« DeSpin Zone | Main | Rathergate/Hailygate Connection »

Haileygate Focus Broadens

[Content removed - See correction notice.]

In regards to the now discredited work of Associate Professor David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D there are more questions to ask. Were the findings peer reviewed, if so by whom? Which administration officials were involved in commissioning the work and/or authorizing publication? The list of questions is long, and I intend to get a statement from university officials Friday morning.

Update: I have been in contact with university officials, who are reviewing the situation. Here is there initial response:

We can assure you that no one in the administration requested that this project be undertaken. Dr. Hailey, working on his own, undertook this project to determine whether the Bush memos could have been produced by a typewriter of that period or were digitally produced. The University did not remove his site, and, in fact, we have asked Dr. Hailey to put it back up. He has done so. Dr. Hailey, as with any faculty member, has the academic freedom to pursue research topics and scholarly projects.
Further contact with the our source indicates that while the university was aware of the research, they did not specifically request it. As both our source and the university have denied that they requested the work, we stand corrected.


Paul, as noted in the initial article, contacted university officials about Hailey's work that intended to prove the documents used by CBS were created on a typewriter. Between the time of that call and the initial publication of our story, Hailey set out to cover his tracks by changing his documents to explain away our findings. We weren't kidding about having copies of everything, it just took us a while to get them up and available for comparison.

Pavel, whose questioning helped propel our rushed coverage, has now seen what we saw 2 days ago and has created a PDF difference file (wicked cool, BTW) that verifies everything Paul said about the good professor trying desperately to cover his tracks.

Paul Adds There has been some confusion during this whole event. To try to be brief, I called the University with my concerns and after I wrote my initial post, the Professor edited his work.

Within seconds of learning this I made a post saying I'd evaluate his "new evidence." While his new updates did make it clear he was not claiming they were actually physically typed, unfortunately for the professor, they exposed critical flaws in his methodology and to be frank, appeared to damn him more.

To fully understand the whole thing you must read all the updates on the original posts and reading the 200 or so comments would not hurt either. -P


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Haileygate Focus Broadens:

» The Counterpoint linked with Rathergate II:

» TheGantelope linked with Willy Wonka and the Rathergate Forgery

» The Spoons Experience linked with FEELING STUPID

» Rathergate.com linked with More on Utah State

» bohnsack.com linked with A Fool's Hope

» Conservative Revolution linked with Unfuckingbelievable Update 3

» Allah Is In The House linked with http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/001038.html

» Irreconcilable Musings linked with New Developments in Botched Memo "Authentication"

» INDC Journal linked with Updates

» Dummocrats.com linked with Haileygate Part II

» Interested-Participant linked with Utah State Professor Attempts Forgery Authentication

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

» L'Ombre de l'Olivier linked with David Hailey: Ankle Bitten While Defending Rather

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

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

» The Owner's Manual linked with Busted!

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

» TheGantelope linked with Why I'm Skeptical of the Hailey Report

» Feste...a foolsblog linked with A Blunder of CBS Proportions

Comments (71)

Good job guys, that's why y... (Below threshold)

Good job guys, that's why you are the best.

Wow! Now THAT'S a major bo... (Below threshold)

Wow! Now THAT'S a major bombshell. Awesome job!

i think it's fair to say pr... (Below threshold)

i think it's fair to say prof. hailey has been wizzed, banged, and blogged. good work!

You guys really should have... (Below threshold)

You guys really should have waited for the Globe to pick up on the story before you blew it out of the water.

double the schadenfreude equals double the fun.

I don't mean to rain on the... (Below threshold)

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but just because the guy put a defense of himself in that doesn't mean that he's lying.

You need to debunk his defense.

I don't understand, Posey. ... (Below threshold)

I don't understand, Posey. The point was that until he made clear that he did NOT type this stuff on a typewriter, the obvious assumption was that it WAS. What was the point of a demonstration that could only be done on a computer ... for something that wasn't supposed to be done on a computer?? Perhaps he wasn't deliberately lying ... but at best, the document was very misleading.

So fine: Perhaps he just made an honest mistake. So what did he do? Add a clarification to the beginning of the document, and note it as an update? Nope, he HID IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DOCUMENT. And if nobody had kept a copy of the original, he could have gotten away with it.

THAT is dishonest at best.

PoserAs Pavelblov ... (Below threshold)


As Pavelblov points out in the linked story, you are wrong.


"Let's say I sent out a memo saying, "Kerry is a card-carrying member of the Communist party." You debunk my story. I then send out a "revised" version of the memo, saying "Kerry was a card-carrying member of the Communist party, and by Communist party, I mean the Democratic Party."

