« And the beat goes on... | Main | Like Magnets to Stupid II »

MyFonts Are Better Than Your Fonts

Intro

We were alerted today to the fact the Dr. David Hailey had produced what he claims to be the final version [PDF] of his analysis of the Bush memos (Archived here). This is of course old news, as the veracity of his work has been thoroughly debunked both here and elsewhere already.

Here's a sample of the relevant previous pieces reviewing Hailey's work:

Fact checking the Boston Globe in advance
Dr. Hailey Redux
Hailygate - Peer Review
The Volokh Conspiracy
Dr. Newcomer

[Ed Note: Much of this information was originally compiled by Paul. We left in unpublished. I have heavily rewritten the content to address the current state of the Hailey report, and created the font mappings, so it's sort of a co-written post.]

Hailey is newsworthy, if for nothing else, his timing. The report from the two-man panel of Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, Jr. on the CBS Memo scandal is expect Friday, and there's speculation as to whether the Hailey report is cited. For their sake we hope they don't. In addition to the posts linked above, here's a little more information we'd been holding back.

Confusion Reigns

Since as early as 8 days after the original 60 Minutes II story (Sept. 16th) Dr. Hailey's work was available for anyone to read. Eight days after the airing of the story (September 8, 2004) Hailey is seen promoting his research paper (that contain the same conclusions as he is making in his "final report") at Take Back The Media (scroll down to see the article). This thoroughly discredits his assertion in the "final" version of the report that, "It took IMRL five weeks of careful examination to determine that the documents are typed." Perhaps what he meant to say was, "it took a few days to reach our conclusion, and several weeks of putting lipstick on it until it looked presentable."

It was not until Wizbang took a critical look at the work that confusion over what was in (and not in) the report set in.

One of the first points of confusion is that Hailey has changed the title and scope of the work since we first examined it. Originally the report claimed to be about the physical source of the memos CBS used in their story.

haileytitle.jpg


Now that title has been changed. Hailey now claims the report is "Toward identifying the font families used in the Bush memos" (emphasis ours).

Other points of confusion cropped up as Hailey changed the report (without version control) in response to the glaring holes we identified. When Paul first found the problems with the report, he called the university and the head of his department asked him to wrap up a case for misconduct and present it to them the following Monday (4 days away). Within minutes of that call Dr. Hailey changed the study to address the exact concerns he had mentioned.

When confronted with what on it's surface appeared to be a possible case of academic dishonesty or misconduct, Dr. Hailey and the University claimed that a vicious mob of bloggers was attacking his academic freedom, rather than address the substantive issues with the raised about the work.

No one at Wizbang ever questioned Hailey's right to pursue his research, nor to our knowledge did any other blogger. Hailey and the University are were building a convenient strawman to divert attention from the content of Hailey's report. We did and do question the methods he has used to try to prove his hypothesis. It's beyond comprehension that a university would not recognize that when you try to pawn off a cut and paste job as visual proof that a typewriter produced the Bush memos, someone is bound to call you on it. In this case it was a large number of bloggers and Dr. Newcomer, whose critique of the Hailey research is devastating, who performed the unwelcome peer review.

The funny thing about the final version of the report is that the item that originally sparked our critique - the pasted superscript "th" - does not appear in the final version of the report. The following (from our archives - not the final report) is what appears as Figure 26 on Page 26 of the final report.


Hailey claims, even without the critical superscript "th" that he "proves" the typewritter font family produced the documents. Even for Hailey this is an amazing leap of logic, since the primary assertion that the documents were NOT typed was that no one could reproduce the superscript "th" as the appeared in the Bush memos with an actual typewritter ball in use by the Texas Air National Guard at the time, or anywhere else for that matter.

About The Examples - A New Problem

There is another glaring problem with the report which we had not addressed until now. The main thrust of the study is that the font is not Times New Roman but belongs to a "genus" called "typewriter." He claims expert knowledge of this typeface.

This graphic is from the bottom of page 11 of the original pdf and it continues on page 12. In the final version of the report (comically dated Dec. 3, 2005) the same information (reordered) appears at the end of page 13 and continues on page 14.


