Please read all the updates
The blogosphere is abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. who might have proven the CBS documents are legit.
The Boston Globe is so excited they are getting ready to run with it.
I hope they do. [Content removed - see this correction]
And I have the goods.
He attempted to copy Charles' work of reproducing the document on a typewriter. Supposedly, the top line is the CBS memo and the bottom line a 1970's era typewriter. But there was a problem... (He later said it was not typed. read the pdf and you decide what he said)
First download the pdf his analysis. Then go to page 8 and zoom in on the "th" at 400% you'll see...

As they sing on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."
UPDATE I viewed the pdf on screen and it was obviously a forgery. Spoons says he could not see it so I rerasterized it as saved it as a jpg. I think it is clearer. If you doubt me, like everything in the blogosphere, follow the links. (/update)
Here is a hint for the good Professor-- If you are going to forge documents DON'T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver. [Ed - Most of the content previously available through this link is now gone.]
And if you don't think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery.
Not only did he forge the document but he let the work in progress in an open web folder.
And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.
Did you think we were stupid?
Update OpenSecrets.org say the good professor gave John Kerry $250 (thanks Allah)
Update 2: We got word from Charles at LGF that the Globe is backing away from the guy. I wonder why.
Update 3: The Backstory I had this story last night. In fact, I mailed it to James and Steven because it was a case of academic misconduct and they follow that sorta stuff.
I asked them to hold it because I was calling the head of his department in the morning. It was not etched in stone that I was going to blog this. I called the head of his department and he was a very nice gentleman. He looked at the pdf and agreed it did not look right but said he did not have the expertise to say it was a fraud.
He asked me to make the case for academic misconduct and mail it to him. I told him he would get it Monday morning. Once I saw the Globe was considering running the story and that Charles and Allah had links to it, I knew someone would bust the guy so I may as well do it.
In other words DSA... Not in your wildest freaking dreams. (ROFLMAO at closed circuit humor ;-)
--Some people tried to cast doubt on my story. I investigated immediately and the good professor only dug himself deeper. --
Update 4: One of the commenters noted that the pdf version was updated about 1pm TODAY. I have no idea if the guy knows he's famous, so I don't know if he was trying to cover his tracks or if he just just still working on the forgery (er document). If he was trying to cover something he did a bad job as the bogus TH is still plainly clear.
The pdf has been modified (as noted in update 4) with additional language explaining the figure. He calls it both figure 4 and figure 5 so there is some confusion there. HE NOW CLAIMS THE BOTTOM LINE WAS NOT TYPED.
At this point it is probably safe to assume his department head called him and he was trying to fix things. I'm in the process of seeing if his explanation is credible. If so, I'll trumpet it. But so far, I'm very, very dubious.
Update 5 He is now doing more editing. Fixing sloppy work or digging in deeper? Jury still out. But keep an eye on the html version. If he makes the case, you'll hear it here first.
Update 6: As I've noted in the comments, we're working getting the original pdf uploaded. I can't upload via web interface so I mailed it to Kevin who will FTP it up.
In the mean time, here's the text. That whole part about not misunderstanding figure 4 was NOT in the original. The original has figure 4 then verbatim:
Figure 4. Washington Post analysis of criticisms advanced by "document experts." Their criticism is that the type is proportional, the superscript "th" is consistent with word processing software and not consistent with mechanical technologies of the time. Some experts are certain that the font used is Times New Roman, probably unavailable on typewriters at the time, and certainly not used by the military at the time.After figure 5 he has the caption (in bold) then more text.The critical arguments of the above document experts are both spurious and uninformed. The ability of the military to produce the proportional text with a superscript "th" with a typewriter is beyond question. [it is? -ed] The only real questions are "is this Times New Roman or similarly contemporary, digital font," and, "is the typing mechanical or digital?"
Working on the hypothesis that this is Typewriter, and was typed on a machine, I am able to exactly reproduce a Bush memo (Figure 4). [editors note he means figure 5.]
Figure 5. The above is an example of a bush memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice. Note that the match is exact.IMPORTANT: Even if you accept that he never meant to imply he physically typed it, he just worded it poorly in the original, WHY DID HE HAVE TO PASTE IN THE TH? If it were so easy to replicate, why not do it? IF he had to paste it in, it is still a forgery.Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica.
I still have many doubts. Anyone?
The professors now says:
I was able to establish the font family based on the best examples of each character. I was able to recreate most of the defining characteristics using a font called "ITC American Typewriter Condensed." Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family.ITC is International Typeface Corporation.
