Posted on 09/30/2004 3:27:49 PM PDT by mojito
There's also something wrong with the "nd"s in the words "conduct" and "conducted". Look at them at 400%...they don't match.
Yes, I'm reading that too. Go slow everybody. Read the posts on the blog before jumping to conclusions.
Prairie
It's happened to me lots of times when I scanned original letters from the aliens that were telling me which government officials were actually replaced by body doubles with implantedmind control systems.
Oh.. my...God....
Why are they doing this?
Indeed. That would be evidence he's full of it. But it's NOT evidence he's committed academic fraud. The point is, he explicitly stated that he constructed the document in PhotoShop. There was no secrecy.
bump
Say hi to Hailey. I just sent him this thread.
DUDE you need to send this to the president and chairman of the school. If he used school equipment to perpatraint a fraud say Buh BYE tenure hello unemployment...
Here we have the comparison BEFORE the 'th' is added in, also note the 72 (in 1972)
This image on his site shows some difference between the two fonts. Look at the a, c,e,p,v and y for starters.
If it was an excercize in making a document using a modern computer program, (Photoshop) what is the point?
The allegation is that the document was produced using a modern computer program (Microsoft Word). If his findings are that it could have been done with a typewriter, it is a false statement since he used a computer.
That is fraud.
Notice how he also set aside and came back later to individually modify the numbers in the dates (e.g., 9, 7, & 2) to make them look more like the memo. I hate people who lie like that. It is one thing to make a mistake in analysis, another thing entirely to lie and make money off of it by professing to be an expert.
He explicitly stated in the text of his document that he constructed them in this manner. There is no fraud here. A stupid case with holes you could drive a Hummer through, but no fraud.
It's weird. Based on his bio at USU, Hailey is a specialist in technical writing (multimedia, online learning, help files, etc.), not forensics or typography. He has to know that he'd get blown out of the water by the real experts. He seems technically astute enough, so why risk being made a laughing stock?
He was trying to show that the fonts match a typewriter font better than Times Roman. He doesn't HAVE the typewriter in question. (A big flaw in his argument of course.)
The allegation is that the document was produced using a modern computer program (Microsoft Word). If his findings are that it could have been done with a typewriter, it is a false statement since he used a computer. That is fraud.
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.
Oops, I should have italicized that third paragraph, because it is yours, not mine.
So he's actually trying to reconstruct whether the forgeries might have been Photoshopped? If so, why the heck would the Globe run with that?
I don't know if this has been brought up before but there is a very simple way to tell if the Rathergate documents are forged.
If you can examine the original documents, a typewrite impacts the paper and leaves an indent in the paper in the shape of the key.
A laser printer burns the image on to the paper.
All you have to do is look at the print under magnification to show the truth.
Now you know why they will not produce originals. This method will conclusively prove that the documents were forged.
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.