Click image for larger version


Where did the professor get these samples about which he makes the following claims?

"The above [sic] provides examples of variations in Typewriter, digitized. In some cases, the examples are taken directly from antique typewriters and digitized for use on computers."

This search at Myfonts.com

This picture [view image] is a screenshot of the professor's screen that he saved as he surfed myfonts.com in an apparent effort to find fonts which met his criteria. This picture is saved from one of the Photoshop files (4.3MB) that Hailey had left exposed on his web server. If you look at the Photoshop file and and examine the various layers in the document, you will see that he captured all 62 fonts.

Remember the professor's description, where he said, "On the other hand, the cross strokes on the "t's" change little. Typically, the right half of the cross stroke will be somewhat longer than the other." It turns out that's not exactly true. He cherry picked his 8 examples from 62 different fonts his search returned.

You won't need to go to the trouble of looking through the Photoshop file to identify the fonts because we've done that for you below.


Careful visual inspection of the the Hailey example (above) and the myfonts.com result set indicate that the screen captures of the following fonts at myfonts.com were used in the report (the number in the second column is the position of the font in the result set):

1 - 43 - Writing Machine
2 - 57 - ITC American Typewriter
3 - 56 - Minya Nouvell
4 - 30 - Keystoned
5 - 60 - Prestige Elite
6 - 58 - FF Elementa
7 - 1 - Passport
8 - 34 - KfontZ

So what's the big deal? None of these fonts are from typewriter balls and none were available for 1970's era typewriters (with the possible exception of Prestige Elite). Hailey claims that ITC American Typewriter is the font, yet that font was not designed until 1974 by Joel Kaden and Tony Stan, and had no lineage to IBM (IBM is not one of the listed license holders for the font).

Conclusion

We have now identified yet another of Hailey's exhibits that is not exactly what it purports to be. Since the report is final, we await an explaination or revision in the really, really final version.

Of course the best part, is that by identifying ITC American Typewriter as the font and failing to produce a superscript "th", Hailey unintentionally proves what he set out to disprove - the memos were created on modern computer equipment.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MyFonts Are Better Than Your Fonts:

» Joe's Dartblog linked with Rathergate Ender

» Rip & Read Blogger Podcast linked with Rip & Read Blog Podcast for December 9, 2004

» Pajama Pundits linked with Blogging the Depths of Bizarre

» Sean Gleeson linked with Exclusive: Upcoming Hailey Reports!

» bohnsack.com linked with Professor Hailey is Back

» bohnsack.com linked with Professor Hailey is Back

» bohnsack.com linked with Professor Hailey is Back

Comments (49)

Of course, his conclusion a... (Below threshold)

Of course, his conclusion as to the font is incorrect. The CBS "documents" are in the Times New Roman font, as demonstrated by the LGF (and dozens of others) overlay experiment.

Here's the missing typewrit... (Below threshold)
BR:

Here's the missing typewriter... and the missing typist too!

About the only thing that i... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

About the only thing that is clear from Hailey's analysis is that the person who faked up the Bush memos isn't the same person that faked Hailey's academic credentials. Those must have been some forgeries if they were able to fool Utah State into giving him a job.

Could there have been a rin... (Below threshold)
BR:

Could there have been a ring of forgers?
Should we take Hailey's words ("five weeks") as truth - that he was already working on these memos PRIOR to CBS' airing date of 9/8/04?

Excerpt from early Oct 04 version of Hailey's Bush Memo Font Study:

"In addition, I served in the U.S. military (Army) from 1963 to 1972. For five of those seven years I was an Army illustrator responsible for short run publications including memos such as those in question. Ultimately, I have a total of almost 35 years experience examining document production, including analyzing and spec’ing type. I have an archive that includes military documents produced between 1963 and 1984 and have access to a repository of military documents here at the university. Finally, I have extensive experience using computers to manage and manipulate images, including type."

