Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 7

Hopefully someone can can merge the info from the George Bush military controversy page into this article.

Also, should this article be retitled? Killian memos controversy, perhaps. I kind of like Rathergate, too. TimShell 22:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blogs and any media that use that term phrase it "Ra^thergate." -Joseph 22:09, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

I'm fine with a rename to either one. I'm assuming the incoming links in other wikipedia pages will be fixed automatically. Sdaconsulting 17:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason to rename it. Also, we should not insinuate any affiliation with the new rathergate.com blog site. -Joseph (Talk) 18:11, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I think the name "Rathergate" smacks of a bias and we should avoid it. Also, I don't think this name has caught on in the mainstream media. I'm fine with Killian memos controversy, but I prefer the title the way it is. After all, the article is about them. And when the controversy dies down, the title will still be apt and descriptive. --Chan-Ho Suh 18:15, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect Ra^thergate will end up sticking at some point. But we can afford to wait. Sdaconsulting 21:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerning

Do the Killian memos really have kerning? This seems to be a matter of some dispute on the blogosphere.

What is the source fot the claim that they do, as mentioned in the article? --Chan-Ho Suh

I dunno, but here's one guy who talks about it, and does a pretty good job of addressing it: Flounder His connection has been saturated, so he is looking for mirrors. -Joseph (Talk) 18:27, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Wikipedia is butchering that link. You will have to paste it into your browser to see it. -Joseph (Talk) 18:36, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I managed :-) Interesting! So he seems to be saying that Word does not use kerning (by default) but the TrueType fonts use a kind of "pseudo-kerning" which also appears (according to him) in the memos. Is this good enough for a change to the article section on kerning? Or should we wait for more verification? --Chan-Ho Suh 18:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it merits inclusion. He's not the only one who said it. Charles Johnson from http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/ was the first one to point it out. Johnson was one of the authors of PageStream, a DTP program. He didn't quite do it in such a scientific manner, though. I don't think we should go into heavy detail, and once the article above is on a stable mirror, we could include a link. -Joseph (Talk) 19:12, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

IBM Executive typewriter

Some are claiming that some models of the IBM Executive have the required features of the Selectric Composer. This is important since the Executive is much cheaper. --Chan-Ho Suh

Even the Composer doesn't have all of the required features. I'll not dig too deeply into that since there are plenty of weblinks that address that point. -Joseph (Talk) 18:27, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't taken a look at all the links yet, but maybe you could name one of the required and missing features?

BTW, the Executive is proportional, and much cheaper and more common. So the statement from the article that "Typewriters using proportional fonts were very rare and expensive in 1972. " should be changed.

You should go to ibmcomposer.org for more info. And be sure to sign all of your statements on Talk pages. -Joseph (Talk) 18:37, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! I guess the kerning link above pretty much answers my question on a missing feature. But I'll check out this link also. --Chan-Ho Suh 18:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Fans of these typewriters should get ahold of one and type up a match to the Killian Memos that I can make in a minute using MS word. If you do it with 1972 technology, you can win $36000 (and growing!). Sdaconsulting 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blogosphere is to CBS as Wikipedia is to Britannica

These are two applications of the same principle: the guardians of knowledge crumbling as information is democratized and power devolves to the fringes. I think it is strange that any Wikipedian would be reluctant to see this happen. TimShell 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Won^derful point, Tim! Sdaconsulting 00:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm curious about this article. Right now, it seems like a bullet list of arguments that the Killian memos are forged. However, there are numerous experts who disagree with this assessment. And the journalistic community is, as yet, largely undecided. I'd be happy to offer links if the editors here are unaware of the opposing side of this issue.

