Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• Next Archive Page: covers through end of 2004 (includes article name vote)

Neutrality

Someone has put a neutrality dispute notice on the article. I wasn't aware there was a dispute. I know Wolfman had some complaints, for example regarding the intro, but those seem to have been fixed. The article, as it stands right now, appears to me to do a good job of covering the available evidence thus far.

Also, since the person is anonymous and has not participated in any discussion, I feel it's ridiculous to randomly post such a notice. What does everyone say? Leave the notice? --C S 08:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

It's rude to place NPOV tags (especially anonymous) and not come up with a justification statement. Also, this is clearly a page in transition and will probably get some clarification over the next few days, which is why I feel NPOV is inappropriate. -Joseph (Talk) 10:44, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Name of Article

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. --C S 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? --C S

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? --C S 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)

The IBM executive had a 'pseudo kerning' feature - "On kerning: Kind of. The Executive had a half-space key that you could use for kerning. It was half the width of a lower case "i" as I recall. I only used it when I was actually doing some typesetting for a printing job and wanted to close up the space between a bad letter combination like WA. It was too much hassle just for ordinary letters and the like."

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002470.php

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. --C S

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. --C S 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)

The IBM executive had a 'pseudo kerning' feature - "On kerning: Kind of. The Executive had a half-space key that you could use for kerning. It was half the width of a lower case "i" as I recall. I only used it when I was actually doing some typesetting for a printing job and wanted to close up the space between a bad letter combination like WA. It was too much hassle just for ordinary letters and the like."

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002470.php

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)

Au contraire - an article on this topic will always be useful, for the reasons cited below by others, and it will be especially needed if they turn out to be fake, because the Internet community took on the old media. Yes, post-hoc the article will need some substantial editing, to change it to history-mode, but this topic will always worth a page, as an important event in the 2004 campaign, if nothing else. Noel 02:27, 15 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]

Besides, if he is a typewriter repairman that knows his stuff, why didn't he tell everyone the make and model of the typewriter that was used? Okay, maybe that's asking for too much, but at least narrow down the company or companies that produced something that could do all these things back in the early 1970s...

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.--C S 07:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the 90% figure that was originally included because that is a number that INDC came up with, not Bouffard. When asked, he merely stated that 90% of known typefaces were eliminated as possibilities. To equate that with a 90% probability of inauthenticity is quite misleading. As a document examiner, Bouffard would not give a percentage of certainty, only a grading on a scale. I've reworded it to be more consistent with a realistic conclusion. TimothyPilgrim 17:08, Sep 17, 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)

Where are the credible experts?

CBS and Time cannot lie their way out of this. They have no credible experts, zero, zilch. Bill Glennon refuses to commit to a statement that he believes the memos are likely or certainly authentic, even as he quotes irrelevancies about the availability of proportional fonts and superscript. Nobody has created a credible copy with a typewriter, although dozens have with MS Word by simply typing with default settings.Sdaconsulting 07:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves."

[12]

That was their lead expert. And he has bailed on them. And now they are dragging up "software experts" and "typewriter repairmen" who won't actually state for the record that they are sure the documents are real. Meanwhile, back in the world of reality more and more DTP software developers, inventors of TrueType font technology, professional document validation professionals, and other domain experts are weighing in about what utterly unconvincing fakes these are. Sorry, these are all matters of fact and history, not matters of point of view. And the fact that CBS cannot get a real expert to validate their woefully pathetic forgeries and stick to their story, the fact that the Boston Globe "misquotes" experts who view these documents as fraudulent are sure signs that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell the truth until hit over the head with it by bloggers.Sdaconsulting 07:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that one person who has recently been credited in the media, Bill Glennon, was found via a post at The Washington Monthly site. See: [13] and [14]. -Joseph (Talk) 21:06, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Have you looked at these supposed MS Word copies? I checked out the ones Joseph linked. Pretend for a minute you are trying to find differences, rather than not find them. To me eye, those aren't even remotely credible copies. Wolfman 07:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes there is some distortion caused by the lens system in the copier after multiple generations of copies, some tracking errors from being pulled through a fax machine feed tray, and some pixel-level errors multiplied by the digital scanning and copying -- all to be expected and all what the forger intended when he made multiple generations of copies.