******
Excerpt of article at http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage1.asp 9/15/04 2:36

"Mr. Rather said that it would require an exceptional amount of knowledge to craft a forgery—and not just the typographical kind. "You’d have to have an in-depth knowledge of Air Force manuals from 1971," he said. "You’d have to have Bush’s service record, you’d have to have the Air Force regulations from 1971, you’d have to know nearly all of the people involved directly at that time, including the squadron commander, who was Bush’s immediate superior, and his attitude at the time—you’d have to know all those things and weave all those things in."

Timewarps:The 6 or... (Below threshold)
BR:

Timewarps:

The 6 or more fake docs were "dated" 1972-73.

Hailey's 12/3/04 new "Final" report was dated 2005.

In Hailey's Oct 04 version, he was in the military 1963-72;
but in the new "Final" report it's been changed to:
"November 1963 to Christmas 1970."

Timewarps:T... (Below threshold)
Muhahahaha:

Timewarps:

The 6 or more fake docs were "dated" 1972-73.

Hailey's 12/3/04 new "Final" report was dated 2005.

In Hailey's Oct 04 version, he was in the military 1963-72; but in the new "Final" report it's been changed to:
"November 1963 to Christmas 1970."

========================

You would think if he spent all of 1971 in the Army he would at least have some recollection of it.

Burned... seared in my brai... (Below threshold)
BR:

Burned... seared in my brain - Christmas in Cambodia?

But joking aside, this is w... (Below threshold)
BR:

But joking aside, this is what bothers me:

Excerpt from http://english.usu.edu/Document/index.asp?Parent=632

"David E. Hailey, Jr. Associate Professor of Professional and Technical Communication
Director -- Interactive Media Research Labs
...

$34,000 Second Sandia National Laboratories Research Grant; the second of three scheduled projects designed to research and develop techniques for capturing and preserving critical nuclear weapons-based processes. These processes are in danger of being lost as the specialists utilizing the relevant information retire, die, or move to new jobs. (Sole proposal author; project was co-developed with Christine Hailey.)

…..

$27,000 Sandia National Laboratories Research Grant; the first of three scheduled projects to create a multimedia archive for a nuclear weapons assembly process. Project involves converting 9 video tapes into MPEG format and consolidating these with sound, text and images into a module that can be used as a step-by-step assembly guide."

*******

What does Wen Ho Lee have in common with the above?

Give me a pair if vise-grip... (Below threshold)
PTG:

Give me a pair if vise-grips and 30 minutes alone with each of the pricipals involved and I'll find out who typed what and when they did it.

"Mr. Rather said that it... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

"Mr. Rather said that it would require an exceptional amount of knowledge to craft a forgery—and not just the typographical kind. "You’d have to have an in-depth knowledge of Air Force manuals from 1971," he said.

Except as has been established already, the forged memos don't conform to the Air Force manuals from 1971.

Also note that the g in the ITC American Typewriter is heavily serifed, whereas the original document does not.

I am sure that he needed to adjust the spacing to match of the memo in spite of all this.

He is a complete an embarrassment to the intellectual community and to his university.

That's an amazing article. ... (Below threshold)

That's an amazing article. To pick on one point, Hailey writes that because, in his opinion, it was theoretically possible for the documents to be authentic based on what CBS knew, it was reasonable for CBS to run them.

There is no good way for proving the documents in question are authentic. If I were in
the Texas Air National Guard, and I said, “I saw the memos in Col. Killian’s cabinet,”
who would believe me? The answer to that question depends entirely on the political
point of view of my audience. It is possible however to infer from physical evidence that
CBS (and Mr. Rather and his producers) justifiably believed the documents to be
authentic. . . . .
There is currently outside evidence indicating that the documents are inauthentic, but
none of it exists in the mechanics of documents themselves. . . .
If one considers that the thing that makes the news “news” is its immediacy, it is hard to
impugn CBS for using the memos in a news story. It took IMRL five weeks of careful
examination to conclude that the documents are typed and complete this report –
implying that after all of this careful study, the result would have been to say “. . .all of
our evidence suggests they are authentic.” . . . .
New evidence has come to light that suggests they are inauthentic. That does not change
the fact that at the time of the broadcast, all evidence CBS possessed appears to have
indicated the documents were authentic.