Unfortunately, I don't at the moment have time to get involved in editing this page. Perhaps next week though. Wolfman 03:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Numerous" would be a minority, though. Let's not declare give it an {{NPOV}} tag until we're further into this thing. I think that once either time has passed by, or the situation has reached resolution, it will straighten itself out. Anyhow, two of the main experts who vouched for it on CBS' behalf have backed out. -Joseph (Talk) 03:29, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Well, I didn't put a NPOV tag on it. I wouldn't do that unless someone tried to balance it, and the balance was rejected. At the moment, it very clearly is not balanced. However, I would prefer to attribute that to lack of knowledge rather than bias. Regards, until I get some time to work on this. Wolfman 03:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out that the memos are genuine, then yes, this would be NPOV. If it turns out the memos are fake, then this ceases to be an NPOV issue and these become fact, ergo... -Joseph (Talk) 03:45, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Yes, well that does raise the question of why there is already an article on this, now doesn't it. If the memos are proven fake, no article will be required as it will be generally accepted. Likewise, if they are proven genuine. So, the only real reason to have an article is to influence opinion while the facts are still being sorted out. Not so much the intent of Wikipedia, but oh well. Wolfman 03:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason there is an article on this is probably the same reason many of us are fascinated by it -- the sudden new way that "old media" are affected by the Internet, and blogs, specifically. Sdaconsulting may be a bit enthusiastic in his description of this fact, but it is the reality nonetheless. The actual issue at hand is of little consequence (and will likely not harm or help Bush much either way) but the effect that the Internet is having on the way CBS, specifically, and "old media" in general, conduct business is something that is very interesting to me and others. -Joseph (Talk) 03:54, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I see. Well blogs are indeed fascinating creatures. Since blogs are the motivation, you might have a look over at the dailykos blog or again here. Wolfman 04:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "blogs are the motivation" would be overly simplifying it. It's much more than that. We're watching CBS' equivalent of Operation Tailwind, which CNN never recovered from. The WSJ had five articles on this today, for christ's sake. -Joseph (Talk) 04:04, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

By any chance, did you read the links I added? If so, do you see why I might consider this article a wee bit unbalanced? Wolfman 04:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had already seen them. See response here. He also didn't do what the DailyKos said concerning shrinking the document. If you look around on LGF, he gives step-by-step instructions on how to duplicate the document. You should also read the link above from Joseph M. Newcomer. (The Flounder.com links.) He was one of the pioneers of desktop publishing. ABC, WSJ, NBC, etc. have duplicated Charlie Johnson's experiments. Kos came out of left field, literally, with that one. -Joseph (Talk) 04:10, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to quote Glennon in the article, when his credentials are suspect. -Joseph (Talk) 04:19, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Time magazine quoted him. What are the credentials of the bloggers you quote? Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One of them has patents from the early 1970s for desktop publishing and font kearning (Newcomer, a Kerry voter, is one of the acknowledged leaders in this field, just Google his name), one of them has written desktop publishing software (Charlie Johnson), several are attorneys with many jury trials behind them. -Joseph (Talk) 04:34, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Also, care to explain why a simple TexANG office would have a $25,000 typesetting machine? (2004 dollars) -Joseph (Talk) 04:25, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I don't know that they did. I reckon this stuff is still being sorted out by journalists.Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS can't manage to get a single recognized expert to vouch for the document's authenticity, while over a dozen have stated that documents are likely or certainly fraudulent. The guys CBS and Boston Globe have run keep backing away from any sort of authentication as they see the tidal wave cresting overhead. This article will be of historical interest for decades to come as a sign of the new media taking the old media to the mat and thrashing it, along with the very important story of how Dan Rather and 60 minutes cast away their credibility forever in the pursuit of victory for their choice in political candidate. Game over. Sdaconsulting 04:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He (Wolfman)'s on a quest, I can see. His 'lack of consensus' among major media outlets pretty much means everyone but CBS and Terry McAuliffe. -Joseph (Talk) 04:29, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Indeed, a 'quest' for at least the false pretense of neutrality; just a little figleaf please.Wolfman 05:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, Joseph, Terry's already suggested that Rove planted the forgeries. Sdaconsulting 04:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Even the mainstream media are screaming "forgery," while CBS is saying otherwise, and McAuliffe is taking yet another angle and saying "Yeah, I can see it's a forgery, Rove put it there." Three different angles. -Joseph (Talk) 05:03, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Um, it's not my phrase, that's direct from Time magazine. Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added this to Wolfman's Talk page, but I thought it would be useful here:

Links

Start here: [1]

then go here: [2][3]

Charlie Johnson, of LGF, is the guy who worked on PageStream and other DTP software. He knows more about page layout than you and I ever will.

-Joseph (Talk) 04:40, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

It's possible

In regards to the possibility that a particularly expensive and rare model typewriter just so happened to be the one used for the memo and just so happened to produce such a curiously matched to MS Word memo, well here's what has to have happened for that to be true:

1. A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
2. would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
3. which would have drove him to produce memos
4. which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
5. and Ann Richards oppo team never found
6. and the Democratic National committee never found
7. which were not in the papers his wife still has
8. and not in his Guard files
9. but somehow were perfectly preserved
10. and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
11. after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years
12. but even so, are indeed bona fide
13. and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
14. after having sat around all these years
15. since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
16. on a very rare and expensive typewriter
17. which the national guard had none of
18. using a particular typeface element
19. and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
20. but with no proof that this supposed typewriter configuration actually could produce such a result (only speculation)