Did I lie in the first memo? The answer is "yes." Did I get caught in my lie, and try to cover my tracks? The answer is "duh.""

In other words, there is no "need to debunk his defense."

Hey, Posey is claiming that... (Below threshold)

Hey, Posey is claiming that the doc with the excuses inserted might be FAKE BUT ACCURATE. Good going dude.

On a more serious note, university investigators should be alerted to immediately recover all copies of the original PDF that might have been backed-up, emailed, or otherwise exist. If Hailey is trying to cover his tracks, he is trying to retrieve and dispose of all copies of the earlier PDF himself right now, so that he can try to claim that Kevin's copy is not real and Kevin is the forger.

Has the department head who Kevin is in contact with been advised yet to secure university copies? Most likely this has already been addressed, but redundancy is one of the blogosphere's strengths, right?

Could Hailey's work be just... (Below threshold)
Jim Patrick:

Could Hailey's work be justified under "social experiment" on how many leftwing moonbats uncritically believed it --and passed it on--simply because it said the memos (probably) were authentic?

Seems improbable given that the guy's picture has him wearing a get-out-of-Iraq T-shirt; and he's supposedly donated $250 to Kerry.

An interesting Goggle result where Hailey begs others on the ATTW-List for help.[Note that it's a post from a list member of Hailey's emailed request]

I just looked at the ATTW-L... (Below threshold)

I just looked at the ATTW-List email (mentioned by Jim above). It seems to be inconsistent with the excuse that Hailey inserted into the updated PDF. The updated PDF says that it cannot be assumed that the font in the memo is Times New Roman just because it is consistent with Times New Roman. The copier could have stretched the font, so that a similar font ends up looking like Times New Roman. But in his ATTW-List mail he states positively that he has identified the font as American Typewriter: "I have been able to identify the font family for the memos. It is American
Typewriter." As Kevin put it: "One of these things is not like the other."

Whatever this means, the pr... (Below threshold)

Whatever this means, the professor's home page at USU has gone to "no data"

However, chached version of his CV is:

(original URL is http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/topic01.html )

"Pre-index" imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/ is also gone

Search USU's website http://www.usu.edu/index/ for Hailey and the links bring up the same message "the document contains no data".

Wonder if our professor is also gone from the University?

Sorry, that should reach ca... (Below threshold)

Sorry, that should reach cached version.

<a href="http://techcomm.us... (Below threshold)

(See above URL for photo of Dr. David Hailey)
David Hailey (Ph.D., University of New Mexico)
David HaileyProfessor Hailey researches and teaches interactive media courses, including online help, online instruction, intranet technologies, and visual design for interactive technologies. His research has been published in journals such as Technical Communication, Computers and Composition, The Journal for the Association of Engineering Educators, and Text Technology. His current research focuses on the processes involved in capturing and archiving critical, professional skills before they are lost.

In his CV, Hailey claims to... (Below threshold)

In his CV, Hailey claims to have a BA in Creative Writing and Fine Art. The writing was indeed creative, but the art was not quite fine.

Bloggers never sleep! ... (Below threshold)

Bloggers never sleep!

I see Biggles at 4:26 AM couldn't enter. Me too - at 4:16 AM (EDT) I tried http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study 3 times.


WHOIS lookup shows that "imrl.usu.edu.com" is registered by Student Advantage, Inc. at 280 Summer St., Boston, MA 02210.

Lukasiak's "AWOL Project" site at glcq.com, on the other hand, is registered under ISP Bluehost.com - in UTAH (where Hailey is - or is Hailey working physically out of Boston?)

I'm still trying to find out from "Fresh Air" how he found Lukasiak's ISP is in Massachusetts - *ages ago* on 9/14/04 12:40 PM at ace.mu.nu.

Lukasiak's site contains numerous "OETR"s. (The same misabbreviation "OETR" appears in the fabricated memo "dated" 18 Aug 73. Should have been "OER" as in the actual military doc file names which he imported to his site.)

See Lukasiak's collaboration with Col. Lechliter, Boston Globe reporters and Martin Heldt at http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/9/10/135321/013

Boston Globe reporter Rezendes says he interviewed Burkett more than once in Jan 04 (Foxnews interview on 9/16/04 by Hannity).

All connected like chewing gum.

Now - who can tell us about Lukasiak's pay stubs? Or who pays his internet expenses? Or his office rent? Etc.

Congratulations. Wizbang tr... (Below threshold)

Congratulations. Wizbang tracked down and caught up with a Big Media lie-in-the-making. It was demolished before it could even be written.

