« For The Kids | Main | Oprah Offers Kerry Flavored Kool-Aid »

Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance

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...

damnth.jpg


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.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance:

» TRYONTHEGLASSES.COM linked with Don't believe everything you read...

» Allah Is In The House linked with http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/001035.html

» Editors in Pajamas linked with Actually, W is for Wizbang!

» How Do You Spell That? linked with Busted

» mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) linked with A forgery used to debunk the forgery debunking

» INDC Journal linked with Wizbang to Hoax Enablers:

» Punic Treachery linked with Caught In The Act

» Ubique Patriam Reminisci linked with We Interrupt Our Regular Programming To Bring You This "Ouch"

» Irreconcilable Musings linked with Preemptive Fact-Checking

» Say Anything linked with CBS Memos Authentic?

» Pacetown linked with Are the CBS forged Docs real?

» resurrectionsong linked with Forging Evidence... (Updated)

» Dean's World linked with A New Forger Working For CBS?

» ISOU linked with I must be getting really good....

» Blog Beach linked with Wizbang's Version of the Prebuttal

» Conservative Revolution linked with Unfuckingbelievable Update 2

» PRESTOPUNDIT -- "It's a team sport, baby!" linked with "THE OTHER SICK MAN"

» Feste...a foolsblog linked with OHMYG*D Curious, and Curiouser

» FrankLog linked with WizBang Busts Another Dem Forger

» The Laughing Wolf linked with CBS Find Bottom, Commences Blasting

» The Shape of Days linked with Wizbang: Fact Checking the Boston Globe

» Patterico's Pontifications linked with (What Might Have Been) Tomorrow's Headline?

» Hud's Blog-O-Rama linked with Busted!

» Whomping Willow linked with Open Memo to That Liberal Media

» TacJammer linked with Another Forgery?

» Outside The Beltway linked with Whole Lotta Forgin' Goin' On

» Grapevine's Ramblings linked with Memo to Potential Forgerers

» bLogicus linked with Interesting Forged Forgery

» The American Mind linked with Alone in the Wilderness

» Chasing the Wind linked with Almost Not Fake Documents

» Houblog linked with Not so fast

» Cabal of Doom linked with If at first you don't succeed...

» bohnsack.com linked with A Fool's Hope

» JunkYardBlog linked with BUUUUSTED

» the diffident spectator linked with Busted in Utah...

» Irreconcilable Musings linked with The Blogosphere in Action - A Followup on Wizbang

» small dead animals linked with Busted

» Mark's Musings linked with Forgery Update

» Jeremy's Jeremiad! linked with Utah State University: Shilling for Kerry?

» Transterrestrial Musings linked with They Never Learn

» INDC Journal linked with Updates

» All AgitProp, all the Time... linked with Wow...

» Winds of Change.NET linked with Rathergate: Sic Transit Hailey

» Daly Thoughts and Dales' Electoral College Breakdown 2004 linked with Nailed

» chrisshort.net linked with Don't Label Paul a Blogger

» ISOU linked with This is a bit disturbing...

» The Prothonotary Warbler linked with Rathergate snags a Professor...

» Who Can Really Say? linked with To Type or To Word Process. That is the Question.

» The American Mind linked with Misleading Memo Report

» Just Some Poor Schmuck linked with More Stupid Professor Tricks

Comments (257)

Go through that again in du... (Below threshold)
El Tejon:

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

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

One word: Awesome.

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

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.

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

WOW. What will these people stop at?

Pajamahadeen catching forge... (Below threshold)

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

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

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)
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.

Oh, excellent . . . he is ... (Below threshold)
Chuck Willette:

Oh, excellent . . . he is busted.

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

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)
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"

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

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)
meep:

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.

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

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)
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

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

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)
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.

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

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)

Wonder how fast the Boston Globe is stopping the presses.

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

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.

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

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

You know when you're at the mall and everyone is staring at one of those hidden 3D pictures of a lighthouse or a three-masted schooner or the space shuttle or something where the whole thing looks like a bunch of squiggly lines until you cross your eyes just right and then BAM it comes into view, except all around you one by one people are saying "Oh, I see it" or "Wow, there it is" except you're just standing there like an idiot staring so hard you feel like you're eyes are just going to shoot out of your head at like a million miles per hour because you just can't figure out what the hell it is everyone else sees and you're going so insane that you're sure you're just about to start punching everyone int heir stupid faces because you think you're either crazy or blind or having a stroke or something?

I feel like that.

You are a GOD!... (Below threshold)

You are a GOD!

Simple explanation: the cut... (Below threshold)

Simple explanation: the cut and pasted the TH into the image of the document to make it look like the TH he created on his typewriter matches the TH from the CBS memo. If you look at the PDF and the PSD files, you can see that the 72 in the date "1972" a few lines above the superscript TH also appears to be pasted in.

Considering the professor's credentials, this lameness does not surprise me - he's a technical writer. We are not known for our mental acuity. At least, I'm not!

Excellent catch on this!

Playing Devils Avocate for ... (Below threshold)
DelphiGuy:

Playing Devils Avocate for a second...

Isn't this guy supposed to be someone who is looking to debunk the documents?

If so, that would probably involve photoshopping around and trying to move elements of documents around to see if they fit. This could be a work in progress, it could be a temporary throwaway image he wasn't planning on using to provide evidence of the authenticity of the documents.

I just think there are a variety of reasons to explain the point you are making, if I think you are making the point I think you are.

I went to Utah State, locat... (Below threshold)
Newt:

I went to Utah State, located DEEP in a very conservative small town. Literally 85% or more of these people are religious, gun-toting, hard-wrking industrious conservative folk who are identified as Republicans. The second you step on to campus, however, they hit you over the head, suck any sense of value and morality from your soul, and begin to indoctinate every wit with their liberal bias. Even in good ol' Logan Utah.

From the doctors paper in t... (Below threshold)
Jim:

From the doctors paper in the parent directory

"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)."

And wiz has the evidence that he was forging them.

People need to start readin... (Below threshold)
-S-:

People need to start reading the visuals more clossely...the guy's headline screams "I'm Left, I'm Left, I'm LEEEFFTTT!"

This is a great job you've done...I downloaded the pdf file for safe keeping but you know, I really anticipate all the other "evidence" to just be gone in the next few minutes. Or, at least, soon. Great job here, really great!

People need to start readin... (Below threshold)
-S-:

People need to start reading the visuals more clossely...the guy's headline screams "I'm Left, I'm Left, I'm LEEEFFTTT!"

This is a great job you've done...I downloaded the pdf file for safe keeping but you know, I really anticipate all the other "evidence" to just be gone in the next few minutes. Or, at least, soon. Great job here, really great!

Look at the two versions of... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Look at the two versions of 1972 just above th. The numbers are obviously different too.

The Bush Doctrine in Action... (Below threshold)

The Bush Doctrine in Action!

I emailed this story to the... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I emailed this story to the USU student newspaper. Maybe it will get some buzz.

Question, we know forging g... (Below threshold)
Chris Bates:

Question, we know forging goverment documents is a felony.

Is forging forged goverment documents to pass them as real documents still a felony ?? If so,
we know who did it this time, unlike the originals.

Just a thought


Next thing you know, CBS/Ke... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Next thing you know, CBS/Kerry will be showing "'Father' Guido Carducci" discussing HIS versions of the, um, "documents."

Then, it'll be Oscar the Cookie Monster. THEN, it'll be Heloise. THEN, there will be...

"one of these things doesn'... (Below threshold)
rorochub:

"one of these things doesn't belong..Can you find which one is not like the other before I finish this song?"...Sorry that song is stuck in my head now.

Here's his email address</p... (Below threshold)
Master Of None:

Here's his email address

dhailey@english.usu.edu

What about the lack of a . ... (Below threshold)
Bryan:

What about the lack of a . after the 2?

I don't get what you are sa... (Below threshold)
Right of Center:

I don't get what you are saying.

The doctor says "Do not misunderstand figure 4. My addition is not typed. It is replicated based on the characters already in the memo."

Doesn't this mean he was using photoshop to move the "type" around? to layout the memo?

Am I missing smoething? Is... (Below threshold)
ctob:

Am I missing smoething? Isn't one missing a period after the two? Seems like a dumb mistake.

The original fakes were bet... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

The original fakes were better than this one.

Just for the record, I don'... (Below threshold)
Spoons:

Just for the record, I don't doubt Paul on this. When 39 people in the room see something, and I don't, I'd have to be crazy or even more arrogant than my wife says I am not to recognize that the odds favor them being right. I just don't understand the argument.

Having never used photoshop, I guess I just don't know what a photoshopped document looks like.

And what's with the "72" mi... (Below threshold)
Tom:

And what's with the "72" missing from the date on one of those, two. It's strange - is he actually saying he cut and pasted chunks from one place and another in Photoshop and moved them around to "recreate" actual typespeak?

I'm confused. He says on p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'm confused. He says on page 8, in the first paragraph, beginning with "Do not misunderstand..." that he put that together with photoshop and a digital Typewriter font. Was that not in the PDF you downloaded?

haha... feel free to contac... (Below threshold)
Me:

haha... feel free to contact this joker...

dhailey@english.usu.edu

http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/index.html

I also had an interesti... (Below threshold)

I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.

Paul, what was the "interesting conversation?"

Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourse... (Below threshold)
Dan (not THAT Dan):

Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourself some nice silk pj's. You deserve 'em!

Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourse... (Below threshold)
Dan (not THAT Dan):

Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourself some nice silk pj's. You deserve 'em!

Zoom to about 1000% and it'... (Below threshold)
Barry:

Zoom to about 1000% and it's much more obvious.

Hey Paul,Were the ... (Below threshold)

Hey Paul,

Were the fake "rape" photos the Globe used on his site, too? Just sayin'...

The superscript sure looks ... (Below threshold)
Bill:

The superscript sure looks pasted in - several times. I'd still like to see a rebuttal by one of the other experts familiar with document analysis. But, even if Dr. Hailey could duplicate these on an IBM Selectric, there wasn't one in that TANG office, was there? Or, is Dr. Hailey implying that the officer who couldn't type typed these documents on a typewriter that wasn't the one used by the secretary in the office who could type?

Incidentally, as the Photos... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Incidentally, as the Photoshop file shows, it's not just the superscripted th that he faked. Many of the NUMBERS were added after the fact as well.

Please make sure to emphasize this. He placed FAR MORE than just a little "th" AFTER THE FACT.

This is a clear case of manufacturing evidence. In the sciences he would be tossed on his ASS for massaging the data to fit the premise.

Case closed, this guy is a goner.

Brilliant! My first visit ... (Below threshold)
Truth Junkie:

Brilliant! My first visit to your Blog (courtesy Charles at LGF) and I am IMPRESSED.

Keep it up.

Idiots! All they had to do... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Idiots! All they had to do was create an HTML file and call it: "index.html"

That would have pretty much taken care of the "security" issue of the webserver being open.

Okay, I'm no expert, but he... (Below threshold)
dino:

Okay, I'm no expert, but he supposedly is...

He wrote...
"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."

Exact?

Not only does it fail to match exactly, but he also failed to type the "exact" same line, more than once, with magical alignment.

He left off the period following the "2" with no proportional spacing difference, good trick. The "2" does not match either... angle, shape, yet somehow none of this affected the spacing of the line. But, like i said.. I'm no expert... someone else can probably explain this. Actually, none of the numbers match, especially the 9, 7, 3, and we'll never know about the 5, since he did not finish typing that line - maybe he was in shock by how badly the 3's matched.

I double checked... he definitely needs to bone up on the meaning of exact...

Main Entry: exact
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin exactus
1 : exhibiting or marked by strict, particular, and complete accordance with fact or a standard
2 : marked by thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details
synonym see CORRECT
- ex·act·ness /-'zak(t)-n&s/ noun

Most excellent. I hope the... (Below threshold)
zp:

Most excellent. I hope the Globe decides to do a story on this website for outing the bogus prof. You are the definition of a real investigative journalist.

Falsifying data used in res... (Below threshold)

Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.

164 Jihad Verses in the <a ... (Below threshold)

164 Jihad Verses in the Koran

Falsifying data used in res... (Below threshold)

Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.

Falsifying data used in res... (Below threshold)

Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.

All I can say is....SWEET!<... (Below threshold)
DragonLady:

All I can say is....SWEET!

WAIT A MINUTE! I just down... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

WAIT A MINUTE! I just downloaded the Bush_Memos.pdf that Wizbang linked. In Acrobat Reader 6 I checked document properties: The creation date and modification date are 9-30 around 1PM. That's TODAY folks, not the date Hailey posted them!

WTF?!

Um, yeah. So you're arguin... (Below threshold)
Jonathan Abbey:

Um, yeah. So you're arguing that the man has gone to extreme lengths to forge something.. that the report in question explains is assembled as a demonstration of the matching of the font, and not a demonstration of an actual match with a typewriter?

That is, you're dancing in the aisles for catching him doing.. what he said he did?

Wow.

So if the docs were created... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

So if the docs were created TODAY, how could Wizbang have had the story LAST NIGHT?

WTF!?

Um, yeah. So you're arguin... (Below threshold)
Jonathan Abbey:

Um, yeah. So you're arguing that the man has gone to extreme lengths to forge something.. that the report in question explains is assembled as a demonstration of the matching of the font, and not a demonstration of an actual match with a typewriter?

That is, you're dancing in the aisles for catching him doing.. what he said he did?

Wow.

spoons:Just look a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

spoons:

Just look at the enlargement alone of the file with the "th" ALLEGED superscript versions (there are two displayed on one file)...the second "th" superscript bears enough visual remains from Photoshopping that it pretty much advertises itself as a doctored/modified document.

