside, what makes our information more unbelievable than others with their abduction and/or MILAB experiences, or the ones who have hybrid children, or those with UFO sightings? Many of those people are my friends and colleagues. Do they have physical proof? If they don't, are they being persecuted? I hope not.

12. Lastly, a comment about Kevin's remarks on Mark's essay about cyber-space trolls. Yes, Mark used info from other articles. Good researchers do that to support their premise. The point of the essay is to point out that Kevin's attack on us is clearly the type of method used by the government or law enforcement to discredit someone and keep them in prison as in Mark's case. If Kevin was so infuriated about poor Richard Baldwin, why didn't he look into it after he interviewed me years ago on his show? His timing is suspicious as Mark is now working on getting a commutation that would allow parole hearings.

No, Kevin, I will not be in your documentary. You do not have my permission to use recordings of our phone conversations. You do not have my permission to use any video footage that you filmed of me when you showed up in CO. You wanted me to believe that you were willing to do a documentary just on the SSP stuff. We know that wasn't true.

If any of the readers want to politely/respectfully converse with me about this, please submit a comment on my blogsite: https://dragonhillnews.wordpress.com.

[norman]

Can anyone here tell me of a case where a serious documentary maker made this much noise in public during the process of making it?

This fishily smells more like a campaign that's using the 'idea' of a documentary like a firearm that never actually has it's trigger pulled, or has no bullets in it.

Shouting and screaming and waving an empty gun at people looks bad, but will we hear the trigger click of an empty gun. And if we do, are we supposed to laugh, or assume he thought it was loaded?

[Jasmyne Emmerick]

Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



It says:

_________________

ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

27 MAY 1969:

Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.

RICHARDS, MARK

***

(Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.

It says:

_________________

ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

27 MAY 1969:

Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.

RICHARDS, MARK

***

(Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)

Does anyone know what Mark was claiming to have been doing at the date listed on this document? 10 Feb 1969..

I looked up what this medal is actually for, and it appears the medal is given by both the Navy and the Marines for people that participated in Vietnam in the intelligence field. And it is awarded for : Meritorious service or achievement in a combat or noncombat situation based on sustained performance of a superlative nature

So it implies that it is given to individuals working in an intelligence capacity in a wartime situation where there is either combat or noncombat happening at the time.

Did Mark suggest that he was in the intelligence field? I don't recall his details ever suggesting that, but rather he places himself in combat situations as a pilot and actual combat soldier.. Not someone gathering and trading intelligence?

I just want to make sure I have that right before I look further

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Joe (here)
I believe the part pertaining to your question is here:

Mark began his military career as a teenager. At age 16 he worked on a top-secret project at Lockheed and was also a consultant in Vietnam. He was a lieutenant during the Vietnam War flying helicopters.

So... according to Mark, in 1969 he was a 16 year old helicopter pilot in Vietnam. I have to admit, I put together a timeline of events from JoAnn’s chronologically incoherent blog post above.

It was so unbelievably seeped in fantasy that I threw it in the trash rather than even post it here on this thread, I was too embarrassed to post it. People really need to move on from this story. Mark is a lying psychopath who will remain in prison for the rest of his life.

He, as many psychopaths do, has snared some intellectually undiscerning people (JoAnn & Kerry) in his web. They have unfortunately given him a platform for attention that pulls in even more gullible people. It is pure fantasy, and it’s exposing some serious emotional and mental disfunction within the ufology field. It will eventually run its course like any other illness.

Kerry has a huge problem with silver tongued charming liers who flatter her with male attention: Sean David Morton, Simon Parks, Michael Tellinger, & Mark Richards. This is nothing new from her, her influence in ufology will continue to wither to irrelevancy as she stubbornly persists.

Thank You for that quote above about what he was doing during that time..

The point of asking the question, was to refocus the attention of the community as a whole.. To SHOW them that he is not being honest.. Rather than to spend a ton of time gossiping about who was "pulled in" by the deceptions. And then begin to bash them merely for their own mistakes.

I like Kerry, and while I do not have a personal relationship with her, I have watched her work for a great number of years and I do appreciate that Bill does know her and he doesn't all all think that Kerry would intentionally commit professional suicide by supporting Mark's claims deliberately. I do not want Kerry to fail because she believes his claims to be truth.. I do not know Jo Anne either, but these are Mark's lie's and our community we are dealing with..