This should scare Old Media partisans far more than Rathergate, which was exposed within hours, or Kitty Kelley, whose credibility was destroyed between the time Today scheduled her and the time she appeared.

The blogosphere is now officially operating inside - way inside - Old Media's decision cycle.

Are we expected to believe ... (Below threshold)

Are we expected to believe that Col. Killian used typographical gymnastics to write a memo-to-file about a young ANG officer?

BR - doublecheck your post ... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

BR - doublecheck your post about the domain name registration. Did you mean to use the ".com" domain?

Kerry Stops The Bleeding<br... (Below threshold)

Kerry Stops The Bleeding
Flash polls are showing that viewers thought that Kerry won Thursday night’s debate by almost a 2 to 1 margin. CBS showed 44 percent for Kerry, 26 percent for Bush, and 30 percent said it was a tie. ABC showed 45 percent for Kerry, 36 percent for Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.

This is much need good news for the Kerry campaign. Going in to this week polls showed Bush with a 5 to 10 point lead over Kerry. Kerry was also having trouble in the battle ground states. Electoral College projections were predicting Bush victories in key states including Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. Bush was even competitive in traditional Democrat strong holds like Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey.

More Spinback.blogspot.com

To LSU Engineer: D... (Below threshold)

To LSU Engineer:

Do you mean Lukasiak's glcq.com or Hailey's UT university's imrl.usu.edu.com ? If you mean the latter, it is the only one I find. If I check ".org" instead, it shows that name is available to buy. I'm open to any correction you may have.
Regards, BR

John- the way things are go... (Below threshold)

John- the way things are going lately for Kerry, all those polls will prove to be forgeries...and then they will try to forge evidence showing that those folks _could_ vote for Kerry- and that too will be de-bunked.

What John Kerry needs is _less_ help from MSM. Some tough questions and rude behavior from the media would help his credibility more than all the softball interviews...

So, Killian used Photoshop ... (Below threshold)

So, Killian used Photoshop to create the memos. What's the big deal?

To LSU Engineer again:... (Below threshold)

To LSU Engineer again:

I just read your info at

Very interesting! What could this mean? Could a private person in Boston post their "authoritative" looking treatise at Utah University's site?

There is much more evidence... (Below threshold)

There is much more evidence of forgery than just the "th" superscript and the proprotionally-spaced font. For example, the heading of the memo (111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron and the address) is perfectly centered, to a precision almost beyond humanly impossible. And this perfect centering occurs on 2 memos. It's extremely hard to center text with proportionally-spaced fonts, and it's unlikely that such painstaking effort would be undertaken for these memos. Also, the vast majority of memos created by the squadron used fixed-spacing fonts. Arguing that a typewriter that could possibly employ proportionally-spaced fonts in 70's doesn't give much credibility to the memo's authenticity, especially when you consider the price tag of such a typewriter, and that the vast majority of memos were produced from a plain and mass produced typewriter...

Ohhhh - so this is what "IM... (Below threshold)

Ohhhh - so this is what "IMRL" is! I wondered why Sandia would be funding someone like Hailey doing typography analyses. Obviously they fund "IMRL" type research at various universities.

Here's an excerpt from Sandia Science News, June 1991:

"A $27.9 million Integrated Materials Research Laboratory (IMRL) is being built at Sandia National Laboratories to help develop new critical materials for military and industrial needs.

"The 140,000-square-foot building will house the advanced material research and development functions of Sandia's Solid State Sciences, Materials and Process Sciences, and Components Directories.

"The facility will integrate new basic research in tailored materials with advanced development of electronic devices, components, and sensors. These approaches will be augmented by emergent computer modeling techniques needed for materials science and technology."

So - it has nothing to do with Hailey's typography treatise! What is going on with this "expert" Hailey?

Does anyone have a copy of ... (Below threshold)
Attila the Hun:

Does anyone have a copy of the HTML version of this doc? I got the supporting docs folder but not that. There is a part in there that is not in the PDF. There is a line regarding the superscripting and computer printers that sounded ridiculus and I'd like to see again. (something about the superscript not being raised too high [as in the screen version he used] so computer printers can print the line in one pass...)

Where did Hailey get his hi... (Below threshold)

Where did Hailey get his high-res scans of the Burkett forgeries?

The PDFs on the CBS site are lower resolution than the samples of the Burkett forgeries that Hailey is comparing his Photoshoppery to.