When you copy and then paste one portion of an image into or onto another image (which is what the program, "Photoshop" enables, image-modifications, image creations, thus the term, "photoshopped" and/or "photoshopping" when someone modifies an image file with any image editing program, at this point -- Photoshop, the program, was the first "big" hit as to image editing software, so it's become both a Proper Noun in language and also a verb for the act of image editing).

When you image edit, you leave "edge" pixels from what you've cut and pasted onto the second image, unless you do further image editing (remove your cut'n'pasted pixel remains from around the image portion you "pasted" onto another). Just glare at the two "th" superscript lines and there are glaring pixel remains on the second line, around the "th" that clearly show a cut'n'pasted process.

On the other hand, anyone could now go into that file and erase the remaining pixels, save it to replace the existing, and all evidence of the photoshopping/Photoshop process would be gone. And, they probably will...

And that's just for starters, just one issue available to view/read here.

Wait a minute-- check your ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Wait a minute-- check your calendar. Today is the 30th and the doc shows the 29th.

P

Well, if the good doctor sa... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

Well, if the good doctor says he produced that on a typewriter, I for one would love to see him do it, especially the part where he Photoshops it afterwards.

How dumb can you get?

Hold on, folks. Has anyone... (Below threshold)

Hold on, folks. Has anyone here other than Right of Center actually read the whole memo?

I believe beyond any doubt that the purported TANG memos are fraudulent. But to claim that the prof's analysis is based on manufactured evidence is completely inappropriate.

Analysis continues on my blog (http://pavelblov.journalspace.com), because I don't do posts this long in "comments."

Here's <a href="http://phot... (Below threshold)

Here's my own contribution to the Killian memo evidence. Photoshopping is fun!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!"Usin... (Below threshold)

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos (oh, and photoshop. oops.), it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica."

Brian: The "Do not misunderstand figure 4" clause on page eight is referring to, well, Figure 4. We're talking about Figure 5.

Page 9, Fig 5 refers to the... (Below threshold)

Page 9, Fig 5 refers to the spacing not the font or the superscript...so why would he cut & paste the "th'? Man, that makes no sense at all...unless he didn't have a ball with superscript. Wouldn't that makes his analysis invalid? or am I missing something?

Paul: download the doc from... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Paul: download the doc from Wizbang's link.
Open it with Acrobat Reader 6.
Go to File|Document Properties.
The "Created" date is 9-30 1:01PM.
The "Modified" date is 9-30 1:02PM.
Today is 9-30.
Hailey posted his report before today.
This doc is probably not the same one Hailey originally posted.
SOMETHING IS VERY FISHY HERE!
Wizbang, what do you think about this?

WTF!?

Spoons,One of the ke... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Spoons,
One of the keys is the Photoshop document. The PDF obviously looks hinky. When blown up, it's obvious (to me at least) that the th doesn't the rest of the letters. It is much clearer. The photoshop document shows the exact same letter only the th is missing from the document and there is a large space after 111. He added the th through some other process, likely c&p in Photoshop. Assuming that he created the document then scanned it and added the th, the th would logically be clearer as it is at least one generation newer than the rest of the document.

On page 8 he says:... (Below threshold)
VR:

On page 8 he says:

Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family. Do not misunderstand figure 4. My addition is not typed. It is replicated based on the characters already in the memo. It does not prove that the memos were typed, or that I can type them.

He has a number of arguments that, he says, point to mechanical origin, but he does make it clear he didn't duplicate them that way himself. I don't see how this is fraud. I also don't find his arguments convincing. For one thing, it is just too much of a coincidence that the memos DO line up so well with documents created in Microsoft Word.

Repeating your post five ti... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Repeating your post five times doesn't make it valid, Pavel :) Just kidding, I know it was likely an accident.

Seriously though, I just read your blog, and you make a very good point. I think it would be safe to say that his analysis is not necessary FRAUDULENT but it is certainly LOGICALLY FLAWED.

I wish you had waited a few... (Below threshold)
Sergio:

I wish you had waited a few hours, preferably until the Globe story was live. Remember the old tried and true rule: don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

The only lesson the legacy media people and the Democrat operatives they are in league with will learn from this is that next time they'd better do a better job on the forgery.

As for the professor, he will not be dismissed. When was the last time you ever heard of a professor getting fired? They're like politburo members, they stay 'on the job' til they die. Why do you think there are so many thirtysomething PhDs working at Barnes & Noble? PhDs are easy to get; PhD jobs however. . . forget it. Once got, those jobs ain't given up.

And if by some miracle it does occur to somebody in the administration that a professor who forges documents for the Boston Globe is a liability rather than an asset to the school, you can bet that there will be protestors bussed in the next day to defend the guy.

If he were really clever he would voluntarily resign and send a resume to Viacom.

Sorry for the (many, many) ... (Below threshold)

Sorry for the (many, many) duplicate comments - I wasn't get an ack back from the server.

"Wait A Minute"s post is in... (Below threshold)
VR:

"Wait A Minute"s post is interesting. Is the text I mentioned in older versions of the PDF? Did the professor add the point that his additions weren't typed?

I just emailed Kevin to mak... (Below threshold)
mcg:

I just emailed Kevin to make sure he reads your full defense, Pavel. I really do think you have a good point. A charge of academic dishonesty has to be airtight. To that end, this guy is clearly grossly incompetent, perhaps seriously disingenuous, but I don't think it's safe to say that he's perpetrating a fraud.

Steve L., he does not claim... (Below threshold)
Jonathan Abbey:

Steve L., he does not claim that he produced the examples he's contrasting with a typewriter.. at all. He's merely asserting that the Typewriter font he has found, which is not New Times Roman, matches closely the text in the memos. The superscripting he would probably have to insert out of band, as whatever code he used to generate the baseline text would not replicate a typewriter with a superscripting function.

There's a whole lot of people screaming 'liar, liar!' at this guy without bothering to actually read what he wrote. Not the best showing for the blogosphere, I'd say.

I just looked at the PSD do... (Below threshold)

I just looked at the PSD docs on his server...is this guy kidding?

David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D.... (Below threshold)
Memesis:

David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. is owned.

There are too many things wrong with his analysis, not in the sense of a mistaken conclusions but in outright cheating.

The main issue is that he is not really using a typewriter, but software to mimic a typewriter.

He mixes at least 2 typefaces to get results that he wants, beside apparent manual kerning to get the same/close character positioning. The clear giveaway is the capital R. Its right leg is an indication that this is TNR typeface--in all versions or derivates of American Typewriter, the leg is curved, even in the condensed version he is claiming to use. See here
and You can easily find other differences, as number shapes (2,3,4,7,9), or "s".

I am not sure if the guy is dishonest consciously, or if the toll of cognitive disonance induced by leftist deconstructionism found him to become a typical example of the mind lost in the web of pathological lying.

The professor's "report" sa... (Below threshold)
Russ:

The professor's "report" says at one point


Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica. Please understand, however, the replica is not typed. It is produced by examining and replicating the original font used in the memo. It is not a demonstration that I can type a replica memo, it is a demonstration that the font in the memo is probably Typewriter.


(Emphasis mine.)

What is he trying to prove, that he, too, can create a forgery? And that therefore the CBS documents are authentic?

Riiiiiight.....

You are brilliant, f'ng ... (Below threshold)
Chuck:

You are brilliant, f'ng brilliant.

Folks, take a deep breath h... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Folks, take a deep breath here.
I'd especially think twice before attacking Hailey right away.
Bush_Memos.pdf was created TODAY.
We don't know WHO created it.
If Hailey's server's supporting_material directory is "open," is it opened only for "read," or for both "read" and "write?"
Did Hailey create that doc today?
Or did SOMEBODY ELSE plant files on Hailey's server?
How did Wizbang get the story LAST NIGHT, if the doc was created TODAY?

WTF?!
g

I got here through Power Li... (Below threshold)
Bob:

I got here through Power Line.

Excellent Job!

Keep it up.

Please tell me that there's... (Below threshold)
ClearCut:

Please tell me that there's Heinz Ketchup smudges at the bottom of the doc.

Hailey's assertion that the... (Below threshold)

Hailey's assertion that the memos were typed with a typewriter equipped with American Typewriter Condensed is demonstrably false:

Proof

I'm not impressed by his an... (Below threshold)
John Rylander:

I'm not impressed by his analysis, but add my name to the list of those who don't understand the "Caught him red handed" stuff.

He's not claiming to have made this on a typewriter, but just using some "Typewriter" font (which, BTW, seems to have nothing to do with a real typewriter, and so nothing to do with the memos, AFAIK).

My first glance take on this is that his reliance on Photoshop means that it's not feasible to just type this in in Word using his whatever "Typewrite" font and get the desired results--it take a lot of hand tweaking. But this seems immaterial to his case.

OTOH, his case seems rather daft to me, too--a very well written specious argument, showing only the with a variation on some who-knows "Typewriter" font, and using photoshop, one is able to get results not as good but maybe sorta kinda almost as good as using Word and Times Roman did with the one memo.

Is his whole case resting on a mistake? Did anyone claim that ALL the forged memos used Times New Roman? I don't think so; that seems to be one of his many assumptions.

To emphasize: while his analysis seems very laboriously weak (though this is only at a first read), I don't think this Photoshop stuff refutes his claims.

But his_demonstrable claims seem really low-content, something like "it's possible to use a marginally Typewriter-like font in Word and then cut, paste, and massage in Photoshop to get results similar to the Bush memos--therefore, they could have been typed." But that conclusion is a total non-sequitur without additional premises that are nowhere to be found in his analysis.

I must inform each of you t... (Below threshold)
Geoff:

I must inform each of you that I have successfully recreated an exact match of the supposedly forged Bush TANG documents using a typewriter in wide use during the early 70's. However, my cat Apples (widely known to be mischevious) has eaten the documents as well as the typewriter. Rest assured that I am as frustrated with this development as you must be. Regardless, I feel that this settles the matter in CBS' favour.

Excellent work! Another win... (Below threshold)
Cableguy:

Excellent work! Another win for the blogosphere!

Guys, either the Hailey cha... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Guys, either the Hailey changed the text of his analysis, or most of you are reading what he said wrong.

This is what I posted at LGF:

"Ok guys, most of you seem to have misunderstood what this guy is saying. Charles, please take note of this and make sure the blogosphere doesn't embarras itself. He said:

1. He states, "The following evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter:" He is saying that THE CBS MEMOS were made on a typewriter, NOT THE ONES HE MADE. He makes a specific note that he did NOT use a typewriter for this.

2. He took out all the letters, took the cleanest ones out of those.

3. Claims to have indentified the font, and says it is not Times New Roman.

4. He took those characters, and arranged them in a way that he says is consistent with what would have been produced by a typewriter of a specific kind. He did this in photoshop, and clearly states he did not use a typewriter for it.

5. Later on he says the "th" from Times New Roman does not match the "th" in this font.

Now, I personally do not see any relevance to arranging the letters in photoshop to make another copy of what they were in the first place. However, unless he changed his site, (did he?????? if he did, then thats another thing..), HE IS NOT CLAIMING TO HAVE MADE THAT MEMO WITH A TYPEWRITER. !!!.

However, his analysis doesn't seem to line up with Charles's flashing animation of the superimposed memos... His (Charles, ed. for clarity) seemed to match perfectly, yet Hailey's examples of fonts show a Times New Roman that doesn't match the CBS memo font very well at all. Charles, can we have a super zoomed "flashing" look at both some numbers (with some 1's), and of some letters, please?

Also of issue, is when Charles found out that the "th" didn't display properly, but printed right. Hailey specifically says the "th" doesn't match Times New Roman, could he have made the same error?

I'm still sure the memos are fakes, considering all the content problems, but we need to make sure we do a good job on our rebuttal of this guy's work. Twisting his words (unless, as I said, he changed them after the fact) will not help us any."

............

Please, make sure we don't jump to early on the wrong item here. Lets take some time to sort this crap out.

ConservativeRevolution.com ... (Below threshold)
ClearCut:

ConservativeRevolution.com posted this guy and his boss's home phone numbers. You just gotta love bloggers.

I think you should make a b... (Below threshold)
BS hater:

I think you should make a better analysis of this forgery and send it to Dick Thornburg. This guys analysis could be used to get CBS off the hook. also what does Mr Newcomber think of this he did the most definitve job in defeating the CBS Memo's

It really does not matter m... (Below threshold)
Memesis:

It really does not matter much if the documents in the directory were replaced with later date. One can speculate that the previous docs may have been even more revealing (because the PSD files lack the layers that one would use for typing and positioning).

His main contention that he uses American Typewriter and/or derivate of it for his comparison is not only false, but some specific details also provide a clear indication of an attempt for deception.

I should have said "first g... (Below threshold)
John Rylander:

I should have said "first glance" rather than "first read" above, but let me add one more comment:

His assertions 1-6 in the beginning each seem dubious indeed, and certainly undemonstrated by his seemingly professional-length, amateur-quality analysis. He's just no expert on this stuff, and it shows. Seems like what Noam CHomsky would write if he were to suddenly analyze fonts and typing--more holes than insights (though some real insights too).

I agree with you, John R. -... (Below threshold)

I agree with you, John R. - it's a weak analysis that tells us basically "if you mix and match a few fonts that were in existence at the time of the TANG memos, and then manipulate them with Photoshop, you can come up with something that looks sort of like the TANG memos."

He's doing a Michael Moore job - never saying something that is false in isolation, but putting together a number of uncontextual factoids to create a false impression.

From a guy immersed in cons... (Below threshold)

From a guy immersed in conspiracy theory... bravo... it's refreshing to see one actually proven...

Newt's analysis of Utah Sta... (Below threshold)

Newt's analysis of Utah State University is mostly correct.

