Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues/Archive 1

message: I think this is a reasonable first cut at a split.  However, I do think quite a bit of this needs to be NPOV'd.  Right now, it starts off reading like we are going to present a case that these are conclusively forged.  And we quite simply don't.  The only real evidence here is the testimony of the "experts".  So, we need to be careful that we present a balanced view of the range of opinions and statements by them, as well as their expertise and who asked them to comment.  I'm not disagreeing that a bunch of them think these are highly suspicious, but I think the case may well be overstated that a consensus opinion is forgery.
Also, if one simply scans the headings on the "blogger evidence", one would assume that everything there is damning.  In fact, most of that evidence is crap.  I think we ought to find some way to relabel that explicitly as "blogger evidence" to indicate clearly that those aren't the issues that experts have raised.  We need to be very clear about this delineation.  The casual reader would probably infer that all those issues were raised by competent people.  
:Asides:
To me a great irony is that some of those issues, actually work against the MS Word hypothesis when you push on them ... like the superscripted th.  Because, you'd have to go to a special effort _not_ to get the superscript for some of those cases.  And if you're that conscious of it, you'd think you'd at least be consistent in typing up 4 docs.  I clearly remember doing carriage rollbacks for superscripted footnotes on Selectrics in high-school typing class, and I'm only in my 30's.  Who the hell came up with the idea that you couldn't superscript without a special key?  But that's a danger, because you don't want to make the experts look like idiots when it's the bloggers who are.  So you just can't jumble this stuff all up.  Also, the crap about getting the jargon wrong ... I assume the prime suspect for forgery is Bill Burkett, and he damn well ought to know better than any blogger what jargon TexANG used.  I'm not saying the typography guys are wrong, but some of these bloggers could use a remedial course in engaging their brains.
Also, did the fellow who made the "blinking gif" ever do the same for the other documents?  I've always wondered because a bunch of the features really don't look like a great match to me.  I'd find it a lot more compelling to see tham all done, otherwise it makes me wonder if he "cherry-picked" the only one that sort of looked ok.  Just asking for my own curiosity. Derex 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First cut 

message: there are a lot of footnotes on this page that do not link to the text.  Probably a carryover from the larger article.  I will be pruning them shortly. Thatcher131 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I think this is an excellent article and congratulations to everyone who has worked on it!  Where this article is weak is that it assumes a lot of prior knowledge of the issue and doesn't stand alone very well (for example it mentions Marian Carr Knox but doesn't say who she is).  I would like to make some edits along those lines.  I started with the th issue, to open with a background on what it signifies and what is actually in the memos, and then the analysis.  I don't believe I have altered NPOV in any significant way, please let me know if you are unhappy.  I also edited David Hailey, for two reasons.  First, the article said he was accused by bloggers of flasifying his findings but did not provide any specifics.  Second it did not acknowledge that Hailey has produced a more recent, more comprehensive report.  Again, please let me know if you are unhappy with my work. Thatcher131 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning some updates 

message: The automated conversion of the citation template left some mistakes.  I will try to fix them soon if no one else does.  Also, if we place the citations at the text using the  template, the footnote section will automatically number correctly.  I will work on this too if no one objects. Thatcher131 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote issues 

message: the big blockquote under the typography section is not clearly attributed.  if it's not actually a quote, the formatting is all wrong and the content probably pov. Derex 01:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blockquote 

message: I deleted this section
:On September 13, CBS Evening News introduced two new experts to vouch for the authenticity of the memos.  One of the individuals, a software designer named Richard Katz, stated that a lower case ell was used in place of the numeral one in the memos.  Further, he asserted that this would be difficult to duplicate on a computer today.  Mr. Katz did not publicly explain the details of how he made this determination
Mainly, Katz's argument has no bearing on whether the documents are authentic.  Even if it is true that the memos used lowercase L's, it is not difficult to dpulicate on a computer, just type an L instead of a "one".  The Thornburgh report basically repudiates CBS use of him as an "expert"; CBS made no attempt to verify his qualifications before putting him on the air.  As a blow-by-blow account of the controversy as it was happening this was useful but as a retrospective summary it doesn't add anything verifiable to the article. Thatcher131 04:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ones versus Ells 

message: I think there might be an inconsistency in this statement:"Bloggers have frequently asserted the documents use curly, or "smart", quotes – distinct left and right double quotes. This feature is common on modern word processors. In fact, the documents use no quotation marks of any kind, either single or double." According to the second CBS News Document, the word “He’s” has a single quotation mark.  Thus the documents do feature quotation marks.  =D  Jumping cheese Contact 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curved apostrophes 

message: There's a brochure at computerhistory.org that dates the HyType 1 (from Xerox, after their purchase of Diablo) as 9-73; I'm inclined to think that it was "cutting edge" then, had been for a year or three, and was probably not found in the TexANG (or any other state's NG!) --htom 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Diablo Systems Inc. Model 1200 HyType I Printer Maintenance Manual (Pub. No. 82003, 2nd ed., Nov. 1974) indicates that the printer supported a print line of "132 Columns @ 10 characters/in. (3.95 char/cm)" and "158 Columns @ 12 characters/in. (4.76 char/cm)" with column spacing of "60 Positions/in., 1/60th in./increment (23.6 pos./cm 152.4 mm/increment)" (Table 1-1, p. 1-1). The I/O interface included 11 data lines to carry BCD information representing carriage movement values. The high order bit represented the carriage movement direction. The ten low order bits represented the carriage movement distance, "in increments of 1/60th of an inch. Six increments equal 1 character column at 10 characters or columns per inch, while 5 increments equal 1 character column at 12 characters or columns per inch." (p. 4-2). This indicates that the Model 1200 HyType I printer was not capable of supporting the 18-units-per-em system of character widths used in the memos. 71.212.31.95 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diablo Systems HyType 

message: The original blinking gif comparison was by Charles Johnson at LGF. I think he did one other comparison, non-blinking, and one of his users did a high-resolution version of the blinking gif. I suspect that he would do the same for all six, if asked nicely, but those would be orginal research ....
The Smoking Memo post at LGF, with a link to the index of LGF posts about the memos: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only
htom 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blinking GIF 

message: Does the person who included the info about Desktop Magazine at the end of the "Proportional Fonts" section have the article and does the article specify the filenames of the Times Roman font in question? Was it a PC font? In particular, was it TrueType? A comment at Tim Blair's blog on Sept. 14 2004 (direct link to comment) claimed that the Killian memos font looked most like a PC TrueType font Times Roman and gave the filenames:
timr65w.ttf Times Bold
timr66w.ttf Times Bold Italic
timr46w.ttf Times Italic
timr45w.ttf Times Roman (screen name: Times)
74.72.218.159 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desktop Magazine and the Times Roman Font 

message: I note that some editors seem to think that David Hailey has proved the documents to be genuine. Anyone who wants to go on believing that should not click on these links.
Dr Hailey's most recent work on this topic claims that "the memos were typed", but never even tries to explain the pseudo-kerning, varied space sizes etc. (In order to produce those documents on a typewriter, the typist would have to position the paper by hand before almost every character, and a simple memo would take hours to type!)
Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hailey 

message: Remember Dr David Hailey? Holds a "PhD in technical communication"? So he'd know all about this stuff wouldn't he?
Wrong.
His PhD was in "Language and Rhetoric, Theory of Criticism" and was titled "The Objective Metaphor: An Examination of Objects as Metaphors and Metaphors as Objects".
Not much about fonts and typefaces there!
I've fixed the article. CWC(talk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, I tracked down the edit which introduced the "PhD in technical communication" idea. CWC(talk) 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr David Hailey 

message: "BC" added this enormous comment in the "Planning some updates" section above. I've moved it to the end of the page and added this heading. CWC 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the aheckofa.com guy 

message: The main article is in serious need of updating, especially in regards to common early 70's office technology , which now appears to have been far more sophisticated than had been thought. There are also many factual errors as well. I will be creating a list of suggested and will post here for discussion. Others are also very much invited to     offer up suggestions for improvement. -BC aka Callmebc 00:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that the article you reference supports your argument that such things were "common" in TANG squadron offices at the times referenced. Dreamed of, perhaps. htom 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The forgery charges were based on extremely faulty if not ludicrously wrong assertions about common early 70's office tech. It also appears that people's recollection of what was around is just as off, which I guess makes sense since only engineers were not completely computer illiterate in those days -- there were an astonishing number of sophisticated printers and word processing systems sold during the early 70's  and yet few can remember them. It might be because many of those systems, especially the early models, looked typewriter-ish enough to not register as being something other than typewriters to people with no reason to know the difference. A Diablo daisywheel printer with the "KSR" option (Keyboard Send Receive) looks very much like an IBM Mag Card system or even a regular typewriter: ,  & . Also, I'm finding that most of what few  Memorandums for Record posted online from the early 70's and even before are actually proportionally printed:  & . So unless someone can say for sure what was around TANG or nearby (let's not forget law firms, JAG offices and such), then any reference that sheds better light on the true state of office technology would seem actually mandatory for inclusion in the best interests of the article. -BC aka Callmebc 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "One of the most significant innovations that affected the growth of word processing products was the development of the “daisywheel” printer technology, which became commercially available in 1972 [l0]." (Your reference 8.) That they were commercially available is very different than their being "common". The leadscrew feed for the Selectric mechanism is announced in 1973 for the MagCard II. No 1970's secretary would confuse a Selectric with a MagCard, either a Model I or a Model II. htom 04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The people making all the claims about 70's tech, with the exception of Knox, were not secretaries. And Redactron and other early word processing companies making word processors switched from using the mysterious OEM I/O Selectrics (mysterious in that what few specs on them indicate they were capable of proportionally printing like slow daisywheels, but it's unclear which companies used them despite IBM selling 20-40 thousand of them annually by 1972 -- see: ) to daisywheel printers beginning in 1972. And do you really think secretaries paid much attention to the details of the printer mechanism if everything else seemed more or less the same? Also most systems were apparently compatible with the Mag Card/Tape systems introduced by IBM in the 60's, meaning that a letter could be composed and saved on one system in, say, 1970, and printed out on another in 1973, much like people can today. The basic point is that by 1972, proportionally spacing word processing sytems were commonly available: . All of which at the very least cast serious questions on key contentions of the pro-forgers. -BC aka Callmebc 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: I'm a little distracted at the moment, but I will return with a whole buncha recommended fixes for the main page. I have noticed, though, a little editing done on the "word wrapping" issue. Aside from the word wrapping being  of little or no value forensically if an old word processor had been used (standard margins with a similar enough font will word wrap at the same point), who exactly are the "critics" being referred to in this this comment: Critics have argued that it is implausible that a manual typist would have ended each line at precisely the same point as a computer program written decades later? I did a quick Google and the word wrapping seems to be only discussed in blog sites, which are not reliable sources. So if a reliable source cannot be found in regards to the word wrapping "issue," it would seem that the entire paragraph should be removed on the grounds of WP:RS. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Wrapping 

message: "have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout; however, they are not raised above the level of the normal text."
This sentence seems to contradict itself as "superscript" means that the text is raised above the rest.—überRegenbogen 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are basically two types of superscripting: the full, traditional one on, like say, Word, mimics what had been done on typewriters -- a half line feed down prior to typing a character puts the text up in between the lines; but there is also a partial one that only goes up as high as a quote mark, which means it doesn't extend above the height of a capital letter like a true, full  superscript. Example: this has a full superscript, 1012, while this has a partial one, 10¹². -BC aka Callmebc 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-superscripted superscript? 

message: User:SEWilco's last revert to Killian Documents Authenticity evidently went beyond POV and has crossed over to deliberate fabrication 
1) SEWilco substituted a passage from the Killian memo in question "not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972" in place of what William Campenni actually wrote in the Washington Times  piece, For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. 
2) SEWilco asserts that the memo had the "wrong address" -- an unsupported contention that's also another fabrication: "The address used for Bush is his parents’ home, the official address used for much of his military documentation. The address of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron is correct" .
3) SEWilco asserts "Bush could not have been expected to get the letter in time to get a physical the weekend of May 6-7." -- yet another unsupported contention that likewise yet another fabrication: the memo clearly shows a date of May 4th, and it was from a commander to a subordinate on the same base so there would be no reason for it to be mailed -- it would immediately go into the recipient's slot at the base mail room .
Additionally:
4) SEWilco asserts "The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13-14". Aside from the relevance of this, there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to support this. 
So given the above, I am obligated to remove yet again SEWilco unsupported and this time demonstrably fabricated "Mother's Day" insert. Any further attempts to reinsert this without meeting even the most basic Wiki standards for verification will force me to file a 3RR complaint.  -BC aka Callmebc 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Campenni did write "report for a flight physical not later than May 14", that there was a wrong address, and that Bush was supposedly ordered to report when the base was closed for Mother's Day.  (SEWilco 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your link has five sentences from Campenni's column, and the first sentence is marked as having been altered.  You think Campenni wrote a column which was five sentences long.  (SEWilco 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well since you added that Mother's Day thing in the first place, I do believe the burden of proof is on you . Again weren't you also the one who said "It's not at all hard to verify the contents"? So just verify your claims and I'll be happy to leave "Mother's Day" be and withdraw the 3RR. -BC aka Callmebc 07:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I supplied the needed citation in every edit.  You're not reading the source material nor the Wikipedia rules which you're linking to.  (SEWilco 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a prepaid consulting fee of $50 I will post detailed instructions on how anyone can buy a copy of the the Campenni column.  For an additional $20 I will have a printed copy sent to you.  I am not responsible if you won't read those instructions any better than you've read what is above, and the detailed instructions can repeat anything which is above.  (SEWilco 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I missed item 4.  Campenni actually does mention supporting evidence that the Guard base was closed on Mother's Day and that the following weekend was a drill weekend.  (SEWilco 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You still don't understand 3RR any better than you've read what has been posted here.  You're still claiming things I stated something which is not in the source, but it is in the source.  As I already stated the information in the citation is sufficient for finding the source material.  If I quote from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica I am not required to mail you a copy for verification.  (SEWilco 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you don't seem to understand the concept of WP:PROVEIT: You are for all intents and purposes a vandal and  I'm done replying to your nonsense. I only wish an admin starts paying attention... -BC aka Callmebc 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are stating what is not in the source without knowing what is in the source.  You can not delete sourced material just because you do not have a copy of the source.  Wait for an editor with access to the Washington Times material verify what it says.  (SEWilco 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR Warning for [[User:SEWilco]]

message: Another editor has added a link to a copy of the Campenni column.  I didn't check it word-for-word, but except for different paragraph structure it looks like it is probably complete.  It's not identical to the Washington Times copy but seems to have the same words.  I see it's in the first page of Google's results for "Exposing CBS", although I hadn't done that search until now.  (SEWilco 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online "Exposing CBS" 

message: A curious mind would like to know.... -BC aka Callmebc 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "Questions?" 

message: :BC, will you please leave your original research on your personal Killian website, aheckova.com and stop placing it here?  The Air Force writing guide is interesting but it is also from 26 years later.  I left the statement in the article regarding that no writing style guide has been shown for the time, but we can't stick in a guide from a quarter century later simply because it validates your opinion. Jmcnamera 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see -- you weren't really following the discussion we were having further up: that writing guide, the Tongue and Quill, actually dates back to the 70's and it consolidated all the document formatting standards for the Air Force prior to that. Now that you know this, I'm sure won't mind me reverting your honestly mistaken revert. -BC aka Callmebc 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we need to show a style guide conteporary in time to the faxed photocopies of alleged memos that Lucy Ramirez gave Bill Burkett.  Guides change and one from 26 years later isn't a valid cite for your research. Even so, it wouldn't answer any real questions here since the provenance of the memos can't be proven without access to the originals. Jmcnamera 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Um, what exactly does "Lucy Ramirez gave Bill Burkett" have to do with Air Force memorandum formats? -BC aka Callmebc 22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research, Aheackova 

message: Hmmm....I just noticed an inconsistency with the beginning of the "Proportional Fonts" section. It starts off as: 
:One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of proportional fonts. The majority of typewriters available in 1972 used fixed width fonts, and, according to The Washington Post[1], all of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed width fonts commonly associated with typewriters. 
But this is immediately contradicted by the sentence immediately following it:
One document released by the Pentagon on September 24, 2004 used a proportionally-spaced font somewhat similar to the font used in the Killian memos.
There is an explanation, though: The Washington Post story is from September 14, 2004, while the DoD withheld releasing three unusually formatted documents, including the sole proportionally printed record, until September 24, , just a few days after CBS apologized for the memo story on September 20 . All remaining records were suppose to have been released much earlier under an AP FOIA lawsuit, and it took a judge to intervene to get these .
So that opening paragraph needs to be reworded to fit some of this background in.
Also, I've notice that there are are some highly misleading statements included further down:
*John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com, stated that word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.[5] 
According to old publications, the typical cost was actually less than $10,000, and this is when Selectric typewriters were costing upwards to $1000 (Selectric II's went for $1400 ). A Business Machines Executive Newsletter from March and May of 1972, said that in 1971, IBM revenues from MT/ST-MC/ST word processors exceeded typewriter sales, with about 3600 units being shipped monthly about that time, and these were $7000-$9500 machines. And that the latest IBM model at that time was the "MC/ET" ("Mag Card/Executive") , and that came with proportional spacing and automatic centering. Also remember that typical early IBM XT office computer systems with a daisywheel/NEC Spinwriter printer had cost about $6000 . I'm not sure why some random executive at a typeface company would be considered an expert on old office equipment.  
*Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype, stated "It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with."
This is contradicted by the TexAng memos that Mary Mapes located, and by other memos found on the Internet. Also, again, I'm not sure why some random executive at yet another typeface company would be quoted as though he was an expert on old military office equipment. 
* William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.
Pretty much all of Willian Flynn's assertions in the referenced Washington Post article are contradicted by online sources. Did anyone at the Post really check his credentials?
*The Washington Post also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents".
This was already discussed.
*There is a lot of space given to Thomas Phinney the typographer
Despite all the space given to Phinny, there is no detail of what Phinney did: he created a suppose "emulator" of the IBM Composer (See this Creativepro article) based on specs contained a collection of 1967 IBM reference documents located here  for the first model of the Composer (it was upgraded a few years later ). Also in the Creativepro article is this passage:
:Now, this eliminates all typewriters of that time. What remains are the low end of typesetting machines. First, one has to understand that these were not typewriters. They took more training to use, and were slower and less efficient. They also cost a lot of money, even the cheaper ones cost $4,000, which would be like $15,000 today. But these machines did offer justification, centering, and most of them had proportional spacing.
:The primary device proposed by people who've done their homework as being capable of doing this kind of proportional spacing, using a Times-like font, was the IBM Selectric Composer -- a "Selectric" in name and external appearance only. This is actually one of these low-end typesetting machines, sold mostly to folks doing newsletters and newspapers rather than for general office work. But some offices wanting to do really spiffy stuff could have had one.
His comment, "Now, this eliminates all typewriters of that time. What remains are the low end of typesetting machines" is directly contradicted by online IBM docs and any authoritative publication, book or article covering the word processing technology that was in common use since the 60's. 
*Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman.
There are no refs to this. And while Googling for one, I ironically found this blog post by Phinney  who mentions it, but only because he saw on the "Wikipedia entry on authenticity issues". All the other references are similar -- they repeat vitually word-for-word what's in the wiki but without a source link, like this "Physics Daily" mention: 
:Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. The article did not dispute that superscripts and proportional fonts were available in the 1970s. 
Well, any thoughts on any of this? -BC aka Callmebc 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deal with the existing issues, then introduce each additional issue following Talk page formats which allow discussion.  (SEWilco 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?? In case you haven't noticed, I just created a new Talk section to deal with issues with the Proportional Fonts section and I carefully laid out some problems I spotted.  -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deal with the existing issues, then introduce each additional issue.  (SEWilco 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Dcxf 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do I dare ask who was that comment addressed to? ;) -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportional Fonts 

message: There has been some significant edit warning lately, so I've protected it for 48h, please discuss the issue here instead of doing constant edit warring. If the block needs to be lifted or extended please send me a message. Thanks!--JForget  01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good -- I need a break from dealing with all these malicious, 3RR bending, anonymous IP editors, multiple sockpuppets, and generally bad people who have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than protect or slip in their crackpot political nonsense, by hook or by crook, facts be damned, refs snickered at, and/or logic and fairness despised. Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc thinks these articles are part of some sort of war , has stated an intent to cover these articles with changes , and expects to break 3RR a lot more .  Meanwhile, he erroneously challenges one small issue (Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#"Mother's Day") and pretends he expects us to resolve many entangled alterations.  I have to admit he did produce one amazing work at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie (yes, he notified administrators of it).  (SEWilco 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The curious need only to backtrace the "contributions" of SEWilco and various anonymous IP's and revealed sockpuppets on both of the Killian wikis to see who started the "war," beginning with SEWilco's insertion of an anecdote printed in a conservative/right wing newpaper, the Washington Times, Did this matter to SEWilco? No. Go check the history of the contribs involving the "Mother's Day" section, as well as the "discussions" involving them (note that  some have been deleted but show up in the diffs, unlike one certain little item of note that SEWilco refers to.) Also please check SEWilco's past responses to adding refs related to even the most elementary aspects of the Killian memos, like the supposed formatting issue: SEWilco and various  sockpuppets seemed quite happy to keep this entry under Formatting "It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" completely cite and reference free. And when an attempt was made to add refs to actual Air Force writing guides and other military "memorandums for records" for comparison, SEWilco and others tried and are still trying to block their inclusion. That should tell you something about the agendas floating around here. And for the record, while I was blocked, some Killian editors did indeed go over to the Global Warming wiki to "contribute" in a similar manner, resulting in full protection being put on the article. (Note that the diff he used is from a comment of mine in Global Warming, and consider why would that be located and then mentioned here.) FYI. This is all I'm going to say about this stuff. The key issue is that this article, as well as the Killian Documents wiki, have suffered from neglect (note all the missing citations) and editors sticking in unsourced, unverified if not outrightly false "information" for whatever reason. I fully intend to follow the Wiki rules both literally and in spirit to help genuinely improve things. Anyone coming to this wiki, as with any other, for information is entitled to have it presented as accurately, as completely and as fairly as is possible with the best sources available. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: :: The curious need only to backtrace the "contributions" of SEWilco and various anonymous IP's and revealed sockpuppets on both of the Killian wikis to see who started the "war," beginning with SEWilco's insertion of an anecdote printed in a conservative/right wing newpaper, the Washington Times, Did this matter to SEWilco? No. Go check the history of the contribs involving the "Mother's Day" section, as well as the "discussions" involving them (note that  some have been deleted but show up in the diffs, unlike one certain little item of note that SEWilco refers to.) Also please check SEWilco's past responses to adding refs related to even the most elementary aspects of the Killian memos, like the supposed formatting issue: SEWilco and various  sockpuppets seemed quite happy to keep this entry under Formatting "It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" completely cite and reference free. And when an attempt was made to add refs to actual Air Force writing guides and other military "memorandums for records" for comparison, SEWilco and others tried and are still trying to block their inclusion. That should tell you something about the agendas floating around here. And for the record, while I was blocked, some Killian editors did indeed go over to the Global Warming wiki to "contribute" in a similar manner, resulting in full protection being put on the article. (Note that the diff he used is from a comment of mine in Global Warming, and consider why would that be located and then mentioned here.) FYI. This is all I'm going to say about this stuff. The key issue is that this article, as well as the Killian Documents wiki, have suffered from neglect (note all the missing citations) and editors sticking in unsourced, unverified if not outrightly false "information" for whatever reason. I fully intend to follow the Wiki rules both literally and in spirit to help genuinely improve things. Anyone coming to this wiki, as with any other, for information is entitled to have it presented as accurately, as completely and as fairly as is possible with the best sources available. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: This has gotten rather large with old discussions.  Archiving will begin shortly.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: You reverted my edit, saying:
Your edit summary makes no sense -- use Talk please)
If the edit summary was unclear to you, why not try reading the actual edit made to the article before reverting? 67.168.86.129 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did and it still didn't make any sense in regards to justifying the edits you made. Please, these are controversial articles you are making changes to,  and your edits so far really should have been proposed and discussed beforehand. As I mentioned on your talk page, there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet in regards to these things and one has to be extra careful that this misinformation doesn't make its way into Wikipedia articles. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Edit Summary 

message: Half the stuff in there has a fact tag on it, and half the rest needs one.  What I see is mostly repetition of a bunch of blow-hard bloggers claims about what 1970's documents, typography, and abbreviations were.  Then as a tiny aside afterwards a little link showing that the claim is plainly contradicted by actual examples of documents at the time.  I just fact-tagged the thing about NLT which purports that the style used was never used. Says who? Thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Drudge-light followed occassionally by a Fact-check whimper. 124.176.50.63 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  whole lot of opinionating going on here 

message: It's been less than a week. You've proposed this, one or two others have commented. I'll urge you to incorporate you latest change into the previous version, and let the rest stew for at least the rest of the week (until, say, the 12th or 13th.) Thank you. htom (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasty decisions ...