Jackie Singh / Jacqueline Singh / Jacqueline Anne Stokes / Jax / @find_evil / HackingButLegal / @HackingButLegal / piggytomlinson - Cybersecurity "expert," wannabe journoscum, former "hacker"; gunt guards Patrick Tomlinson, currently picking a fight with ONA Forums, GNAA Groupie

[Osama Bin Laden]

From the OnA site:

Alleged Mental status evaluation from Army:
View attachment 6937173

thumbnail for the love of god

 

[Spunt]

Was she going by "Singh" in 2004?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Reminder that Jackie is still infinitely more qualified to talk about military actions that Patrick ever will be.

 

[Ace888Ace]

Seems authentic to me, in my humble opionion:

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

What is, in essence, a psych report? That feels like someone's flying very close to the sun on this one, real or fake.

Agreed. This is quickly becoming an icarian situation.

If it's a fake, it's a damn good one, because there really is a Dr. Scott Uithol, MD, Psychiatrist, in the Army medical corps.

 

[Alabaster Disaster]

This confirms too many of my priors to be real (I'm tarded)

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

X PASSIVE
X AGGRESSIVE

huehuehuehue

 

[Mikoyan]

Agreed. This is quickly becoming an icarian situation.

If it's a fake, it's a damn good one, because there really is a Dr. Scott Uithol, MD, Psychiatrist, in the Army medical corps.

Yes on all. There's also no surface details here that indicate fake.

The one thing about the doc is he was a minor but important player in the Abu Ghraib scandal so while it's easy to verify he was 'of that era and discipline' it is also a name that is easy to come up with if you're trying to make something plausible.

I hesitate to post that to not give Jackie ideas to discredit the document (because it would be perfect leftie-bait) but it's so easily googlable that it's not giving anything away.

 

[BoomerPrime]

I think she lives in the middle of Puerto Rico. If she shifts her weight significantly to the coast, the island will tip over.

I know it's not Guam, but someone alert Hank Johnson.

 

[Vect]

Well that turned out to be a sliding scale.

 

[Ace888Ace]

Yes on all. There's also no surface details here that indicate fake.

I'm far from an expert in the matter, but the several spelling mistakes beyond the one I pointed out surely damage its authenticity, no? If this a regularly used form, why would there be such mistakes? It's not a printing error, but a typing error.

If I had to guess, this is fake, but created by someone who knew a fair bit about the sort of procedure this document describes, sufficient to get the details to stand up to some scrutiny.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

I'm far from an expert in the matter, but the several spelling mistakes beyond the one I pointed out surely damage its authenticity, no? If this a regularly used form, why would there be such mistakes? It's not a printing error, but a typing error.

If I had to guess, this is fake, but created by someone who knew a fair bit about the sort of procedure this document describes, sufficient to get the details to stand up to some scrutiny.

You wouldn't believe how long large organizations will keep using a document that has spelling errors on it. They print 50,000 of them, they aren't going to throw them away for a few spelling errors. You come back in 10 years, you'll find the same spelling errors. But, I do agree, it's possible that is a major giveaway

 

[Mikoyan]

This is a presumably real but model 699-R (same revision but from ca. 2009) taken from a DoD document:


Materially similar, but different in form and without-typos. It could be explained by 'aw crap out of the nutcase forms, hey can you remake this' while in country but that would be irregular and keeps the doubt going for me.

 

[Ace888Ace]

This is a presumably real but model 699-R (same revision but from ca. 2009) taken from a DoD document:
View attachment 6937414

Materially similar, but different in form and without-typos. It could be explained by 'aw crap out of the nutcase forms, hey can you remake this' while in country but that would be irregular and keeps the doubt going for me.

I was just about to upload that myself. You can make the argument that this document is from 2005, which is after the form we're looking at was issued so it may have changed between now and then, but my thinking was that "May 99" in "MEDCOM FORM 699-R MCHO MAY 99" indicates the last date the form was revised, and as such this is what the form should look like. Coming up with an approximation of the form would explain the typos, I feel. If we could find something from (preferably immediately) prior to February 2004, that would be strong evidence for or against.

 

[LikeAStone 2.0]

“We tried but this bitch is beyond our saving.”

 

[Mikoyan]

I was just about to upload that myself. You can make the argument that this document is from 2005, which is after the form we're looking at was issued so it may have changed between now and then, but my thinking was that "May 99" in "MEDCOM FORM 699-R MCHO MAY 99" indicates the last date the form was revised, and as such this is what the form should look like. Coming up with an approximation of the form would explain the typos, I feel.

The date is indeed the form revision. I don't think that accounts for minor printing differences, but content - though since this is an organization that buys said forms by the trainload there's not usually a whole lot.

Another possibility is a system that prints up your needed forms on demand which doesn't seem unlikely. The details on this thing though are pretty good - proper clipboard holes, good signature format (I think), no irresistibly sly references to weight or hand size...

 

[Ace888Ace]

The date is indeed the form revision. I don't think that accounts for minor printing differences, but content - though since this is an organization that buys said forms by the trainload there's not usually a whole lot.

Another possibility is a system that prints up your needed forms on demand which doesn't seem unlikely. The details on this thing though are pretty good - proper clipboard holes, good signature format (I think), no irresistibly sly references to weight or hand size...

The most notable discrepancy between the two forms is the mention of Army Regulation 635-200 in the Remarks section of the one you posted, which is absent in the other version (which is just a blank box). That regulation has been revised twice in the timeframe we really care about, on July 15 2004 and June 6 2005. This might mean the form you posted is genuinely a different one, as the updated regulation might well mandate its inclusion on Form 699-R

While I am interested in determining the authenticity of this, it is insufficient for me to comb through multiple iterations of a particular military regulation to see where it intersects with a particular form. I didn't get that kind of autism, I'm afraid.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I am more interested if this type of form is usually released to the public.
I seems to contain some evaluation information that makes me question if this should be public information.

But the US is weird with private data like that, so I really do not know.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

If it was fake, it would be far more scathing.

If it was real, it would mention how FAT she is.

 

[Mikoyan]

The most notable discrepancy between the two forms is the mention of Army Regulation 635-200 in the Remarks section of the one you posted, which is absent in the other version (which is just a blank box). That regulation has been revised twice in the timeframe we really care about, on July 15 2004 and June 6 2005. This might mean the form you posted is genuinely a different one, as the updated regulation might well mandate its inclusion on Form 699-R

While I am interested in determining the authenticity of this, it is insufficient for me to comb through multiple iterations of a particular military regulation to see where it intersects with a particular form. I didn't get that kind of autism, I'm afraid.

I'd dig into that but the problem is it doesn't matter. If a locally generated form of decent fidelity is fine then it's irrelevant.

I am more interested if this type of form is usually released to the public.
I seems to contain some evaluation information that makes me question if this should be public information.

But the US is weird with private data like that, so I really do not know.

I don't think it is. If you search up this form a bunch you can find some separation proceedings, all of which omit this form but mention it existing.

This would go along with it being essentially private medical data. Thus my first response to it: If it's real whoever obtained it might just be playing with fire.