I am a USU almnus and a former research employee. And there are plenty of California/East Coast liberals (locals call them "educated idiots") who have come to USU to be close to nature and escape the negative consequences of their love affair with socialism.

Fortunately, they're not numerous enough to create too much trouble in Logan. But they do dominate the campus. It's their own little world up on the hill.

"My motto, 'cogito ergo fal... (Below threshold)

"My motto, 'cogito ergo falsus sum,' means 'I think, therefor I am wrong.' I say it often to remind myself that my opinions are always suspect; I am unqualified to judge the ideas and opinions of others. If I am unqualified, as far as I am concerned, so is anybody else. (That statement is made with the full knowledge that I am unqualified to make it.)"

- David E. Hailey, Jr.
Assistant Professor
Professional Writing/Hypermedia
Utah State University

This whole thing looks to b... (Below threshold)
Tom:

This whole thing looks to be sloppy but not deliberately disingenuous. He specifically says in the text that his "addition is not typed" (top of page 8) but then refers that to Figure 4 rather than Figure 5. He also claims in the caption to Figure 5 that the 'Typewriter' font produced an "exact match" but this hardly seems to be born out by the document itself and the amount of Photoshopping that definitely did take place above and beyond simply inserting the text for comparison. Even if the 'Typewriter' font did produce an exact match, all that does is support the notion that these are forgeries. All very strange.

Thanks, Pavel. Agreed with... (Below threshold)
John Rylander:

Thanks, Pavel. Agreed with your summary of my post, though personally, I wouldn't even presume these fonts were in existence on typewriters at the time; he seems to be relying on the font name "Typewriter" to carry some evidential weight, which is really silly for obvious "anyone can make any font and name it anything" reasons.

And this weird stuff about "It seems to be a transitional typeface", a strange hybrid of a monspaced fontused in a proportionally-spaced environment, is just so obviously bogus.

Why does the Left get suckered-in by this stuff? Why do they offer sucker-in themselves when they write this stuff?

Because for WAY too many lefties, what counts as intelligence and good sense is skill with words and concepts, not skill with realities on the ground.

And so goes this analysis, at first glance: very clever (in a good way--very conceptually interesting), very skillfully written, but very ignorant. It's about what you'd expect from an English professor who's good with words and analysis, but just doesn't have half the facts he needs.

So why would anyone rely on this analysis? Well, again, it's a GREAT analysis if (and only if) your criterion for greatness is "well-written and conceptually interesting". Unfortunately for the author, while those are two genuinely wonderful attributes for an analysis to have, they by themselves don't have much of anything to do with the truth, and will lead astray (albeit eloquently and clverely) when they're dealing with factual matters in a factually ungrounded (or let me be nicer: insufficiently grounded) way.

Gentlemen,Please don... (Below threshold)
Silver Sea Lotus:

Gentlemen,
Please don't fry Dr. Hailey too quickly. If you read the top of page 8 in the PDF file, you'll see that he says he did NOT type the document: "Do not misunderstand figure 4 [he means figure 5]. My addition is not typed. It is replicated using the characters already in the memo." He was trying to establish that the font type is "Typewriter", not "Times New Roman." However, as you point out--his "th" doesn't match. But this doesn't mean that he was trying to forge anything . . .

Wasn't Utah State where the... (Below threshold)
Raoul Ortega:

Wasn't Utah State where the Cold Fusion guys (Pons & Fleischmann) came from?

EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES... (Below threshold)
Paul:

EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES

EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES

EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES

Note <a href="http://imrl.u... (Below threshold)

Note
this PSD file
, which corresponds to Hailey's figure 6:

Each of the letters in the word IBM Typewriter version of the word "status" has been cut out and individually repositioned.

Hailey's actual point (that the memos are in "Typewriter Condensed" rather than Times New Roman) may or may not be correct. However, the Figure 6 photoshop file shows that even in this font, the spacing apparently had to be manipulated to match the memos.

Wizbang, please post a link... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Wizbang, please post a link to the copy of Bush_Memos.pdf that you claim to have copied LAST NIGHT so that we may compare it to the copy that was created/modified TODAY.

You DO have that pre-1PM copy, right?

Paul, can you post the exac... (Below threshold)

Paul, can you post the exact textual differences between the original and modified PDF reports? I only have the newer file, so I can't tell what the original said. :(

Raoul:That would b... (Below threshold)

Raoul:

That would be the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, an institution that is far more pretentious than USU (Utah has the medical school, USU is the "cow school").

If this has already been po... (Below threshold)

If this has already been pointed out, forgive me, I am heading out the door. The number 2 on the second line is missing a period. It appears that if a period were put in it's place, the documents would not line up.

As a true blue Aggie, this ... (Below threshold)
Potroast:

As a true blue Aggie, this pains me. If the school newspaper runs this story, I suspect Dr. Hailey will have to enter the witness protection program. I graduated in 88, but I don't think things have changed that much in Cache Valley. The guy can't be comfortable there to begin with, I almost feel sorry for him, then I don't.

Fight the POWER!

Jonathan AbbeyStev... (Below threshold)
remay1:

Jonathan Abbey

Steve L., he does not claim that he produced the examples he's contrasting with a typewriter.. at all. He's merely asserting that the Typewriter font he has found, which is not New Times Roman, matches closely the text in the memos. The superscripting he would probably have to insert out of band, as whatever code he used to generate the baseline text would not replicate a typewriter with a superscripting function.

There's a whole lot of people screaming 'liar, liar!' at this guy without bothering to actually read what he wrote. Not the best showing for the blogosphere, I'd say.

This Kerry donor wasn't engaged in idle academic curiosity when he concocted his defense of the CBS forgery. He was trying to insert his supposed credentials and expertise to lend credence to the CBS effort. Sorry, can't cut him any slack.


"Hailey's actual point (tha... (Below threshold)
Memesis:

"Hailey's actual point (that the memos are in 'Typewriter Condensed' rather than Times New Roman) may or may not be correct."

Not only it is incorrect, he uses at least 2 typefaces to make up his mythical 'Typewriter Condensed'. In other words, he cheats. There is no way to get around that.

I'm not sure you haven't ju... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

I'm not sure you haven't jumped the gun here. My review of the study indicates that the author may have misidentified one of his figures in the text, but nothing more. As some above have partially quoted, the author says,

"Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family. Do not misunderstand figure 4. My addition is not typed. It is replicated based on the characters already in the memo. It does not prove that the memos were typed, or that I can type them. It only proves that I know what the font family is and can reasonably accurately reproduce the characters in the memo. The reproductions in the memo demonstrate that and nothing more."

I think the author meant to refer to his figure 5, not 4. If I'm right, then he's admitting that he didn't type his claimed duplications in Figure 5, but is merely claiming that he replicated the Bush memo using characters from the "Typewriter" font family. If all you show is that he inserted some of the characters (and particularly the superscript "th") using photoshop, how does that prove that the characters so inserted aren't from the "Typewriter" font family? It seems to me that the method of copying and insertion is irrelevant to his claim (as long as the method does not distort the character, of course). To disprove the author's limited claim, one would have to prove that the photoshopped characters are not, in fact, part of the "Typewriter" font family.

Am I missing something?

I don't have copies of both... (Below threshold)
Tom:

I don't have copies of both versions of the PDF but I can tell you that the PDF I have is distinctly different from the version posted on the professor's USU website. The web version includes a section (and graphic) arguing about the height of the "th" that is missing from the pdf. Is is possible the guy omitted this after realizing his argument was wrong (i.e., he didn't recognize the difference that LGF noted between the superscripts' appearance on screen versus when printed)?

I don't have copies of both... (Below threshold)
Tom:

I don't have copies of both versions of the PDF but I can tell you that the PDF I have is distinctly different from the version posted on the professor's USU website. The web version includes a section (and graphic) arguing about the height of the "th" that is missing from the pdf. Is it possible the guy omitted this after realizing his argument was wrong (i.e., he didn't recognize the difference that LGF noted between the superscripts' appearance on screen versus when printed)?

You know, I really didn't e... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

You know, I really didn't expect it to turn out that this guy actually did change his site, I was just putting that in my post to cover my own ass.

But, thinking about it, I suppose its typical.

John R-My thoughts... (Below threshold)

John R-

My thoughts exactly: it is a very clever, and generally articulate piece. (I particularly liked the prof's flat-earther metaphor for those of us who believe the TANG docs are forgeries.)

"Because for WAY too many lefties, what counts as intelligence and good sense is skill with words and concepts, not skill with realities on the ground." Exactly correct. That's why the academic world is such a hotbed for leftie indoctrination. They don't have to deal with the real world, just a theoretical one. But, man, it sounds SO good.

Guys, Kevin's web interface... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Guys, Kevin's web interface won't let me upload it here, too big... Original pdf coming as soon as logistically feasible.

Doing my best- patience grasshopper.

"To disprove the author's l... (Below threshold)
Memesis:

"To disprove the author's limited claim, one would have to prove that the photoshopped characters are not, in fact, part of the 'Typewriter' font family.

Am I missing something?"

Yes. At least some of the character shapes are NOT a part of the 'Typewriter' font family.

Which means only one thing: more than one typefaces were used. And that translates to: he cheated.

As simple as that.

Sorry; I got distracted whi... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Sorry; I got distracted while typing and missed the updates.

Tom, please post a link to ... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Tom, please post a link to YOUR copy of the pre-1PM Bush_Memos.pdf.

Wizbang, please post a link to YOUR copy of the pre-1PM Bush_Memos.pdf. (You DO have it, right?)

We really need access to these to help figure out just who's monkeying around here.

This is fascinating stuff..... (Below threshold)

This is fascinating stuff...it's a frickin' soap opera.

Busted!!! The smoking gun,... (Below threshold)

Busted!!! The smoking gun, at last.

Excellent work! Get ready for your traffic to spike.

Not an expert, but...... (Below threshold)
Fletch:

Not an expert, but...

It seems to be that professor is "proving" something using circular logic. It goes something like this (my words, not his):

1. Using Photoshop, I cut and pasted a "th" from somewhere else in the document.
2. I then superimposed my "th" over the documents "th" same font.
3. By cutting and pasting a "th" from the same font in the same document, I have proved that the original "th" is also from the same font.

QED!

I see neither why the Left was so excited about the "proof", nor why the blogosphere is so excited about "debunking" the prof. He has proved that a font=a font. Big deal.

OK Once more in bold... ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OK Once more in bold... The blog won't let me upload original because it is too big. (2mb) I'm mailing it to Kev who can FTP it.

Working as fast as we can.

All you folks who are think... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

All you folks who are thinking about emailing Hailey and/or his boss: better wait until this multiple-version stuff gets ironed out!

This whole thing is fishy as hell.

From what I can tell from h... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

From what I can tell from his paper, Hailey didn't type his replicated memos, he PhotoShop'ed each letter into place. So he's not claiming he reproduced the memos, only the font.

While I find his font analysis interesting (and it deserves some more investigation, though without the originals we'll probably never know for sure), the most convincing evidence of forgery has always been for me the exact match in character position to Word-produced documents, which Hailey doesn't even attempt to explain. I've worked with proportionally-spaced computer fonts back in the '70s and I know that how each letter is adjusted to space with each adjacent letter was far from standardized in that period, and still is not. All those tiny variations in character position add to each other over the length of a line and make any deviation stick out like a sore thumb.

It is simply not reasonable to assume that some theoretical typewriter available in the '70s would exactly reproduce the spacing used by a TrueType font today if that was not the author's goal. (And damn difficult even if it was, as evidenced by the inability to date of anyone successfully reproducing the memos using period equipment, despite the $50,000 reward for the first person to do so.)

Add that in with the improbability of Killian having access to such a machine, having training in how to use it, and the illogic of utilizing both in preference to a standard typewriter for a personal memo to himself, and the probibility of the memos being authentic is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

obviously the size means th... (Below threshold)

obviously the size means the fake "rape" photos are there! Busted, Dr. Hailey!

(joking, people! joking... even though this whole thing is rather amusing already.)

I see it. You nailed him. ... (Below threshold)
Karen:

I see it. You nailed him. His liberal weenie knees are shaking, and even the patches on his tweed coat have sweat on them. I will write a letter to that department head. And a letter to the school newspaper.


I thought they knew better in Utah.

Wizbang's copy of Bush_Memo... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Wizbang's copy of Bush_Memos.pdf is 2MB?

Mine is 1.249MB.

Fishy!!!!

"So he's not claiming he re... (Below threshold)
Memesis:

"So he's not claiming he reproduced the memos, only the font."

Once again, that is not the case. He has not reproduced 'the font', unless one accepts that mixing letter shapes from different typefaces constitutes a 'match'.

Where can I download the or... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Where can I download the original copy of the PDF---not the one he's currently modifying?

So in the end, what has thi... (Below threshold)
Another Thought:

So in the end, what has this guy proven? Only that he can recreate the memos using photoshop...so now if they can just prove that Killian had access to a modern computer with Photoshop then CBS is off the hook!

What drivel this report is...if the case could be made, it could be made in an elegant fashion...

Perhaps in the end the good prof simply wants to muddy the waters and give CBS more cover and more of a reason to explain that they weren't duped that badly and/or a reason for some to still cling to the belief that these docs might just be the real thing...

MY BAD WORKING TOO FAST<... (Below threshold)
Paul:

MY BAD WORKING TOO FAST

original PDF 1 point 2 MB (1.2) NOT 2MB

I looked wrong

Duh, sorry, I missed the po... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Duh, sorry, I missed the post about the 2MB file. Nevermind.

mcg, good question!W... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

mcg, good question!
Where indeed!

Has anybody yet determined if Hailey's supporting_materials directory permissions allow WRITE by OTHER??? (I'm not going to try it.)