However the word position is exact on all six documents versus using MS word to type them in, with default margins. The chance of that happening by chance are literally trillions to one. The documents were produced by MS word.Sdaconsulting 07:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you think there is any chance that, by golly, MS Word was designed to be largely compatible with existing standards? Or did they just invent typesetting completely from scratch up there in Redmond? Wolfman 07:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No other word processing program will generate the page breaks at the same place. Sdaconsulting 11:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, are thre trillions of places to put a page break? For odd's of trillions to one, that might seem to be a requirement? Besides, all that shows is that MS Word is better at replicating traditional typesetting? Wolfman 14:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There is no standard way to break lines. If you look at the combinatorial explosion given every line and every possible page breaking / text width algorithm the odds are astronomical. There are no credible experts that claim these documents are real. None. That means the only controversy is that the Daily KOS, Dan Rather, a typewriter repair man and a bunch of leftists think they are real. On the other side you have a vast array of experts in font technology, 1972 typesetting technology, and document authentication all weighing in with "blatent forgery".

If you cannot demonstrate some credible expert opinions that the documents are real, then the article needs to reflect this.Sdaconsulting 16:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A point worth considering

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)

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)

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)

Suspicion of Bush or Kerry role

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)

Kerry's campaigne now has CNN's James Carville and Paul Begala working for them unofficially. These are the same guys that worked for Clinton until the 1994 election that saw the Republican take over of both houses of Congress. Both men were knew for doing dubious things during the Clinton campaign then the congressional campaign of 1994. Just days after they announce that they are going to help Kerry these memos hit the air. CBS stated that they received the memos from reliable sources. Wouldn't these two men seem like reliable sources from CBS's stand point?

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)

More body blows to CBS

The punches are landing furiously to the stunned body of CBS News as competing news organizations go in for the kill. The veneer of civility and professional courtesy to Dan Rather and CBS News are vanishing as the language in news articles and editorials from the Washington Post to the NY Post grows ever more suspicious and even mocking of CBS' tall tales. Perhaps more misdirection from the Daily KOS can save the day? Perhaps CBS next expert cited will be Markos Moulitsas Zuniga himself (just don't let his comments about contractors in Iraq come out, Danny!) [15] Sdaconsulting 12:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page is already getting pretty long, and soon some sort of archiving, shortening, etc. will be necessary. Unless you want to discuss issues pertaining to the article (possible additions, modifications, deletions), it would be best not to keep adding these comments to this page. --C S 13:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/30329.htm, CBS' star expert's credentials -Joseph (Talk) 14:23, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Are you suggesting adding this to the article? Thus far, Matley is not mentioned in the article. My understanding is that he was only used to verify a signature, so we would have to add something about how CBS used him in order to use this link. Since no one is refuting his finding that it's Killian's signature, there would be no point to mentioning any of this, except maybe to point out CBS did a sloppy job of verification.

Actually some experts are refuting his finding about it being his signature, but it doesn't matter very much since you could easily overlay a real signature on fake documents.

Another thing is that this NY Post article doesn't actually cast doubt on his handwriting credentials. These handwriting experts are a kooky bunch, and I bet he's not the only one that's written these kinds of things. The Post article is more of an attack on handwriting analysis than on this particular expert. --C S 15:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Moving towards Consensus

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)

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)

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)

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)

Centered and typed headers

"Furthermore, the presence of a typed address header is suspicious in itself, as the standard practice was to use letterhead for all correspondence."

Looking at a the headers from other Bush documents, they appear to all to be typed, and all are extremely well centered.

http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc5.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif

So are all documents from President Bushes ANG service suspect?

Good point. Since I was the one who added that line, and I have no evidence to prove it, and you have provided counterexamples, I'll remove it. Jhamby 04:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All these documents seem to be monospaced. How extremely well centered they are is not clear to me because I cannot quite tell where the right margin is. Furthermore, centering a monospaced text is easy, you just need to count the number of characters (sometimes a centered monospaced text would need to be shifted by half a character width, some typewriters can do that). Centering a proportionally spaced text is substantially more complicated and involves either measuring or computing widths of all involved characters (and, in case of kerned or "hinted" text, the width of a text is not even equal to the sum of character widths). But this point has been addressed in the literature already. Cema 15:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually centering a proportionally spaced text is trivial as well, and would use the exact same procedure as the best practice for monospaced text. Just count the spaces before and after the text (easiest in a typewritter is just type your text left justified, and then count the spaces until it either auto carriage returns or you come to your predefined margin width). Then split the difference. Then if it still isn't exactly centered, you can repeat the process with a finer tuned adjustment (ie the pseduo kerning feature of the Selectric). You can try this in Word if you like (but as far as I know it doesn't let you do pseudo kerning like the selectric, so doing it by hand won't necessarily allow you to achieve as exact results...) Once you have found your exact number of leading spaces and pseudo kerns, write it down, and reuse it each and every time, resulting in the exact same perfectly centered header.

