The memo hoax had me reeling. But, what with the draft hoax and now this nincompoop's meta-forgery, I'm like, good night nurse!

By way of elaboration:

The lines above and to the left of the "t" are distinctive photoshop smudges, caused by someone not paying enough attention when erasing the original "th". In addition, the fradulent "th" is MUCH sharper than the surrounding text, indicating that it was generated at a different resolution (*cough* photoshop *cough*).

Bill,
Go check Wizbang's update. It turns out that the nutty Professor acceidentally left his original Photoshop documents on the Web site for download. In it, you see that he actually Photoshopped the superscripted th in place. That is, first he constructed a document with the superscripted th absent; then he manually added them in later. Both the "before" and "after" files are on the web site, demonstrating his efforts.

If you read page 8 of the prof's report, Wizbang has misfired.

The Prof isn't claiming that he typed a matching memo, he's claiming (w/r/t that page) that by using photoshop, he can show that his typewriter font is a closer match for the documents than Times Roman.

In other words, he specifically admits to photoshopping in the report.

Why is this idiot bothering with this stuff anyway? Make a name for himself? As a (not-very-good) fabricator of documents for tired, done-to-death, already debunked news stories?

"What the hell is the matter with these people?" is a question I find myself asking too much these days.

All that really needs to be understood is that Adobe's .pdf files can be generated merely by scanning (or as CBS learned, from Microsoft Word).

The mere fact of the .psd's (meaning Photoshop document)existence shows intent to alter the presumed scan (or alternatively invent from whole cloth).

This is like catching the Watergate burglars at the DNC's door picking the lock- their attempted crime is unmistakable.

WAIT A MINUTE!
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!?

J Mann, you are correct. I think many of us got excited here.

Still, what's funny, is he doesn't even prove his point. His "match" is significantly off in quite a few ways. A simple overlay (a la LGF) would prove that quite adequately.

Why is anyone wasting time on this?

1) Get a typewriter that was in use in TANG in early 70s. Look at old receipts and requisition records to make a list of all typewriters used at that time and rule out any typewriter which was in existence but never purchased by a NG unit.

2) Type the docs on those typewriter (s). Does it match the forgeries? yes or no? Compare to other existing docs from Killian's sectretary's typing pool.

3) List all anachronisms and inaccuracies of usage/format/etc. How likely Killian's secs would have deviated from accepted acronyms, etc? Compare to other memos his secs typed.

4) Compare to other statements by Killian and other TANG officers of Bush at the time.

5) Case closed. Torturous reasoning supported by photoshopping irrelevant.

- Since this does nothing to detract or add to the standing swamp water that CBS finds itself in, it seems like an excersize along the lines of Nessie sonar searches or sighting's of Elvis in a Roswell Starbucks....But hey...Knock yourselves out...

People are wasting time on it because CBS and the Boston Globe will try to muddy the waters with a new expert.

J Mann,

The issue is not whether he photoshopped it into place. The issue is whether it came from a typewriter before being photoshopped in place, or was computer-generated.

The whole thing is laughable anyway. He ignores the pseudo-kerning, perfect down-to-the-twip centering and 13-point spacing which were IMPOSSIBLE with a typewriter, and also the margins, tab spaces, word wrap, and exact font match which are all very, very unlikely. And that's leaving aside all the non-document evidence, like the fact Killian's typist said she didn't type them, the fact they used incorrect terminology, the fact Staudt was retired... I could go on.

The reason that this is important is this: Moonbat Fever is highly contagious. This sort of ridiculous delusion can quickly become accepted enough to start appearing in AP articles as "experts disagree over the authenticity of the memos."

- Well Bill if CBS contines to float and back radar balloons and arial dive dummie evidence in support of the documents it may be a sign they've already been assured that the "independent investigation" will find no "substitive or plausible" reason to believe there was culpability or intentional fraud on the part of CBS or its employee's....I still think the only way we'll ever get near the truth in this is through some court action by someone....

Another reason it was important: If an expert COULD have reasonably shown it was possible to print this on a typewriter, it would have been big news. But this is just another inconclusive analysis.

Why it is important here: Since this is such a hot button issue for some of us, it is a reminder that you have to study an argument VERY CAREFULLY before making accusations, or you are in danger of making the same kind of mistakes as Dan Rather.

Read back a couple of pages and you see he's claiming there is a FONT called Typewriter that existed since 1905, and certain technical aspects of the font on the memos look like this font instead of Times New Roman.

However, he NEVER gets around to showing that it was used on a typewriter, let alone the ones in TANG. He claims it was used on certain IBM's but doesn't say they were _typewriters_. In fact, he doesn't say much at all, other than (paraphrasing) "It's a font named Typewriter, and I duplicated the memos in it."

So. Freaking. What.

"That PROVES they could have been real, and CBS could have been right, even though all their experts said they were forgeries." (paraphrase again)

Ahem. No. It proves you can duplicate on computer what was created on a computer. Whoopee.

However, it does a nice CYA job for CBS now doesn't it? I have to wonder if that isn't the whole point. Dan been in Utah lately?

Uhm, and now according to an update on Wizbang it is looking like the professor DID update the document to include disclaimers that he hadn't actually typed anything. Which brings up an additional lesson: If you comment on something like this found on the internet, screenprint or copy it in case they decide to change it after the fact.

Wizbang very much needs to post a link to the pre-1PM version of Bush_Memos.pdf that he claims to have copied LAST NIGHT. This will allow all of us to judge this independently.

He DOES have that copy, right?