If his permissions are WIDE-OPEN then how are we EVER going to be able to establish the true provenance of all these versions? Maybe somebody PLANTED this crap on Hailey's server.

Better think twice about slandering Hailey before this fish is fully cooked.

What he claims to have prov... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

What he claims to have proved is that CBS wasn't unreasonable in assuming the memos were authentic. I don't agree, personal memos in proportional font from a '70s-era Air National Guard base just doesn't pass the laugh test. The Freepers picked up on that in minutes, CBS never even investigated the issue before broadcast and still denies it's relevant.

I think he is busted, but I... (Below threshold)
Phil:

I think he is busted, but I think there is some misinformation floating around. In the comparison, the author is NOT claiming the second lines are typed on a typewriter.

He says they are created on a computer using a font called "typewriter".

In other words - his evidence that the memos were not created on a computer - is that he can reproduce them on a computer.

Does anyone believe Paul wo... (Below threshold)

Does anyone believe Paul would a) alert two well-known bloggers (James Joyner and Steven Taylor) in advance, and b) call a department head at Utah State to advise him of possible academic dishonesty if he weren't highly confident of being correct?

Secondly, look at the behavior. The files were updated today, in what appears to be a vain attempt to salvage credibility.

The conclusion of the paper is:

Since current odds hold that the Bush memos are faked, the question of their authenticity turns to whether CBS should have known they were inauthentic – if, in fact, they are. In fact, there seems to be nothing in the memos that indicates they are faked. All evidence points toward a mechanical production process and away from a digital process.
Furthermore, the mechanical process seems to be consistent with typewriters used in the military at the time in question.
If I had been one of the experts advising CBS, I would have advised them that there is nothing physical in the memos implying they are not authentic. All indicators imply they are authentic. I would have told them that from my point of view, the memos are worthy of presenting to the public.

That is not what a sane person would claim he could prove by manipulating computer typefonts with Adobe Photoshop. Proving the CBS documents authentic requires technology available in the 1970s and an actual demonstration of how it's done.

I believe there's still $10,000 available for someone who can do just that.

I'm not interested in ruini... (Below threshold)
mcg:

I'm not interested in ruining this guys career, "WAIT A MINUTE!", and none of us should be. We should be interested solely in making sure that misinformation is not being spread. His new "document cleaning" episode is going to strip away the last of any convincing evidence he has. Let his department worry about this academic future.

Besides, I'm almost certain his web directory isn't world writeable. College IT departments wouldn't take lightly to such insecurity.

First, let me state that I'... (Below threshold)
Robert:

First, let me state that I'm a political independent who is tired of duplicity from both sides of the aisle.

You need to examine your assumptions before publishing your theories--as does Dan Rather (who hasn't made many mistakes in many years as a journalist, and is man enough to apologize for them when he does, unlike our current administration). Why do you assume that the Dems had anything to do with forging these documents--especially as numerous other sources document the "missing time" problem dogging GWB's AWOL from national service? I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Rove is the one who's behind the forged documents--after all, he did bug his own office while working on GWB's gubernatorial campaign.

I'll tell you why the Karl ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

I'll tell you why the Karl Rove conspiracy theory is flawed---because it depends on the fact that a news agency would be so insanely incompetent that they wouldn't engage in the most cursory of document authentication techniques before they ran with the memos.

Even Karl Rove wouldn't have believed how incompetent CBS was before a couple of weeks ago.

mcg, did you write "Besides... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

mcg, did you write "Besides, I'm almost certain his web directory isn't world writeable. College IT departments wouldn't take lightly to such insecurity."? Did you really write that?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! So they allowed 666, but not 777? Take it from me, a BSCS/MSCS software engineer: IT depts can't BEGIN to keep up with all their server holes.

FWIW, I'm sure the CBS Killian memos are fake, and that CBS's bias is proven. But I apply my skepticism to ALL sources, not just those I ideologically agree with. And right now, I'm skeptical of Wizbang.

Looks like a few people piled onto Hailey prematurely.

UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES<... (Below threshold)
Paul:

UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES

Read my newest update.

Until I can upload the doc, I put the text up. That really is enough for you to start your chewing.

BUT REMEMBER it does not matter if he claimed he typed them or not, If he claimed he can replicate the font but can't he's still a liar.

When "Rathergate" first hit... (Below threshold)

When "Rathergate" first hit the fan a week or more ago, I almost immediatley penned in a piece elsewhere entitlled "How CBS is *winning* 'Rathergate'", the upshot being that by sacrificing itself (like a loyal samurai defending a vulnerable lord), CBS & associated have managed to drive all of *Kerry's* negatives off the air. They're still plying the Bush-was-at-least-AWOL argumentt, while Kerry's communist-front service during the same period is completely swept under the rug.

FWIW, I'm sure the CBS K... (Below threshold)
Paul:

FWIW, I'm sure the CBS Killian memos are fake, and that CBS's bias is proven. But I apply my skepticism to ALL sources, not just those I ideologically agree with. And right now, I'm skeptical of Wizbang.

Wait a min- hit me with your best shot- I wouldn't want it any other way.

On page 9, there are many l... (Below threshold)
John:

On page 9, there are many letters that atr vastly different. The T, 3, and most telling is the 5..Notice how he misteriously leaves out EVERY 5 fron the reproduced document. My guess is that the 5's are very differnt. Why type the entire document and leave out a few key key strokes?

"Even if you accept that he... (Below threshold)

"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?"

He had to paste in EVERYTHING. That's what he says in the (new) pdf. (And that's why the differences between any versions of the pdf are so important.)

My further hunch: the superscript "th" is created by shrinking a standard "th." That's why it looks wacky.

robert, you should read wha... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

robert, you should read what the post was about for god's sake.

go away.

If anyont wants to look at ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

If anyont wants to look at the missing section on the superscript (which allegedly disproved the font was Times New Roman), go over to http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ and find the entry dealing with this topic. At the top you will see links to both an html version and a PDF version. Open both and you'll find the superscript section only in the html version (it is just before the infamous Figure 5). There may be more versions than just these two however.

If you go to Haileys web si... (Below threshold)
Nathan:

If you go to Haileys web site and look at his so called
art work, you can see he is an amateur photoshop artist.
Its no wonder his bad "th" cut and paste sticks out. Not a professional, just a professor.

My best shot is:1)... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

My best shot is:

1) There are multiple versions of this file floating around.
2) If Hailey's working dir is "world-writable," (and why not; it's world-readable) there's now no way to prove the provenance of ANY of these files.
3) Wizbang has not yet linked the copy he has supposedly had since LAST NIGHT.
4) If Wizbang is wrong about this, he's slandered Hailey, and some of Wizbang's readers have too.

That's all I've got.

What mcg just wrote (^^). ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

What mcg just wrote (^^). With CBS, I think by now, after only what's meagerly available about the network, that they *know* where they want to go and then they paint their sidewalks accordingly. With a lot of cement from the DNC, in whatever loosely "unaffiliated" sense are many individuals with the same destination in mind.

But, looks like I was right about the Professor here, and that there'd be a quick revision/removal of "documents" once he was aware that he'd been revealed. I'm going to be surprised if the "documents" even exist by tomorrow.

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! So the... (Below threshold)
mbl:

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! So they allowed 666, but not 777? Take it from me, a BSCS/MSCS software engineer: IT depts can't BEGIN to keep up with all their server holes.

Really? Why don't you show us how it's done? For example on this server we are posting comments on?

Of cause many servers are full of holes, but I have yet to see someone who managed to change Unix based write-permitions remotely.

CV anyone?A minor ... (Below threshold)
David S. Lott:

CV anyone?

A minor point in the face of all the rest, but this guy's CV doesn't exactly show that he's an document expert in the first place. He's a writing instructor with a lot of advanced study (does anyone want to verify the degrees?) who uses word processors and photoshop in his instruction.

Look at the blowup on this ... (Below threshold)

Look at the blowup on this page http://www.spacetownusa.com/2004/09/are-cbs-forged-docs-real.html of the word flight


Look at the g and the h in the bottom flight. Inside the enclosed area of the g and h the white background is a bit grayer. This is exactly what happens when you cut and past something like this from another document or scan, possibly with the magic wand tool, and past it into an all white document. The g and h have been pasted in individually, presumably because he is putting the letters together one by one to simulate proportional spacing and kearning.

Looking at the exterior of all the letters, this looks EXCATLY like what you get when you use the magic wand tool in photoshop. I just did a project with my kids dressed in black on a white background and then I used the photoshop magic wand to pull them out and put them on other backgrounds. It looked just like this. He is taking each letter and putting them together one by one, like a ransom note.

"Wait a minute" you just pa... (Below threshold)
Paul:

"Wait a minute" you just passed into the land of the stoopid. (And you made great arguments previously)

You are now making a case the docs are legit because you think the dir is 777? Do you have ESP or something?

If you can telepathically feel security holes, then I'll hire you. We'll make a mint!

P

David E. Hailey was being t... (Below threshold)
joey:

David E. Hailey was being trumpeted on billburkett.us yesterday as having proven the documents as authentic. That post has now been removed.

mbl, I'm not claiming anyon... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

mbl, I'm not claiming anyone _changed_ Hailey's dir permissions. I'm saying they were set up "wide-open" in the first place (probably by Hailey himself with a careless umask.) So that's how we can see the dir contents via Wizbang's link.

I'm asking: is (or was) Hailey's working dir open for write permission by other? If it was, then we can't know with certainty who authored anything there.

I'm not claiming hacker skills, but I am claiming that in general, server security administration is a disgrace, and there's no reason to think USU IT department is any better than anybody else at it, and the fact that Hailey's working dir is world-readable proves that.

There have been so many bad actors in this whole Rathergate thing, I'm saying, be skeptical of EVERYBODY before calling somebody's boss and accusing him of forgery. Don't trust ANYTHING you can't personally verify. And for God's sake, don't rush! We want to be BETTER than the MSM!

Wait A Minute,You'... (Below threshold)

Wait A Minute,

You're losing us. You're asking good questions, but drop the snarky combativeness that has crept into your tone as this thread has progressed.

By the way, your #2 is a causal fallacy -- simply because a folder is world-readable does not prove that it is world-writable.

#3 will be resolved soon, I trust. I take Paul/Kevin at their word until otherwise proven.

#1 is a reasonably accurate statement, but is merely a statement of consequence, not proving or disproving anything.

"Wait-a-minute": The direc... (Below threshold)

"Wait-a-minute": The directory is not world-writable. The files are on the lab's web server. Just like most web pages, anyone can download them, but only authorized users can modify them.

The whitehouse.gov home page is world readable -- that doesn't mean that it's world writable too.

I dont know if anyone else ... (Below threshold)

I dont know if anyone else noticed this as I havent had a chance to read all the comments. But check out my blog http://photopimp.blogspot.com for another problem with Dr Hailey's report.

To re-state my last post: ... (Below threshold)

To re-state my last post: The PSD files leaked because they are *on a public web server*. This doesn't make them any more likely to be world-writeable than any other public web page. Every web page is "world-readable" in this sense.

Brief edit from last commen... (Below threshold)

Brief edit from last comment.

I meant, "#1 is a reasonably accurate statement, but #4 is merely a statement of consequence, not proving of disproving anything.

Paul,
Resist the temptation to namecall at this point - I think Wait A Minute means well, but is just coming across poorly.

Wait A Minute,

Again, you're asking good questions, but PLEASE don't turn this into a flame war. It helps no one. When your attitude turns snarky, it gives me pause.

Paul, I'm not claiming ANY ... (Below threshold)
WAIT A MINUTE!:

Paul, I'm not claiming ANY docs are legit, but YOU are.

I AGREE with you that Hailey's analysis is baloney. I knew that when I first read it (last night, the night before, whenever; wish I'd saved a copy) because he said he "created a replica," not "typed this with model X typewriter."

I don't KNOW Hailey's dir permissions; I'm saying IF they're rwx, you can't prove provenance of anything.

If and when you link your copy of the file, how does anybody now determine who edited it and when?

I'm not stoopid enough to call someone's boss and call him a fraud and a charlatan, hell, even if I were 100% sure. And in this climate, we're not 100% sure of anything.

Are you reacting to my skepticism in the same manner that Hailey would react to your skepticism?

Let's go watch the debate now.

IF HE HAS TO USE PHOTOSHOP ... (Below threshold)
Kaltes:

IF HE HAS TO USE PHOTOSHOP TO GET IT TO LOOK RIGHT (and that is exactly what he did, how else did those digital characters get so fuzzy), IT IS NOT A REPRODUCTION.

You can make carmen electra look like the CBS memos if you manipulate her pic enough in photoshop. This guy was shrinking/stretching letters and fudging everything to get it to look right, all to 'prove' that he could reproduce the fucking memo.

That is bullshit. His analysis is deceptive. He is a liar, and PAVEL, the only reason you have the viewpoint you do is that you showed up late to the game. Yes photoshop is ok to use to juxtapose his genuinely created reproduction with the original, but it is NOT ok to modify that reproduction to make it look right, and that means pasting in the "TH" superscript independent of the other letters.

THE PROFESSOR STILL WILL NOT DISCLOSE EXACTLY WHAT FONT HE IS USING. "typewriter" is DOZENS of fonts. All the typewriter fonts I used online, including "American Typewriter Condensed" DO NOT MATCH what this guy's reproduction looks like.

