Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance (Wizbang)

IMPORTANT!!! If you are reading this for the first time you need to know that the Hailey report has been through several unannounced revisions. If you read the current version of the report [PDF], the discussion below may seem confusing. The two versions of the Hailey report PDF's addressed in this post are now linked to locally archived versions of the article. To understand the context of this report is important to know what was in, and not in, the Hailey report before and after our discoveries.

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 OpenSecrets.org say the good professor gave John Kerry $250 (thanks Allah)

Update 2: We got word from Charles at LGF that the Globe is backing away from the guy. I wonder why.

Update 3: The Backstory I had this story last night. In fact, I mailed it to James and Steven because it was a case of academic misconduct and they follow that sorta stuff.

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.

VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE

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.

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.]

After figure 5 he has the caption (in bold) then more text.

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.

Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica.

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.

I still have many doubts. Anyone?

Update 7 and potentially the last

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.

Comments (257)

Go through that again in du... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by El Tejon | September 30, 2004 4:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

El Tejon:

Go through that again in dumb english. Sorry man, it is cool, but needs translating. Otherwise, dead center!

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:31

One word: Awesome.<... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by The Hort | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

The Hort:

One word: Awesome.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:32

Um, please explain. I see ... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

meep:

Um, please explain. I see little lines in the top corner, but I don't know what that means.

Yeah, I don't get it.... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 4:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Spoons:

Yeah, I don't get it.

What am I seeing? What does it mean? Is the point that the second th isn't as distorted as the first one?

I'm completely lost.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:34

WOW. What will these people... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by Allan | September 30, 2004 4:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Allan:

WOW. What will these people stop at?

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:37

Pajamahadeen catching forge... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by lawhawk | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

lawhawk:

Pajamahadeen catching forgers morning, noon, and night. Fantastic! Excellent work!

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:39

Nailed him. One o... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by Laurence of the Rats | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Laurence of the Rats:

Nailed him.

One of these days the Left is going to dig up somebody competant to forge their documents.

If you go Hailey's index, y... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Neoluddite | September 30, 2004 4:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Neoluddite:

If you go Hailey's index, you'll see the published file: bush_04_May_72_with_typewri.gif. This is the published image. Also listed is: bush_with_typewri.gif. This is the image BEFORE Hailey pasted in a superscript th. He seems to be forging his forgery defense.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:40

Oh, excellent . . . he is ... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by Chuck Willette | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Chuck Willette:

Oh, excellent . . . he is busted.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:41

Paul - Right on, brother! Y... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by OneDrummer | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

OneDrummer:

Paul - Right on, brother! You are just abso-frickin'-lutely righteous for exposing this lame ass shill.

Maybe we need to find out which mail order campus gave him his PhD as well.

Death to all who oppose the blogosphere. You will be assimilated.....

Still doesn't 'prove' anyth... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by Beth Donovan | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Beth Donovan:

Still doesn't 'prove' anything - no one 'knows' where the documents came from - anyone could have created them. That's the thing - there is no paper trail that verifies those so-called documents ever existed before someone got the idea to try to screw Bush.
And really, more importantly, who the hell cares, outside of a bunch of moronic Dimocrats and Newspeople who can't stand the idea of a Republican President?
If the Boston Globe and CBS are still expending time and energy on this craziness, I would suggest that their stockholders should start selling the damn stock.
I'll shut up now.

He forged the 2nd th by usi... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by Lanny | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Lanny:

He forged the 2nd th by using Photoshop to erase the old th and overlayed the new th on top of the old th.

Now he can use another title after his PhD salutation "Caught in 24 hrs"

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:42

Bless OpenSecrets.org Must... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by JohnQPublic | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

JohnQPublic:

Bless OpenSecrets.org Must be a lot of money ($250) for a Utah English Professor.

HAILEY, DAVID
RICHMOND,UT 84333
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY/ASSOCIATE PRO
5/25/2004
$250
Kerry, John

see link on update (-ed)

Offhand, I'd say the line o... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

ubu:

Offhand, I'd say the line over the "th" (which is oddly sharp compared to the rest of the document) was formed by doing a cut and paste to lower the superscript, but he didn't catch the top of the "t." Had he zoomed in to take a closer look, he'd have realized the cut was faulty.

That's my guess anyway.

Ho. Lee. Etc.Now I... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Ho. Lee. Etc.

Now I see it. Whoa.

Reminds me of a time when I had to explain permissions on files to someone who had left up some very interesting emails for the world to see... I learned how to anonymous email that day.

Still, was pre-emption a good idea? These people may actually learn something in this process, and as Laurence says, someone who can actually forge convincingly may come out of this process.

But man oh man. Good work.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:43

The th in the second line w... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by Faith+1 | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Faith+1:

The th in the second line was photshopped in. In the original there was no th "typed" in (probably because there is no way to do so on a typewriter he was using).

So he photoshopped the th in and claimed he did it on a typewriter--when he didn't.

For crying out loud. How ca... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by Voice of Reason | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Voice of Reason:

For crying out loud. How can people do this and not expect to get caught?

Dr. Hailey, what do you have to say for yourself? And why, man, why? The story was just about dead. CBS succeeded in waiting the storm out, and nobody's talking about it anymore. Now you revive it, and possibly permanently damage your career in the process. What were you thinking?

The downloaded Photoshop im... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by arb | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

arb:

The downloaded Photoshop image shows the document's second line illustrated above withOUT a superscript "th." I believe this shows that the good professor used Photoshop to add said "th" to his doc, confirming it to the Wizzer as being a fake.

arb

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:45

Hey, this reminds me of Pro... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by Mark James | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Mark James:

Hey, this reminds me of Professor Michael Bellesiles, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America. His research was a total fraud!
http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/bellesiles.html

Add my voice to the "dumb i... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by Bob | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Bob:

Add my voice to the "dumb it down for us" crowd. I am looking at two lines of texts, one with fuzzy TH superscript and one with a clear one. The clear one has some lines next to it. OK, so what does any of that mean?

I also do not have Photoshop, so I can't see what kind of damning evidence is in the PSD file. I have Photoshop on my home computer and frequently use it to scan things in (since I can use 32-bit color and adjust levels better than the scanner can), so I certainly wouldn't make anything of it if it is just a PSD file with an allegedly scanned typewriter document in it, as that in itself proves nothing. But maybe if I could see the document, I'd see clear signs of forgery-in-progress...so maybe you could explain what that would be for those of us without Photoshop access.

Thanks.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:46

good work! i checked out t... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by chris | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

chris:

good work! i checked out the open web folder and there's a lot of stuff there. anything else incriminating? i have a friend on the faculty at USU and i'll ask him if he knows anything about this guy.

looks like a good case for a professional ethics violation.

Wonder how fast the Boston ... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by Brian | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Brian:

Wonder how fast the Boston Globe is stopping the presses.

WOW now that was some fast ... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

WOW now that was some fast responses... Ok I was close on the "cut and paste" but I was thinking about lowering the original and using a sharpen filter. Duh, he put an entirely new "th" in and failed to cover the old one entirely.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:47

The 2nd superscripted 'th' ... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by Jim Patrick | September 30, 2004 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jim Patrick:

The 2nd superscripted 'th' has been added later. It doesn't have the edge pixelation the letters on either side have. It looks "clearer" than the set of letters it was supposedly typed along with.

This is caused by forgery; admittedly a better forgery than the original see-BS forgery (which was totally outrageous) but a poor forgery still.

Posted on September 30, 2004 16:48

You know when you're at the... (Below threshold)

Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance

TrackBack

Comments (257)