I've heard of "totem pole hearsay", but this - this is "totem pole speculation" 17 times removed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Random typewriter repairman not qualified

But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices. [4]

Experts agree these are forgeries

CBS can't get anyone qualified to corroborate their cock-and-bull story about these documents being real. Versus over a dozen of the top experts who have examined it saying they are probably or certainly fake. I've removed the following text: "The authenticity of these memos is in dispute; forensic and typewriter experts consulted by major media organizations have not yet achieved a consensus.[5] "

If and when CBS can assemble several qualified professional resumes who say these documents are valid and don't change their story in 24 hours, we can put the dispute back in. Sdaconsulting 05:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Wolfman, there is no consensus yet, just a bunch of media outlets quoting the same few experts repeatedly. I doubt anyone here knows who the "top experts" are in the field of 1970s typewriters, and at least one person touted by the mainstream media as an expert is a GOP fundraiser. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and at least one of the experts is an avowed Kerry supporter. Sdaconsulting 05:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS has not capitulated yet. Statements declaring current media opinion and current "expert" opinion to be in full agreement may be premature. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS may not capitulate in our lifetime. Wikipedia doesn't need to wait for CBS to capitulate. The documents are fake, there are more than a dozen highly qualified professionals who have staked their reputations on these being very likely or certainly fraudulent documents. CBS can't name a single, qualified professional with a resume that says they are probably or certainly genuine. Every time they quote someone (or their cronies in the Boston Globe do) the person they cite says they are misrepresenting them or blatently lying.

CBS = Credibility's Been Shot.

Sdaconsulting 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we can't say these are fakes until Dan Rather admits it, then we have made Dan Rather the arbiter of truth, which would not be NPOV. TimShell 06:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman removed my changes with no evidence

Wolfman is asserting that that the documents are in dispute. There is no dispute among named experts as there are 'zero named qualified experts stating these documents are probably or certainly valid. "Former Typewriter repairman" does not qualify. Nobody wants their reputation ruined, and even the original sources have backed away.

As I stated, if somehow CBS manages to convince several qualified document experts to state their opinion that the documents are probably or certainly real, then you could honestly state that the veracity is in dispute. Sdaconsulting 05:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I quoted and sourced Time magazine. Your dispute is with them, not me. Wolfman 05:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right, I said "no evidence". My bad. I should have said "No Credible Evidence". Time is running interference for Rather, but they cited no credible evidence using named experts with relevant resumes. Sdaconsulting 06:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The edits should be restored until this issue is discussed in more detail. Wolfman, please talk more before you delete. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, in fact Sdaconsulting initially edited my edits without discussion. I then edited his. He/she now states that I provided no evidence. In fact, I did provide a linked source. In contrast he/she did not. Wolfman 05:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that SDAConsulting is very new here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't scold him/her for the false allegation against me. I'm trying not to bite the newcomers. Wolfman 05:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have left the changes in place until we had more thoroughly discussed the bogosity of CBS and how they have provided no credible evidence.Sdaconsulting 06:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SDA, please be more patient with Wolfman. He is generally reasonable and will address concerns that you raise. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bouffard

The Boston Globe quote that Wolfman inserted has already been shown to be nonsense. The Globe claimed further review left Bouffard thinking the documents might be legit. Bouffard himself claimed that after further review he was more convinced they were forgeries. Knowing that, including the Boston Globe quote as corroborating evidence is dishonest: TimShell 05:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio with 30 years experience analyzing typewritten samples, had expressed early skepticism about the memos in an interview with the New York Times. But Bouffard more recently told the Boston Globe that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time. He changed his opinion after comparing the memos to contemporaneous Interpol documents known to be written on the Selectric Composer. "You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.[6] However, Bouffard later claimed that he had been misquoted[7].

From George W. Bush military service controversy

Forensic document examiner Dr. Philip Bouffard has claimed there is at least a 90% probability that they memos are fake [8], yet the Boston Globe cited him as a "skeptic" whose "further study" caused his views to shift [9]. Bouffard claims that further study left him "more convinced" that the memos were forgeries. [10]

Our job is not to come to conclusions, but to present the factual evidence. The reader can conclude on their own if the quotes are nonsense or not. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just report both the Globe story & his more recent story. What's dishonest about giving the rundown of his history? At least the reader should be aware his story may not have been consistent, given that he is often cited in stories allegation forgery.Wolfman 06:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(rolling eyes) What are you talking about? The man being quoted says he was misquoted and that he believes the opposite of what the Boston Globe claims he believes. If the issue is, what does this guy believe, his explicit statements about what he believes is as factual as factual can get. TimShell 06:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Tim completely here. --mav 06:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Globe is stale on this - including it without explicit and lengthy rebuttal would be pointless. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the INDC link in our article, Bouffard's latest is along the lines of: I originally had what I thought was proof they were forgeries, but that theory turned out not to fly. Still, the strong preponderance of the evidence right now is against authenticity.