HERE IS THE CRITICISM I WRO... (Below threshold)
Kaltes:

HERE IS THE CRITICISM I WROTE OF THIS GUY'S ANALYSIS YESTERDAY, WEDNESDAY THE 29th:

I read the analysis of the guy who claims the CBS documents were typed on a typewriter. David E. Hailey's arguments are so badly flawed that I can only conclude that he started with his conclusion and worked backwards from there. I will point out how badly some of his arguments are flawed so you can judge for yourself:

First, one must be careful to ignore Hailey's conclusions. Whenever one tries to evaluate an expert, their conclusions must be pierced and the underlying analysis/evidence the conclusions are based on must be examined. Conclusions are nothing more than opinion. This is an example of one such conclusion: "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." The evidence proves this statement false. No typewriter was capable of all of those things, although a typesetter might have been. Since so many of Hailey's conclusions are so wrong, I could fill 10 pages with a deconstruction of his conclusions, replete with citations to the other experts linked by allahpundit, but that would be long, boring, and few would read it. Instead I will only address the new evidence Hailey uses.

#1. Figure 5: the flawless replica

Not so fast. He doesnt tell us how he created it. That is a very suspicious omission. Until he does, and until other can reproduce this 'exact match' by following the same steps he did, this "evidence" is just an opinion. Looking at samples of American Typewriter Condensed, which Hailey claims to be using, yields very different results. Note the exaggerated tails, absent from Hailey's "reproduction".

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/itc-american-typewriter/condensed/testdrive.html?s=You+are+ordered+to+report+to+commander&p=24

Hailey writes "My recollection is shaky, but I believe the font was called “American Typewriter.” The fact that the Hailey's memory is so fuzzy in regard to his most crucial evidence is highly suspicious. It is even more suspicious when Hailey clearly hides behind a whole family of fonts instead of picking just one and sticking with it.

#2. Table 1 and Figure 6: the "1" issue

The 1s in the CBS document are so badly distorted that attempts to nitpick from among similar fonts based on very tiny visual details is ludicrous. NONE of the 'fresh' 1s match the distorted CBS documents, even the American Typewriter Condensed 1s are unable to reproduce the disortion. Although the undistorted American Typewriter Condensed 1s seem more similar to the distorted CBS document 1s than the undistorted Times New Roman 1s, this would change after introducing distortion. Therefore this "evidence" actually compares apples to oranges.


#3. Figure 6: Comparing the fonts

Note that the Times New Roman example is BOLD. Why? Note that it does not match in width to the CBS memo, even though we know that MS Word will create a copy that lines up exactly (thanks to the LGF graphic). Note the "in a" is shortened to just "in". This is a rigged comparison.

#4. Figure 7: "Flight"

Note the many differences between the typewriter condensed font and the CBS memo example: (1) the top tip of the "L" is far too deep in the "F". (2) The top tip of the "I" extends too far left. (3) The base of the "I" is too wide. (4) the 'tail' on the upper-right "G" is too large. (5) The "H" is too strongly curved. (6) The cross on the "T" is to wide and too thick. (7) All serifs (the 'feet') are too thick and too wide.

#5. Figure 13: Defective "E"s

Note that the flaws in the letters are not consistent, as one would expect if the same damaged letter block typed them. Note that one of the "E"s does NOT show any wear on the upper left. Not that Hailey neglected to point out the "E" that disproves his assertion.

This is going to take a whi... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

This is going to take a while to sort out.

If indeed Hailey had an earlier version of his analysis where he said that item 4 was type-written, than he is a fraud. That is a pretty heavy charge to toss about (let alone call his boss). However, when I came to this site and followed the link to the HTML page with his analysis, it clearly stated that item 4 was made by electronic means. If this is the original text, then he isn't malicious, he's just stupid.

Again, by my understanding, he says he took the cleanest examples of each letter from all the CBC memo letters, and then he *claims* that they perfectly match a font that is NOT Times New Roman. He then "simulated" a typed document showing this supposed other font, and how it looked in relation to the CBC memos. What I *think* he was trying to say, is that he took his "Typewriter" font, and used that to assemble a replica memo in photoshop. He wasn't perfectly clear, but if he had used the CBS memo letters for that then he is an idiot for proving that they match themselves.

Now, this would be relevant only for his supposed identification of the font. However, we have things that don't add up; the LGF animation, and Hailey's doc's showing alleged samples of Times New Roman that do NOT match the CBC font. Ergo, one of the fonts, shown by either LGF or Hailey, is not Word, Times New Roman. Since anyone can pound away in Word, we all know Charles at LGF is actually showing Times New Roman.

That leaves us with Hailey showing a font that is not what he says it is. Times New Roman is older than the PC, as people like Kos have (helpfully, for once, oh the irony) pointed out. I think that Hailey may have used an older, pre-PC version of Times New Roman in his analysis.

It also appears now that he made an error on the "th" issue by doing hsi work based on what was shown on his monitor, not printed out.

In the meantime, he cannot explain away the exact match to Word docs, and the spacing and format issues. And the content issues. And the centering. And you know the rest.

In order to make an effective rebuttal, we must know exactly *why* Hailey is wrong, and what errors he made, or else his case sounds too convincing to Joe Public.

it was, then we can't kn... (Below threshold)
mbl:

it was, then we can't know with certainty who authored anything there.

Yersterday good doc posted his PDF. Today someone created bunch of other PDFs ( consistant with created by him ) and upload it to his server to acuse him of forgery? That's fast!

Question is why? Story is dead, doc himself is no documents expert.

So if you are right wind nut job you WANT Boston Globe to run with this story so you can debunk it one more time.... ( After all there are a lot of holes in those docs. factually, not only typographically )...

Ugh. Typos. CBS memos, no... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Ugh. Typos. CBS memos, not CBC, heh.

In any case, why is he claiming to spot key defects when the doc he is studying has been copied, faxed, and PDF'ed? And don't forget the crumple marks.

Kaltes, if his Times New Ro... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Kaltes, if his Times New Roman sample is indeed bold text, then that shoots down his entire analysis right there.

Anyone else catch the straw... (Below threshold)

Anyone else catch the straw-man argument he spews out elsewhere? He's comparing the height the WinWord screenshot of "th" with that of the memo's "th". LGF refuted that counterargument on 9 September. It's the PRINTER font that has to be compared with the memo. You know, because the document was, uh, printed. From Word.

I wonder if I can order Dr Hailey's degree from all the spam-emails I've been getting?

Wait a minute the game is o... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Wait a minute the game is over. He says he used "ITC American Typewriter Condensed" (read new html version)

ITC is Tnternational Typeface Corporation.

you can see the font here

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!

Game. Set, Match.

As I said in my analysis ye... (Below threshold)
Kaltes:

As I said in my analysis yesterday, I compared his examples with ITC American Typewriter Condensed and found they did not match. To check for yourself, look at the lowercase 'a' and 't' in the link Paul gave and in the link I gave above. Note the prominent TAILS on those letters, then go look at Hailey's work and note their absence.

They don't match. Now that Hailey has gone on record that the font I GUESSED was the one he used is in fact the ones he claimed to have used, he dug his own grave.

Thanks for finding that one Paul, I didn't see his 'update'.

Hailey's analysis depends o... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

Hailey's analysis depends on being able to compare very small details in individual letters in the scanned memos. Through these details, Hailey claims to be able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the font in the memo was one used in mechanical typewriters and not in word processors, and that the letters show characteristic faults consistant with mechanical typing and inconsistant with computer output.

Hailey may be right, but I have my doubts because the data he's working with is just too noisy -- there is too much distortion from the copying and scanning, and too little resolution in the images to eliminate the possibility that the documents were computer-generated.

That's why I keep coming back to the character spacing. Because the letters in the lines are spread out over a large area, and because any errors in character spacing would be accumulative, they allow us to do very precise matching with contemporary output despite the degraded quality of the images we have to work with. To anyone who has ever attempted to micro-position characters with word processing software to match an arbitrary document that was mechanically printed, the LGF overlay animation is simply stunning and totally convincing. Additional details such as superscripts, centering, line breaks, etc. are just icing on the cake.

I'm sorry, Professor Hailey, but your evidence is just not convincing, either that CBS did due diligence before putting the story on the air, and certainly not that the documents are arguably authentic. The proportional spacing is just too incongruous with the purported source of the memos and should have set off alarm bells in any newsroom with a modicum of journalistic standards.

David Hailey - bona fides?<... (Below threshold)
Robusto:

David Hailey - bona fides?

He lists a PhD in "Technical Communication and Critical Theory" from University of New Mexico. Do they even HAVE such a program?

Maybe I'm groggy, but neither can I find his doctoral thesis (e.g., on ProQuest UMI - dissertation abstracts).

Its title "The Objective Metaphors: An Examination of Objects as Metaphors and Metaphors as Objects" doesn't sound like the work of a hardboiled document examiner . . .

Um, yeah. So you're arguing... (Below threshold)
John Anderson:

Um, yeah. So you're arguing that the man has gone to extreme lengths to forge something.. that the report in question explains is assembled as a demonstration of the matching of the font, and not a demonstration of an actual match with a typewriter?

That is, you're dancing in the aisles for catching him doing.. what he said he did?

Wow.

Posted by: Jonathan Abbey at September 30, 2004 05:56 PM

Not exactly: the thing is, he claims to have shown it could have been done on a typewriter, but his "proof" is a long way from being such. At least he admits it does not show it WAS done on a typewriter.

------

He used a computer font that was developed to emulate a typewriter ("typewriter family"? every font is part of the family of fonts...). And no, I saw a better match on another site (BEldan font? Something like that). Anyway, a computer font matching a [probable] computer font means it could have been typed?

Evidence of wear? Look at the CBS memos - it looks like it might be such until you notice that the wear-indication of say the "e" is not consistent. These are reproducton artifacts. And it seems he used a single examplar of each letter.

Even using a computer font, he couldn't come very close by straight entry but had to rearrange and resize bits and pieces.

Pay special attention to figure 5 body line 1, which he claims shows his work exactly duplicates ("Note the exact match") the CBS download. DOesn't take long to see -t r s E N T- are different, does it?

He may not intend to decieve, but his methodology is barely adequate and inconclusive.

David Hailey - bona fides?<... (Below threshold)
Robusto:

David Hailey - bona fides?

He lists a PhD in "Technical Communication and Critical Theory" from University of New Mexico. Do they even HAVE such a program?

Maybe I'm groggy, but neither can I find his doctoral thesis (e.g., on ProQuest UMI - dissertation abstracts).

Its title "The Objective Metaphors: An Examination of Objects as Metaphors and Metaphors as Objects" doesn't sound like the work of a hardboiled document examiner . . .

So, Mr. Hailey is saying he... (Below threshold)
Ellen:

So, Mr. Hailey is saying he recreated the memo using ITC American Typewriter Condensed font (page 8 of the pdf)? That's funny because I have that font and so far I cannot make it look like the memo. I suppose I could if I took it word by word but, take a look at the lower case "r" in the font, it looks nothing like what is on the memo.

Thank you, Paul, for the li... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Thank you, Paul, for the link to the complete character set for ITC American Typewriter Condensed. That's the evidence I was looking for, and I agree (at least until someone proves that character set is wrong or incomplete) that it puts the lie to the claim that the Bush memos could have been typed in that font. Well done.

I am confused by Hailey's c... (Below threshold)

I am confused by Hailey's claims reported here. He reproduced the memo using the font ITC American Typewriter? What is that supposed to prove? ITC American Typewriter was designed by Joel Kaden & Tony Stan in 1974.

Dear Mr. Bang,Two ... (Below threshold)
JWebb:

Dear Mr. Bang,

Two words:

Bahda Bing!

Sincerely & etc.,

Great job, Paul. Everythin... (Below threshold)

Great job, Paul. Everything I quoted in coming to this asshole's defense was added AFTER you busted him.

Amazing. Simply amazing.</... (Below threshold)

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Excellent work.

I'm glad someone is still t... (Below threshold)
Richard:

I'm glad someone is still tirelessly working this crucial story of fonts and kerning, it's far more relevant than any of that tiresome nonsense about Bush's abysmal record over the last four years, Iraq, or the economzzzzzzzz.

I am confused why people ar... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

I am confused why people are so riled about the timestamp of the PDF. The claims of forgery came up by analyzing the photoshop files *.psd scattered on his web server. These were the files that generated the images he used on the pdf files. Those psd files do not have today's timestamp. Why is it such a shocker that the pdf timestamp is not from yesterday? Seems likely he might have modified the file after some of this backlash occurred. But the real damning evidence are the .psd files, which shows the process in which he created/forged the images he presents in the pdf file.

This whole situation is sti... (Below threshold)
Tom:

This whole situation is still either very sloppy or very deceptive. If you read the "html" link version, his whole argument against the font being Times New Roman is that height of the "th" doesn't match. That leads into the section on recreating this whole "Typewriter" font. However, "Typewriter" obviously doesn't have the an appropriate superscript either so he has to create it artificially in Photoshop and insert it. At that point, the argument in favor of "Typewriter" over Times New Roman is either completely illogical or deceptive.

Apparently at some point, someone informs the professor of Charles Johnson's observations that the discrepancy in the superscripts is a result of differences between screen and print typefaces. So he simply removes this entire section from his paper, and it appears in neither of the PDF versions that have appeared. But now there is no argument of any kind that the font is not Times New Roman; simply an assumption that it is "Typewriter." This is the exact kind of assumption that he berates others for in the html version:

For a person to begin by assuming that he is dealing with Times New Roman and then continue with the assumption that he can successfully divine the proportions is not unlike presenting the argument that the earth is the center of the universe, beginning the with the untested argument that the earth is flat and that the author can divine its dimensions

As I said, this is either unbelievably sloppy or pretty dishonest.

Good work pre-empting this ... (Below threshold)

Good work pre-empting this poseur.

From Hailey's current .pdf:

"These are all mechanical processes, and anybody with extensive experience knows that these processes change the proportions of the copy. It might be shorter, or longer or narrower, or wider. Even the relationships between characters change. If we do not know anything else, we know that if you placed these photocopied memos on top of the original they would not line up."