Counting the spaces in a proportional text does not make sense. Measuring (or computing) the width of white space does. This is not trivial. The point is trivial, though. Cema 16:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you try understanding what anonymous wrote? S/he is referring to using the space bar to count the spaces, and also using the pseudo-kerning feature to get better accuracy. Counting the number of "spaces and pseudo kerns" is just one way of "measuring the width of the white space". Presumably one could also use a ruler too. This seems really trivial to me.

Now that I've thought about this, it appears to me that the whole centered headers section ought to be removed or modified to indicate that it's easy to center headers using proportional fonts also. Once you center a heading once, then it's trivial to center it again and again the same way. The only merit to the section that I can see is the claim that Microsoft Word centers the memo exactly the same. Presumably using the rough method above, there is likely to be a slight (if not minute) difference between Word's auto-centering and the manual method. --C S 02:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Chan that was my point - the centering the first time takes a little bit of effort but is still fairly easy. However, if you record your results from the first time, then all subsequent times should give the exact same results trivially. Cema - as to the 'point being trivial' I've heard this stated as the primary reason it is 'impossible' that the memos were typed. (I am convinced by other evidence that the memos are forgeries, but the forgery arguement should be made on facts, not false claims). Did you bother to try my method in MS Word? I got results that were within a pixel using my method, and it only took about 30 seconds to do.

Why should I bother to try a method intended for a typewriter on a word processing program? There must be some serious misunderstanding here. Cema 01:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the procedure works exactly the same on a word processor as it would in a typewritter, you can convince yourself that procedure gives correct results (ie on one line have the autocentered version of the address, on another use the method stated, then print the document and note that they are aligned to within a pixel).

NPOV and the call for consensus

Until now I've been content to let others quibble about typefaces and superscripts and merely snipped off the most egregious examples of partisanship. But this is rapidly getting out of hand. It's like all of you are not even trying to present even a figleaf's worth of evenhandedness. I notice that no one's moved Robert Strong's quote supporting the authenticity of the document over from George W. Bush military service controversy while there are plenty of quotes from Killian's family, etc. And while everyone raced to post a link to their favorite right-wing blog, nobody bothered to post links to the memos themselves until I did. After all, who needs to see the original source when your mind is already made up?

And nobody bothered to create a page about the memos until I did. So what? I'm of course very pleased that you linked to the memos, and would have gotten around to it myself at some point. Thanks for your contribution to the article.Sdaconsulting 21:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I could just as easily add that material myself, but that's not the point.

Actually, I think that is the point. Why don't you add the material? What is this, backseat Wikipedia editing? If you see a change that you want to make, be bold! Or, if you think it may be controversial, discuss it first on this page. Add Strong's quote; I think it would be a good addition. Don't expect me to do it for you. I try and find the time to edit when I can, but it's a stretch sometimes.

I also just added something from Killian's secretary, Knox, that contradicts some of the family claims. I feel I am doing a good job of NPOV. You can lump everybody into one camp, and use it as a reason not to participate, but that would be a big mistake. --C S 08:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure that you all sincerely believe that the case for forgery has been proven, but what you or I believe isn't the point either. I understand some of you are new here and may not be aware of principles such as NPOV, but as long as you are wikipedia editors you have a duty to present the information evenhandedly and not create a brief for the case of forgery. It's not enough to add your pet theories and links and then assume someone else will stick in info for the other side, or just ignore the other side altogether. We have to each strive for NPOV individually, not assume it will simply emerge after each partisan gets in his or her licks.

The case for validity of these documents rests on a reasonable number of qualified professionals stating that they believe the memos are probably or definitely real, based on all of the evidence. It isn't my fault that the forgeries are so obvious and blatant that nobody credible wants to stick their neck out and say it. Do you expect an author who writes about the Hitler diaries to cite the kooks who are convinced that they are real, or else the article isn't NPOV? Sdaconsulting 21:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think these documents may very well be forgeries, but once again, what you or I think does not matter. The case for forgery has not been proven, and let me point out some flaws in this call for consensus, not in an attempt to prove authenticity of the documents, but merely to show that the case has not been closed:

Your appeal to authority based on the list of 11 experts is dubious. Are these indeed the "top experts" in the field? How do we know that they are? At least one of them is a partisan operative, which makes me suspicious of how truly representative these experts are of their field. What are these experts actually saying? Just because one of the 11 casts doubt upon a superscript doesn't mean that they believe that it was created in Microsoft Word. And is an expert in 1970s typesetting an expert in the capabilities of Word and Photoshop? The leap from possible forgery based on the capabilities of 1970s equipment to definite forgery created by Microsoft Word and Photoshop is not one that is substantiated even by these experts. And the Word + Photoshop scenario is veering into tinfoil hat territory, frankly. What evidence is there that Photoshop was used? Why would someone Photoshop a word doc instead of buying a typewriter at the Salvation Army store? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't read anyone mention Photoshop as being part of the forgery. Read below for more about where photoshop comes into play. Several of the experts have specifically mentioned MS Word, and validated the experiments where an exact correspondence between word documents and the forgeries are noted. Sdaconsulting 20:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I can get a list much longer than the 11 if necessary. Those were 11 in one citation, I cited plenty of other criticism of the documents, and that list has not been updated since Friday or Saturday. At least two mentioned their opposition to Bush.

