Dr. Hailey Redux
Many people have criticized my original post about Dr. Hailey as being too cryptic. I have over a dozen years of experience teaching and training graphics arts professionals. My eyes saw the problem instantaneously. Perhaps dealing with so many people who understand this stuff, I failed to appreciate how many people would not see the problem instantly. Further, this being such a serious charge, I saw great value in the "see for yourself" method. However, after multiple people asked me to explain it in detail, I am laying out the case in a more user friendly fashion. Feel free to ignore the post if you've seen enough already.
For the sake of clarity, I'll stick as much as possible to items in the original pdf as pdf's have accurate page numbers and it is easy to follow along at home. Further, I won't dispute the content of the professor's analysis, although it is riddled with inaccuracies. For the sake of this post, I will focus only on how I knew the image in question was bogus.
Throughout the document, the professor makes the case that the font in the CBS memos IS NOT Times New Roman. This is important for him to establish. It was in response to multiple opinions, from both scholars and lay people, who claimed it was Times New Roman, based largely on Charles Johnson's now famous overlay created in Microsoft Word.
wizbangblog.com
For those of you who are, by chance, not familiar with this graphic, it is an animation of one of the CBS memos overlaid with the exact same words typed into Microsoft Word WITH ALL DEFAULT SETTINGS. Including default tab stops and the default typeface of Times New Roman. This was the "Ah HA!" moment for many people.[See Footnote 1]
To get to the point where I had a problem with Dr. Hailey's analysis, we'll start with page 7 of the pdf where the professor is making the case that all the people who say it is Times New Roman are wrong:
......The only real questions are “is this Times New Roman or similarly contemporary, digital font,” and, “is the typing mechanical or digital?” Working on the hypothesis that this is Typewriter, and was typed on a machine, I am able to exactly reproduce a Bush memo. (Figure 4). [Editor's note: He means fig 5].....
Then the caption says:]
.....Figure 5. The above is an example of a bush [sic] memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice. Note that the match is exact.
Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica......
(Bold his, underline mine)
The problem was it was not "typed on a machine" unless you consider his computer the machine in question. He tacitly says he used a typewriter with a font ball named "typewriter condensed."
As we now know, that was not the case. I first proved it in my original post and it was later confirmed by the professor. At the time I called this fraud and in my mind, I'm still having a problem seeing it another way, but I'll look at a few possibilities...
I received an email that had many possible explanations other than pure fraud. Most I had considered, some I had not.
The emailer suggest that the professor might be trying to make the case that it could have been a digital font. [See Footnote 2] That would be more convincing if the professor had not stated before the figure that he was trying to disprove that idea and also said the exact oppsite in multiple places including on page 5.
.....None of the fonts available on the Internet seem to be exact matches, however. It is unlikely that a digital typeface could have produced any of these memos......
EVEN IF he wants to make the case that he used a digital font (the exact thing he just said he was trying to disprove) to simply show that it was not Times New Roman, he still has multiple problems. Not only would it disprove his premise but he had to use aggressive digital manipulation to produce the final image. He could not produce the exact image he claimed. Ironically, the professor himself provided the proof.
Due to the way his webserver was configured, the professor's working files were open for everyone to see in a web folder. If you look at this document (pictured below) you will see he had quite a few problems with his attempt at recreating the document. Notice what's missing over the red marks. (red marks mine) wizbangblog.com
Unfortunately, Professor Hailey did not tell his readers how hard it was to produce his "Ah HA!" moment. If you look carefully, you see that everywhere there is a red line, you will see corresponding tell tale marks of digital manipulation in his finished product. (figure 5)
Blowing up the finished document, you can see an example of how he fixed one of the problems. (Viewing the pdf makes this easier) wizbangblog.com
Not only is this a cut a paste job but, to be frank, it's not a very good one. He even leaves artifacts at the 12 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions showing it was obviously from elsewhere.
At some point he said he used ""ITC American Typewriter Condensed" for this experiment. As I noted yesterday you can go to ITCFONTS.COM and view the full character set and see there is no superscript "th" in that face.
This was a fact known to the professor, because he had these files1 2(pictured below) in the web folder, in Photoshop format, obviously he had seen the whole character set.
wizbangblog.com
So where did the Professor get the "th" from? We don't know.
Rather than prove the simplicity of recreating a viable replica, the professor proves that, without the use of Microsoft Word, it is actually quite a formidable task.
The emailer mentioned above also suggest that possibly it was not a case of fraud but that he misspoke. I find that hard to accept. He went out of his way to do the cutting and pasting and withheld that information. The font he used had no "TH" so he had to go get one from somewhere. Certainly someone with his background knows how critical that information would be to the reader.
Finally, that same emailer took me to task, for saying it was fraud because fraud implies willful deception. The emailer suggested it might just be a case of poor scholarship. I actually considered it was a horrific mistake but could not wrap my mind around it. I just could not believe that someone with his background would argue that it could not be digital fonts then use digital fonts to replicate the document. It strains credulity.[See Footnote 2]
The emailer was probably correct that I could have left the vituperation on the table.
But candidy, while I pulled no punches, I still see no other viable conclusion to be drawn. [See Footnote 2]
I suppose the professor could say he was within his rights to digitally alter his document and withhold that fact from the reader. In my book that would define fraud.
At this point, I'll leave all those conclusions to the reader.
Footnote 1: Charles Johnson's graphic was what convinced most people that the document was indeed a forgery. It has been mentioned in multiple national media outlets including (from memory) TIME Magazine, USA Today, CNN and FOX News. This graphic is historically important because thousands, if not millions of people reproduced it in their own homes and offices.
Footnote 2: I did not want to go beyond the scope of my original post but there is one area where I must. After Professor Hailey heard I had found his cut and paste job, he added additional language to his document to make his case.
He now says he used the digital face only to prove that it was not Times New Roman.
One of his core arguments is that you could not produce this on a computer that indeed you needed a typewriter. Remember, on page 5 he says: "None of the fonts available on the Internet seem to be exact matches, however. It is unlikely that a digital typeface could have produced any of these memos."
Providing an example where you could produce a "virtually flawless" memo with a computer would render his whole argument mute. Especially if it were as easy as he offered.
Certainly, if he were genuinely trying to prove it could not be reproduced with a digital font, rather than doing a cut and paste job and not telling anyone, he would have highlighted the problems I marked in red.
Instead, he went to great lengths to cover up those problems. In short, if you believe his new explanation, it shoots down his core argument and renders the rest of his work damaged beyond repair.
For this reason I can see no other explanation than the professor hoped the viewer would believe he typed it on a typewriter.
Therefore, I still believe it to be a case of fraud and academic misconduct. Perhaps the professor can offer a possibility I have not examined but I can reach no other conclusion.
Footnote 3: I have refrained from attacking the Professor's larger arguments and have not linked to any other sources other than the original. However, James Lindgren, a Professor at Northwestern Law has his say on the debate over the academic merits of Dr. Hailey's case. He does not think it rises to the level of fraud but has some insightful comments.
Posted by Paul
wizbangblog.com |