This guy's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Type the document consecutively on the SAME 1972 Selectric and it won't match up this well. It was a *mechanical* device, whose character unit values were at best a compromise to produce proportional fonts.

FWIW, in 1974 IBM patented a Selectric version that had an automated carousel for changing multiple type-balls, so they could break into the Asian market with Kanjii symbols. One of the balls available at the time had (among others) the th superscript.

I can't help but notice tha... (Below threshold)

I can't help but notice that Wait A Minute hasn't responded to the posting of the original PDF, which Pavel has proven did not contain the information that was causing skepticism.

I'd think this would satisfy Wait A Minute. Perhaps he/she wasn't as interested in the integrity of the blogosphere as he/she portrayed?

Regardless, major Kudos to Paul for seeing this through and addressing the doubters effectively. The blogosphere works!

This is all interesting in ... (Below threshold)
Lee Shore:

This is all interesting in its way, but:

ITC American Typewriter Condensed is a typesetter and PC face; it never existed as a mechanical typewriter typeface. (You don't need to mimic a typewriter if you're typing on a typewriter, duh. Moreover, I don't believe that mechanical typewriters do condensed faces.)

Next, it doesn't look like the face used in the forged Killian memos. http://www.incunabula.co.jp/dtp-s/adobefont/font24/A/ATC24.html

Finally, and this is dispositive, we can forget about superscripts, curly apostrophes and all that stuff. A number of folks have demonstrated that the docs can be reproduced exactly using the default settings of Microsoft Word and the Times New Roman TrueType font. The question thus becomes, "What is the probability that a typewirter of any description could have done this in 1972 -- before the invention of personal computers, word processing, laser printers and the particular implementation of TNR in TrueType?"

The answer is zero. It is a modern forgery and a bad one. The forger might have used, say, monospaced Courier TTF and changed the line, letter and word spacings just a little from their defaults. Or, if really smart, he could have bought a used IBM Selectric for $75 and typed them out.

Dan Rather, in his whimpering, pants-peeing eagerness to dish President Bush, bit on a very bad forgery that any intern in his office could have reproduced with Microsoft Word.

I'm thoroughly confused.</p... (Below threshold)

I'm thoroughly confused.

1. What is the point of his trying to recreate the documents in Photoshop using a computer typeface created 2 years after the memos were supposedly written? I know that the font is supposed to resemble classic typewriter fonts, but it isn't actually one of them - the ITC website describes it as an homage, not an exact replica. What on earth is this man claiming that proves?

2. AND...that ITC American Typewriter Condensed Medium font is not the same as the one used in the memos. There are numerous, obvious differences, not least of which is the fact that the number "4" in the ITC Typewriter fontface has a foot, while the "4" in the memos does not.

Are you sure that this is really the fontface he claims to be using? That just seems so...stupid.

As Lee says, American Typew... (Below threshold)
parker:

As Lee says, American Typewriter was a font designed for phototypesetting that was "inspired" by aspects of old typewriter fonts. There was never any typewriter font that looked like it. It combined the monowidth strokes and slab serifs of old typewriter fonts with the proportional spacing of typesetting (to give a cleaner look with typeset). No mechanical typewriter ever existed that used this font: it was phototype and later PostScript and TrueType.

At any rate, you'd have to find a typewriter that used American Typewriter _and_ was capable of proportional spacing (_and_ show that the set-width of each letter of the font was the same as that in the memos). Such a typewriter never existed.

Not sure if this has alread... (Below threshold)
Snowy Owl:

Not sure if this has already been commented on, but if you crank the resolution up even more (I used 800%), it looks pretty apparent that the shapes of the letters aren't even the same. Perhaps moreso than can be explained by copy degradation, but hey, I'm no document expert.

IMHO, the secretary said it... (Below threshold)
Robert:

IMHO, the secretary said it best. They are not even in the proper form. Meaning the forgeries were created using a format the US Air Force did no use until the early 90s. I don't know anything about typeface and font, but I know how my records from the 70s and 80s look, and how they look from the 90s.

IMHO, the secretary said it... (Below threshold)
Robert:

IMHO, the secretary said it best. They are not even in the proper form. Meaning the forgeries were created using a format the US Air Force did not use until the early 90s. I don't know anything about typeface and font, but I know how my records from the 70s and 80s look, and how they look from the 90s.

I award you a blog pulitzer... (Below threshold)

I award you a blog pulitzer There really ought to be one.

I award you a blog pulitzer... (Below threshold)

I award you a blog pulitzer.
There really ought to be one.

I noticed he never said his "convincer" fig. 5 was created with a typewriter, although he seemed to be trying to leave that impression with his reader.

His Clinton-clausing led me to believe he might have used a computer font and/or photoshop to make adjustments.

He brought up several issues, as if he were going to disprove them, and he make declarative statements of fact without providing any supporting evidence for them. For example, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that it was beyond question that typewriters of the period in question could make a superscript. He just asserts this as true, when anyone who has been following the story knows the problems with that statement. A dedicated ligature superscript key is not the same thing as a true superscript at all. Machines that could make a true superscript were very unlikely to have been available, let alone used, for produciton of routine memos-to-file.

So Wizbang has shown how he got over his difficulty producting a Johnson style "convincer".
He just asserts it is possible, with some imaginary machine, and uses ANOTHER MEANS of producing it.

Hailey's paper is replete with little weirdnesses like that, and I'm with Wizbang - I hope the Globe walks off the cliff and uses it.


Lee,You can't even... (Below threshold)
YouGottaBeKidding:

Lee,

You can't even recreate the fraudulent TANG memos using Lotus Word Pro or WordPerfect (latest versions) and Times New Roman. I recreated all four CBS memos in Word. Then for grins and giggles, I recreated one of them in both Word Pro and WordPerfect. Both the vertical and horizontal spacing are subtley but noticeably "off" when each of those is compared to the Word doc.

If you can't exactly duplicate the Word version with other modern word processing software, there's no way that Word could magically exactly reproduce 1972 typewriter technology.

The professor's analysis lo... (Below threshold)
Tom:

The professor's analysis looks similar to Richard Katz at

http://www.javaskyline.com/analysis/killianfont.html

It looks like he may have borowed somebody else's methodolgy. Richard Katz is a Software ENgineer that CBS used to try to say that the memos were likely typewritten.

It is all academic because of the copying, faxing degedation, of the originals. Everyone is assuming these docs where done on a laser printer. How about an Inkjet with the best quality mode, lots of ink, and little manipulation such as putting another sheet of paper on top of the newly printed document inorder to cause a little smudgeing.

The smudging would not be consistent accross the whole document and could be slight.


On photo inkjets, one has to let pictures etc dry for a period of time or you will get color shifts.
I have seen reports of people complaining because they put their new photos inside the plastic protective photo jackets too soon.

I recommend that he change ... (Below threshold)
Abraxas:

I recommend that he change his phd to a psd(acronym for a photoshop document file.)

Yougotta,You can't... (Below threshold)
Lee Shore:

Yougotta,

You can't produce the phony memos with other word processing software because their default line, letter and word spacings differ from those of Word, even using the same TTF font. The forger had to have been using Word.

And it's not really a question of Word duplicating a 1972 typewriter (which with some effort probably could be done). Rather, it's the other way around -- no 1972 typewriter could ever create a Word document.

Not unless the writer in 1972 had a time machine and came forward to 2004, wrote them with Word and took them back. :-)

From reading the comments a... (Below threshold)

From reading the comments and the original postings (and looking at the PDF), it seems to me that this guy is not guilty of fraud. However, he certainly was doing a hell of a lot of work to establish a non-sequitor. A non-sequitor that the Globe was going to run with. Then we would have had to go through another full blown cycle of this on the blogosphere, CBS would be able to claim that there were still legitimate questions, and the marginally informed would think that the authenticity of the documents was still somehow in dispute. So I'm glad to see that WizBang headed them off at the pass.

The MSM is so LAME!!!

To make it short,1... (Below threshold)
Lanny:

To make it short,

1) You can type words in Phtoshop

or

2) You can do a combination of typing and cut & paste individual characters in Photoshop

If Hailey said he found a match font and going about to prove it, I assume he loaded that typefont in and do a typing match, using Photoshop or any available simulation. The keyword here is TYPING. It's not necessary for him to type on a typewriter but to type by using any available simulation. And typing mean you type words in continuously as it appeared on the faked memo. It also prevents manipulating of spacing as in the case of cut & paste.

The th superscript and the ITC font conclude that he imports a th superscript elsewhere to insert in the space after the 111. Whether he pasted each chacracter in one by one, I have not really look into his work to give a conclusion but I am sure if people want to look in, the data is available. Just the th superscript alone, telling me this is an dishonest work the least.

Outstanding detective work!... (Below threshold)
Mike Gibbons:

Outstanding detective work! Reality can be a really tough concept for those that seek to deceive :-)

Lee,That was my po... (Below threshold)
YouGottaBeKidding:

Lee,

That was my point! The only way to create the documents is with Word. All the people who recreated exactly matching documents did it with Word, therefore the phony originals had to be done with Word. There's no way they were done on a typewriter because a (new) Word document would not exactly match 1972 typewriter output.

It was always clear to me t... (Below threshold)
Lowell:

It was always clear to me that he was never claiming that his version was typed using a typewriter. The first time I saw the document, it didn't have the added clarifying material, but I always understood that he was claiming that the memos were not Times New Roman and that he was able to make what he considered an exact match with a version of the Typewriter typeface.

Let's look at the "evidence" that the documents were forgeries:

Font didn't exist - FALSE
Proportional spacing didn't exist - FALSE
No superscripted characters - FALSE

All these claims were put forward by Harry MacDougald, a Republican operative who had no expertise in the subject.

Now, let's look at the remaining claim:

The memos can be exactly duplicated using default settings of Microsoft Word, and using the Times New Roman - FALSE.

Hailey never claims that he typed the memo using a typewriter, and he says this in his caption for Fig. 5:

"The above is an example of a bush memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice."

Think about it for a couple of seconds. How could there be a font of choice if someone was using a typewriter? You don't have a font of choice with a typewriter; you take what you get.

Your assumption that he was trying to deceive results from your being too stupid to read carefully. When Hailey saw that he was being misinterpreted, he added the clarifying material, but that didn't mean it was needed in order to keep from misleading a person of at least normal intelligence.

Here's an article I wrote s... (Below threshold)
David G. Mills:

Here's an article I wrote several days ago about "forgeries" from a lawyer's perspective.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6947.htm


This guy confirms for me you guys never had any business calling these documents "forgeries." You had no proof, just suspicion. As a lawyer who has viewed thousands of documents in twenty-seven years, I can say that I have never seen a perfect document. If you look at any document long enough, you can find something suspicious. But that doesn't make a document a forgery.

Forgery is a crime. Using the term lightly has very prejudical conotations. I would encourage every one of you who think that you can prove that this document is a forgery to name the forger (not the passer of the document because they may not be the same person) and take your case to an appropriate district attorney. Put your liberty where your mouth is. Run the risk of swearing out a false criminal complaint.

I dare every one of you as I have others. So far, no one has taken up my challenge yet. Keep in mind also that you have to prove not only the person who was the forger, but the date, place, time, and method by which, the forgey was done. Otherwise, you will not be able to prove criminal intent or what lawyers call mens rea.

You have got a long way to go to prove forgery. Until you do, you are just slandering a reporter and a "passer" of a document to the press. Slander on you guys. Slander on. Please be admonished that your apparent slander has been published.

Here's an article I wrote s... (Below threshold)
David G. Mills:

Here's an article I wrote several days ago about "forgeries" from a lawyer's perspective.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6947.htm


This guy confirms for me you guys never had any business calling these documents "forgeries." You had no proof, just suspicion. As a lawyer who has viewed thousands of documents in twenty-seven years, I can say that I have never seen a perfect document. If you look at any document long enough, you can find something suspicious. But that doesn't make a document a forgery.

Forgery is a crime. Using the term lightly has very prejudical conotations. I would encourage every one of you who think that you can prove that this document is a forgery to name the forger (not the passer of the document because they may not be the same person) and take your case to an appropriate district attorney. Put your liberty where your mouth is. Run the risk of swearing out a false criminal complaint.

I dare every one of you as I have others. So far, no one has taken up my challenge yet. Keep in mind also that you have to prove not only the person who was the forger, but the date, place, time, and method by which, the forgey was done. Otherwise, you will not be able to prove criminal intent or what lawyers call mens rea.

You have got a long way to go to prove forgery. Until you do, you are just slandering a reporter and a "passer" of a document to the press. Slander on you guys. Slander on. Please be admonished that your apparent slander has been published.

Oh, for goodness sake, Davi... (Below threshold)

Oh, for goodness sake, David. Your analysis proves nothing except that "forgery" can be used as a legal term of art.

You could make the same argument about, for example, Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America", which wasn't really a "contract," but actually more in the nature of a quasi-contract, wouldn't you say, since "acceptance" of Newt's offer could only occur by performance? How in the world did Newt ever get away with calling it a "contract"? We lawyers should have called him on this horrid misuse of special lawyer-talk at once!

Get a clue. This prof went out of his way (by omitting crucial methodological information) to create a misimpression. If the best retort you have is that "well, this doesn't meet several jurisdictions' definitions of the crime called 'forgery'," then, dude, you're missing the point of the argument.

Oh, and it's libel when it's written, not slander. Did you miss that day?

"Please be admonished." Sheesh.

Pavel, I'll say this to you... (Below threshold)
Lowell:

Pavel, I'll say this to you, too:

It was clear to ME that Hailey was not claiming to have used a typewriter. Your assumption that he was trying to deceive results from your being too stupid to read carefully.

