Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance (Utah Professor's Study of CBS Memos Exposed as Fraud)

Wizbang ^ | 09/30/04 | Paul

[mojito]

Fact Checking the Boston Globe - in Advance The blogosphere is abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. who might have proven the CBS documents are legit.

The Boston Globe is so excited they are getting ready to run with it.

I hope they do. Dr. Hailey is a liar, a fraud and a charlatan.

And I have the goods.

He attempted to copy Charles' work of reproducing the document on a typewriter. Supposedly, the top line is the CBS memo and the bottom line a 1970's era typewriter. But there was a problem...

First download the pdf his analysis. Then go to page 9 and zoom in on the "th" at 400% you'll see...

As they sing on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."

UPDATE I viewed the pdf on screen and it was obviously a forgery. Spoons says he could not see it so I rerasterized it as saved it as a jpg. I think it is clearer. If you doubt me, like everything in the blogosphere, follow the links. (/update)

Here is a hint for the good Professor-- If you are going to forge documents DON'T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver.

And if you don't think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery.

Not only did he forge the document but he let the work in progress in an open web folder.

And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.

Did you think we were stupid?

Update OpenSecrets.org say the good professor gave John Kerry $250 (thanks Allah)

Update 2: We got word from Charles at LGF that the Globe is backing away from the guy. I wonder why.

Update 3: The Backstory I had this story last night. In fact, I mailed it to James and Steven because it was a case of academic misconduct and they follow that sorta stuff.

I asked them to hold it because I was calling the head of his department in the morning. It was not etched in stone that I was going to blog this. I called the head of his department and he was a very nice gentleman. He looked at the pdf and agreed it did not look right but said he did not have the expertise to say it was a fraud.

He asked me to make the case for academic misconduct and mail it to him. I told him he would get it Monday morning. Once I saw the Globe was considering running the story and that Charles and Allah had links to it, I knew someone would bust the guy so I may as well do it.

In other words DSA... Not in your wildest freaking dreams. (ROFLMAO at closed circuit humor ;-)

Update 4: One of the commenters noted that the pdf version was updated about 1pm TODAY. I have no idea if the guy knows he's famous, so I don't know if he was trying to cover his tracks or if he just just still working on the forgery. (er document) If he was trying to cover something he did a bad job as the bogus TH is still plainly clear.

[Grig]

This one deserves a closer look.

Notice that there are several parts missing from the lines that claim to be a typed reproduction:

1. The centered header is not duplicated.
2. The date
3. The zip code
4. the 4 in 14 (after (NLT))
5. The 72 in 1972
6. The 3-13 in AFM 53-13
7. The th in 111^th

In the final version, 1 and 6 are left as is, the 14 after (NLT) is edited out of both versions (but you can see a trace of the 1), and the remaining ones are included, but all of them are noticably darker and crisper than other characters on the same line (compare the Texas with the zip code beside it, or the 19 to the 72 ).

I would guess they were photoshoped in, and perhaps the ommissions are deliberate.

Both images in this post are directly linked to Hailey's open web directory.

[Robert A Cook PE]

He's missing a period after the "2".

He's got the "2" slighly "twisted" as he "photoshopped IT into place ...

He's got the "2" in a different "focus" as well ..

[kidd]

The good professor didn't even address the issue of centering proportional font without a word processor.

He didn't even attempt to retype the heading, which is perfectly centered in proportional font.

[dr_lew]

A laser printer burns the image on to the paper.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A laser printer mimics xerography, I believe. It "draws" on the photosensitive plate, whereas in xerography an image is projected there. From there on the process is essentially the same ... pretty sure.

[Grig]

From his paper:
"Working on the hypothesis that this is Typewriter, and was typed on a machine, I am able to exactly reproduce a Bush memo (Figure 4)."

If he is reproducing it by employing his hypothesis, then he must be typeing it. Photoshoping words and characters from a typewriter until they match the memo isn't his hypothesis.

[Robert A Cook PE]

What's he trying to prove?

To duplicate the documents, he MUST TYPE THEM (in front of witnesses) on the VERSION of the typewriter that was available to Col Killian.

That's all ..

Just type them. By hand.

Perfectly centered, split, spelled, and in perfect "font" line by line.

Why does he care about photo-shopping or Adobe?

[Robert A Cook PE]

In both cases, the ink is deposited (melted) "on" the paper.