The photoshop is a red herring. In one image photoshop was used to unwarp the image after being photocopied over and over again. Photocopiers and fax machines cause warpage and distortion in the documents, and repeating the operation increases the distortion. This is commonly known as barrel or pinhole distortion depending on the exact characteristics of the imaging system. Using photoshop it is possible to remove this distortion and unskew the image back to its original dimensions.

Copying will often change the size of the original document. Photoshop has also been used to match document sizes between the word doc versions and the forged memos. Nobody is claiming that photoshop was used to create the forgeries. It is being used to undo lens aberrations and size changes caused by repeated copying / scanning designed to hide the forgery.

A NPOV article would recognise what many of the mainstream news media have already reported, that all the experts are weighing in on one side or saying they cannot authenticate the memos. That is all I ask, not some mythical "Balance" that puts the ravings of a few extreme leftists on the Daily KOS against the considered opinion of vast numbers of professionals document validation professionals, developers of font typography, developers of DTP software, from every side of the political spectrum. Some of them the absolute tops in their field with impeccable expertise in fonts, truetype character pair hints, forgery detection, and other relevant fields.

I also ask that accusations from these memos be treated the same as other discredited hoaxes -- such as the Hitler diaries or the _Protocols_. That means we do not cite these memos as evidence in articles about Bush, just as we do not cite "facts" about jews "drinking the blood of children" in the article about jews.Sdaconsulting 20:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you think no one is claiming that Photoshop was used to create a forgery, then perhaps you should read this article again.

I’m not calling for "balance", where the article is 50/50 forgery/authentic. I am pointing out that there is evidence easily available for the pro-authenticity that the editors of this article have ignored in favor of tinfoil hat theories about Photoshop and claims from check forgers and Republican operatives. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I am at it, why don't I go get some evidence for the authenticity of the Hitler Diaries and update that article too. The memos are fake. That's a matter of historical truth, not an item to "debate". I'll reread the article and see what someone put in about how Photoshop created the documents, if that got put in. But the bottom line is that the so-called "evidence" of the pro-authentication types is a bunch of nonsense and misunderstandings about the nature of copied, faxed and digitized documents. The arguments don't hold an ounce of water and virtually refute themselves to anyone familiar with the technologies involved.Sdaconsulting 22:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mention the Hitler Diaries all you want, but that's a strawman. The Hitler Diaries are indisputably fake, we know who created them, and he's been convicted of fraud. But these memos have not been proven forgeries, and repeating that claim over and over again will not make it true. We know nothing yet of the provenance of the memos and there is honest disagreement about the case for forgery. To ignore evidence that we personally disagree with is to violate the policy of NPOV and abandon the duties of a wikipedia editor. Our job here is not to prove a case, it's merely to chronicle and summarize events and we have to put aside our personal feelings to do that job properly sometimes. I'm sure you sincerly believe these things are fake, but this isn't a message board, and overheated comparisons to the Hitler diaries and blood libel are pointless and counterproductive. Remember that this is a collaborative process and it does no one good to alienate those you should be working with. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Frank Abagnale has been used in court cases by the FBI to catch other forgers. -Joseph (Talk) 21:12, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I don't think the FBI, of all organizations, considers him a tinfoil hat type. -Joseph (Talk) 21:17, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Nor did I call Abagnale a tinfoil hat type. All of this is beside the point. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why bring up Abagnale? He's said his judgment is based purely on what he's seen on television! He has not seen the documents. --C S 08:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

More proof of fraud on the part of CBS

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)

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)

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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The experts

The intro para has been changed to say: "Some experts feel that these documents are very forgeries; others do not", which makes it sound like expert document examiner opinion is fairly evenly divided. Here is what a couple of major news organizations say, about what the opinions are of experts they talked with:

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity. [16]

The [Washington] Post contacted several independent experts who said they appeared to have been generated by a word processor. [17]

Neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is known as an outlet for right-wing shilling, so I'm going to change that sentence to try and reflect what they are saying. If anyone has any references to major news organizations other than CBS which have talked with document examiners who have a contrary opinion, please add a reference. Noel 06:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had twice put in the reference, but someone keeps cutting it. That was essentially a quote from Time magazine. Restoring reference once again. Wolfman 06:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved it to the 'news articles' section at one point because I though it was just a random link someone put there - didn't realize it was a source for the "no consensus" statement, sorry. Noel 07:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't hold up ABC and WP and then dismiss Time. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring Time, but that story doesn't cite a document examiner, just that typewriter expert guy, Glennon - and another inteview with him indicates that "Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online" [18]. So you can't put him in the "authenticates" column.