Lowell-Yeah. Sure... (Below threshold)

Lowell-

Yeah. Sure. Mkay.

-Pavel

I'll have to side with Pave... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

I'll have to side with Pavel here. IMHO, Hailey's paper was poorly written and logically flawed. A fundamental requirement of any technical paper is that it allow the reader to clearly follow, AND REPLICATE, the methodology therein.

That was simply not possible with Hailey's paper, at least in it's original form. Now, we can each form our own opinion as to whether the paper was intentionally misleading or just ridiculously sloppy.

David - above, you stated:<... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

David - above, you stated:

"This guy confirms for me you guys never had any business calling these documents "forgeries."

I don't mean to belittle your "admonishment", but I don't think it's possible to slander a document.

It is worth pointing out that while a legal definition of "forgery" might require fraudulent intent, the common definition does not. Further, your own "article" makes the case that simply because a document is forged (common def) or inauthentic does not prove "nefarious" intent.

Your position seems to be that simply calling the CBS documents forgeries is slanderous. This is patently untrue, and if you are really an attorney, you know that.

At the risk of further clouding the issue with true facts, I will point out that no slander or libel suits have been filed, in spite of the fact that there are some potentially deep pockets involved. Specifically, neither Bill Burkett nor "Lucy Ramirez" have chosen to file suit.

If you choose not to acknowledge the obvious, that's certainly your perogative.

Great work, Whizbang. The p... (Below threshold)

Great work, Whizbang. The posters over at FreeRepublic were commenting on this fraud of a fraud on September 27. Check out this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227454/posts?page=81#81

Great work, Whizbang. The p... (Below threshold)

Great work, Whizbang. The posters over at FreeRepublic were commenting on this fraud of a fraud on September 27. Check out this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227454/posts?page=81#81

Great work, Whizbang. The p... (Below threshold)

Great work, Whizbang. The posters over at FreeRepublic were commenting on this fraud of a fraud on September 27. Check out this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227454/posts?page=81#81

Lowell,Di you read... (Below threshold)
Lanny:

Lowell,

Di you read my comment "carefully"?

Pavel, SarahW, LSU Engineer... (Below threshold)
Bill:

Pavel, SarahW, LSU Engineer, etc ...kudos, right on the head. Taking into account that the author's conclusion was that CBS had authentic documents as far as he is concerned, which totally overrides any arguments that he "never said a typewriter did this... blah,blah,blah" - from another engineer (me), this simple but not-stated-as-of-yet question:

"Why on Earth would someone go to the trouble to sit and write and then publish this incredibly boring crap in the first place? Why not simply pack up your miracle typewriter, head to New York for a live appearance on the CBS Evening News, then in view of all of America, with a camera closely focused in on the paper and typewriter, reproduce this document for all to see?"

This would have been the most watched and most vindicating broadcast of all time, with the right marketing, can you imagine? But no, this man chose to sit in his closet office, with stinking food buried under years of who-knows-what, and do a "study" to prove his point. Just another example of a person who is too stupid to know that they really don't know much of anything. I'm just dying to know what this guy looks like, it will probably sicken us all.

I set so many things differ... (Below threshold)
J_Crater:

I set so many things different between the two line that it is laughable.

Look at the "F.I.S.", the "F' aligns but the "I" is way off, then the "S" is in near alignment.

The font "ITC American Typewriter Condensed" is a serif font and has a foot on the "4", the memos do not have a foot on the bottom of the "4". Times New Roman has serif-s on most letters, but does not have a foot on the "4".

This is a killer web site, ... (Below threshold)
Dan Mercer:

This is a killer web site, and I mean that
literally. When trying to view this site using
Internet Explorer under Windows ME (with
September upgrades applied) it crashed my
machine badly enough I had to use System Restore
to get it working again! So I tried using my son's
PC, also IE/ME - crash again. Pretty cool, if
disturbing. My son's machine is virtually a virgin
box, I reformatted and re-installed after he left
for college. Finally used my Linux box to get here.
Just wanted to share.

I know typefaces, and the C... (Below threshold)
G.Quinn:

I know typefaces, and the CBS memos look like Times to me. They’re certainly not Palatino or American Typewriter. There are 4 characteristics that tell me it’s Times.
1 The number 9. The 9 in the CBS memo has a tapering, open-ended tail with no terminating blob. The 6 mirrors the 9. Notice how the 6 seems to be reaching over the 7 in the address.
2. The cap J. The hook on the J is abbreviated, has little or no blob, and most importantly does not descend below the baseline.
The combination of these 2 characteristics alone point to Times, and exclude most other fonts.
plus:
3. The lower case g. The descending loop is rather flattened.
4. The number 5. The sweeping curve of the 5 is angled downward where it meets the upright, and the upright itself is angled.

Pavel:You haven't ... (Below threshold)
David G. Mills:

Pavel:

You haven't proven this is a forgery. Period. You obviously don't know what the word forgery means. It does not just mean an attempt to reproduce an original. There has to have some intent behind the reproduction to decieve somebody. If I attempt to paint a Van Gogh and hang it on my wall and clearly state that it is my attempt to reproduce his work, it is not a forgery until I attempt to pass it off as his work. Then it becomes a forgery because deceit is now part of the equation. Forgery has this conotation both in the legal sense and in the common vernacular.

The word reproduction has no negative connotation. If you guys had called this a reproduction with some suspicious characteristics, would this have made the national news? I doubt it. It is only when you attach the negative and criminal connotation of the word forgery that it becomes news. The implication is that someone is doing something deceitful.

Where is the proof of the maker's deceit when you have no clue who the maker is? You can't attach any decit to Burkett, Rather or Ramirez or anyone else unless they knew that that the document was either not signed by Killian or they Knew that the statements of Killian contained therein were false.

We lawyers have to examine documents all the time. The Federal Rules of Evidence (which are almost universally adopted by most states with rare changes) has three chapters dealing with documents. Chapter VIII is Hearsay, Chapter IX is Authentication and Identification, and Chapter X is Contents of Writings, Recordings and Photographs.

Interstingly, Chapter X, Rule 1004 states: "The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, or recording or photograph is admissible if --...(2) the original is not obtainable. So please note, it is the contents which are important, not whether the document is an original.

After examining the contents, the court must then look at the contents under Chapter XIII, Rule 807 to determine whether they are "trustworthy." If they are found to be trustworthy, the court will allow their admissibility.

The point I would like to make is that lawyers look to the contents of the writing, not to the typeface, the kind of paper the words are printed on, whether the document is an original, a duplicate, a crude reproduction, a draft or notes of the original. You look at the contents to see if the contents can be verified. The contents of Killian's statements were verified by his secretary and others who knew Killian's opinions.

It's the statements, stupid, to change the phrase. If the statements can't be verified, it doesn't matter how good of an original the document is.

I stand corrected on slander vs. libel. Point well taken.

Find the deceit and then make your case. Otherwise you are just slamming innocent people, apparently for political purpose.

One side note. I am old enough that I remember typed documents. Maybe many of you are too young to remember them. One thing was common with typewriters. Many had several different typewriter balls. It was not uncommon to type part of a document with one ball, take it out, type with another ball for certain fonts, take the second ball out and put the original ball back in and keep typing.

"If I attempt to paint a Va... (Below threshold)

"If I attempt to paint a Van Gogh and hang it on my wall and clearly state that it is my attempt to reproduce his work, it is not a forgery until I attempt to pass it off as his work."

No question that's true, David. That's not what happened with the CBS documents - Rather was busy telling us that they were Van Goghs, not someone's attempt to copy Van Gogh.

The prof went even further. He went out of his way to create the impression not that he COULD bang out these memos on a typewriter, but that he DID bang them out.

My point is that "fraud" or "forgery" can be used as legal terms of art, or they can be used to connote attempts to deceive. CBS at least should have known better; the prof DID know better, but tried to get the world to think otherwise.

And yes, I remember the days of typewritten legal documents very well.

Using a computer font that ... (Below threshold)

Using a computer font that emulates a typewriter to reproduce the typewritten letter basically brings us back to where we were -- the document can be exactly reproduced on a computer. It would be instructive to know whether ITC Typewriter font is kerned, even slightly (e.g., is the "i" or "l" the same width as a "w"?). If it is, it certainly is NOT a typewriter font; if it is not, then it is properly emulating typewriter technology.

Typewriters (including selectrics) move the carriage a fixed distance for each letter. Ever seen a selectric ball? There is no information on the ball to allow any type of kerning to occur. Any selectric repair people care to comment?

"The point I would like ... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

"The point I would like to make is that lawyers look to the contents of the writing, not to the typeface, the kind of paper the words are printed on, whether the document is an original, a duplicate, a crude reproduction, a draft or notes of the original. You look at the contents to see if the contents can be verified. The contents of Killian's statements were verified by his secretary and others who knew Killian's opinions."

David -

That statement is just silly. What you're saying is that I can take a crayon and fake a will signed by you - and that crude reproduction, although obviously fake, is legally binding as long as I can produce a person (not a witness to the will) who will testify that they overheard you saying that you wanted to give me all your money? What law school did you go to?

re: "The contents of Killian's statements were verified by his secretary and others"- What "others" are you referring to? Please, please say "Lucy Ramirez".

Good catch, LSU. I didn't ... (Below threshold)

Good catch, LSU. I didn't even read that far in David's post because the arguments he makes are so preposterous.

Hey, David: Please stop pretending to speak for all lawyers. I, for one, and frankly any lawyer I've every met, would take strong exception to being lumped into your "fake but accurate is okay" camp.

Nice work.You youn... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Nice work.

You youngsters are way over my head going at this from a computer standpoint, but here are some contributions from a typesetting standpoint.

Either I am missing something, or the professor, and possibly some of you, believe American Typewriter Condensed by ITC was a EVER a typewriter face. It was not. It has always been a TYPEFACE, what you whippersnappers now refer to as a "font." It was designed for the phototypesetting machines of that era, not typewriters. It only borrowed its graphic inspiration and name from traditional typewriter faces (just as other typefaces drew their inspiration and names from classical handwriting), and applied the sophisticated proportional spacing of typefaces, not the monospace or even the crude IBM 5 or 9 unit systems. Unlike Courier or Prestige, it never appeared on typewriters, typesetting machines, and computers. It ONLY was available on typesetting machines, and is now available on computers.

IT WAS DESIGNED IN 1974 by Joel Kadan and Tony Stan, AFTER the forged memos. I remember seeing it introduced in an issue of U&lc, ITC's promotional magazine for the trade, and thinking it was cool. I don't remember if I ever used it.

Two more points from grandpa (next month!):

1) If any typeface like the one in the CBS forgeries had been available on a typewriter in 1971, I and many more low budget publishers would have jumped on it! Those typesetting machines ran from the high tens to the hundreds of thousands of dollars and about $25/hr in those days. Appreciate the technology on your desk!

2) The forgeries are CRUDE forgeries. I know a little about typesetting; I am no expert, and I would have bet the house the first time I saw them. This is to take nothing away from all the excellent work and service done to the country by yourself and the rest of the pajamhadeen. You nailed the coffin lid down TIGHT. Hey, anything worth doing, is worth overdoing!

Source: Level, Newman, Newman, Precision Type: Font Reference Guide. (Commack, NY: Precision Type, 1995)

CORRECTION: I should have s... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

CORRECTION: I should have said, "after the DATES on the forged memos." Please ignore the other typos.

JD

Jeff - The premise... (Below threshold)

Jeff -

The premises of your argument are (1) that the TANG didn't blow front-end loaders full of cash on superexpensive typesetting machines, and (2) that even if they had, (a) Killian didn't know how to operate these machines, and (b) if he did know how to operate them, he did not choose to use these machines to churn out short memos to the file.

And yet I bet you have not one bit of proof for these negative propositions. Ha! Tis to laugh!

-Pavel's Evil Twin

Jeff-Disregard my ... (Below threshold)

Jeff-

Disregard my evil twin. He's a Kerry guy.

Congrats on the grandbaby! I can hardly wait for my own in (I hope) the not-too-distant future.

-Pavel

Evil,Are you jerki... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Evil,

Are you jerking my chain? The "argument" was over about six hours after 60 MInutes II aired. I suppose TANG could have gotten access to an Air Force time machine (they always had the budget for the far out stuff) and popped up to 1974 to have a high end type shop set the memos in American Typewriter Condensed.

I think they were created on a computer a couple of weeks ago -- and that you are jerking my chain, but with some of the reasoning going on here, one can never be sure. I don't know if I would go so far as to condemn the prof for academic malfeasance, though -- the standards are awfully low. Do parents get their tuition back if you get a conviction?

Paul, thanks for the kind email; you're a gent. I guess I don't get this posting thing, since I got your email, but don't see your post...

Jeff (old slang for gambling with quads)

Pavel,Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Pavel,

Thanks for the congrats, but have a little mercy on a senior citizen -- I've reread that Evil post. No way he is for real, right?

Say it ain't so.

Jeff

Jeff- No, he's not... (Below threshold)

Jeff-

No, he's not real at all, just seeing if I could force myself to see the other side of the coin and try to be a true believer like Hailey. That's the closest I could come. Your arguments are proven by common sense, and anytime someone asks you to prove a negative, you know they're using mirrors.

Love the line about academic malfeasance - we're seeing a great example of that right now in what's coming out of USU in Hailey's "defense."

"old slang for gambling with quads": I don't get it, though perhaps it's just because it's early.

-Pavel

Once you eliminate the cons... (Below threshold)
Sir Harold Q. McGiggles:

Once you eliminate the conspiracy theory mindset, you see the hoohaa. You guys need to read the numerous debunking sites. Let's not forget the person who is the subject of these documents did not refute them. That's kinda important, don't ya think? Kind of like a recent debate we all watched, huh?