Btw, BR, you're completely ... (Below threshold)

Btw, BR, you're completely up the wrong tree on that domain name. The Hailey website is at imrl.usu.edu, not "imrl.usu.edu.com". There is no "imrl.usu.edu.com" name in DNS and the underlying root name "edu.com" is owned by an online shopping company.

And "IMRL" is Hailey's "Int... (Below threshold)

And "IMRL" is Hailey's "Interactive Media Research Laboratory" at USU, and is unrelated to Sandia's "Integrated Materials Research Laboratory".

While his new updates di... (Below threshold)

While his new updates did make it clear he was not claiming they were actually physically typed, unfortunately for the professor, they exposed critical flaws in his methodology and to be frank, appeared to damn him more.

I noticed (and commented over at Allah on the 29th) he never said he made fig 5 ( his version of Charles Johnson's "convincer") on a typewriter. It seemed awfully suspect to me at the time. It's no evidence if he made it with a word processor or photoshop.

HI! just sent a question to... (Below threshold)
tony gray:

HI! just sent a question to usu president asking him how much of an endowment cBS was giving for the good professors work. I also sugested that they might want to suspend hailey soon or it may be the pres who goes down also. all of you are GREAT AMERICANS THANKS.

If Hailey's "IMRL" is not t... (Below threshold)

If Hailey's "IMRL" is not the Sandia-related research, then why is Sandia listed as a funder in his CV?

I see the "Interactive Media Research Laboratory" in his document, but LSU Engineer pointed out in his post at

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anything in his CV, publications, or experience that reflect any qualification to do this type of analysis.

"To me, this makes it even more absurd that he has a link to this 'analysis' on the UofU IMRL department page:


"The mission and expertise of the IMRL isn't even remotely related to typography or document verification. However, having the 'analysis' hosted on a university server gives it a (faux) appearance of credibility."


So we have conflicting data - IMRL can mean 2 things. Does Sandia fund both of them? It often pays to follow up on oddities.

To: JayeRandom - who is the server for imrl.usu.edu ?

just more proof that cBS is... (Below threshold)
hans wahlen:

just more proof that cBS is two thirds BS.

Dr. Hailey wrote on-line si... (Below threshold)

Dr. Hailey wrote on-line site asking for assistance "I am hoping that
some one of you has samples that you know to be from a military issue IBM
Composer or IBM Executive from the period. I am particularly interested in
seeing "3"s, "5"s, "6"s, "7"s, "9"s, "r"s, and "f"s."

I'm telling you the smoking gun is he couldn't dulicate the "5" that is why he is "interested in the 5" in his post. HE LEFT OUT ALL REFERENCES TO "5" IN HIS DUPLICATED TYPE!!!! He left out all the "5"'s...two of them on page 9 of his report.

I just checked the site and... (Below threshold)

I just checked the site and his report is up. Is it the same report?

The good professor now has ... (Below threshold)

The good professor now has an even more updated version on the site (which is now back up). There is a new section titled "The Famous Superscript th". He shows a side by side comparison of a Times New Roman (TNR) superscript with the superscript from the forged memos to demonstrate that they are not the same. He then states "Superscripts on a computer font tend to be low, permitting the printer to print a line in most cases in a single pass. For typewriters, height is not so important."

Leaving aside the fact that his statement about printers really only applies to impact printers, not laser printers...the bigger problem is that his comparison is with a SCREEN CAPTURE of a word document, not a PRINTED version of a word document.

Try it yourself...on the screen, the superscript doesn't extend much above the number. However, in a printed version, it would match up very well with the forged memos.


Hmmn,Now where was... (Below threshold)


Now where was that prison Mary Mapes was banned from?

I can't remember for sure but I thought it was Utah?

Yep, I did verify Cecil's w... (Below threshold)

Yep, I did verify Cecil's words.

BR - we have a breakdown in... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

BR - we have a breakdown in communication here!

See JayRandom's post - there is no ".COM" in the USU IMRL address - it is ".EDU", and registered to USU.

Hailey's IMRL creates interactive/computer-based training modules. My post to FR simply stated the obvious - neither Hailey nor the IMRL has any expertise in forensic document analysis.

Hailey apparently did create some multimedia presentations for Sandia, but as JayeRandom noted, the Sandia IMRL is completely unrelated to the USU IMRL.

Good catch, Cecil. Hailey ... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

Good catch, Cecil. Hailey really needs to step away from his computer and carefully read the work that has been done by others before he embarasses himself even more. The difference between screen caps and prints was widely noted within a day after Rathergate broke.

Update on my earlier "th". ... (Below threshold)

Update on my earlier "th". -- to give credit where it is due...just finished reading all the comments to the earlier HaileyGate thread. Two other commenters noticed the problem yesterday.