The story states that they also consulted "forensic" experts (who would consider all aspects of the document), but alas they don't say how many, or summarize what they said. The story only says that the experts they consulted didn't agree - the implication being that some of them didn't think the documents were authentic (and, given the batting average at other places, it might have been all of them - but who knows).

Frankly, it's not very long on substance, but I'll leave it until we get something more. Noel 07:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure Wolfman and I would be willing to work with everyone to come to some mutually satisfactory version of a statement that doesn't flat out say "everyone agrees" or "it's a proven forgery". We can start tallying up experts if you want, but I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down and I don't see the point of going down it. If you want to remove Glennon from the authentic column, then I would insist that all partisan operatives, defenders of Nazi war criminals, and convicted check forgers be removed from the forgery column. And so it goes. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is it that you wish to discount the expert advice of that man? He obviously knows how to do a proper forgery, and the FBI obviously thinks him credible, so it is silly to attempt to undermine him as a mere "check forger." -Joseph (Talk) 10:41, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

First, I'm gonna give you the same feedback I gave Rex - don't get so wound up. If you think some document examiners whose opinions are brought forward either have a bias, or have problems with their competency, then please just simply produce some data to speak to that. May I remind you that I'm discounting Glennon simply because he himself apparently said "he .. could not vouch for the memos' authenticity".

Second, as far as experts go, I don't really have the time/energy to troll every major media entity's coverage and see if they list any document examiners, and if so, who, and what their call is. Part of the problem is that many (e.g. the Washington Post, Time) don't list which document examiners they consulted. Others (e.g. ABC) only name one. Others (e.g. the LA Times) do list one, but they say something off-point (in the LA Times' case, simply warning against working from something other than the originals).

The problem is that without doing something like that, and without CBS turning it all over to an independent investigation (a la CNN's handing of "Tailwind"), it's unclear to me how to produce a reasonably objective conclusion as to whether these documents are real or not. All we can do, in that case, is list the issues raised by the various parties which have looked at the documents, and summarize the opinions of various non-aligned major media entities. Noel 12:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To Wolfman -- they talked about Abagnale on Fox News last night. And he said he has seen the documents. -Joseph (Talk) 14:29, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Text of the form "I heard X say Y" is nothing like as helpful as a link to a source that others can consult and study, along with a direct quotation (so nobody has to believe anything you yourself say). If you could find a story in a major news outlet about this, and provide that (as I've been trying to do for all the stuff I've added), that would be really helpful. Noel 15:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's why I didn't include that point in the article, and came up with a second, more established source. The press conference that is starting at this very minute will be interesting, as it is related. -Joseph (Talk) 15:59, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

No similar contemporary documents

I am attempting to include the following information in the article:

If a machine capable of producing the disputed documents were available to Killian in 1972 , it would presumably have been used to produce other documents in the same office at the same time. However, thus far no one has produced any authenticated contemporary documents from Killian's office with similar typographic characteristics.

Here is my justification:

1. This is a separate issue from the previous heading. Even if an identical document could be produced using contemporary equipment, the fact that no other such documents were produced at the TANG office suggests they did not have such a machine.
2. Explanation of the significance of the fact is helpful to the reader.
3. The other documents obtained by USA Today have not been authenticated.

-- Anonip 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's a separate, and very different, topic. To show this, let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that someone shows up and does show how to produce the Killian memos on then-available equipment. That point would then be moot. However, if at that point no other documents with this 'look' would have been found in the records, that point would remain. I have tried to improve the situation somewhat by including a link to, and a direct quote from, a major media story which gives some hard data on the 'other documents with the same look' topic, and which also lists it as a major point. I'm hoping that will be a helpful and productive step. If the people who disagree that these are separate points could explain their reasoning, that would be very good.