In typing, the ink is pushed "into" the paper by mechanical action.

He (the "proofer") must be able to exactly TYPE the document BY HAND in proportional font.

[mcg1969]

He is engaging in the classic fallacy of assuming his conclusion, yes. He basically assumes that it's a typed document, and then assembles the document based on that assumption, and "wow!" when it matches, claims that proves the very assumption he was making :)

[Dan(9698)]

...<<<Wrong. Fraud requires intent to deceive...

The fraud would be where he provided a report to the newspaper saying it could have been done with a typewriter and then in their "running with it". How he did it conviently gets left out and so the "public" is given a false story.

He described how he did it to cover himself if it was discovered, but he certainly didn't expect a disclosure to be used in the story.

The fraud would be that a story backed up by a PHD, and exhibits would be published and claimed to be true by the newspaper.

His intent was that he would be the "expert" who would prove the documents were not bogus.

[mcg1969]

What you are describing would be, at worst, fraud on the part of the Boston Globe, not the professor himself. Again, he did not misrepresent himself or his methods. If the Boston Globe fails to reveal the full extent of his methods, that MIGHT be fraud. But after Rathergate you know there's no way they would be that stupid, especially since his entire methodology is out there on the Internet for all to see.

Having said this, there is some evidence that he's been modifying his document in response to this controversy to cover his ass even more. It could very well be that, 2 days ago before this story broke, he WASN'T totally truthful about his methods. If that proves true, then I will agree with you that he was committing academic fraud.

[Pres Raygun]

A laser printer uses a laser to draw the image on an electrostatic drum. An electrostatic charge in the shape of the image is left on the drum and then attracts toner (tiny plastic balls). The paper runs over the drum and the toner is transferred to the paper. Another drum at high temperature melt the toner into the paper. Black Rain's point is essentially correct. If the original was created with a laser printer, a chemist could easily identify the toner as opposed to ink from a tpewriter. This is why Burkett says he burned the originals. I don't think he has ever said why he burned them.

[Erasmus]

BlackRain:

A laser printer burns the image on to the paper.

dr_lew:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A laser printer mimics xerography, I believe. It "draws" on the photosensitive plate, whereas in xerography an image is projected there. From there on the process is essentially the same ... pretty sure.

Me:

1. "Burns" is not technically correct; "fuses" is the word. Specifically, the toner image transferred from the photodrum to the paper is composed mostly of black thermoplastic powder, which is then melted in place by hot rollers.

2. This part of the process is indeed identical between xerographic copiers and laser printers.

BTW, without having the originals, I don't think anyone can say for sure whether they were printed on a laser printer or an inkjet.

[Pres Raygun]

Even if the original forgery (sorry for the oxymoron, but they are unavoidable when modern Democrats are involved) was printed on an inkjet, there is mostly likely a way to detect whether the ink was from a typewriter ribbon 30 years ago or modern inkjet printer inks.

[Dan(9698)]

...If that proves true, then I will agree with you that he was committing academic fraud.

He would not have taken on the project if he did not intend that it be used in a story.

How about conspiracy to commit fraud?

Two or more intending to deceive?

[GOP_Raider]

I wish the moderate ones like lieberman and bayh would leave to show them how misguided they are.

I think both of them like having fully functional kneecaps.

[Andyman]

A laser printer burns the image on to the paper.

Then why does it require toner?

[True Capitalist]

WOWZER!

[Pres Raygun]

You may be right about him not technically committing academic fraud, but his confident conclusions do not follow in the least from his flimsy analysis, to the point of bordering on fraud. For instance he dismisses the claims of those who have produced replicas of the Burkett documents using MS Word as not credible, without ever explaining why he comes to that conclusion except for an incomphrensible hand waving argument in his third paragraph on page 8. He claims to be objective and an expert, but never even attempts to repeat this exercise, one which can be done by anyone in less than 15 minutes. If this is not intentional fraud it is either extreme bias or extreme incompetence, all of which could justify termination of employment, academic freedom aside.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>but his confident conclusions do not follow in the least from his flimsy analysis...

It is obvious he didn't expect to be cross examined on his conclusions.

That what Freepers are for.

[Kirkwood]

Technically, he's just an english professor. What I find amazing is that 1) he left behind all of the evidence on his unsecure webpage and 2) he used university computer resources and time for an attempt at personal gain. If I did that, my boss would fire me.