Haileygate Focus Broadens
Kevin October 1, 2004 Media 71 Comments
[Content removed – See correction notice.]
In regards to the now discredited work of Associate Professor David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D there are more questions to ask. 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: I have been in contact with university officials, who are reviewing the situation. Here is there initial response:
We can assure you that no one in the administration requested that this project be undertaken. Dr. Hailey, working on his own, undertook this project to determine whether the Bush memos could have been produced by a typewriter of that period or were digitally produced. The University did not remove his site, and, in fact, we have asked Dr. Hailey to put it back up. He has done so. Dr. Hailey, as with any faculty member, has the academic freedom to pursue research topics and scholarly projects.
Further contact with the our source indicates that while the university was aware of the research, they did not specifically request it. As both our source and the university have denied that they requested the work, we stand corrected.
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
Rathergate/Hailygate Connection
DeSpin Zone
Challenges For The Traditional Media
Larry King: That Piers Morgan is Awfully Self-Absorbed, Isn't He?
On The Trail Of The Forger – Part III
Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site.
ChrisPalmer October 1, 2004
Actually, my favorite "example" is when he chooses Times New Roman *Bold*, drops a word out of the sentence, then shows how it imperfectly lines up *then* says that, obviously the font doesn't match because the width of the strokes in the font are different.
Duh, you used the BOLD font!
The animated gif on LGF is as clear as it needs to be demonstrated. It was so close that I had to type the memo myself in Word and then print it out because I thought that the Word doc had gone through the same digital gymnastics that Hailey used. I didn't digitally merge it into the PDF of the "original", but I did get a ruler and line up characters from the heading and all of the resulting lines. Perfect match, hot off the laser printer.
Hailey's assertation that you can't do this accurately because of photocopiers distorting the image is nonsense. Are we supposed to believe that the copier/fax took a memo that didn't match and magically distorted it to perfectly match a printed MS Word document? Why isn't someone from Xerox or Canon telling him he's full of crap? I used to work in a copy shop and we did a lot of pasteup work and ALL of our copiers produced very accurate repros.
LSU Engineer October 1, 2004
Below is an email I sent to the USU president and several administrators last night – no reply yet!
I am writing in regard to a web page which has been published by the Interactive Media Research Laboratory within the Utah State University Department of English.
This web page, located at http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm purports to be a definitive forensic examination of the infamous forged CBS memos relating to George W. Bush's service in the TANG. The author, David E. Hailey, writes that his qualified forensic analysis "indicates that they were typed on a typewriter" — a conclusion which has actually been widely and thoroughly debunked.
The purpose of this email is not to address the factual and logical errors within Dr. Hailey's paper, nor to speculate on his political agenda – others are competently addressing these subjects. Rather, I am taking issue with the representation that forensic document authentication is even within the scope of expertise of Dr. Hailey, the IMRL, or the USU Dept. of English. Quoting from Dr Hailey's text:
"Qualifications of the Lab
Interactive Media Research Laboratory is a small university lab that does scholarly studies and writes about issues involving the impact of technology on communications. Among other things, it is investigates archival and authentication problems. As the principal investigator and lab director I have researched and written on these topics since 1991, with more than 50 peer reviewed publications."
While I have no doubt that IMRL "does scholarly studies", I see nothing in the CV or publications of Dr. Hailey, the IMRL, or the English Dept. even remotely relating to forensic science or historical document verification. The thrust of the IMRL seems to be the creation of interactive learning modules, yet Dr. Hailey represents that investigation of "authentication problems" is a normal activity.
The prominent placement of a link to Dr. Hailey's defense of the forged documents on a USU departmental web page implies that this research is sanctioned, endorsed, and peer reviewed by the university. If the generation of partisan political propaganda is indeed within the mission statement of the USU English Dept., then this should be clearly and proudly stated on the department homepage. Otherwise, it might be wise to limit the subject matter of departmental webpages to areas of proper scope and actual expertise.
Corky Boyd October 1, 2004
Re: American Typwriter Condensed
Come to think of it, typewriters did not use condensed type. Their pitch remained the same, so a condensed type would only give more letter spacing, and not save space.
SarahW October 1, 2004
"The point was that until he made clear that he did NOT type this stuff on a typewriter, the obvious assumption was that it WAS"
WHen I first saw his paper, on the 29th, I made NO such assumption, because he did not explicitly state he had typed it on a typewriter. I did feel many would draw exactly that conclusion, so I commented on Allah's blog to beware on that point.
That figure-5 bit was his Johnson-style "convincer" and he counted on people not realizing he was using a photoshopped computer font.
He simply asserts that some imaginary typewriter
probably could have produced a similar document, with an illustration produced BY ANOTHER MEANS.
The entire paper was full of weirdness like that; there were unsupported assertions, diagrams that did not match his text …his intent seemed to be to confuse and obfuscate with irrelevent details –
It was as if his intent were to make the readers confused enough to cave in to the idea that all comments by experts are as suspect as his own, that readers can not understand these technical assertions well enough to distinguish between true and false.
John S October 1, 2004
Am I correct on these points?
1. LGF's comparison document uses the CBS document and a document of identical content typed on Microsoft Word.
2. Hailey's comparison document was created with sophisticated software, not with a typewriter.
3. In creating his comparison document, Hailey essentially "cut and pasted" the "th" from the CBS document and dropped it into his computer generated comparison document.
4. Hailey's comparison proves that a sophisticated user can use computer software that looks fairly similar to the CBS document.
5. Although Hailey has proven that computer software can generate something that looks fairly similar to the CBS documents, LGF had previously proven that a novice equipped with the world's most popular word processing program can generate something that is virtually indistinguishable from the CBS documents.
Typo in point No. 4. Should read:
4. Hailey's comparison proves that a sophisticated user can use computer software [to create a document] that looks fairly similar to the CBS document.
Jerry October 1, 2004
Trying to follow the procedures and logic is difficult. But, I am left with the impression that he found a variety of old military documents from late '60's early '70's that used that were typed with a font he belives is called Typewritter. He pulled out characters from these old documents and condensed them in Photoshop to match the Bush documents. His logic is that the military had typewriters that had a font that matches, and that the IBM had proportional spaced typewriters. Everything else is a leap of faith
Thanks for boiling it down for me.
So, a sophisticted computer user (Hailey) used advanced Photoshop techniques on a computer to generate something similar, but not identical, to the CBS documents. *yawn*
Of course, LGF had alrady proven that virtually any computer user, expert or not, could create a nearly perfect replica by simply using Word.
I can't comment on the technical aspects of Hailey's analysis. But there is a huge gap between what he claims to prove and what he really analyzed. Time and time again, Hailey makes sweeping statements that, even by his own account, he cannot support. I pulled these from his current version of the report.
Hailey:
BR October 1, 2004
Lordy, Lordy – and we're supposed to sleep safely at night with someone like Hailey doing consulting work for Boeing's presentation to Congress on ALCMs?
See Hailey's home page at http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/index.html
Click in the 5th box on the left side, called "Techwhirling"
You get a page called "Consulting History"
"Boeing Aircraft Company:Worked on a number of topics, but the most important project was a 650 page proposal to present ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) to the US Congress."
The first box, C.Vitae, shows (some of?) his funders.
Danny October 1, 2004
I exchanged emails with a USU official today. I posted the exchange at LGF. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12924#c0056
David M October 1, 2004
Did Hailey fudge his bio?
Jesse Dodd October 1, 2004
Joel Kadan designed the American Typewriter typeface for the International Typeface Corporation in 1974 (after the last Killian memo was dated). It was an update of earlier typewriter faces including Remington. Kadan designed the light and medium fonts; Tony Stan and Ed Benguiat developed other variants.
Source: Typographic Specimens: The Great Typefaces
Philip Meggs and Rob Carter
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1993 page 20.
NW Oliver October 2, 2004
If this guy is an English professor, shouldn't he know to use "led" instead of "lead" as in "led CBS to believe…"?
Attila the Hun October 3, 2004
The 'good' professor also misleads (a.k.a. lies to) the reader in his document by stating:
'It took IMRL three weeks of careful
examination to determine that the documents are typed'
(bold mine)
Now take a look at his posting at:
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20040804210402335
Authored by: Dhailey on Thursday, September 16 2004 @ 01:23 AM GMT
'Please forgive me for starting out by breaking the rules. I couldn't find a relevant thread. I direct a small lab at Utah State University. We research communication technologies and communication. Naturally, we took a close look at the Bush memos.
Our report is posted at
http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm
The typeface used for these memos was invented in 1905 for Remington typewriters and named "Typewriter." Since then it has been adopted and adapted by every manufacturer. Pica and Courier are examples, but this type is the older version. Makes sense because the military tends to hang on to what works. One of the things you will find in this report is a copy of a Bush memo with reproduced lines below each of the original.
The purpose of the exercise was to identify the unique characters — those that point to a specific typewriter.
Well, enough about me. Just thought you might like to know.
DHailey
Now I may not be all that good in math but the 16th is only one week after the broadcast not three. (Or could it be he had the memos before the broadcast — nah)
He tries everything in his 'research' to remove blame from cBS – which is what the real purpose of his work was, not to prove the memos were real.
J_Crater October 3, 2004
What kind of sophisticated idiot uses computer software to produce documents that look like obvious forgeries, when Microsoft Word 2000 can be used by any ordinary idiot to produce the same obvious forgeries ?
I would think a sophisticated user of computer software would try to produce documents that don't look like obvious forgeries.
Who needs a sophisticated idiot when an ordinary idiot will do ?
To Attila the Hun – Re yours on 10/3/04 12:31 AM
Excellent point about the "3 weeks". Three weeks earlier than 16 Sept. would be around 26th of August – that means Hailey would have had access to the document(s) since at least then. Unless he's lying about the "3 weeks".
Earlier in one of the Hailey discussions, someone wondered where Hailey got his copies of the documents because the resolution appears different than CBS's. I'm no resolution expert, but the USA Today copies are quite different than CBS's. CBS's looks more cleaned up. USA Today's look more raw, closer to the "original fakes" – hee hee! But I'm not joking, see the light grey square shadows all over the pages and crop markings around the text and signatures at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-guard-memos_x.htm . Scroll down below the picture to: (Related items: Text of the four new memos – See the memos in PDF) Click on the blue underlined link to the memos. There are actually 6 memos all in one pdf. (Still there as of this moment.)
The grey squares and crop markings are even more visible if you look at it on screen, while you're at that site, by enlarging your screen view to 200-300%. You don't need photoshop to see this. Just printing it out at normal size shows it on paper too.
(First mentioned on 9/15/04 6:34 AM EST at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/045906.php#comments . At that time, USA Today's pdf creation date was 9/9/04. They have since updated it with a cover sheet, new pdf creation date 9/21/04. I have screen snapshots of both.)