Also, IIRC I've seen reports that CBS has more documents than the one they have aired, so I think mentioning the USA Today documents just muddy the water. If anyone is interested, though, I'll try and turn up the reference. Noel 15:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see people keep cutting the first two sentences. I agree that the second sentence is considerably duplicative of the quote from the WPpost, and we can probably dispense with it. However, while the first sentence is somewhat in the nature of explaining the semi-obvious, it does provide context for the WPost quote (and someone less quick on the uptake might not get the point unless its put explicitly). Can someone please explain to me what harm it does to explain the significance of the WPost info? Please, this document needs major work elsewhere - can we stop having a donnybrook over one miserable little, relatively inconsequential, sentence? Thanks! Noel 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cut it once, because it is spoonfeeding a perspective to the reader. Someone else had previously cut it on those grounds, and I completely agreed. The WP quote lays out the facts quite clearly. It is up to the reader to decide what to make of it; that's the essence of NPOV. It's certainly not a mystery anyway that some view this as evidence of forgery -- it's in a bullet list of 'flaws' and the WP calls it a major concern. The 2 sentences have no added content whatsoever except to lead the reader into a particular interpretation of the facts. In what way is having the WP quote by itself deficient?

Looking over the edit history, this issue has been a very major problem with this article: instead of laying out the facts, the facts are spun to lead the reader. Much of this has been corrected, and this (as I see it) is another such case.Fishboy 23:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why do you think the Washington Post came by this particular piece of data? Do you think that they just happened to randomly notice it in passing, and thought it an amusing curiousity they'd pass on to their readers? No, of course not. What you're watching, basically, is the scientific method in operation.

They had a hypothesis ("a machine capable of producing the disputed documents was available to Killian in 1972"), and that hypothesis led to a prediction ("it would presumably have been used to produce other documents in the same office at the same time"). Then they needed to perform an experiment (looking for such documents) to see whether the prediction would be confirmed, which would shed light on the validity of the original hypothesis.

You and I may be smart enough to "take the steps in threes", and immediately work out from the experiment what the hypothesis and prediction were, but the Wikipedia isn't just for Mensa members. There clearly was a hypothesis and a prediction, and I don't think it's NPOV to state it.

In fact, I think an earlier story of theirs said this would be a good thing to check. If I find it and quote it, will you remove it too, on the grounds that it's not NPOV? Noel 01:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I restored the following information, which someone deleted:

If a machine capable of producing the disputed documents were available to Killian in 1972 , it would presumably have been used to produce other documents in the same office at the same time. However, thus far no one has produced any authenticated contemporary documents from Killian's office with similar typographic characteristics.

The subject of this article is the Killian memos, whose authenticity has been disputed. An important aspect of the article is a discussion of the arguments and evidence which might show whether or not the documents are authentic. The first sentence above indicates the significance in this context of the fact stated in the second sentence. The Washington Post reference provides additional specific evidence along these lines, but does not alone provide sufficient clarity. The additional text is useful to readers in clarifying the argument that is being described, while leaving readers free to reach their own conclusions as to the strength of the argument and evidence. Although some editors may feel the information in the additional text is implicit in the Washington Post reference alone, making the points explicitly is likely to be helpful to many readers. Removing this text simply serves to obfuscate. If someone believes otherwise, please discuss here before deleting the text again. Anonip 04:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You two clowns ( ;) need to figure this edit war out here rather than in the article. -Joseph (Talk) 04:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Well, some of us are trying to! :-) Anyway, I await a response to my point about the scientific method. Noel 12:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joseph, Why do you think I created this section on the talk page in the first place? I have explained twice why this text is useful to readers. No reasonable justification has been offered by those who are deleting this text, despite my request that they provide one. Anonip 05:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excessive edit rate

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)

Danger of writing encyclopedia articles on current news items

Once again this article shows the pointlessness of writing articles on current news items before the full facts have come out. We shouldn't be writing on this type of topic until the facts -- or at least the points in dispute -- have been agreed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:43, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that one of Wikipedia's great strengths is that it is as persistent as an electronic encyclopedia, but as dynamic as a blog. I had so much trouble going through the partisan blogs for facts that I turned to wikipedia's article for a NPOV explanation of the various discrepancies and both sides of the story. If there are points that are in dispute, then both sides of the story should be documented with the evidence supporting that side. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Endgame

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)

Killian's son

According to this, [19], 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)

Moving towards consensus (again)

