This site has discouraged 99% of witnesses/insiders from ever coming forward. It certaintly didnt go well for Chavez, it wont for them either.

Nobody would ever believe them anyway (not even the 911 truth community), and they would be the subject of ridicule from both sides ( 911 truth, and skeptics), in addition to losing their job, and livelyhood....

...dont expect anymore "whistle blowers". There isnt an outlet for them to come forward about what they've witnessed.

In the weeks prior to 9/11/06 the hit counter at the bottom of this page began to tell a very interesting story. On a daily basis, this weblog peaked at about 30,000 hits per day. Since the "Lauro Chavez" story was introduced here by "dz" last Friday, the average daily traffic has diminished by 70% per day from its prior peak.

I've been avidly seeking out fresh information about 9/11 Truth since November, 2001. There have been few websites or periods when I've felt actively alienated from the 9/11 Truth effort. The past few days at 9/11 Blogger have been a "Night of the Living Dead" for me. And I'm one of those who have stuck it out to this point, in spite of this dreadful and disingenuous "Lauro Chavez" fraud.

As the statistics indicate, somehow this blog has managed to lose 70% of its readership in two weeks. That's a very strong indictment of the editorial leadership on display here.

It is time for "dz" to distance himself from this fraud and allow the news department here to get back to hard news and real verifiable stories. This "Lauro Chavez" distraction is damaging this website.

> Chavez may have good intentions (or may not),

Do people with "good intentions" need to fake official documents?

> but his whole story doesn't quite ring true, as many previous posters have pointed out. He doesn't offer anything
> new of substance. Probably not worth spending a lot of time on him, in my opinion, although I am curious as to wtf he's trying to accomplish.

Looks like another phony-war-hero-turned-anti-war-protester. How many of these clowns have been outed to date so far?

It should be no problem to get some other info than a piece of paper. Like pay checks, or people testifying about it - only if Chavez wants to go all the way to prove his record, of course.
The sans-serif - serif modifying of the font is as far as i know impossible with PDF unless the font becomes recognized with OCR and is not just a bitmap. In this case, the text is not selectable, the image is rotated by an angle, so it's a plain black&white bitmap.

..

i fully understand that taking an image and downsampling it to a 2 color index will cause pixel noise patterns which may possibly repeat, obviously i weighed that when looking at this document.

obviously you haven't looked at the 'WKS' part very closely, but probably skimmed the image i posted only. you can clearly see the hash pattern behind the W, K, and S, and the hash patterns behind these letters are a direct match to the letters from which they were copied with the dotted field shading.

the examples above, and the possibly dozen more that i didnt bother to point out (i only picked the top 3), go way beyond just pointing out 'some of the letters look alike'.

Anonymous6,

what percentage is "a fair amount of them" for you?

Everbody,

please have a look yourself. No need for extracting a picture "losslessly". No need to have expertise in Photoshop. Acrobat Reader is good enough and does an excellent job in displaying whatever format is used for embedded pictures (being a scanned document, this would be TIFF).

So just take the PDF ( http://www.v911t.org/M/LChavez_214.pdf ), load it into Acrobat Reader 7, and start:

1. Select the "Zoom In" tool and use it.

2. Locate the following form blocks with these strings, typed in with a typewriter font (I presume not with an actual typewriter, or is that likely?):

    5.  -->  "929"
    6.  -->  "00"
    7a. -->  "ENE" 
    7b. -->  "ENE" 
    7b. -->  "000" 
    8a. -->  "MM"
    8b. -->  "LL"
    8b. -->  "33"
    9.  -->  "RR"
    9.  -->  "00"
    9.  -->  "313"
   10.  -->  "000"
   10.  -->  "00"
   11.  -->  "00"   (2 times)
   11.  -->  "ELE"
   11.  -->  "MM"
   11.  -->  "--"   (2 times)
   11.  -->  "//"   (2 times)
   11.  -->  "SYS"
   11.  -->  "ANA"
   11.  -->  "OLLO"
   13.  -->  "//"   (7 times)
   13.  -->  "OO"   (2 times)
   13.  -->  "EFE"  (2 times)
   13.  -->  "S S"
   13.  -->  "BB"
   13.  -->  "MM"
   13.  -->  "OLLO"
   14.  -->  "//"   (7 times)
   14.  -->  "EFE"
   14.  -->  "99"   (2 times)
   14.  -->  "IFI"
   14.  -->  "OLLO"