You can see the font he claims he uses at ITCFONTS.COM
Look down and to the right and you will see "View full character set"
There is no superscript "th" in that font. You have to make it on a computer. That's why he pasted it in!
And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if he produced it on a computer how exactly does that help his case???
We are left with thinking he is either a forger or incomprehensibly dumb. All things considered, I'd admit to stretching the truth before I'd own up to being this dumb. But that's just me.
One more... Sorry for delay... original pdf file here.
Update 8: Some say they did not understand this post as it was too cryptic. If so, read Dr. Hailey Redux.
Comments (257)
Go through that again in du... (Below threshold)1. Posted by El Tejon | September 30, 2004 4:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Go through that again in dumb english. Sorry man, it is cool, but needs translating. Otherwise, dead center!
1. Posted by El Tejon | September 30, 2004 4:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:31
2. Posted by The Hort | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
One word: Awesome.
2. Posted by The Hort | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:32
3. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Um, please explain. I see little lines in the top corner, but I don't know what that means.
3. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:32
4. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 4:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
4. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 4:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:34
5. Posted by Allan | September 30, 2004 4:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
WOW. What will these people stop at?
5. Posted by Allan | September 30, 2004 4:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:37
6. Posted by lawhawk | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pajamahadeen catching forgers morning, noon, and night. Fantastic! Excellent work!
6. Posted by lawhawk | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:39
7. Posted by Laurence of the Rats | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nailed him.
One of these days the Left is going to dig up somebody competant to forge their documents.
7. Posted by Laurence of the Rats | September 30, 2004 4:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:39
8. Posted by Neoluddite | September 30, 2004 4:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
8. Posted by Neoluddite | September 30, 2004 4:40 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:40
9. Posted by Chuck Willette | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh, excellent . . . he is busted.
9. Posted by Chuck Willette | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:41
10. Posted by OneDrummer | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.....
10. Posted by OneDrummer | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:41
11. Posted by Beth Donovan | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
11. Posted by Beth Donovan | September 30, 2004 4:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:41
12. Posted by Lanny | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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"
12. Posted by Lanny | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:42
13. Posted by JohnQPublic | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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)
13. Posted by JohnQPublic | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:42
14. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
14. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:42
15. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ho. Lee. Etc.
Now I see it. Whoa.
Reminds me of a time when I had to explain permissions on files to someone who had left up some very interesting emails for the world to see... I learned how to anonymous email that day.
Still, was pre-emption a good idea? These people may actually learn something in this process, and as Laurence says, someone who can actually forge convincingly may come out of this process.
But man oh man. Good work.
15. Posted by meep | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:43
16. Posted by Faith+1 | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
16. Posted by Faith+1 | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:43
17. Posted by Voice of Reason | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
17. Posted by Voice of Reason | September 30, 2004 4:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:43
18. Posted by arb | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
18. Posted by arb | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:45
19. Posted by Mark James | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
19. Posted by Mark James | September 30, 2004 4:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:45
20. Posted by Bob | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
20. Posted by Bob | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:46
21. Posted by chris | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
21. Posted by chris | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:46
22. Posted by Brian | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wonder how fast the Boston Globe is stopping the presses.
22. Posted by Brian | September 30, 2004 4:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:46
23. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
WOW now that was some fast responses... Ok I was close on the "cut and paste" but I was thinking about lowering the original and using a sharpen filter. Duh, he put an entirely new "th" in and failed to cover the old one entirely.
23. Posted by ubu | September 30, 2004 4:47 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:47
24. Posted by Jim Patrick | September 30, 2004 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
24. Posted by Jim Patrick | September 30, 2004 4:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:48
25. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 4:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
25. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 4:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:49
26. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | September 30, 2004 4:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are a GOD!
26. Posted by Gerard Van der Leun | September 30, 2004 4:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:50
27. Posted by Lickmuffin | September 30, 2004 4:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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!
27. Posted by Lickmuffin | September 30, 2004 4:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:50
28. Posted by DelphiGuy | September 30, 2004 4:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
28. Posted by DelphiGuy | September 30, 2004 4:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:51
29. Posted by Newt | September 30, 2004 4:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
29. Posted by Newt | September 30, 2004 4:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:53
30. Posted by Jim | September 30, 2004 4:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
30. Posted by Jim | September 30, 2004 4:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:53
31. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 4:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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!
31. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 4:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:55
32. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 4:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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!
32. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 4:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:56
33. Posted by bullwinkle | September 30, 2004 4:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Look at the two versions of 1972 just above th. The numbers are obviously different too.
33. Posted by bullwinkle | September 30, 2004 4:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 16:58
34. Posted by Kristian | September 30, 2004 5:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Bush Doctrine in Action!
34. Posted by Kristian | September 30, 2004 5:02 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:02
35. Posted by Dave | September 30, 2004 5:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I emailed this story to the USU student newspaper. Maybe it will get some buzz.
35. Posted by Dave | September 30, 2004 5:02 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:02
36. Posted by Chris Bates | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
36. Posted by Chris Bates | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:04
37. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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...
37. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:04
38. Posted by rorochub | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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.
38. Posted by rorochub | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:04
39. Posted by Master Of None | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's his email address
dhailey@english.usu.edu
39. Posted by Master Of None | September 30, 2004 5:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:04
40. Posted by Bryan | September 30, 2004 5:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What about the lack of a . after the 2?
40. Posted by Bryan | September 30, 2004 5:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:07
41. Posted by Right of Center | September 30, 2004 5:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
41. Posted by Right of Center | September 30, 2004 5:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:09
42. Posted by ctob | September 30, 2004 5:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Am I missing smoething? Isn't one missing a period after the two? Seems like a dumb mistake.
42. Posted by ctob | September 30, 2004 5:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:11
43. Posted by Steve L. | September 30, 2004 5:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The original fakes were better than this one.
43. Posted by Steve L. | September 30, 2004 5:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:11
44. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 5:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
44. Posted by Spoons | September 30, 2004 5:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:13
45. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 5:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
45. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 5:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:14
46. Posted by Brian | September 30, 2004 5:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
46. Posted by Brian | September 30, 2004 5:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:14
47. Posted by Me | September 30, 2004 5:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
haha... feel free to contact this joker...
dhailey@english.usu.edu
http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/index.html
47. Posted by Me | September 30, 2004 5:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:16
48. Posted by Laurence of the Rats | September 30, 2004 5:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?"
48. Posted by Laurence of the Rats | September 30, 2004 5:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:17
49. Posted by Dan (not THAT Dan) | September 30, 2004 5:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourself some nice silk pj's. You deserve 'em!
49. Posted by Dan (not THAT Dan) | September 30, 2004 5:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:27
50. Posted by Dan (not THAT Dan) | September 30, 2004 5:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Way to go, Wiz. Buy yourself some nice silk pj's. You deserve 'em!
50. Posted by Dan (not THAT Dan) | September 30, 2004 5:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:27
51. Posted by Barry | September 30, 2004 5:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Zoom to about 1000% and it's much more obvious.
51. Posted by Barry | September 30, 2004 5:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:28
52. Posted by Editor, Living Room Section | September 30, 2004 5:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey Paul,
Were the fake "rape" photos the Globe used on his site, too? Just sayin'...
52. Posted by Editor, Living Room Section | September 30, 2004 5:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:29
53. Posted by Bill | September 30, 2004 5:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
53. Posted by Bill | September 30, 2004 5:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:33
54. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 5:36 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
54. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 5:36 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:36
55. Posted by Truth Junkie | September 30, 2004 5:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brilliant! My first visit to your Blog (courtesy Charles at LGF) and I am IMPRESSED.
Keep it up.
55. Posted by Truth Junkie | September 30, 2004 5:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:42
56. Posted by Michael | September 30, 2004 5:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
56. Posted by Michael | September 30, 2004 5:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:45
57. Posted by dino | September 30, 2004 5:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
57. Posted by dino | September 30, 2004 5:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:48
58. Posted by zp | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
58. Posted by zp | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:51
59. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.
59. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:51
60. Posted by Mark James | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
164 Jihad Verses in the Koran
60. Posted by Mark James | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:51
61. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.
61. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:51
62. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Falsifying data used in research is means for dismissal for a professor.
62. Posted by bbealmba | September 30, 2004 5:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:52
63. Posted by DragonLady | September 30, 2004 5:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
All I can say is....SWEET!
63. Posted by DragonLady | September 30, 2004 5:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:54
64. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 5:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?!
64. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 5:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:54
65. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 5:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
65. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 5:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:56
66. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 5:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So if the docs were created TODAY, how could Wizbang have had the story LAST NIGHT?
WTF!?
66. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 5:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:57
67. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 5:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
67. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 5:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:57
68. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 5:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
68. Posted by -S- | September 30, 2004 5:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:58
69. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 5:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wait a minute-- check your calendar. Today is the 30th and the doc shows the 29th.
