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

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.

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...

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.

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.

If you head back over to Wizbangblog, you'll see that the professor CHANGED HIS STORY after this little investigation began a couple of days ago. The version of his article that I read, and which seemed to carefully explain how he constructed the document in Photoshop, was NOT THE VERSION available two days ago.

Two days ago, that description was not there. A reasonable person would indeed have assumed he used very normal, easy means to create the document. Not necessarily with a typewriter, mind you---the wording isn't 100% clear on that point---but at least with a similar easy "Open up Word and type" method similar to what Charles Johnson of LGF did.

Bottom line---I am now inclined to agree that the professor DID intend to deceive his readers.

I thought you'd like to know I've flip-flopped, Dan :)

Wrong. Fraud requires intent to deceive. He described his methodology in detail, opening himself up to plenty of criticism---and he quite deservedly is receiving it. Like I said, his argument has so many holes you can drive a Hummer through them.
What would have been fraud is if he did not share his methods, and attempted to convince us that he constructed this document on a typewriter. He did not do that.

Sorry, but you are reading Version 2 of Hailey's "Debunking" of the CBS frauds. In version 1 he DID NOT DESCRIBE HIS TECHNIQUE. In fact, he let it be assumed that he had an unnamed typewriter (although he spouted about several supposedely proportional capable typewriters" with which he "reproduced" the CBS copies.

It was only after he "outed" in his attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes that he revised his research and ADDED what you are citing. He does NOT indicate that his research report has been revised. That constitutes fraud.

There were some hints of his technique in Version 1. It is only when you read that he used "Typewriter Condensed Font",

The only real questions are “is this Times New Roman or similarly contemporary, digital font,” and, “is the typing mechanical or digital?” 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). Figure 5. The above is an example of a bush memo and my replica based on using Typewriter condensed as my font of choice. Note that the match is exact.

or when he comments on the plethora of scanned and digitized Typewriter Fonts available on the internet,

Variations in “Typewriter” Typeface Different typewriter manufacturers created their own variations of Typewriter. A variety of them are currently available. Digital versions include "ITC American Typewriter," and two typefaces named "Secret Service Typewriter," and “Passport.” All of these and most other digital typefaces were taken directly from impressions of old typewriters dating back to 1923 – perhaps earlier. . .

that it becomes obvious that he is manipulating fonts that have been digitized and matched with a font metric from another font set (probably Times New Roman).

The sentence above in red is clearly intended to obfuscate his actual method. It implies that he USED a "machine" to reproduce the frauds... but nowhere in Version 1 does he say the "machine" was his computer!

Most amatuer fontographers do not have the expertise to create their own font metrics for a scanned font. They merely adapt one already handy. No where does this bozo explicitly explain that he DOES NOT HAVE A PROPORTIONAL SPACE CAPABLE TYPEWRITER. All he may have done with his creation of a document using another font similar to Times New Roman is possibly prove that the forger of the CBS documents was sophisticated enough to download a font called "Typewriter" from the internet and use that for his fakes, probably thinking it would look more authentic.

The "good" professor did attempt to foist his "proof" that the docs were typed on a typewriter on to those who do not know better with smoke and mirrors.

Also, while Whizbang's outing of the fraud is important, I really think that FreeRepublic may have been there first and should again be credited with the scoop. In fact, my cursory analysis of his debunking from September 27, 2004 is here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.