3. These strings contain identical characters close enough to each other to allow pixel by pixel comparisons. Zoom into these strings as close as possible by 'ribbon-band selecting' the area they're in. (Hint: you'll get magnifications to around 3000% up to 6000%)

4. Count, how often you find to the pixel identical representations of the characters concerned. (Hint: I found three coincidences only, in more than 50 comparisons: in block 11. with "ANA", in block 13. with "MM", and possibly in block 14., "EFE". Do you find more?).

5. Compare above results to what you find in block "14." when you look at the double cases of "1997" and "4WKS".

6. Draw your conclusions. Discuss them here, if you want.

7. Congratulations, you have proofed to yourself that you can be an independent thinker!

Now think again about these points:

1. Typewriter-typed same characters may be more likely to be different pixelwise, because they will already differ on the original paper.

2. Computer-created documents will show close-to perfect pixelwise matching of identical characters on screen only, and only if the font size is not too small.

3. A computer-created document will already show small deviations on any paper printout (more so on crappy printers).

4. A scanned and digitized paper document from point 3. will show even more deviations (especially if it is not scanned with strictly horizontal/vertical orientation, but scewed as in this case).

5. My guess is that the PDF is the result of a scan with 300 dots per inch (based on the spacing of the individual pixels)..

5. We can not assume the typewriter-typedin block content of same characters have been identically on the original paper (due to mechanical variations) and should expect quite a lot of non-identical pixelization of same characters.

6. But we can safely assume that the DD214 form itself is a computer-created document, printed on a high-quality laser printer (these forms are used in rather large quantities).

7. So do the same comparisons to equal characters which are part of the form (the ones with non-typewriter font). You'll find lots of deviations in the scanned/pixelized image of same characters.

8. Even more so should you expect a difference of 4 consecutive characters like "4WKS", no?

(To me, these identical "1997" and "4WKS" pixel patterns look highly suspicious. Plus, the obviously crammed-in "1" into "14WKS" is even hurting the left edge of the "4". If Lauro Chavez didn't create the PDF himself, but received it from the military, he should ask them why they are handing out "photoshopped" documents, which are even invalid for official purposes [see the missing block 22 signature].)

Question: how are these DD214 documents typically finalized in real military life, nowadays? Are their contents filled in on a computer with a typewriter font (I assume), or with a real typewriter (I'd rather think the U.S. military is more technologically advanced)?

or "faked", which means that there exists an unaltered copy that is somewhat different. So Chavez might have been in the army - good! If the Sept.2001 timeframe is eliminated however...err....then that's too much to take his statements seriously.

In crude terms, it seems that someone has used the rectangular marquee tool to paste a "1" just before the "4".

Unfortunately (for the forger), there was not enough room to fit it in, so part of the slash got obliterated too. The result is you can see a square white outline around the "1".

i didn't understand a word you just said

BCS, I just have to point out that your analysis is pretty ignorant, in that it uses faulty methodologies.

One does not use lossy JPEG to conduct such analysis, one uses lossless PNG, BMP, or TIFF. Using a lossy format will produce an inexact copy.

Second, if one wants to extract the image from the PDF, then click on the small button right next to the right side of the button in the Adobe Reader that says "Select Text", then click on "Select Image", then click on the page. Right-click and select "Copy Image to Clipboard". Now paste the image into an image editor and save it in a lossless format.