Is there anyone still around here who thinks there is a credible case that these documents are real, now that CBS is admitting they might be fake? I'd like to take a crack at reorganizing this whole document sometime this week but I don't want to get into some sort of edit war with people who are going to nitpick every change I make as not being fair to the "documents are real" camp.Sdaconsulting 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we should wait. Andy Rooney gave his two cents today. I think we'll see a conclusion soon enough. It's too soon to start altering the article's perspective. We will not be able to do that until something dramatic occurs, probably. -Joseph (Talk) 15:21, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I'm still not on board with the idea that we should, as I described it above, "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." Furthermore, the situation has become more complicated, not less, because of the emergence of a new theory: that Bill Burkett created these documents in 2004 but that their content was substantially based on genuine 1970s documents that Burkett possessed or had seen, and that he was trying to get the information out while disguising the source enough that he couldn't be fingered. They were faxed to CBS from a Kinko's near his home, so his effort (if such it was) was clumsy, and maybe someone will claim that the choice of a Kinko's was part of an attempt to frame Burkett for a forgery. I'm afraid that, for at least a while longer, we're going to have to subject our readers to this bothersome business of considering the evidence, rather than simply handing down a decision from the Council of Wikipedia Sages. JamesMLane 19:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes we should also update the "Hitler diaries" entry with the same theory. The documents are forgeries, but are copies of earlier diaries that are genuine. Then the "essential truths" of the Hitler diaries can be expressed. Sdaconsulting 00:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hitler diaries were forged 21 years ago and Konrad Kujau and Gerd Heidemann were sentenced to 42 months in prison each. By contrast, the Killian memos surfaced about two weeks ago and we have no idea who, if anyone, supposedly forged them. The situations are hardly the same. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basically, the end point of this trajectory appears to be: These are forged documents. We should state that the large majority of professional document examiners feel that the documents are probably or certainly forgeries. If someone wants to quote elaborate conspiracy theories around the "non-genuine genuineness" of the memos or other such Ratherite spinning, I'm welcome to allow them to do so, just as I am happy for members of the Church of Scientology to include an addendum to the L. Ron Hubbard article talking about the theory the we are all suffering the psychic pain of once being a little clam, snap, snap, snap. The fact that forged documents were used to try to bring down the President of the United States says everything that needs to be said about the AWOL Bush / Operation Favored Son crowd, to me, and to the majority of the electorate.Sdaconsulting 00:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what change you want to this article, given that it already characterizes the opinions of the "vast majority" of experts, which seems even stronger than your "large majority". The Hitler diaries were the subject of a court decision, but, even so, if there's some significant evidence about them, then, yes, we should report it, even if it tends in support of a different conclusion than does most of the other evidence. As for your concluding comment, I don't think this incident will figure much in the final vote. People predisposed to support Bush will be certain the documents were forgeries and will be eager to point to them to discredit anyone who disagrees with Bush about anything. People predisposed to oppose Bush will remember the established criticisms of Bush's military record that long preceded these documents, and many of them will accept the theory that Karl Rove was behind the whole thing for the precise purpose of discrediting Bush opponents. The swing voters, meanwhile, will probably care more about stuff like Iraq and the economy. They're funny that way. JamesMLane 01:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This reminds me of the joke that Ilyad and Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by another blind Greek of the same name. OK, I think we can wait for a while longer, there is no rush. Cema 01:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Civility. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What, something funny? Cema 05:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been discussing things here, instead of engaging in an edit war in the article, playing the NPOV card instead of making edits, trying to get the page locked, etc. I've been trying to get a consensus before I make edit changes. Perhaps I should be like some of the others here and just start changing text I disagree with, put snarky comments in the body of the article addressing sentences someone else put there, and otherwise ruining things.Sdaconsulting 02:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sdaconsulting, You will never succeed in improving this article in the usual wiki way. Any attempt by you to do so will be vigorously resisted by all the usual suspects. You can't win, so don't waste your time. What I would suggest is that you create a complete alternate version of the article on a subpage. Put a link to it on the main page ("An alternate version of this article is available..."), but otherwise leave the main page alone for now. Once the alternate version is finished, you can ask the Wikipedia community for opinions as to which version is better. I suspect that once an improved version is available for direct comparison, it won't be a difficult choice. If any of the people preventing progress here attempt to disrupt progress on the alternate version, ask them to desist and if they refuse seek sanctions. I'm afraid that is the only way that progress can be made. Anonip 06:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. I mostly agree with Sdaconsulting on the overall issue of the memos themselves, I think, but I just think that we can't change the article to draw any sort of conclusion yet. -Joseph (Talk) 12:28, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

The specific point Sdaconsulting has mentioned is to characterize the opinions of the experts: "We should state that the large majority of professional document examiners feel that the documents are probably or certainly forgeries." The current text says: "The vast majority of independent document authentication experts contacted by the major news media and bloggers have indicated a strong likelihood that the Killian memos are forgeries ...." What would the complete alternate version say? "And the ones that don't are obviously partisan hacks who are trying to undermine our Commander in Chief while the nation is at war"? No reasonable person could read this article, which details every attack made on the documents, and conclude that the article was biased against the POV that they're forgeries. If there's specific additional information that should be added, not at all unlikely with a story that's still developing day by day, there's certainly no reason to believe that the only way to add it is to create a complete alternate version and put it to a vote. JamesMLane 12:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonip, you may wish to consider participating in wikinfo. Their policies seem to be in line with your preferences. Wolfman 16:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Smart quotes

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)

Staudt statement from September 17

From the ABC link:

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

Which was he? A Colonel or a Brigadier General? -Joseph (Talk) 20:41, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Answer: He was a Colonel at the time he handled Bush's application for the ANG, but he was a Brigadier-General when he retired in 1972.