You wrote this, and this is your opinion, and you wrote it nicely, and it was enough said. Everyone else can read it, and note that this may be the case, and form their own conclusions..

"He, as many psychopaths do, has snared some intellectually undiscerning people (JoAnn & Kerry) in his web."

Fair enough.. Now people think that this may be something to watch out for. They can evaluate the evidence.. As it is checked, and presented, and decide for themselves. Yet they're NOT because of all of the fiascos and name calling going on. I find this to be sad on so many levels.

My post was to remind people if we check the facts, they should speak for themselves. Then it isn't our problem if someone else chooses to present it as truth, eventually they will lose their audience, and they will have to figure it out for themselves. It is really that simple. There are polite ways of handling situations..

In a nutshell, what is happening in our community is terrible (in my opinion).. and I would rather be part of the solution, than the problem itself. While we need to self regulate, I think we are doing a poor job of doing it in a manner than helps us just address things and continue forward..

In your own assessment of the situation you yourself have suggested that you believe that Jo Anne and Kerry have been taken in by someone who is mentally ill.. Rather than continue to throw salt on that wound, back that up with some credible evidence that indeed the story "Doesn't line up"... And move along.. (As you did).. Thank you, you get it....And we all move along with you...

Leaving behind those that just can't see it for what it is.. In that sense I agree with you... This could have been done long ago.. And rather than doing it, everyone is waiting for Kevin's video. WE ARE the community. Why wait for Kevin and just get embroiled in that drama? If it isn't happening, and it itself, is becoming it's own circus? Time someone else addresses it.

People will see that evidence, and then realize that it can't be true.. And rather than ATTACK these people that did fall for the lies, you can let them know that you know it isn't true.. And here is the proof... So you can't support their claims. It's really that simple. I thought that is what this site was for..

[Valerie Villars]

Personally, I see evidence of large swaths of B.S.and wasted energy on many fronts of this DRAMA.

In the words of my son, "I hate drama."

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



It says:

_________________

ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

27 MAY 1969:

Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.

RICHARDS, MARK

***

(Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)

~~~

I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?

[Pam]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



It says:

_________________

ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

27 MAY 1969:

Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.

RICHARDS, MARK

***

(Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)

~~~

I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?

I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.

[The Moss Trooper]

Nobody goes straight from civilian street and into 'Special Forces"........... NOBODY.

A 16 year old in an active war zone, without relevant training or experience, is a danger to all around them, in whatever capacity they are said to be there for. Where did he glean his experience that made him so important to be an advisor? An advisor in what field, and in what capacity?

Are we to believe that a teenage Mark Richards had more combat information, or intelligence information than combat intel, or the CIA, or the I-Corp?

If he was military, at all, then he will have a DD 214. This can easily be shown publicly without breaking any security oaths as any attachments to clandestine outfits or regiments (companies) will not be shown. It is THE basic form upon retirement, discharge or separation from ANY and ALL active duty, this should be no problem as, I believe, both Mark and Jo Ann have stated that he was involved in combat.

Jo Ann, for dogs sake, either show the DD 214 or stop with this s**t show.

[Pam]

Posted by The Crimson Horse Blanket (here)
Nobody goes straight from civilian street and into 'Special Forces"........... NOBODY.

A 16 year old in an active war zone, without relevant training or experience, is a danger to all around them, in whatever capacity they are said to be there for. Where did he glean his experience that made him so important to be an advisor? An advisor in what field, and in what capacity?

Are we to believe that a teenage Mark Richards had more combat information, or intelligence information than combat intel, or the CIA, or the I-Corp?

If he was military, at all, then he will have a DD 214. This can easily be shown publicly without breaking any security oaths as any attachments to clandestine outfits or regiments (companies) will not be shown. It is THE basic form upon retirement, discharge or separation from ANY and ALL active duty, this should be no problem as, I believe, both Mark and Jo Ann have stated that he was involved in combat.

Jo Ann, for dogs sake, either show the DD 214 or stop with this s**t show.