P
69. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 5:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 17:59
70. Posted by Bostonian | September 30, 2004 6:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
70. Posted by Bostonian | September 30, 2004 6:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:05
71. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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."
71. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:06
72. Posted by Steve | September 30, 2004 6:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's my own contribution to the Killian memo evidence. Photoshopping is fun!
72. Posted by Steve | September 30, 2004 6:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:06
73. Posted by Tanya | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
73. Posted by Tanya | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:09
74. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
74. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:09
75. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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!?
75. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:09
76. Posted by Steve L. | September 30, 2004 6:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
76. Posted by Steve L. | September 30, 2004 6:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:11
77. Posted by VR | September 30, 2004 6:12 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
77. Posted by VR | September 30, 2004 6:12 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:12
78. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 6:12 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
78. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 6:12 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:12
79. Posted by Sergio | September 30, 2004 6:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
79. Posted by Sergio | September 30, 2004 6:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:13
80. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry for the (many, many) duplicate comments - I wasn't get an ack back from the server.
80. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:13
81. Posted by VR | September 30, 2004 6:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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?
81. Posted by VR | September 30, 2004 6:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:15
82. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 6:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
82. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 6:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:16
83. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 6:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
83. Posted by Jonathan Abbey | September 30, 2004 6:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:16
84. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 6:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I just looked at the PSD docs on his server...is this guy kidding?
84. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 6:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:19
85. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 6:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
85. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 6:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:21
86. Posted by Russ | September 30, 2004 6:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.....
86. Posted by Russ | September 30, 2004 6:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:22
87. Posted by Chuck | September 30, 2004 6:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are brilliant, f'ng brilliant.
87. Posted by Chuck | September 30, 2004 6:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:23
88. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
88. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:26
89. Posted by Bob | September 30, 2004 6:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I got here through Power Line.
Excellent Job!
Keep it up.
89. Posted by Bob | September 30, 2004 6:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:26
90. Posted by ClearCut | September 30, 2004 6:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Please tell me that there's Heinz Ketchup smudges at the bottom of the doc.
90. Posted by ClearCut | September 30, 2004 6:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:27
91. Posted by Jeff Harrell | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hailey's assertion that the memos were typed with a typewriter equipped with American Typewriter Condensed is demonstrably false:
Proof
91. Posted by Jeff Harrell | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:29
92. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
92. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:29
93. Posted by Geoff | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
93. Posted by Geoff | September 30, 2004 6:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:29
94. Posted by Cableguy | September 30, 2004 6:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Excellent work! Another win for the blogosphere!
94. Posted by Cableguy | September 30, 2004 6:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:30
95. Posted by Tim in PA | September 30, 2004 6:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
95. Posted by Tim in PA | September 30, 2004 6:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:31
96. Posted by ClearCut | September 30, 2004 6:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ConservativeRevolution.com posted this guy and his boss's home phone numbers. You just gotta love bloggers.
96. Posted by ClearCut | September 30, 2004 6:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:32
97. Posted by BS hater | September 30, 2004 6:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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
97. Posted by BS hater | September 30, 2004 6:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:33
98. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 6:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
98. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 6:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:35
99. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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).
99. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:37
100. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:38 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
100. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 6:38 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:38
101. Posted by SJ Doss | September 30, 2004 6:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
From a guy immersed in conspiracy theory... bravo... it's refreshing to see one actually proven...
101. Posted by SJ Doss | September 30, 2004 6:40 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:40
102. Posted by Captain Holly | September 30, 2004 6:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
102. Posted by Captain Holly | September 30, 2004 6:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:41
103. Posted by Oscar Jr. | September 30, 2004 6:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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
103. Posted by Oscar Jr. | September 30, 2004 6:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:43
104. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 6:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
104. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 6:44 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:44
105. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
105. Posted by John Rylander | September 30, 2004 6:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:48
106. Posted by Silver Sea Lotus | September 30, 2004 6:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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 . . .
106. Posted by Silver Sea Lotus | September 30, 2004 6:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:49
107. Posted by Raoul Ortega | September 30, 2004 6:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wasn't Utah State where the Cold Fusion guys (Pons & Fleischmann) came from?
107. Posted by Raoul Ortega | September 30, 2004 6:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:50
108. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 6:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES
EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES
EVERYONE READ MY UPDATES
108. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 6:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:51
109. Posted by Matt Brubeck | September 30, 2004 6:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
109. Posted by Matt Brubeck | September 30, 2004 6:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:53
110. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
110. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 6:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:57
111. Posted by Matt Brubeck | September 30, 2004 6:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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. :(
111. Posted by Matt Brubeck | September 30, 2004 6:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:57
112. Posted by Captain Holly | September 30, 2004 6:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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").