Steve on 9/30 at 8:47PM who also shows a link to his own blog which has a much better explanation with captures

David Ross on 9/30 at 9:15PM

Wouldn't the easiest way to... (Below threshold)

Wouldn't the easiest way to "prove" that a 1970s-era typewriter could produce the menu, be to get the damn typewriter and type it up on camera?

Yeah, I thought so. So, why hasn't that been done?

The two plausible reasons are:

1) Only special, rare, magical typewriters used by trained professionals (IBM Selectric Composer) could do anything like that, and nobdoy has one, or the training to use it, and the TANG never had such a machine anyway to type up off-the-record memos.

2) It's not actually possible.

My money's on #2.

Ditto on the high resolutio... (Below threshold)

Ditto on the high resolution scans/images/PDFs of the "original" memos. Reading between the lines of his latest revision, it sounds like he printed *then rescanned* the memos.

What a load of crap.

"I have it on good authorit... (Below threshold)

"I have it on good authority that Utah State University requested that the now discredited work of Associate Professor David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D be done."

That's the most interesting part of the story to me at this point. What motivation would the University administration have for pursuing this project? There's a bigger story here and its fishy.

Utah, the land of cold fusi... (Below threshold)

Utah, the land of cold fusion now brings us what I feel is equally compelling commentary on the CBS memos. I just looked and the site is apparently back up.

Consider the following:

In the author's "paper", they claim to use ITC American Typewriter Condensed. Please see the link below for the ITC font.


Note that when you look at Figure 5, the characters presented are clearly not all from ITC American Typewriter Condensed (ITC ATC). The numbers are all wrong - in ITC ATC the 2 has a wavey foot, the three has an angular top, the 4 has a foot, the 7 has a wavey top. The font doesn't match, yet somehow Figure 5 matches the CBS docs?! How can this be?! Maybe it was typed in Times New Roman.

Also, the author tries to make the case that certain characters show wear/damage. If you spend 30 seconds looking at any single one of the documents you will see examples of characters that look like they are damaged that are immediately followed by characters that show no signs of damage or damage in another location. Typewriter keys cannot repair themselves - if they are damaged they remain damaged for the entire memo. That is not the case in the CBS docs. Clearly the issue is that the faxing/copying is creating artifacts. I have typed each of these documents in Times New Roman and scanned them at low resolution. You know what, they begin to show the same "damage" patterns. Also, they show flat tops and flat bottoms and nearly all serifs are completely obliterated. They look even more like the CBS memos after you do this.

Enough is enough. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Has anyone thought to check... (Below threshold)

Has anyone thought to check with ITC to find out when ITC American Typewriter Condensed was createe? Also when, and if, they licensed it to IBM?

The web site seems to be ba... (Below threshold)

The web site seems to be back.

The following site has the ... (Below threshold)
Corky Boyd:

The following site has the type fonts available on the Selectric. American Typewriter Condensed is not one of them. Also, the type samples shown in Dr. Hailey's work appear to be photographically condensed beyond a normal condensed typeface. Any experts out there? Go to:


As Cecil noted, the error t... (Below threshold)

As Cecil noted, the error the Professor made in his updated paper with the section on how a Times New Roman "th" isn't raised as much as the Bush memos is an unbelievable rookie error. Even amateurs like me know that the screen capture on MS Word does not have the superscript raised as high as it is when printed. He should have printed it and then scanned it to do the comparison, and voila, a perfect match!

This gaffe demonstrates a serious lack of credibility.

Why would you bother? If t... (Below threshold)

Why would you bother? If the font doesn't match in its entirety, then it simply isn't the right font. End of story.

I have yet to see anyone put forward an IBM font that can't be readily discarded for one reason or another, even with the low resolution images. I've spent a lot of time looking, and I haven't been able to find one. I've also never seen a good copy of the memos - bet we never will. This discussion should have ended already, but a good copy would end it immediately.

Face it, noone would pull a different font ball out of a drawer and change it a few dozen times just because they don't like a particular character. Can you really imagine someone at TANG doing this? I've changed fonts on early 70's IBMs to get special symbols for scientific papers, but that is a very different matter and let me add, a real pain.

As far as I know, noone, and I mean NOONE has ever come up with a single IBM font that even comes close to matching on all the characters in those memos - even given the lousy resolution of the CBS memo. Sure, you can pick and choose characters from several different fonts and then use a graphics program to align them perfectly. I bet I could make documents that look compelling using cut and pasted Selectric characters from the different Selectric fonts. In my opinion, that type of effort would only provide evidence of an unfettered dedication to perpetrating a lie.