Interesting that you should mention the DD 214 form. I had a relative that recently died and wanted to be buried in a military cemetery which required the DD 214. No one could find his military discharge papers so I checked out getting copies of the papers and was surprised to find out just how easy it was for a relative to get copies of this. Jo Ann, being his wife, should be able to provide this document within weeks. They are rather zippy on turn around time because they are needed before the military will accept veterans for burial.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by peterpam (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?

I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.

Yes, many thanks: when you posted that the first time about the enlarged typeface, I'd missed the point.

I reproduced the typeface here, using Courier (not identical, but very similar) with the width compressed at 73%, to see what the font size comparison was.



...and, with exactly the same sized screenshot:



The first line was recreated using font size 32, and the second was 46. That's quite a difference.

It equates to the first being 12 (one standard typewriter font size), and the second being 17. (Or the first being 10, the other standard size, and the second being a little over 14.) These are approximations, of course, but you'll get the idea.

I'm certainly not an expert in typewriters used by the US military in the Vietnam era. But I have to say, I'd be surprised if typewriters with font size 14 or 17 existed. Some research may be needed to see if it's absolutely possible this entire document was created using two (different) real typewriters — as opposed to, of course, the name 'RICHARDS, MARK' being Photoshopped in later at an implausible and accidental larger size.

I'm NOT making any accusation that this the document was created (or re-created) in the modern era. But I do suggest a bit more investigation may be needed if anyone has a bit of time to spare, as this seems like a legitimate document research question.

***

Meanwhile, here's a reply from Jo Ann, as of 13 hours ago. (Note: that means she's not yet addressed the most recent posts here, just earlier ones.)

~~~

To the members...I assure you that I am intelligent and discerning. I've known Mark for 21+ years. I would never have stayed with him this long if I felt like I was being duped.
There seems to be some confusion about the 1969 Vietnam medal and the bio I posted on my blogsite.
For clarification:
Mark went to Vietnam in 1969 as a consultant. I don't know how long he was there. He never said he was chopper pilot at that time.
He served in Vietnam as an Army chopper pilot after high school. He was there for 6 months, starting in the summer of 1972 I believe.
Please remember, I cannot post directly to the Forum. If you want to ask me something, post on my blogsite https://dragonhillnews.wordpress.com...-space-program or email me at ecochicks@edhca.org.
Thanks,
Jo Ann Richards

[Sky Matters]

A lot has unfolded while I have been tracking down petroglyphs in the Southwest. I don't want to get into matters pertaining to Kevin or Geoff. The documentary will eventually speak for itself and I wish well for them both.

There are other Mark Richards - including one who was in the military. Several months ago I submitted a request to the National Archives using Mark's birthdate and the years of claimed service in both the Army and Navy. No records were found. JoAnn has also claimed that all records are classified, but this is hardly an answer to those portions of Marks claims that are subject to verification.

The chronology is important:

1971 - Graduated from high school
1972 - Attended the local community college and was on the honor role.
1973 - Arrested while going to classes in Marin County (fall term) relating to an incident that had occurred during the summer. His future attorney in the Pendragon trial got the charges dismissed, but it demonstrates Mark was very much at home.
1974 - Transferred to Dominican College, where he started a student newspaper, was active in school affairs, and housesat for a professor during summers.
1976 - Graduated as a history major. Announced plans for a movie about Tristan and rented space at a Theological School to start a school of future studies.

This does not leave any room for having been a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and participating in the evacuation of Saigon.

At the height of Mark's claimed career as a space captain, he was editing an Ecotopian magazine and looking for land to pursue his vision. He married, started a business as an unlicensed contractor, and was facing deep financial problems by 1982. There is simply no room for a military career, multiple advanced academic degrees or, for that matter, current membership at the highest levels of the Republican National Committee.

If JoAnn can release a photo of Mark in uniform, correspondence between Mark's father and the Dalai Lama, and airship plans developed by Mark's grandfather, I would be more impressed.

My website - The Story of "Captain Mark Richards" is a work in progress that now includes specific articles related to recent claims and attacks on his trial attorneys. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, then do the attached photos from 1976 and 1978 show Mark as a military officer?

As always I am more than willing to look at anything JoAnn offers or to meet with her at the Dragonhill Research Center. If I am wrong, she should welcome the opportunity to clarify matters.

[Sky Matters]

He served in Vietnam as an Army chopper pilot after high school. He was there for 6 months, starting in the summer of 1972 I believe.

That alone is interesting. A helicopter pilot had to go through two levels of training, similar to boot camp. The accounts of people who went through it make clear it's intensity and length, which was longer than 6 months. Add to that the one year tour of duty and reassignment for the period of enlistment. It was not a summer job.

Mark could not have done that and returned to the College of Marin where he made the honor roll.

As to duty in Vietnam at the age of 16, Mark has previously stated that at that age he was given an Army "operational commission" to consult with the Stanford Research Institute. (Cassidy, 6th Interview.). Although there are separate problems with the, having to do with the dates the SRI programs operated, it is a different story than what is now being claimed.

[geofffxdwg]

Posted by peterpam (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



It says:

_________________

ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

27 MAY 1969:

Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.

RICHARDS, MARK

***

(Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)

~~~

I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?

I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.

Just to clarify Mark Richards has no middle name.

[geofffxdwg]

Posted by Sky Matters (here)
A lot has unfolded while I have been tracking down petroglyphs in the Southwest. I don't want to get into matters pertaining to Kevin or Geoff.

Well, I know for a fact the extremely slanderous post Jennifer made attacking myself and my 3 and 5 year old daughters here was made while Kevin and Jennifer were staying at your home. Furthermore I know Jennifer cannot even tie her own shoes without Kevin's approval when it pertains to this 3 ring Jerry Springer circus Kevin has turned this in to. Kevin gave his approval when the lovely Jennifer Eisner (whom I have never met in my life) posted here in a failed and sad attempt to discredit me. Kevin also laughs at me for attacking my daughters in private on face book.

These are the two people you let into your home. I know you told them some ground rules for your home and I was to understand both you and your wife would not be there either. I have already talked to the police about filing a criminal complaint against both Kevin Moore and Jennifer Eisner for their vicious lies and online harassment and from what I have been told they are crimes.

Your home and your router provided them the opportunity to attack me. I know you would have never condoned these activities. BTW are you aware Kevin Moore secretly recorded your phone call between him and you? If not I'm sure you are aware by now.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by peterpam (here)
I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters?

As someone who was quite familiar with U.S. military documents of that era, I share this doubt.

It is almost beyond my imagination that the clerk typing this up would have had a second, large font, typewriter on his desk, next to his regular typewriter, and would have pulled the form out of one typewriter, into the other, just to type the name RICHARDS, MARK on a fairly routine looking ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS form.

First Lieutenant Paul Jackson
United States Air Force 1970-1974

===

P.S. -- That large font typewriter made remarkably clear and uniform impressions as well ... better than his regular typewriter. The letters of his name are less "blotchy." That was not easy to do on such typewriters.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I'm certainly not an expert in typewriters used by the US military in the Vietnam era. But I have to say, I'd be surprised if typewriters with font size 14 or 17 existed.

Good point.

I suppose such could have been made, but the "basket" of type bars would probably have had to have been larger, as each letter was wider. This would have made for a seriously expensive and custom typewriter ... quite unlikely to be sitting on desk of a U.S. Navy staff clerk.

See right in the middle of the following image for this basket of some 40 or so type bars, each of which has one letter (both upper and lower case) or one pair of a number and a symbol. Almost all the typewriters important parts would have been redesigned and remanufactured to get a significantly larger font. I don't recall ever seeing such a typewriter.

Here's a close-up of the basket, in which you can see that the little blocks of metal with the letters are quite closely spaced. There would be no option to put a larger font on an ordinary typewriter.

Notice above that the keys on the keyboard are directly in line with the corresponding bar with those numbers and symbols. You can see the black upside down top row keys for the numbers and corresponding symbols, at the top of the above image, such as the 8 and apostrophe ('), or the 7 and the ampersand (&), and you can see the corresponding type bar for them, right side up, directly in line below their corresponding keys. A wider basket would have required connecting the keys to the left and right side type bars at increasingly large angles, as the basket would have been wider than the keyboard. This would have been an engineering challenge to design and manufacture. I seriously doubt any such "big font" typewriters were ever produced on a scale suitable for the volume of a military contract that would place such typewriters on the desk of many clerks.

===

P.S. -- I also worked as a repair technician for Friden for four years in the 1970's. I was not repairing Friden typewriters, such as below, but the guys next to me were.