I can't believe that Hailey really thinks that "new evidence" has "come to light" that suggests the documents are inauthentic. As a review, completely ignoring the font issues, here's what CBS knew at the time they ran the story.

1) They got the documents from Bill Burkett, a widely known anti-Bush partisan who believes that George Bush was responsible for cutting his health benefits and almost getting him killed. Burkett had done numerous anti-Bush interviews over the past 4 years, but had never mentioned these documents.

2) Burkett told CBS he got the documents from someone else at the Guard. (George something or other). CBS NEVER CONFIRMED WITH THE GUY BURKETT ALLEGEDLY GOT THE DOCUMENTS FROM.

3) Based on this and faced with the font challenges, which at least raised a red flag that the documents might be forged, CBS ASSURED THEIR VIEWERS THAT THE DOCUMENTS' SOURCE, WHILE CONFIDENTIAL, WAS UNIMPEACHABLE.

Conclusion: So CBS got these docs from a known Bush hater, who told them that he got them from some other guy. CBS never bothered to ask the other guy whether he really gave the documents to Burkett. The documents do not, as far as we know, match any other document ever produced from the National Guard files at that time. Based on this, Hailey concludes that CBS was absolutely justified in running the documents and in assuring their viewes that the documents were unimpeachable.

Criminy. As I said, I can't believe Hailey really believes that.

Considering tha the zip cod... (Below threshold)
Jim in Texas:

Considering tha the zip code used in the memo didn't yet exist in 1972, I would have thought the rest of the memo was a non-starter.

How debunked does something... (Below threshold)
LargeBill:

How debunked does something have to be in order to have nothing debunkable left. No one except the nutty left believe those memos anymore. This "professor" is only further damaging his soiled reputation by trying to breath life back into this farce.

Am I the only one getting a... (Below threshold)
Phil:

Am I the only one getting an error when I try to open the pdf file?

In the second comment here:... (Below threshold)
Pablo:

In the second comment here:
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20040804210402335

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

I can't get the "final report" to load. (Has it been moved?) Does the good professor identify the specific magic time travelling typewriter model?

Hailey needs to stop now, b... (Below threshold)
Henry:

Hailey needs to stop now, before he commits professional suicide.

Personally, I think what Dr... (Below threshold)

Personally, I think what Dr. Hailey is trying to do is disprove his own existence.

It's academia, Henry. Lying... (Below threshold)
Pablo:

It's academia, Henry. Lying through your teeth is acceptable.

Heh. My comment and Henry's... (Below threshold)

Heh. My comment and Henry's crossed in the posting.

Right, the zip code is the ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Right, the zip code is the current zip code of Ellington AFB. The forger didn't know it wasn't then. So many things, besides the fonts, made them obvious fakes.

The "OETR" misabbreviation for "OER". That's where Lukasiak's site glcq.com comes in. His expert, Col. Lechliter, had it right: Officer Effectiveness Training/Report. Those are 2 different things: OET and OER. But on Lukasiak's "AWOL Project" site, the "OETR" mistake is made 7 times on one page. That site is a repository of Air Force Manuals and other military docs. Martin Heldt's site is the repository of Bush military FOI docs (users.cis.net/coldfeet). Then there's the cut-and-paste crop markings visible on the USA Today online copies (visible on a plasma laptop screen) - which they obtained directly from Burkett, not via fax.

I'd have to check my notes, but I believe Mapes has had contact with not only Burkett, but also Lukasiak, Heldt and somehow has a connection to Hailey, because she referred a TX newspaper to his study.

That's why I'm wondering if it was a group effort.

This has all the makings of... (Below threshold)
Mike:

This has all the makings of a SeeBS cover-up.
This is why they are releasing it on Friday.
They are hoping to discredit the bloggers with the trumped up story tonight which will lay the groundwork for their claims of the VRWC.
They can't refute the facts so they'll use Clintonian method of character assasination or "the politics of personal destruction", just like all good democrats.
Look for them to say that SeeBS failed to properly vett the documents but that still doesn't make them fake and they can say that the Hailey report will support their claims. Any challenge to the Hailey report will be seen as right wing attacks against a through, neutral academic search for the truth.
They will quote the fact that two right wing bloggers got some funding from Thune which makes every one not credible while they ignore the fact that Hailey, and most of their staff gave to Kerry.
Aside from this whitewash, I'm really worried about what these left-wing hit teams will do to the swifties because you know that they are next in the crosshairs.