From [20] :

Bush's application, as well as his commission, were handled by then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt ... Staudt, who retired in 1972 as a brigadier general, said Bush was enrolled quickly because there was a demand for pilot candidates. - xfxf 2004 Sep 19

Fake but Accurate

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? [21] -Joseph (Talk) 15:02, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

This link requires no registration. I have added it to the article under "most recent news" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's the text of the article at the SFGate, but sadly they didn't use the "Fake but Accurate" headline: [22] - xfxf 2004 Sep 19

It's not over yet

We still don't know the whole story, so let's not remove the {{current}} tag yet. -Joseph (Talk) 18:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC).

Agreed. Among other things, it's unlikely that CBS will be investigated, but I bet Burkett is indicted. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Also, your call for massive restructuring was a bit premature. While the documents are almost certainly fake (given CBS's statement) CBS has not yet stated they are in fact forged. Therefore, all the evidence ought to remain in place for now. Because some people might buy Burkett's line about getting them elsewhere, the typographical evidence is still pertinent. After the documents are eventually proven forged, all that lengthy detail can be stripped (unless someone still finds it interesting for some reason). Wolfman 18:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I further agree with Wolfman. This material will always be relevant because it's part of the story. You don't delete all the details of the Watergate investigation because Nixon turned out to be guilty in the end. Without those details about the spacing and superscripts and all, the documents might have passed as genuine. As to CBS not admitting they're forged, they've gone about as far as they can now to try to save face. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, by "massive restructuring," I do not mean "deleting information." I mean that we will have to begin reorganizing it less as a current event and as more of a historical event. The organization right now stems largely from the flow of information over several days, whereas it probably needs to be more cleanly presented. -Joseph (Talk) 21:26, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

CBS' credibility crumbles

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)

It's all in the second paragraph of the article, including Burkett's biases. Wolfman 18:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

Forgery category

I'm thinking about starting a subcategory on Political Forgeries which would include, for example, the Niger documents Bush used in the case for war (Yellowcake Forgery), Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and other well-known political cons. Does anyone now object to including this article in that category? Wolfman 16:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hitler Diaries, as well. -Joseph (Talk) 16:28, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that, but were those forged for political purposes? I suppose the subcategory could be broadly forgeries involving politicians or political consequences. Others, Zinoviev letter, Donation of Constantine, Dreyfus Affair. More? Wolfman 17:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about expanding it to include all sorts of matters of political duplicity? Then you could include Operation Fortitude and the identification of Midway (AF) as the Japanese target in 1942. -Joseph (Talk) 17:36, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Interesting. But, I think it might be cleaner to have something like a 'political deceptions' category, and then have 'political forgery' as a subcat under both that and 'forgery'. Wolfman 17:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have started the category with all those listed above. Does anyone object to placing the Killian memo in that category at this time? Even if the letters turn out to be copies of originals, I think they still count as forgeries. I'm going to go ahead and add the category here. If anyone does object, just remove it, and we'll wait a bit longer. Wolfman 17:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with it currently, not because I don't think they are forgeries, but because I don't think we should be ahead of the curve. We're a secondary source, not a primary one, and I don't think we should be making a conclusion, even if it is an "obvious" one. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There will be other instances that are more disputed than this one. The category might be more functional if it didn't call for adjudicating the validity of each example included. As an analogy, Category:Terrorism is defined as follows: "This category deals with topics relating to events, organisations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc. by some government." If you talked about documents that have been widely accused of being forgeries, it would be somewhat less prone to argument about whether to apply the category to a particular example. By the way, the category title should be "Political forgery". The other subcategories within Category:Forgery follow sentence case style. JamesMLane 19:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll implement your recommendations, James. Wolfman 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More and More interesting

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)

got a link, so the rest of the class knows what you're referring to? Wolfman 15:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has some of the info although not details about operation fortunate son and the timing of the Edwards kickoff speech[23]Sdaconsulting 15:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More on Operation Fortunate Son[24]Sdaconsulting 15:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. Wolfman 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joe Lockhart called me last week too. As he said, he "calls lots of people". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now the DNC is implying that it's a Republican dirty trick. [25] Everybody's in full spin mode on this one. Wolfman 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

• Next Archive Page: covers through end of 2004 (includes article name vote)

---