Actually, my favorite "exam... (Below threshold)

Actually, my favorite "example" is when he chooses Times New Roman *Bold*, drops a word out of the sentence, then shows how it imperfectly lines up *then* says that, obviously the font doesn't match because the width of the strokes in the font are different.

Duh, you used the BOLD font!

The animated gif on LGF is as clear as it needs to be demonstrated. It was so close that I had to type the memo myself in Word and then print it out because I thought that the Word doc had gone through the same digital gymnastics that Hailey used. I didn't digitally merge it into the PDF of the "original", but I did get a ruler and line up characters from the heading and all of the resulting lines. Perfect match, hot off the laser printer.

Hailey's assertation that you can't do this accurately because of photocopiers distorting the image is nonsense. Are we supposed to believe that the copier/fax took a memo that didn't match and magically distorted it to perfectly match a printed MS Word document? Why isn't someone from Xerox or Canon telling him he's full of crap? I used to work in a copy shop and we did a lot of pasteup work and ALL of our copiers produced very accurate repros.

Below is an email I sent to... (Below threshold)
LSU Engineer:

Below is an email I sent to the USU president and several administrators last night - no reply yet!
I am writing in regard to a web page which has been published by the Interactive Media Research Laboratory within the Utah State University Department of English.

This web page, located at http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm purports to be a definitive forensic examination of the infamous forged CBS memos relating to George W. Bush's service in the TANG. The author, David E. Hailey, writes that his qualified forensic analysis "indicates that they were typed on a typewriter" -- a conclusion which has actually been widely and thoroughly debunked.

The purpose of this email is not to address the factual and logical errors within Dr. Hailey's paper, nor to speculate on his political agenda - others are competently addressing these subjects. Rather, I am taking issue with the representation that forensic document authentication is even within the scope of expertise of Dr. Hailey, the IMRL, or the USU Dept. of English. Quoting from Dr Hailey's text:

"Qualifications of the Lab

Interactive Media Research Laboratory is a small university lab that does scholarly studies and writes about issues involving the impact of technology on communications. Among other things, it is investigates archival and authentication problems. As the principal investigator and lab director I have researched and written on these topics since 1991, with more than 50 peer reviewed publications."

While I have no doubt that IMRL "does scholarly studies", I see nothing in the CV or publications of Dr. Hailey, the IMRL, or the English Dept. even remotely relating to forensic science or historical document verification. The thrust of the IMRL seems to be the creation of interactive learning modules, yet Dr. Hailey represents that investigation of "authentication problems" is a normal activity.

The prominent placement of a link to Dr. Hailey's defense of the forged documents on a USU departmental web page implies that this research is sanctioned, endorsed, and peer reviewed by the university. If the generation of partisan political propaganda is indeed within the mission statement of the USU English Dept., then this should be clearly and proudly stated on the department homepage. Otherwise, it might be wise to limit the subject matter of departmental webpages to areas of proper scope and actual expertise.

Re: American Typwriter Cond... (Below threshold)
Corky Boyd:

Re: American Typwriter Condensed

Come to think of it, typewriters did not use condensed type. Their pitch remained the same, so a condensed type would only give more letter spacing, and not save space.

"The point was that unti... (Below threshold)

"The point was that until he made clear that he did NOT type this stuff on a typewriter, the obvious assumption was that it WAS"

WHen I first saw his paper, on the 29th, I made NO such assumption, because he did not explicitly state he had typed it on a typewriter. I did feel many would draw exactly that conclusion, so I commented on Allah's blog to beware on that point.

That figure-5 bit was his Johnson-style "convincer" and he counted on people not realizing he was using a photoshopped computer font.

He simply asserts that some imaginary typewriter
probably could have produced a similar document, with an illustration produced BY ANOTHER MEANS.

The entire paper was full of weirdness like that; there were unsupported assertions, diagrams that did not match his text ...his intent seemed to be to confuse and obfuscate with irrelevent details -

It was as if his intent were to make the readers confused enough to cave in to the idea that all comments by experts are as suspect as his own, that readers can not understand these technical assertions well enough to distinguish between true and false.

Am I correct on these point... (Below threshold)
John S:

Am I correct on these points?

1. LGF's comparison document uses the CBS document and a document of identical content typed on Microsoft Word.

2. Hailey's comparison document was created with sophisticated software, not with a typewriter.

3. In creating his comparison document, Hailey essentially "cut and pasted" the "th" from the CBS document and dropped it into his computer generated comparison document.

4. Hailey's comparison proves that a sophisticated user can use computer software that looks fairly similar to the CBS document.

5. Although Hailey has proven that computer software can generate something that looks fairly similar to the CBS documents, LGF had previously proven that a novice equipped with the world's most popular word processing program can generate something that is virtually indistinguishable from the CBS documents.

Typo in point No. 4. Shoul... (Below threshold)
John S:

Typo in point No. 4. Should read:

4. Hailey's comparison proves that a sophisticated user can use computer software [to create a document] that looks fairly similar to the CBS document.

Trying to follow the proced... (Below threshold)

Trying to follow the procedures and logic is difficult. But, I am left with the impression that he found a variety of old military documents from late '60's early '70's that used that were typed with a font he belives is called Typewritter. He pulled out characters from these old documents and condensed them in Photoshop to match the Bush documents. His logic is that the military had typewriters that had a font that matches, and that the IBM had proportional spaced typewriters. Everything else is a leap of faith

Jerry:Thanks for b... (Below threshold)
John S:


Thanks for boiling it down for me.

So, a sophisticted computer user (Hailey) used advanced Photoshop techniques on a computer to generate something similar, but not identical, to the CBS documents. *yawn*

Of course, LGF had alrady proven that virtually any computer user, expert or not, could create a nearly perfect replica by simply using Word.

I can't comment on the tech... (Below threshold)
John S:

I can't comment on the technical aspects of Hailey's analysis. But there is a huge gap between what he claims to prove and what he really analyzed. Time and time again, Hailey makes sweeping statements that, even by his own account, he cannot support. I pulled these from his current version of the report.

Hailey: “That does not change the fact that at the time of the broadcast, all evidence CBS possessed indicated the documents were authentic.”

False. CBS had lots of evidence of inauthenticity at the time of the broadcast. They had the memos with their glaring problems of incorrect military terminology, odd dates, etc. They also had express warnings from two qualified document examiners. They also had failed to secure opinions from any qualified document examiners on the authenticity of the documents themselves. All of that is evidence that CBS had. Hailey disclaims any analysis of these factors, yet he makes the sweeping claim that "all evidence," without limitation, indicated authenticity. Even by his own account, he cannot support that claim.

Hailey: “It is possible how... (Below threshold)
John S:

Hailey: “It is possible however to infer from physical evidence that CBS (and Mr. Rather and his producers) justifiably believed the documents to be authentic.”

False. You cannot justifiably believe the documents to be authentic if your qualified document examiners warned you about inauthenticity; if you hadn’t spoken to the pool typist; if you hadn’t checked the military terminology or the dates (e.g., Staudt’s departure); if your source was known to be severely biased; etc.

Hailey: “I would have told ... (Below threshold)
John S:

Hailey: “I would have told them that from my point of view, the memos are worthy of presenting to the public.”

Incomplete and misleading. First, an opinion regarding whether something is “worthy of presenting to the public” is not a techical question for a technical specialist. Certainly, any journalist or any citizen (including Hailey) can have an opinion on that topic, but “presentation worthy” isn’t for him to say as a technical specialist.

Second, he offers an incomplete basis for offering that opinion. You can’t say the documents are worthy of presenting to the public if, for example, two of your qualified document examiners have warned you about their authenticity, or if you had failed to interview the pool typist who typed all the documents for the purported author, or if your source for the documents was not trustworthy, or if the contents were inconsistent with military terminology, etc.

Even assuming that “presentation worthy” is a scientist’s issue, the most Hailey could theoretically say is that “if all the other tests of ‘presentation worthiness’ checked out, then there’s nothing about the narrow issue I examined that would make them not worthy of presentation.”

Hailey: “All indicators imp... (Below threshold)
john S:

Hailey: “All indicators imply they are authentic.”

Incorrect, even by his own analysis. He says “all indicators” without qualification, but he specifically disclaimed any opinion on the multiple indicators showing that they are inauthentic (e.g., the strident denials by the TANG pool typist; the lack of any documents from that base looking like the CBS document; irregularities in terminology; the puzzling reference to Staudt; etc.)

Presumably, if pushed, Hailey would say that when he said “all indicators” he meant a tiny subset of indicators.

Hailey: “In fact, there se... (Below threshold)
John S:

Hailey: “In fact, there seems to be nothing in the memos that indicates they are faked.”

Wrong and misleading. Hailey disclaims any analysis of the content in the memos—i.e., the abbreviations in the memos, the terminology in the memos, the information in the memos, and the dates in the memos.

Hence Hailey cannot say that “there seems to be nothing in the memos that indicates they are faked.” What he probably meant to say is that there is nothing within Hailey’s severely limited investigation of certain aspects of the memos indicating that they are fakes.

As he has done so often, Hailey uses rhetoric far broader than even his own account can sustain.

Lordy, Lordy - and we're su... (Below threshold)

Lordy, Lordy - and we're supposed to sleep safely at night with someone like Hailey doing consulting work for Boeing's presentation to Congress on ALCMs?

See Hailey's home page at http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/index.html
Click in the 5th box on the left side, called "Techwhirling"

You get a page called "Consulting History"
"Boeing Aircraft Company:Worked on a number of topics, but the most important project was a 650 page proposal to present ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) to the US Congress."

The first box, C.Vitae, shows (some of?) his funders.

I exchanged emails with a U... (Below threshold)

I exchanged emails with a USU official today. I posted the exchange at LGF. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12924#c0056

Did Hailey <a href="http://... (Below threshold)

Did Hailey fudge his bio?

Joel Kadan designed the Ame... (Below threshold)
Jesse Dodd:

Joel Kadan designed the American Typewriter typeface for the International Typeface Corporation in 1974 (after the last Killian memo was dated). It was an update of earlier typewriter faces including Remington. Kadan designed the light and medium fonts; Tony Stan and Ed Benguiat developed other variants.

Source: Typographic Specimens: The Great Typefaces
Philip Meggs and Rob Carter
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1993 page 20.

If this guy is an English p... (Below threshold)
NW Oliver:

If this guy is an English professor, shouldn't he know to use "led" instead of "lead" as in "led CBS to believe..."?

The 'good' professor also m... (Below threshold)
Attila the Hun:

The 'good' professor also misleads (a.k.a. lies to) the reader in his document by stating:

'It took IMRL three weeks of careful
examination to determine that the documents are typed'
(bold mine)

Now take a look at his posting at:

Authored by: Dhailey on Thursday, September 16 2004 @ 01:23 AM GMT
'Please forgive me for starting out by breaking the rules. I couldn't find a relevant thread. I direct a small lab at Utah State University. We research communication technologies and communication. Naturally, we took a close look at the Bush memos.

Our report is posted at

The typeface used for these memos was invented in 1905 for Remington typewriters and named "Typewriter." Since then it has been adopted and adapted by every manufacturer. Pica and Courier are examples, but this type is the older version. Makes sense because the military tends to hang on to what works. One of the things you will find in this report is a copy of a Bush memo with reproduced lines below each of the original.

The purpose of the exercise was to identify the unique characters -- those that point to a specific typewriter.

Well, enough about me. Just thought you might like to know.


Now I may not be all that good in math but the 16th is only one week after the broadcast not three. (Or could it be he had the memos before the broadcast -- nah)

He tries everything in his 'research' to remove blame from cBS - which is what the real purpose of his work was, not to prove the memos were real.

What kind of sophisticated ... (Below threshold)

What kind of sophisticated idiot uses computer software to produce documents that look like obvious forgeries, when Microsoft Word 2000 can be used by any ordinary idiot to produce the same obvious forgeries ?
I would think a sophisticated user of computer software would try to produce documents that don't look like obvious forgeries.
Who needs a sophisticated idiot when an ordinary idiot will do ?

To Attila the Hun - Re your... (Below threshold)

To Attila the Hun - Re yours on 10/3/04 12:31 AM

Excellent point about the "3 weeks". Three weeks earlier than 16 Sept. would be around 26th of August - that means Hailey would have had access to the document(s) since at least then. Unless he's lying about the "3 weeks".

Earlier in one of the Hailey discussions, someone wondered where Hailey got his copies of the documents because the resolution appears different than CBS's. I'm no resolution expert, but the USA Today copies are quite different than CBS's. CBS's looks more cleaned up. USA Today's look more raw, closer to the "original fakes" - hee hee! But I'm not joking, see the light grey square shadows all over the pages and crop markings around the text and signatures at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-guard-memos_x.htm . Scroll down below the picture to: (Related items: Text of the four new memos - See the memos in PDF) Click on the blue underlined link to the memos. There are actually 6 memos all in one pdf. (Still there as of this moment.)

The grey squares and crop markings are even more visible if you look at it on screen, while you're at that site, by enlarging your screen view to 200-300%. You don't need photoshop to see this. Just printing it out at normal size shows it on paper too.

(First mentioned on 9/15/04 6:34 AM EST at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/045906.php#comments . At that time, USA Today's pdf creation date was 9/9/04. They have since updated it with a cover sheet, new pdf creation date 9/21/04. I have screen snapshots of both.)






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links


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