Please read all the updates
The blogosphere is abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. who might have proven the CBS documents are legit.
The Boston Globe is so excited they are getting ready to run with it.
I hope they do. [Content removed - see this correction]
And I have the goods.
He attempted to copy Charles' work of reproducing the document on a typewriter. Supposedly, the top line is the CBS memo and the bottom line a 1970's era typewriter. But there was a problem... (He later said it was not typed. read the pdf and you decide what he said)
First download the pdf his analysis. Then go to page 8 and zoom in on the "th" at 400% you'll see...
As they sing on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."
UPDATE I viewed the pdf on screen and it was obviously a forgery. Spoons says he could not see it so I rerasterized it as saved it as a jpg. I think it is clearer. If you doubt me, like everything in the blogosphere, follow the links. (/update)
Here is a hint for the good Professor-- If you are going to forge documents DON'T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver. [Ed - Most of the content previously available through this link is now gone.]
And if you don't think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery.
Not only did he forge the document but he let the work in progress in an open web folder.
And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.
Did you think we were stupid?
Update 2: We got word from Charles at LGF that the Globe is backing away from the guy. I wonder why.
I asked them to hold it because I was calling the head of his department in the morning. It was not etched in stone that I was going to blog this. I called the head of his department and he was a very nice gentleman. He looked at the pdf and agreed it did not look right but said he did not have the expertise to say it was a fraud.
He asked me to make the case for academic misconduct and mail it to him. I told him he would get it Monday morning. Once I saw the Globe was considering running the story and that Charles and Allah had links to it, I knew someone would bust the guy so I may as well do it.
In other words DSA... Not in your wildest freaking dreams. (ROFLMAO at closed circuit humor ;-)
--Some people tried to cast doubt on my story. I investigated immediately and the good professor only dug himself deeper. --
Update 4: One of the commenters noted that the pdf version was updated about 1pm TODAY. I have no idea if the guy knows he's famous, so I don't know if he was trying to cover his tracks or if he just just still working on the forgery (er document). If he was trying to cover something he did a bad job as the bogus TH is still plainly clear.
The pdf has been modified (as noted in update 4) with additional language explaining the figure. He calls it both figure 4 and figure 5 so there is some confusion there. HE NOW CLAIMS THE BOTTOM LINE WAS NOT TYPED.
At this point it is probably safe to assume his department head called him and he was trying to fix things. I'm in the process of seeing if his explanation is credible. If so, I'll trumpet it. But so far, I'm very, very dubious.
Update 5 He is now doing more editing. Fixing sloppy work or digging in deeper? Jury still out. But keep an eye on the html version. If he makes the case, you'll hear it here first.
Update 6: As I've noted in the comments, we're working getting the original pdf uploaded. I can't upload via web interface so I mailed it to Kevin who will FTP it up.
In the mean time, here's the text. That whole part about not misunderstanding figure 4 was NOT in the original. The original has figure 4 then verbatim:
Figure 4. Washington Post analysis of criticisms advanced by "document experts." Their criticism is that the type is proportional, the superscript "th" is consistent with word processing software and not consistent with mechanical technologies of the time. Some experts are certain that the font used is Times New Roman, probably unavailable on typewriters at the time, and certainly not used by the military at the time.After figure 5 he has the caption (in bold) then more text.
The critical arguments of the above document experts are both spurious and uninformed. The ability of the military to produce the proportional text with a superscript "th" with a typewriter is beyond question. [it is? -ed] The only real questions are "is this Times New Roman or similarly contemporary, digital font," and, "is the typing mechanical or digital?"
Working on the hypothesis that this is Typewriter, and was typed on a machine, I am able to exactly reproduce a Bush memo (Figure 4). [editors note he means figure 5.]
Figure 5. The above is an example of a bush memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice. Note that the match is exact.IMPORTANT: Even if you accept that he never meant to imply he physically typed it, he just worded it poorly in the original, WHY DID HE HAVE TO PASTE IN THE TH? If it were so easy to replicate, why not do it? IF he had to paste it in, it is still a forgery.
Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica.
I still have many doubts. Anyone?
The professors now says:
I was able to establish the font family based on the best examples of each character. I was able to recreate most of the defining characteristics using a font called "ITC American Typewriter Condensed." Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family.ITC is International Typeface Corporation.
You can see the font he claims he uses at ITCFONTS.COM
Look down and to the right and you will see "View full character set"
There is no superscript "th" in that font. You have to make it on a computer. That's why he pasted it in!
And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if he produced it on a computer how exactly does that help his case???
We are left with thinking he is either a forger or incomprehensibly dumb. All things considered, I'd admit to stretching the truth before I'd own up to being this dumb. But that's just me.
One more... Sorry for delay... original pdf file here.
Update 8: Some say they did not understand this post as it was too cryptic. If so, read Dr. Hailey Redux.