So can't we give a summary along those lines? The Globe story has been partly superseded but it doesn't look to me like the Globe lied. They just caught Bouffard partway through his analysis when new evidence was coming in every day. So we can give his current view and not waste too much space on detailing the steps along the way. I don't think the history is that important when things are so in flux. My impression is that his latest view isn't the exact opposite of what the Globe said, though certainly the emphasis is significantly different. JamesMLane 06:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. Bouffard seems to currently be in the "pretty certain" stage, but has said he needs more time. I have no idea why he didn't take more time before speaking with the press to begin with.--Chan-Ho Suh 07:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

There is no PROFESSIONAL controversy

As I stated, if somehow CBS manages to convince several qualified document experts to state their opinion that the documents are probably or certainly real, then you could honestly state that the veracity is in dispute.

- I've already cited over a dozen named qualified experts who are fairly sure to certain these documents are fake, most of whom are listed here: [11]. Of the two listed as supporting the proposition that the memos are valid, one is not directly quoted anywhere as supporting them and I can find no resume for her (Lynn Huber) and the other has stated that he is not qualified to judge a typewritten document's validity as he is only a signature expert (Marcel Matley). CBS pulling former typewriter repairmen who change their stories and a "software expert" is not going to cut it next to the credibility of the people who say the memos are frauds (developer of document layout software, developer of truetype font technology, multiple document validation experts, etc, etc.)

Just because CBS has no standards and the Boston Globe is willing to lie about what people say, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to wait on those two organizations to fess up to their BS. Talk about waiting for Godot.

NO CREDIBLE NAMED EXPERTS with resumes. That's CBS has delivered. Along with people who change their story, people who say they were misquoted, and other abuses of the truth.

Sdaconsulting 06:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia a news article, rather than an encyclopedia? As I recall, it explicitly is not. You think there's no dispute, TIME & CBS at the least differ. I'm willing to include in the article that Sdaconsulting feels there is no dispute, but not that there is no dispute. Wolfman 06:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes the mainstream media has covered itself with glory here haven't they. They dispute it, but they can't name a single qualified credible expert who backs up the laughable theory that these MS Word documents were written in 1972. I'm willing to compromise. If they continue with their stonewall another couple days and still can't name several credible experts, it's obvious they are full of &^%*. Do you agree?

Sdaconsulting 06:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know Sda, I haven't been following this story at all since I've been very busy the last couple weeks. So, I'll have to catch up a bit. What I do know is that the article I bumped into didn't even have the slightest pretense of being a neutral write-up, and that was obvious without even knowing much about the story. Took me about 10 seconds to find the other side with Google. That's not a page history that buys a lot of credibility with me. So, I'll not be too quick to jump on board with whatever your opinion might be. When there is no longer a dispute, I reckon it will be clear as the lack of dispute will be undisputed. Until then, there is a dispute. Wolfman 06:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have credible expertise with the subject matter you are welcome to make a case for the validity of these documents. Heck, even if you don't I'll be glad to listen and respond. I could find the "other side" of the story of how the Jews were behind 9/11 with Google if I wanted to but it doesn't make it a credible theory. The memos are garbage, everyone with credible expertise knows it (Kerry supporter or Bush supporter). The experts have weighed in. None of them support the "Daily KOS" version of reality. This is not a political dispute -- this is a dispute about facts -- and the facts show that these memos are fraudulent -- mostly because the fraud is so POORLY done.Sdaconsulting 06:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking a look at list of 11 (and not "over a dozen") supposed "top experts" from the top: Sandra Ramsey Lines is a GOP fundraiser and William Flynn is famous for claiming that the death-camp identification instrumental in convicting John Demjanjuk was a KGB forgery. So in other words, we have a partisan operative and a man who was wrong about forgery before at the top of the list of "experts". What evidence is there that these 11 people are indeed the "top experts" in this field and not simply the people in some reporter's rolodex? These are the people you exalt while you denigrate Bill Glennon as a "typewriter repairman". But who better to know the capabilities of a typewriter? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)