I'm not following this that... (Below threshold)

I'm not following this that closely, because it seems so clear that the new claims are bogus, but I was struck by the ITC Typewriter font that he claims he used to match the forged Bush memos.

Look at the capital J in the ITC font, with its curlicue. Try to find that J on any of the CBS PDFs (like in the word "Jerry.")

The font is not even close to the forged CBS font.

Pavel,Thanks for c... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Pavel,

Thanks for clearing that up. As for seeing it from the other side's point of view, I've tried for a long time, read some experts, including Hoffer (who is very good), and even lived in Berkeley for several years (entertaining and they do have good food).

The best I can suggest is to forget about logic. Being a true Lefty (as opposed to a responsible Dem, an endangered species) is an emotional and personal choice. It is based on faith, not reason. I think it also has a lot to with finally making into the "in crowd."

The "gambling with quads" was an old time printing reference for the benefit of Paul, a member of the craft who sent me a nice email. I believe BF mentions it in his Autobiography.

Since you all are into the arcane aspects of typography this week, here it is: Metal type is cast with "nicks," grooves along the bottom side (if I recall correctly), so that the compositor can tell the bottom by touch. In prePC days (BPC?) typefaces (what you call fonts) had subsidiary fonts, which were the specific size, and style, and literally the collection of type in that specific drawer. Fonts were made up of "sorts," A couple of "sorts" (individual characters) in every font a couple sorts were square, usually if not always the "M," thus the "em" space (as wide as it is high—a ten point em is ten points wide as well), both a specific blank sort for spacing and a measurement in the spacing system of a specific font for the type designer, who still uses it as his basic measurement, expressing the other character widths in fractions of it.

Anyway, like everyone else in the working class in those days (except Franklin), the compositors drank a lot of ale. To determine who would pay, they rolled the square sorts, determining the winner by how many nicks were upright (one in four chance). To keep track, they used "P" and "Q" sorts, standing for pints and quarts, thus "minding your p's and q's." This explanation is much more fun than the alternate about the difficuty of telling them apart because they are reversed on type. I doubt a compositor would have any more trouble with them than you do with your keyboards. Some could set type in the dark. And why not b's and d's then?

"Jeffing" was what they called the game. I have never found a source that tells why, but my own theory is that the old "Je" and "ff" ligature sorts (ligatures like the "th" that started all this had to be cast as one sort) were square and used in the game.

For you purists out there, I have simplified this narrative as much as possible, leaving out some of the subtleties of the term "sort."

Well, if that doesn't leave you "out of sorts" with the idea of just letting any yahoo waste your time posting here, maybe you all ought to to take a break and go outside.

Best wishes,

Jeff

ADDENDUM: A "quad" is an em... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

ADDENDUM: A "quad" is an em, a square sort.

I have very nice graphics s... (Below threshold)

I have very nice graphics software, and zoomed in on the "th" superscript in question.

It looks nothing like what you present as the "enlarged" version.

You altered the documents.

That would seem to me to be fraudulent behavior.

Nice Try Josh. You forget e... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Nice Try Josh. You forget everyone else can download it and look for themselves.

So much for your "Very nice" software.

Jeff-That's a fasc... (Below threshold)

Jeff-

That's a fascinating story. My dad had a printing press in our garage (no, he didn't "make money the old fashioned way" :), and I remember the typeboxs and miscellany associated with it. He loved it; could set a line of type with incredible speed. We kids got drafted into putting divider sheets between the pages as he printed them so that the ink wouldn't transfer.

I agree that this version of p&qs is much more enjoyable than the alternatives, and hence it is the appropriate story to tell.

-Pavel

Pavel and LSU:Firs... (Below threshold)
David G. Mills:

Pavel and LSU:

First the will analogy. It won't work. Wills have their own set of rules. I can handwrite my own will and if I do, I usually will not need witnesses as long as someone can identify my handwriting. If someone contests my handwriting, then a jury gets to decide which one of the two people are right. If it is type written and contested, again a jury would get to hear what laypeople knew about my intents. Mostly in will cases the issue is whether it has been revoked. It is so far removed from a document case like this that parallels seem pointless.

I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that this document is suspicious and I personally have no expertese in the area of typesetting.

But what is your point? Rather's mistake was that he showed the world the documents before he had someone verify the contents. If he had done it the other way around, would we be having this discussion? I doubt it.

Does this document refute what Killian's secretary is saying? No. At a trial she could be asked something like this. Did Killian ever ask you to type anything about Bush? She would say yes. Did he ever ask you to type something that resembles the following statement? Then a statement from this document is read. She would answer. If she answers yes, then she could be asked how closely this statement is to being a verbatum statement of one Killian asked her to type. And she could say it is verbatum, nearly verbatum, sorta close, or not at all close or whatever her response would be.

I guess this is where I have the problem. If this document was a recent fabrication, how did it get so close to being as accurate as what Killian's secretary said she typed for him? She knew it wasn't the document she typed, but she described it as a document that was so close to the one that she typed that the maker of it either had the original to work from or had an extremely good memory of what the original said.

Again, both this document and Killian's secretary confirm what is believed to have been Killian's thoughts about Bush. Others also have said the same thing about Killian's opinion of Bush. Is that what is important or not? If that is not what is important, then it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. I said originally your argument puts form over substance.

The law looks for substance. What I am looking for is what Killian said and thought. All you guys want to do is make the argument that we should not even be permitted to make an attempt to find out what Killian thought or said because of one suspicious document. Heaven forbid that those of us how would like to know what people are willing to say about Killian's opinion should find out.

Turn this around for a moment. Suppose we had a document that looked like an original, that had appeared to be kept in Bush's file all these years, that appeared to be signed by Killian, but people who knew Killian said that the statements in the document didn't sound like Killian's. Would we not want to consider what these people had to say?

This is the Swift Boat argument now. We have documents there that appear to be genuine and authentic government documents, but many of the people who say they are familiar with the events say that the documents don't reflect what happened. They still got to tell their view point and the world got to judge them. All I ask for is the same consideration.

Please try it yourself, Pau... (Below threshold)

Please try it yourself, Paul. When enlarging %400, not only does the image _not_ look like the one presented here in the sense that the lower "th" appears to have been altered, but also the overall grainiess of the enlarged gif is missing, as if the %400 image was smoothed by Wizbang.

The original gif does _not_ contain the details supposedly evident in the above, clipped image.

Mr. Mills is understating t... (Below threshold)

Mr. Mills is understating the case. Killian's secretary is 85 years old, and let's face it, secretaries are not usually drawn from the deep end of the brain pool, especially not military secretaries for the Air National Guard.

Now, she claims she didn't type the memos, but that Killian kept a secret file, and they reflected what she remembers about Bush at the time.

More plausible than the forgeries, if you ask me, is that these are those files.

Yes, Bill Burkett is a partisan against Bush.

Nothing I have seen _in_any_way_ puts doubt on the authenticity of the documents from the technical standpoint (the typesetting controversy).

Do this...Go into ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Do this...

Go into Adobe Acrobat Reader. Open the document, get to the exact part and zoom 400%, heck zoom in and out make it 800%, 1200, and go back down to 200% (and make sure you have the original pdf file)

Paul


I'll give you a microscopic caveat. The pdf is a vector file and I rasterized it in photoshop rather than take a screen grab. (in an effort to preserve quality) Between that and potential changes in resolutions of monitor sizes, potentially what I call 400% looks like 300% on you screen.

That said, if you zoom in so that the letters are about the same size, I assume you it will look the same. Furthermore there are about 5ish other places in the doc with similar problems, you can look at them.

Lastly, about 250 comments have been posted and dozens, if not hundreds of people have tried it and reported the same thing. May people made their own files and put them on their blogs. Surely someone would have noticed if you were on to something.

**Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just jerking my chain,** try adjusting the brightness and contrast on your monitor especially if you have an LCD panel.

Oh and Make sure you are using the right file. It is available on update 9 of the post.

After that I'm kinda clueless.

-"Nothing I have seen _in_a... (Below threshold)
Someguy:

-"Nothing I have seen _in_any_way_ puts doubt on the authenticity of the documents from the technical standpoint"

That's the problem... You're blind!

I'm using the original .gif... (Below threshold)

I'm using the original .gif from his site. I know what a screen grab is, certainly, but not about "rasterization" of PDFs. Can't you all try it yourself? I have an excellent screen, so I know it isn't that.

I can zoom or scale the image, and in _no_way_ could the image at the top of this page be said to have come from the IMRI original.

Anyone want a copy?

OK that explains it... use ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OK that explains it... use the pdf. I think even his current pdf has the problem. The gif is probably worthless zoomed 4X.

pdf is much higher quality btw.

P

Not so much (morally) blind... (Below threshold)
Jim Patrick:

Not so much (morally) blind but intellectually dishonest. The document --if it can be called that-- has no authenticity. Period. Mr. Navins seems to look at the world backwards. Authentication is needed before anything can be accepted as believable at any level.

The 'Rathergate' papers came from or were associated with 1) Burkette, an open and virulant antagonist to Bush; and 2) Mapes, "pursuing this story for 5 years"; stalking is another description. Disregarding any post-release knowlege, these factors by themselves demand a much higher standard of proof than would normally be required. What CBS advanced was no evidence at all.

Sunsequent knowlege makes the standard of proof (which to date had nothing to even remotely suggest they could be real) extremely high. CBS misrepresented the paper to all the supposed authenticators, none of whom back authenticity.

Opposing the chance of authentication is the simple explanation --see William of Occam's "razor"-- that a motivated person or persons fabricated the papers. That they used the most common (American) wp software, complete with default font, default margins, default tabs, and default leading.

"The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft's Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero." -- Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer

As the story unfolds, the probablility of of authenticity becomes smaller (if you can imagine smaller) with every development. That deviations from Air Guard abbreviations matches Burkette's National Guard abbreviations. That Burkette admits lying about the source.

That Mapes admits to coordinating with the Kerry campaign. That Burkette's subsequent explanations, after being outed, get more unbelievable by the second; and not one single person can corraborate anything he claims. Everything goes back --and ends at-- Burkette and Mapes.

Could the "memos" be authentic? Sure they could, but the probability is smaller than the probability of an asteriod destroying the earth tomorrow.

josh, even looking a the gi... (Below threshold)
Paul:

josh, even looking a the gif 4x you can see it does not match.

It is not near as clear as on the pdf but it is obvious something is amiss. Indeed seeing that "th" on the gif at 100% is what clued me off, that's why I grabbed the pdf.

If you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you. But start with the pdf.

Starting with the .psd file... (Below threshold)

Starting with the .psd file from the "Dont leave the evidence" link, above, produced the results as above.

Thanks Josh... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Thanks Josh

Come on guys, give up on Jo... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Come on guys, give up on Josh and the other True Disbelievers; you are spinning your wheels.

If they are not convinced by now, and have even perused the evidence, they can't be convinced. Even CBS didn't hold out this long. Reputable document experts are unanimous.

I was convinced as soon as I saw them. They are CRUDE forgeries. In 1971, I looked very hard for the kind of sophisticated "typewriting" the fakes exhibit, and short of phototypesetting, the best you could get was the IBM Selectric Composer, and these fakes were not created on one.

Others have demonstrated how they were created.

I'll add my hundred to the ten thousand dollar prize to anyone who can duplicate the CBS forgeries with 1971 technology, short of phototypesetting, camera, and paste-up.

Disbelievers with common sense would go for the prize. Arguing with them is like arguing religion. You can trade all the logical noises you want, but it comes down to a matter of faith. They know the story is true, so the proof doesn't matter, or can be interpreted as required. The only reason they bother with the argument at all is their need to believe they are being rational. It is possible CBS was right and we are wrong, there just isn't any proof for it.

I don't think any of us have not indulged ourselves in exactly this way. Humans are well known for believing what they want to believe. I would suspect it is an instinct, but for the fact that while it offers great comfort in the short run, it does not offer survival value in the longer one.

I miss Santa, and I don't regret being a liberal when I was somewhat older, but I find believing nonsense not only dangerous, but unbecoming as an adult. I try, with varying success, to fight it. Doing so leaves me little time to combat it in others.

Come on guys, give up on Jo... (Below threshold)
Jeff Dennis:

Come on guys, give up on Josh and the other True Disbelievers; you are spinning your wheels.

If they are not convinced by now, and have even perused the evidence, they can't be convinced. Even CBS didn't hold out this long. Reputable document experts are unanimous.

I was convinced as soon as I saw them. They are CRUDE forgeries. In 1971, I looked very hard for the kind of sophisticated "typewriting" the fakes exhibit, and short of phototypesetting, the best you could get was the IBM Selectric Composer, and these fakes were not created on one.

Others have demonstrated how they were created.

I'll add my hundred to the ten thousand dollar prize to anyone who can duplicate the CBS forgeries with 1971 technology, short of phototypesetting, camera, and paste-up.

Disbelievers with common sense would go for the prize. Arguing with them is like arguing religion. You can trade all the logical noises you want, but it comes down to a matter of faith. They know the story is true, so the proof doesn't matter, or can be interpreted as required. The only reason they bother with the argument at all is their need to believe they are being rational. It is possible CBS was right and we are wrong, there just isn't any proof for it.

I don't think any of us have not indulged ourselves in exactly this way. Humans are well known for believing what they want to believe. I would suspect it is an instinct, but for the fact that while it offers great comfort in the short run, it does not offer survival value in the longer one.

I miss Santa, and I don't regret being a liberal when I was somewhat older, but I find believing nonsense not only dangerous, but unbecoming as an adult. I try, with varying success, to fight it. Doing so leaves me little time to combat it in others.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy