Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Wonderful point, Tim! Sdaconsulting 00:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogosphere is to CBS as Wikipedia is to Britannica 

message: 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:
# A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
# would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
# which would have drove him to produce memos
# which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
# and Ann Richards oppo team never found
# and the Democratic National committee never found
# which were not in the papers his wife still has
# and not in his Guard files
# but somehow were perfectly preserved
# and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
# after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years 
# but even so, are indeed bona fide
# and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
# after having sat around all these years
# since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
# on a very rare and expensive typewriter
# which the national guard had none of
# using a particular typeface element
# and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
# 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. Rex071404   03:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's possible 

message: 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.
"
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)
replies: text: 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. Gamaliel  05:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus, and at least one of the experts is an avowed Kerry supporter. Sdaconsulting 05:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text:  I'm with Rex on this one. Yes, most document verification people are saying something between "these are impossible to verify" to "these are fake", and reputable journalism professors are calling for CBS to take on an outside agent to run a full investigation, but it's still too early to call it a done deal. There's no need to rush to put a line under this, let's let it play out. Noel 02:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  You do have a point, and I'm not saying we should make Dan Rather the arbiter. But rushing to put a line under it, before the whole story has played out, is just counterproductive. The facts speak pretty well for themselves, just lay them out. Noel 02:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Is this WikiNews or WikiPedia?  This story has been out there, what a whole week?  Plus, it's not just CBS that hasn't bought into the forgery claim. Maybe they are forgeries, maybe not.  Time will tell, probably a week or two.  At which point, this article will be irrelevant anyway.  But honestly, I hadn't seen a whole lot of concern about NPOV among the editors before yesterday night; are you new to this page? Wolfman 14:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts agree these are forgeries 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  Please bear in mind that SDAConsulting is very new here. Rex071404   05:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: '''Wolfman removed my changes with no evidence'''

message: 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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?  Gamaliel  06:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no PROFESSIONAL controversy

message: We can never trust any of these "gotcha" documents again, especially anything from the MSM.  Any future forgeries will be much better done from a typographic standpoint, and we will have to rely on content and format analysis errors.  But even if they appear genuine, it is clearly no longer possible to buy off on any "new documentation" of this sort that CBS or the other non-credible mainstream media choose to shovel onto our plates.  The wages of sin.Sdaconsulting 07:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'm beginning to get the impression that it's your strongly held point of view that these are forgeries.  Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to be presumptuous. Wolfman 07:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with every qualified expert opinion that these memos are crude forgeries.  There are literally dozens of reasons to doubt them, from numerous factual problems internal to the documents, to ANG standards for formatting at the time to the absolutely convincing typographical evidence.Sdaconsulting 12:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A point worth considering

message: I can understand the argument that maybe the Bush people created forgeries and deliberately did it badly enough that, after the initial furor, the documents would be seen to be forgeries, and people would suspect that the Kerry campaign had done it.  That's pretty convoluted, but I can at least understand the logic of someone who thinks that happened.  Now, however, by this edit, an anon has added the suggestion that the Kerry camp deliberately created refutable forgeries.  I'm a Kerry supporter, so I don't want to be too hasty in deleting an accusation against Kerry -- but I can't for the life of me see how this would help Kerry.  (Note that the context is the idea of deliberately creating documents on a word processor, so that a forgery would be discovered, rather than finding a 1970s typewriter still in working order.  Doing that deliberately would be conceivable (however remotely) for the Bush campaign but not for Kerry's.)  Can anyone explain this, or should the edit simply be reverted? JamesMLane 08:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any idea who created these forgeries.  I don't know if wild speculation on who created them is appropriate in the article -- it could even be seen as defamatory.Sdaconsulting 11:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspicion of Bush or Kerry role

message: Some of the links posted here and in the article body are already stale with inaccurate facts overtaken by events.  At this point there appear to be no domain experts willing to stake their credibility on the authenticity of these documents.
I would like to invite the Wikipidians here to post up-to-date information on any credible domain experts who are willing to state that these documents are most likely or certainly authentic, and were not produced using modern word-processing software and printers. Sdaconsulting 17:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What troubles me is that your idea of "moving towards consensus" seems to be to try to get a bunch of Wikipedians to decide that the documents are forgeries, and then assert in the article that they're forgeries, as if it were an objective and indisputable fact, in the same category as saying that they were first released by CBS.  That's the wrong way to go.  Note that even for utter trash like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, what we say is, "The overwhelming majority of historians in the United States of America and Europe have long agreed that the document is fraudulent ...."  We don't flatly assert that it is fraudulent.  We should try to reach consensus on how to summarize and present the varying contentions that are made, and the principals' reactions to the comments of others, but not try to adjudicate the underlying question. JamesMLane 19:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good plan to me. I'm happy just list the points people have raised, as well as the major, relatively centrist news organizations (e.g. WPost, MSNBC) who have consulting document experts (most of them not named, alas) and concluded that these things have a vert good chance of being faked. Noel 02:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: These memos are utter trash along the lines of the protocols, in fact even more easily disproved.  They should be given the exact same same treatment, not a bunch of hooey about how "experts disagree" when in fact all the legitimate expertise is on the same page.Sdaconsulting 20:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving towards Consensus

message: Two of the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. 
Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.
"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.
"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.
"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News. . . .
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them.
"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."
I'm sure Gam will come back and say that it's not proven that the memos are fraudulent.  Hmmn.  None of the experts CBS hired will even vouch for the documents.
Gam, I know you aren't sure the documents aren't real, but you haven't demonstrated any expertise with the subject matter.  The experts all say the memos are fraudulent.  The secretary who worked with Killian says they are fraudulent, even though she thinks Bush is a devil.  She says there was no typesetting proportional spacing printer in the office.
Based on what I have seen so far, there is NO justification for saying the question is "up in the air".  None.  CBS ran with a bogus story, the people they hired to authenticate the memos refused to except perhaps one, who later backed off and said he cannot vouch for them and doesn't even have the relevant expertise to do so.
I am going to edit the article at some point to update based on what is now known about the case.  The article is very unweildy and needs some focus.   If you have any relevant, credible experts that take CBS side, please post them here.  I've read just about every major news article on the subject and most of the blog posts and haven't seen any, but it's quite possible I missed something.  Anything you could do to help get accurate and up to date information would be appreciated.Sdaconsulting 02:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting ABC story; please make sure you add a link to it on the article page, please? Also, please don't beat up on Gam's expertise, or lack thereof - it's not helpful. I think your call for people to list document examiners who support CBS is a good one; if none can be found, that can be reported in NPOV form. I also agree the article is unwieldy and could use an edit. However, I don't see any real need to draw a line under this Right Now. Let's just wait for it to play out. A week or two won't be the end of the world. Noel 03:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Let's just wait for it to play out. A week or two won't be the end of the world. Thank you.  That's pretty much what I've been trying to get at. Gamaliel  06:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More proof of fraud on the part of CBS

message: In the last 15 hours, this page has seen 50 edits - many of them part of an edit war, with content being repetitively added and removed. I understand that this is a fast-developing story, and it's reasonable to be editing to add new stuff which is just coming out, but there's no reason for these edit wars. Please discuss contentious points on the Talk page, rather than just adding and deleting the same text over and over again.
The article structure is not really good at the moment; I'd like to add a modest-sized section which gives the outline of all of what has transpired, but the page is in such constant motion it's hard to tackle this. Noel 15:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive edit rate

message: Now that CBS is wavering about the authenticity of these utterly fraudulent documents, we can see an endgame in sight.  Sigh.Sdaconsulting 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Endgame

message: According to this, , Killian's son was in the same ANG unit. If so, he would be in a pretty good position to refute Knox. Anyone seen evidence of his son being in the ANG as well? -Joseph (Talk) 05:36, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
:Knox says these documents are faker than $3 bills.  Her contradictory and incoherent testimony about the character of Bush (who she describes as "selected, not elected" wouldn't convince a jury of National Enquirer readers.  In any event, spurious nonsense about "fake memos but real contents" conjures up shades of 1984.Sdaconsulting 11:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killian's son 

message: Our current discussion of smart quotes is confusing on one point.  It gives the example of a curved apostrophe in one of the memos -- fine, that's a powerful piece of evidence, graphically presented.  Then it goes on to discuss double quotes and wanders off into saying, "Double quotation marks are not used in any of the Killian memos."  If it means that there are instances of curved left and right quotation marks, it should say so and give an example.  If none of the documents happened to use quotation marks, so that there are no left/right marks and no old-fashioned straight double quotation marks, then the reference to double quotation marks is irrelevant and should be dropped.  Because it's being referred to, I assume there are left/right marks somewhere in the documents, so can someone more familiar with them insert an example?  Once there's such an example, the statement that there are no double quotation marks becomes peripheral; neither the authenticity nor forgery hypothesis would predict a mixture of quotation mark styles within the same document. JamesMLane 19:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Smart quotes

message: I know this article is reg, but it's one of the key ones that people are talking about. Anyone have a reg-free link?
 -Joseph (Talk) 15:02, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
This link requires no registration. I have added it to the article under "most recent news" Rex071404   23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake but Accurate 

message: Lost in the discussion of CBS acknowledging that they can't authenticate the memos is the fact that they admitted they came from Bill Burkett. Burkett has a reputation of being vociferously anti-Bush and having a grudge against Bush and the TANG. He claimed to have gotten them from another Guardsman. This should have raised every red flag against using those memos, but CBS had to have its scoop. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all in the second paragraph of the article, including Burkett's biases. Wolfman 18:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant lost in the broader discussion of CBS' wrongdoing in using the memos, not that we don't mention it. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBS' credibility crumbles 

message: This story just gets more and more fascinating.  Now it looks like Lockhart and Cleland have their fingerprints on this story too, along with Burkett.  In conjunction with the amazing coincidence of launching the Operation Favored Son campaign (with a kickoff by John Edwards) a few hours after the 60 minutes II hit-piece, incorporating information from the phony memos, this is looking more and more like a DNC dirty tricks operation that blew up in their own faces.Sdaconsulting 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: got a link, so the rest of the class knows what you're referring to? Wolfman 15:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has some of the info although not details about operation fortunate son and the timing of the Edwards kickoff speechSdaconsulting 15:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: More on Operation Fortunate SonSdaconsulting 15:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Wolfman 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Now the DNC is implying that it's a Republican dirty trick.   Everybody's in full spin mode on this one. Wolfman 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're going to find out soon that the original memo came from Michael Moore. This will completely pin the blame on the Republican Party when it's revealed that Moore is really Rush Limbaugh with a scraggly beard added. Limbaugh found the perfect cover to gain the trust of the Democrats before betraying them. No one ever seemed to wonder why Moore's movie company is called "Ditto-head Productions LLC." -- Cecropia | Talk 08:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your theory is correct.  Have you ever noticed that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are never seen in the same room together?  This also explains why El Rushbo took all those pain medications.  He was trying to control his Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde dual personality syndrome.Sdaconsulting 12:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More and More interesting