- No ubu...No it doesn't provide a CYA for CBS.(CYA4CBS?) As a matter of fact if that were true it would just make the evidence worse since, as far as I can remember, TANG didn't own any Desktop computers at the time, nor Did their officers write their memo's on the IBM 140's and 160's that were in existance. (PDP-8's simply lacked the ability)

- What makes this completely beside the point is the number of other area's of fraud that have been shown, all the way up to the basic language and form, as well as the use of a retired Col. and falsified signitures.

- I doubt there's a court in the land where you'd stand a chance of winning that argument...

Let me add one more item to my list:

2a) The actual typing on a real 70s-era typical NG typewriter has to be filmed, with a close-up on the paper in the platen as the typing is being done, with 3 reliable witnesses watching.

This is a really stupid defense for the forged docs.

As someone else pointed out, all it proves is that one can recreate these docs with Photoshop.

So if now only CBS can prove that Killian had access to a computer with Photoshop in the early 70's, then they are off the hook...

Bill read my updates. They guys is editing his work.

The stuff people are saying is on page 8 was not in the original.

keep an eye on wizbang.

Respond to "fake but accurate" with "accurate but misleading?" Nice try.

He's laying heavy smoke for CBS, his point being that inauthenticity couldn't have been proved and it was more likely they were typed than digitally produced. His "evidence" is laughably slender and doesn't support his conclusions, and he doesn't even address the extrinsic factors (Killian's wife and son, for example) that should have made CBS at least do more checking.

The fact the Globe was hot to run with it leads me to say . . . (all together now)

I question the timing.

If you read his conclusions carefully it appears that what he is shooting for is to establish a case that CBS was "reasonable" in its judgement to go with the docs in their story - not that the docs are authentic.

That's a big difference but serves only as a red herring. It was CBS's duty to establish that the docs were "authentic," not "possibly" authentic. No one can establish thatwithout originals. He's an English PhD in Utah for heaven's sake. He probably dreamed this up just to try and geta little head from Mapes.

But this really is NOT about authenticating the docs. It is more likely that CBS with clusion from the Globe is attempting to build some cover over potential civil or legal proceedings.

- Just for the sake of completeness I just looked at the comparisons on Whizbang - The good Prof has got to be kidding....Aside from the obviuos cut and paste of the "th" the fonts aren't even the same...They are similar, but they show the small differences that type companies always include to prevent copywrite suits...Look at the size of the internal circles in the "o"'s and the "p" and the "R", the "crowned" footer on the R, the top and the leg....This is just an obvious forgery of a forgery... and not a very good one...Companies that license their fonts do not "tool" you up, they leave it to you to get them as close as you can....These two fonts are undoubtedly licensed versions of the original....thats why they show small but distinctive differences....If you saw these two beside the originals from either an IBM selectric or a composer you'd see obvious differences between all four....

It could be this guy is simply trying to lay a legal defense for CBS...I wonder if he was contacted by anyone at CBS, or even the DNC/Kerry Kamp?

Since this guy does nothing to prove the authenticity of the docs, I think this guy is just trying to create enough reasonable doubt about their inauthenticity as to allow CBS a reasonable legal defense, as well as possible give some new life to the Bush NG story and CBS's ever diminishing credibility.

He's really creating the ultimate smokescreen...just obscure the issues enough, and hope that enough people will accept the facts that the docs may or may not be fake, rather than have it be accepted by the public that they are indeed fake.

Of course, what is also interesting is that the guy is changing his work, reacting to the criticism, without admitting his updating...a clear violation of academic principles...

I suspect he had no idea he would get so much attention so fast. I *almost* feel sorry for him.

Heh.

- Btw, something I have not seen anyone do, it may well have been done but I have not seen it, is anyone take several of the known real documents from Killian's files, and try reproducing them on MS word in the same way the forged copies where brought to light. I would be utterly amazed if they matched...The implications of that are obvious and even stronger proof of fraud....

Wizbang has updated his post, and I apologize for saying he misfired.

Apparently, the line about photoshopping was added after Wizbang noticed the problem and contacted the Prof's department. The original language is consistent either with a "fraud" or an "honest mistake" hypothesis.

The Prof's theory seems a little wierd, although I'm certainly no document expert. If I understand him correctly, he thinks that the document is in the "typewriter" font, custom-modified to be proportional, and with a custom "tm" key. I don't see that there's any evidence that such a thing existed, much less in the TANG.

J Mann "If I understand him correctly, he thinks that the document is in the "typewriter" font, custom-modified to be proportional, and with a custom "tm" key. I don't see that there's any evidence that such a thing existed, much less in the TANG."

So far there isn't. Now, IBM would do a one-time special font, but it would have cost BIG bucks (not a likely expenditure), and their proportional spacing does not match the memos.

Actually, though I've lost the cite, someone a while back showed a font (Beldam? Bedam?) that was a little closer-looking font (and I doubt many people have it on their PC), but that could have been owing to reproduction artifacts.

I don't know what the prof was thinking, but even his photoshopped stuf doesn't match up. At the time I looked at it, the PDF (not the beginning one, which Wizbang can now show) claimed (fig 5) to show an exact match: Just looking at the first line of the memo, I spotted several differences. But then, my glasses are a new (two weeks) prescription - I wonder how old the Prof's are.

While the prof tries hard to show that the doc *could have been* done on a typewriter, the smoking gun, IMHO, is the center justified text at the top of the memos. If you are using a typewriter, centering something is not easy - you have to actually count the letters in the centered text divide by 2, space over, etc. That's why none of the real military memos have center justified text. But it gets worse - the fake memos use proportional space type. No person could/would have spent the hours needed to figure out the precise spacing required to center justify text on a proportional space typewriter.

The annoying thing about the prof is that if his PHD is worth anything at all, he KNOWS THIS. All his paper did was to look at things that could be refuted. He simply ignored the things that couldn't be refuted. So yeah, he's a dis-honest partisan.