There is a very good 7-part... (Below threshold)
BR:

There is a very good 7-part legal analysis of CBS's liability vis-a-vis the TX forgery laws, by lawyer BummerDietz at scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com, here and here.

The reason Hailey's "study" is worded thus, is an attempt to get around the TX forgery laws: if CBS couldn't reasonably know they were forgeries... However, 2 of their experts told them BEFORE airing that they were fakes. So having Hailey's revised report come out now, is a desperate attempt at legal "CYA".

Mike - don't be too pessimistic - the force is with us!

Jim in Texas – good catch o... (Below threshold)
Phil:

Jim in Texas – good catch on the zip.

I knew about the OETR problem. I’ve corresponded with Lukasiak – he confirmed he misread a memo – it had OETR on the top, but someone had used a paper punch so it could be filed, and the “T” was missing.

I’m intrigued by the timing. If Hailey was paying attention, and knew the CBS report was coming out tomorrow, one would think he would wait a day to release his report, just in case it makes him look foolish. That he didn’t either means he is clueless (a distinct possibility) or that he knows the report is a whitewash.

I had hoped he was simply shoddy –there were some psotive signs when he changesd his rearly report as a result of critiques, but if he still stands behind the bogus claim, maybe I was giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

I’d still like to read it – it “loads” but then gives me an error.

Phil - that's interesting t... (Below threshold)
BR:

Phil - that's interesting that you've been in touch with Paul Lukasiak. It's not a missing "T" that's the problem. It's the added "T". Gotta run, but will check back later to continue.

The only way to prove that ... (Below threshold)
nobody important:

The only way to prove that these could have been produced by a typewriter in 1971 is to get a 1970 era typewriter and type one!

This doesn't put Utah State... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

This doesn't put Utah State University in a very good light, assuming that Hailey's "scientific method" of validating a hypothesis is so obviously flawed. Is this how they teach their students to report their findings?

Glad I went to another school.

BR, oops, botched the story... (Below threshold)
Phil:

BR, oops, botched the story a bit.

I had some of the facts correct, let me try again. here is the document in question:

http://www.glcq.com/docs/notice_of_correction.htm

look carefully at the hole punch, the one on the left which takes out the “C” in correction and the “T” in training.
I think this is the document Paul looked at, and assumed was a correction of an “Officer Effectiveness training Report”. I surmise that he assumed the referenced document should be abbreviated OETR.

However, look at the hole carefully. I think the hole takes out most of a “/”.

This document really is the “Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness/Training Report.

In other words, there are two reports – one an Officer Effectiveness Report, and a second document, called an Officer Training Report. They have a dual purpose correction report to document corrections to either report. But the underlying report is one or the other. There is no such report as an Officer Effectiveness Training Report. The slash is missing, but makes perfect sense.

Paul admitted to me that he didn’t see the slash – not surprising, it is almost completely missing, but that it did, upon further inspection, look like it may have been there. However, he originally referred to it as the OETR report – a report that DOES NOT EXIST. So it seem very likely that someone fabricating documents using nonexistent acronyms, either made them up from whole cloth (very unlikely) or picked them up from Paul’s site. I’d bet on the latter.

Thanks for the critique, I remember the whole wiping out a character, and it does wipe out most of the “T”, but I messed up the details.

O.k, I can't help but put o... (Below threshold)
gavin:

O.k, I can't help but put out an outcome no one wants to fathom, but what if, IF, CBS actually does the right thing after the report opens up a can of whoop ass on Rather, Mapes et. al? Don't believe for a moment CBS's competitors won't be cluck clucking their tongues and hoping to pick up viewership over CBS's misfortune. As it is CBS is hemoraging viewership as this thing drags on. The only way to clean out the infection is to cauterize the wound.

gavin-That is what... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

gavin-

That is what honest, responsible, and ethical people would do.