____________
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

> Why is everyone jumping so quickly to discredit his story?

Ever consider that some of us have been in the Armed Forces ourselves, know how they work, and recognize patent BULLSHIT when we see/hear/read it?

Have you ever spent a DAY in the military? I spent 6 years in the Air Force, both on active duty and reserves, and have over 2500 hours flying time as a crewmember on C-141B's. I don't make ANY claims about expertise with Special Forces types (except some of them used to jump out of the back of our airplanes), but I do know SOMETHING about how military transports are deployed, and I can tell you this much: the Air Force doesn't send C-5's in to land on fields controlled by enemy forces, nor can some ground-pounder sitting in a windowless box inside a 350-ton jumbo transport tell if he is coming under small arms fire. I also know that people who are stationed overseas have such duty reflected on their DD214's, as well as any medals or commendations awarded for being in a particular theatre of applications. And NO, unlike the crap you heard about John Kerry, you don't "put in" for medals unless you're a shameless gedunk collector. They are "awarded" to you, and appear in your records as soon as the personnel folks receive copies of the orders authorizing the awards. The bit about being able to look over somebody's shoulder and read "top secret" orders is laughable, since anyone who has handled classified documents (Sandy Berger possibly excepted) knows that there's a particular protocol for handling classified info. This stuff isn't handed out like the base newspaper so that others can read it: it's made available under controlled conditions on a "need to know" basis...

Chavez has already blown his wad and exposed himself as a liar and a fraud. I'm sorry that you're way too ignorant to realize that, but better that other people know so they don't get sucked into the same crap.

I am fast losing respect for Alex Jones. Yesterday Sept 28th, he has Lauro on, talks about his termination. AJ's interviews are mostly him on self indulgent rants. AJ makes obvious references to 9/11 blogger without actually mentioning it, attacking the vetting being done, straw man style, presents his critique for the case for forgery by simply not mentioning it. I noticed that he is now avoiding saying Veterans for 9/11 Truth, crediting Rense with the story. He says he has verified authenticity of the DD 214, yet never mentions the fact that the DD 214 lacks mention of deployment in Afghanistan, and other anomalies mentioned here. He is just not being honest. Three times he mentions the 0400 AM oddity, attacking the weakest criticisms offered here, while avoiding the strongest arguments, just like the 9/11 debunkers tend to do. BTW AJ doesn’t understand what a straw man argument is.

The truth is Lauro’s story is single source, with no proof, and his credentials and his story needed to be flawless, and as of now they are not.

“We landed under fire at Kabul airport, 2 weeks after 9/11?” (paraphrase) Such statements that are false on face, are of real concern to me. Then the DD 214 lacking mention of Afghanistan deployment is very disconcerting. Most people who know the truth don’t misspeak about it. Lauro’s lack of remembering key names is a real concern as well. If someone claimed that the reason scrambles are not taking place was because NORAD was stood down, I would never forget his name.

Lauro’s, and AJ’s inability, and apparent lack of effort to somehow identify this person is amazing to me. I want to know what AJ is doing to find out who this NORAD Stood Down guy is. If we would want to indict, or question someone, what name would we put on the subpoena? We need to name names.

Alfons v911t

Actually, blacking out the SSN is a commonly accepted practice when releasing such forms to the public, so I would give him a pass on that one. There are plenty enough discrepancies elsewhere on the form (and between it and his story) to prove that Lauro Chavez isn't giving us a straight story.

I did some additional research on Domin-8. Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions LLC was organized by Richard Oster, 8025 Excelsior Dr., Suite 200, Madison, WI 53717. Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions LLC was organized in May 2002 under the laws of the State of Maryland.

According to the State of Maryland's on-line "State Department of Assessments and Taxation Certificate of Status System," Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions LLC "is Not in Good Standing."

"LJ" Chavez claims that he was employed by a company that is not in good standing. This makes me wonder about his standing. Is LJ really what he has claimed to be?