112. Posted by Captain Holly | September 30, 2004 6:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 18:59
113. Posted by The American Patriot | September 30, 2004 7:03 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
113. Posted by The American Patriot | September 30, 2004 7:03 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:03
114. Posted by Potroast | September 30, 2004 7:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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!
114. Posted by Potroast | September 30, 2004 7:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:04
115. Posted by remay1 | September 30, 2004 7:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
115. Posted by remay1 | September 30, 2004 7:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:05
116. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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.
116. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:05
117. Posted by Patrick | September 30, 2004 7:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
117. Posted by Patrick | September 30, 2004 7:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:09
118. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 7:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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)?
118. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 7:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:10
119. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 7:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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)?
119. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 7:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:10
120. Posted by Tim in PA | September 30, 2004 7:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
120. Posted by Tim in PA | September 30, 2004 7:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:11
121. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 7:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
121. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 7:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:13
122. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
122. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:13
123. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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.
123. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:14
124. Posted by Patrick | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry; I got distracted while typing and missed the updates.
124. Posted by Patrick | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:14
125. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
125. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:14
126. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 7:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is fascinating stuff...it's a frickin' soap opera.
126. Posted by feste | September 30, 2004 7:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:16
127. Posted by Kevin | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Busted!!! The smoking gun, at last.
Excellent work! Get ready for your traffic to spike.
127. Posted by Kevin | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:17
128. Posted by Fletch | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
128. Posted by Fletch | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:17
129. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
129. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:17
130. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
130. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:25
131. Posted by Socratease | September 30, 2004 7:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
131. Posted by Socratease | September 30, 2004 7:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:25
132. Posted by Editor, Living Room Section | September 30, 2004 7:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.)
132. Posted by Editor, Living Room Section | September 30, 2004 7:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:26
133. Posted by Karen | September 30, 2004 7:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
133. Posted by Karen | September 30, 2004 7:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:28
134. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wizbang's copy of Bush_Memos.pdf is 2MB?
Mine is 1.249MB.
Fishy!!!!
134. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:29
135. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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'.
135. Posted by Memesis | September 30, 2004 7:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:32
136. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:36 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Where can I download the original copy of the PDF---not the one he's currently modifying?
136. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:36 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:36
137. Posted by Another Thought | September 30, 2004 7:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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...
137. Posted by Another Thought | September 30, 2004 7:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:39
138. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
MY BAD WORKING TOO FAST
original PDF 1 point 2 MB (1.2) NOT 2MB
I looked wrong
138. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 7:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:39
139. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Duh, sorry, I missed the post about the 2MB file. Nevermind.
139. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:40 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:40
140. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
140. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 7:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:45
141. Posted by Socratease | September 30, 2004 7:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
141. Posted by Socratease | September 30, 2004 7:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:45
142. Posted by Phil | September 30, 2004 7:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
142. Posted by Phil | September 30, 2004 7:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:46
143. Posted by Allan | September 30, 2004 7:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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:
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.
143. Posted by Allan | September 30, 2004 7:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:46
144. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
144. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:49
145. Posted by Robert | September 30, 2004 7:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
145. Posted by Robert | September 30, 2004 7:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:51
146. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
146. Posted by mcg | September 30, 2004 7:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 19:53
147. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 8:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
147. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 8:02 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:02
148. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 8:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
148. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 8:02 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:02
149. Posted by mike18xx | September 30, 2004 8:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
149. Posted by mike18xx | September 30, 2004 8:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:05
150. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 8:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
150. Posted by Paul | September 30, 2004 8:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:06
151. Posted by John | September 30, 2004 8:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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?
151. Posted by John | September 30, 2004 8:08 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:08
152. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 8:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"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.
152. Posted by Pavel | September 30, 2004 8:08 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:08
153. Posted by capt joe | September 30, 2004 8:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
robert, you should read what the post was about for god's sake.
go away.
153. Posted by capt joe | September 30, 2004 8:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:09
154. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 8:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
154. Posted by Tom | September 30, 2004 8:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:11
155. Posted by Nathan | September 30, 2004 8:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
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.
155. Posted by Nathan | September 30, 2004 8:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2004 20:16
156. Posted by WAIT A MINUTE! | September 30, 2004 8:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)