Does that answer your question?

Whoops, I forgot unbiased.<... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

Whoops, I forgot unbiased.

I guess my point is no one ... (Below threshold)
gavin:

I guess my point is no one likes losing boat loads of money and yes CBS is a company interested in making a profit. If that means acting ethically to restore their "brand" which will restore shareholder "value" I think they will take the natural path and do the right thing. It will be no different than what NBC did after their guys where caught stuffing pyrotechnics into gas tanks. They did a through purging and even then it took years to regain credibility.

Gavin, the problem is that ... (Below threshold)

Gavin, the problem is that the news division at CBS believes -- and has demonstrated that belief loudly and prominently on numerous occasions -- their mission is too important for mere money to be a consideration. And they've managed all along to stare down network brass on the issue.

I'm not sure there's enough real brass among the network brass anymore to strap on and do what's in the network's best interest.

If they do, you'll see more than just Rather and Mapes going out the door teakettle first.

Pablo, I'm studying to be a... (Below threshold)
Henry:

Pablo, I'm studying to be a mechanical engineer. I've been taught to present facts, back them up with theories, research, and analysis.

Lying through your teeth is unacceptable in my field of study. If I lied through my teeth, some bridge will collapse and a bunch of people will die.

How about Hailey?

Hah, McGehee
Great minds think alike....at approximately the same time, apparently

Mr.McGehee that's my point ... (Below threshold)
gavin:

Mr.McGehee that's my point exactly, there will be more than Rather & Mapes going out ass over tea kettle. I think we will see how little power CBS news holds sway over the "suits" and bean counters. CBS News has been a loss leader for years and that was bearable when they had a valuable asset to wave at the shareholders. This Memogate has been nothing but a disaster for them not just to the blogosphere but their MSM "peers". Don't be shocked if CBS cleans out the nest, money will be driving this not foolish pride.

Gavin - My hope is... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

Gavin -

My hope is that you are right, but I have lost hope in any politically "objective" reporting in the MSM.

After reading this lgf post about the Rumsfeld ralley in Kuwait and the 'tough' questions, then seeing the news-at-11:00 teaser ads and seeing the headlines in the paper this am, I don't think there is really any hope for objectivity. I think all we will get from the MSM is scandal, shock, and anything else they think will bring viewers or readers.

Wow! This is like watching ... (Below threshold)
scott:

Wow! This is like watching a train wreck. Hailey should be sterilized in order to prevent passing on the gene that makes one oblivious to when one is making a complete fool of oneself. This is beyond the sort of obliviousness that many socially inept professors exhibit. I contemplated for a while if this was evil intent of some whacko liberal but reading just the first couple of pages leads me to the conclusion that this is a case of simple though high level incompetence. The date, he grammar, the whiny acknowledgements (what the hell are his superiors thinking by supporting this?), the Table of Contents that skips a majority of the paper, oh not to mention the content…. holy crap!!!! This man should be politely released from any further obligation to the University at once.

But... but... even if these... (Below threshold)

But... but... even if these are forged documents, they accurately portray what was in the REAL documents!

LOL!

Fonts, schmonts. </... (Below threshold)
Lee Shore:

Fonts, schmonts.

The whole affair collapses around the fact that no method of producing a document in 1971 could have duplicated the 2004 MS Word default letter, word and line spacing. MS Word wasn't invented then, or Windows, or even the personal computer. Duh!

If the forger had been smarter he would have used the monospace Courier font (available for IBM Selectrics in 1971) and changed the default settings just enough to throw off superposition. Or perhaps used WordPerfect or other word-processing software.

Of course if he'd been really smart he would have typed them on a real 1971 Selectric. If he'd done that there would have been no simple way of proving that the docs were forgeries, especially with the artifacts introduced when they were photocopied and faxed a few times. And Dan Rather would have been home free with his bloody-minded little attempt to smear George Bush and influence the election.

~LS

To Phil - Re OETR, use of t... (Below threshold)
BR:

To Phil - Re OETR, use of the mis-acronym.

