Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (5448)	10/1/2004 12:44:53 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance Wizbang blog [Editors note: read all the updates] The blogosphere is abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. who might have proven the CBS documents are legit. The Boston Globe is so excited they are getting ready to run with it. I hope they do. Dr. Hailey is a liar, a fraud and a charlatan. And I have the goods. He attempted to copy Charles' work of reproducing the document on a typewriter. Supposedly, the top line is the CBS memo and the bottom line is a 1970's era typewriter font. (Italics words added for clarity) But there was a problem... First download the pdf his analysis. Then go to page 9 and zoom in on the "th" at 400% you'll see... imrl.usu.edu As they sing on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other." UPDATE I viewed the pdf on screen and it was obviously a forgery. Spoons says he could not see it so I rerasterized it as saved it as a jpg. I think it is clearer. If you doubt me, like everything in the blogosphere, follow the links. (/update) Here is a hint for the good Professor-- If you are going to forge documents DON'T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver. And if you don't think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery. Not only did he forge the document but he let the work in progress in an open web folder. And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call. Did you think we were stupid? Update OpenSecrets.org say the good professor gave John Kerry $250 (thanks Allah) Update 2: We got word from Charles at LGF that the Globe is backing away from the guy. I wonder why. Update 3: The Backstory I had this story last night. In fact, I mailed it to James and Steven because it was a case of academic misconduct and they follow that sorta stuff. I asked them to hold it because I was calling the head of his department in the morning. It was not etched in stone that I was going to blog this. I called the head of his department and he was a very nice gentleman. He looked at the pdf and agreed it did not look right but said he did not have the expertise to say it was a fraud. He asked me to make the case for academic misconduct and mail it to him. I told him he would get it Monday morning. Once I saw the Globe was considering running the story and that Charles and Allah had links to it, I knew someone would bust the guy so I may as well do it. In other words DSA... Not in your wildest freaking dreams. (ROFLMAO at closed circuit humor ;-) --Some people tried to cast doubt on my story. I investigated immediately and the good professor only dug himself deeper. -- Update 4: One of the commenters noted that the pdf version was updated about 1pm TODAY. I have no idea if the guy knows he's famous, so I don't know if he was trying to cover his tracks or if he just just still working on the forgery (er document). If he was trying to cover something he did a bad job as the bogus TH is still plainly clear. VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE The pdf has been modified (as noted in update 4) with additional language explaining the figure. He calls it both figure 4 and figure 5 so there is some confusion there. HE NOW CLAIMS THE BOTTOM LINE WAS NOT TYPED. At this point it is probably safe to assume his department head called him and he was trying to fix things. I'm in the process of seeing if his explanation is credible. If so, I'll trumpet it. But so far, I'm very, very dubious. Update 5 He is now doing more editing. Fixing sloppy work or digging in deeper? Jury still out. But keep an eye on the html version. If he makes the case, you'll hear it here first. Update 6: As I've noted in the comments, we're working getting the original pdf uploaded. I can't upload via web interface so I mailed it to Kevin who will FTP it up. In the mean time, here's the text. That whole part about not misunderstanding figure 4 was NOT in the original. The original has figure 4 then verbatim: Figure 4. Washington Post analysis of criticisms advanced by “document experts.” Their criticism is that the type is proportional, the superscript “th” is consistent with word processing software and not consistent with mechanical technologies of the time. Some experts are certain that the font used is Times New Roman, probably unavailable on typewriters at the time, and certainly not used by the military at the time. The critical arguments of the above document experts are both spurious and uninformed. The ability of the military to produce the proportional text with a superscript “th” with a typewriter is beyond question. [it is? -ed] The only real questions are “is this Times New Roman or similarly contemporary, digital font,” and, “is the typing mechanical or digital?” Working on the hypothesis that this is Typewriter, and was typed on a machine, I am able to exactly reproduce a Bush memo (Figure 4). [editors note he means figure 5.] After figure 5 he has the caption (in bold) then more text. Figure 5. The above is an example of a bush memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice. Note that the match is exact. Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica. IMPORTANT: Even if you accept that he never meant to imply he physically typed it, he just worded it poorly in the original, WHY DID HE HAVE TO PASTE IN THE TH? If it were so easy to replicate, why not do it? IF he had to paste it in, it is still a forgery. I still have many doubts. Anyone? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update 7 and potentially the last The professors now says: I was able to establish the font family based on the best examples of each character. I was able to recreate most of the defining characteristics using a font called "ITC American Typewriter Condensed." Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family. ITC is International Typeface Corporation. You can see the font he claims he uses at ITCFONTS.COM Look down and to the right and you will see "View full character set" There is no superscript "th" in that font. You have to make it on a computer. That's why he pasted it in! And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if he produced it on a computer how exactly does that help his case??? We are left with thinking he is either a forger or incomprehensibly dumb. All things considered, I'd admit to stretching the truth before I'd own up to being this dumb. But that's just me. One more... Sorry for delay... original pdf file here wizbangblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5448)	10/1/2004 12:49:02 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Haileygate Focus Broadens Wizbang blog 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. If true, this changes the story dramatically from an independent work of a faculty member to a university sanctioned project gone terribly wrong. 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: The University apparently took his site down. Not just this project, but the whole site. Update 2: I have been in contact with university officials, who are reviewing the situation. They will be back to me with a statement shortly. Backstory 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 Posted by Kevin wizbangblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5448)	10/1/2004 12:54:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Rathergate/Hailygate Connection Guess who was banking on David Hailey's discredited work? Rathergate's own Mary Mapes. Wizbang blog From the Dallas Observer: .....CBS News didn't return calls for comment, and Mapes declined to discuss Hodges' charges. "I can't, I just can't," she says. But she did forward a study by Utah State University Associate Professor David Hailey disputing the contention that the memos were created on a word processor using digital type rather than a '70s-era typewriter--the key challenge to their authenticity. "I really believe they are not digitally produced," Hailey says. "I'm not saying that they're authentic. I'm saying they were probably typewritten. That doesn't make them authentic. But it does take CBS off the hook a little bit."..... Posted by Kevin Aylward wizbangblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5448)	10/8/2004 2:47:17 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Newcomer on the Hailey Connection LGF Wired News comes out clearly in favor of Utah state professor David Hailey in an article portraying him as the victim of a “mob:” Wired News: Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers. Hailey is the professor of creative writing who created an “analysis” of the fraudulent CBS Killian memos, arguing against all evidence that a typewriter could have produced them even though Hailey’s own examples are not typewritten. Now Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer, a typography expert who holds several patents on desktop publishing technology, has drafted an absolutely crushing review of David Hailey’s work: The Hailey Connection. Dr. Newcomer emailed me to tell me about his peer review of Hailey’s paper, and gave permission to publish his remarks about it: <<<... Essentially the paper is poor science, as exhibited by poor methodology, a tendency to leap from unwarranted assumptions to foregone conclusions, and assertions stated without substantiation, many of which are contradicted by actual examination of the documents, or of Word. And I state it is a “peer review”, which it is. I gather that people at USU seem to think the blogosphere is inhabited by people unqualified to comment on the lofty work of a university professor. As a PhD, former university professor, and still current teacher, I feel eminently qualified to be a peer reviewer of this work. Had I been an editor of a journal, I would have rejected it very, very quickly because of its poor methodology. But given that I have been told by some people that CBS is now pointing to his work as a vindication of their position, I felt that I should well and truly thoroughly examine every assertion, every conclusion, and the entire methodology for validity. I see a very, very, very, very poor study, which quite likely would never have made it past the editor of a refereed journal.>>> Newcomer’s refutation of Hailey’s study may come in handy, because judging from this article in the Dallas Observer, CBS News is probably going to try to use Hailey’s sloppy, biased work in their defense. <<<<CBS News didn’t return calls for comment, and producer Mary Mapes declined to discuss Hodges’ charges. “I can’t, I just can’t,” she says. But she did forward a study by Utah State University Associate Professor David Hailey disputing the contention that the memos were created on a word processor using digital type rather than a ‘70s-era typewriter—the key challenge to their authenticity. “I really believe they are not digitally produced,” Hailey says. “I’m not saying that they’re authentic. I’m saying they were probably typewritten. That doesn’t make them authentic. But it does take CBS off the hook a little bit.”>>> by Charles littlegreenfootballs.com