I just got back and read yours. Yes, it should have been "OER" in the context of the "18 Aug 73" fake doc and it should have been "OER" on Lukasiak's site, "The AWOL Project" - which is a rabidly anti-Bush site, registered as early as 4/9/04. Like Mapes, he had been working on proving Bush's culpability for a long time. So my question is: did someone else see "OETR" there and use it, or did the person who made the original mistake at that site also have a part in the fake doc production?

There is another related oddity: sometimes the site has it correctly as "OER". So, did 2 or more people have input to the site creation? Or was Lukasiak himself inconsistent?

For example: http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer/_5-2-73.htm has "oer" in its doc name, but the first line added by the site "inputter" has O...E...T...R... spelled out with no slash.

Compared to: http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_70-71.htm , where its first line added by the site "inputter" has: "Bush OER for 1970-71 Large File, Please be patient"

Those 2 pages on Lukasiak's site were created 4/13/04 and 4/20/04, respectively.

Last time I viewed and printed those were on 9/27/04. At this moment, if you click on the first one, it says "Error Page..." The second one still opens up. When did you communicate with Lukasiak? Did he say he was going to correct the error at his site? There is a duty to preserve evidence for possible future legal investigation.

Another item - do you know if Lukasiak operates out of Philadelphia, PA, as per his registration at WHOIS, or out of Massachusetts, as per "Fresh Air's" research posted at ace.mu.nu on 9/14/04, 12:40 pm?

OE/TR - just to clarify. T... (Below threshold)
BR:

OE/TR - just to clarify. The slash comes after the second word. Officer Effectiveness/Training Report. OER and OTR. One is a report on effectiveness, the other a report on training.

This reminds me of the Boys... (Below threshold)
julie:

This reminds me of the Boys In the Hall skit where the guy in the alley keeps getting his ass kicked because he wont stop fighting.

Yeah, Julie, and they still... (Below threshold)
BR:

Yeah, Julie, and they still haven't stopped! There must be some psychiatric term for it - CSCD ? Can't Stop Compulsion Disorder?


It is bizarre that Mr. Heal... (Below threshold)
John:

It is bizarre that Mr. Healey fails to notice that the document was faxed and the faxed document scanned, or has otherwise been through at least two scanning processes. It appears the first scanning operation was done in a way which tries to avoid uneven line thickness and preserves the shape of uniformly-thick lines, but alters the shape of objects drawn with thin, non-uniform lines.

In particular, if a near-horizontal line is below a certain thickness, it will be registered as a line of a fixed thickness, placed halfway between the top and bottom of the original line.

Consider the shape of the Times New Roman numeral "1". The upper edge of the "flag" slopes upward, but the bottom goes downward. These balance out, and the flag appears horizontal in the fax. Now look at the bottom bar. The lower edge is straight, but the upper edges are curved up toward the center. The net effect is that on the fax, the bottoms of "1"'s will curve up slightly toward the center.

Applying these principles to Times New Roman output will show that the typographical oddities that appear in the fax are not inconsistent with Times New Roman, but are in fact highly suggestive of it.

Hailey is not the only anti... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hailey is not the only anti-Bush person in academia involved with the subject matter of the fake docs aired by CBS and published by CBSnews.com, Boston Globe, USAT, et al.

I read serious incitement pre-, during-, and post-election at http://www.crisispapers.org. (The latest stuff there is just unbelievable - but here's some pre-election bits:)

See Bernard Weiner. Ph.D., co-editor, and his collaboration with Lukasiak and others, here.
-
See sections under 8/5/04 date: " MORE REVELATIONS ON AWOL. SCANDAL" and "MEDIA TIMIDITY" - a month before CBS aired the fake docs:

********

"So where is the so-called "liberal media" that supposedly controls the information flow in America? Why isn't this updated story on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post or Boston Globe or Los Angeles Times? Or on "60 Minutes"? If one of those would run with this story, in a major way, the Kerry Campaign might feel more emboldened to start raising the AWOL issue frontally rather than just sniping away by implication.

"The partial answer why the media giants haven't touched the Lukasiak findings, is that we, the citizens, haven't demanded it, haven't clamored for it, haven't taken the action that needs to be taken to get it.

"But at least Paul Lukasiak is out there, digging in the minutiae of military records to unearth the truth. Add Lukasiak to the pantheon of investigative and analytical heroes that includes Daniel Ellsberg, John W. Dean, Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne Jr., Molly Ivins, Arianna Huffington, Jim Hightower, Josh Marshall, William Rivers Pitt, and a host of others banging away for truth inside and outside the establishment media circles.

"Thanks to them, we might actually get our government back in November from those reckless, incompetent ideologues that, unless they're stopped in November, could take the country down with them."
(From "Bernard Weiner's Blogs -- The Archives")

********


I wonder if Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., is related to Robert Weiner of Robert Weiner Associates? See picture of Terry McAuliffe with Kerry's old Watergate-era DNC buddy, captioned: "Terry told RWA Interns: "Keep up" op-eds bashing Bush!" here.

Mr.McGehee that's my poi... (Below threshold)

Mr.McGehee that's my point exactly, there will be more than Rather & Mapes going out ass over tea kettle.

I'll just second OC Chuck's response. The network brass are afraid of the newsies, and won't do anything that might make them mad.

McGehee and OC Chuck – so y... (Below threshold)
BR:

McGehee and OC Chuck – so you mean the higher ups above Heyward and Moonves will be the ones to do the firings? I wonder what Viacom CEO, billionaire Sumner Redstone is thinking:

9/14/04 – 6 days after CBS aired the fake docs – almost $12 million worth of stock sold.

12/10/04 – the anticipated release date of the Thornburg report on CBSgate - $162 million

Why would he risk the appearance of impropriety for such relatively small stock sales (probably 1 percent of his holdings in Viacom) ? Surely he knows of the scandal, surely he's received at least a preliminary report from CBS Legal Dept. and/or Thornburg?


This was reported by Americanthinker.com on 9/19/04:
here.

Viacom’s Redstone dumps stock during Rathergate

"Unless someone has hacked the Security and Exchange Commission’s website, it would appear that Viacom’s Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone chose to sell almost $12 million worth of stock in the midst of the Rathergate scandal roiling its wholly-owned subsidiary, CBS. A copy of the SEC’s Form 4 “Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership” posted on their website indicates that the billionaire exercised 341,500 options, and sold the stock on the same day, September 14, 2004."

And this from a commenter at scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com at 8:22 AM, 12/10/04: here.

"On the very morning of the day the Thornburgh Report is due to be released this news from the Wall Street Journal

"Sumner Redstone's family company sold $162 million of Viacom stock back to Viacom this week, far and away its largest stock sale since Mr. Redstone began selling shares -- for the first time ever -- in September."

What happened in September? Anyone remember? Anyone remember what they sent Martha Stewart up the river for? Can you say "Insider Trading" and "Shareholder suits"?"

The CBSgate plot thickens. ... (Below threshold)
BR:

The CBSgate plot thickens. Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (a major Watergate player) is on the Board of Directors of Viacom since 2003 (Viacom Directors listed on Forbesbest.com on 12/12/04).

See “Ghosts of Watergate Back to Haunt Themselves?”
link. (Archived link in 12/9/04 thread "CBS: Irony-Free Zone" Comment at 9:40 AM.)

Mapes is apparently putting... (Below threshold)
Email Thornberg:

Mapes is apparently putting up a defense of the story/memos as a last ditch effort before the report goes public, according to either ratherbiased or rathergate. If she was referring reporters to this study (as reported in one of the two sites mentioned in the last sentence, one should assume she is using the same report to defend herself in the investigation.

Can you or one of the readers here forward this blog link or the entire text with link, to Thornberg's law firm? He should have all information on all issues before making a final decision, wouldn't you think?

To last commenter above:</p... (Below threshold)
BR:

To last commenter above:

See more on Thornburgh here.

It may be unwise to assist CBS/Viacom's defense attorney. The so-called "independent" investigation may just be a red herring to keep us quiet, while the real mission of Thornburgh's law firm is stated at that firm's site. You'll find all the links from the above.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

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

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

In Memorium: HughS

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

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy