Posted on 10/01/2004 8:13:30 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
The blogosphere is all abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David Hailey Jr. Phd. who may have proven that the CBS documents are legit.
The Boston Globe is so excited that they are getting ready to run with the story.
Dr. Hailey attempted to copy the work of reproducing the document on a typewriter.
Supposedly the top line is the CBS memo and the bottom line is a 1970's typewriter font.
But there appears to be a problem..First I downloaded the pdf file of his analysis. Then I went to page 9 and zoom in on the 'th' at 400% zoom and you'll see
As they say on 'Seasame Street..' one of these things is not like the other!
(Excerpt) Read more at wizbangblog.com ...
Dan Rather to this day contends that the documents are real.
I cant believe Don Hewitt is still standing by Rather as the 'legacy' of 60 Minutes goes into the toilet (according to the mainstream media)
even if the document were typed when it was fabricated on a 1970's Selectric blah/blah typewriter, that doesn't change the evidence against the content and its formatting. what's with the B Globe? more fake but accurate type journalism from them. ick.
The Boston Globe is grasping at straws trying to save the Kerry candidacy, it looks like.
Wizbang has updated his report.
The Boston Globe is backing off the story, right?
Comment from John Kerry: "This preemptive attack on the professor's forgery is the wrong blog, in the wrong pajamas, at the wrong time."
Looks like the liberal academia forgers are 'reporting for duty!'
The liberal hackademics need to conduct a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive defense of this forgery.
Looks like a gathering of FReepers (c8
Bert and Ernie don't look quite so metrosexual in THAT photo...
Perhaps they should have been in leather and harnesses? :)
Perhaps at first glance. Closer inspection will reveal that they are not nearly well enough armed ...
Guess who was banking on David Hailey's discredited work? Rathergate's own Mary Mapes.
From the Dallas Observer:
CBS News didn't return calls for comment, and Mapes declined to discuss Hodges' charges. "I can't, I just can't," she says. But she did forward a study by Utah State University Associate Professor David Hailey disputing the contention that the memos were created on a word processor using digital type rather than a '70s-era typewriter--the key challenge to their authenticity. "I really believe they are not digitally produced," Hailey says. "I'm not saying that they're authentic. I'm saying they were probably typewritten. That doesn't make them authentic. But it does take CBS off the hook a little bit."
I have it on good authority that Utah State University requested that the now discredited work of Associate Professor David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D be done. If true, this changes the story dramatically from an independent work of a faculty member to a university sanctioned project gone terribly wrong.
Were the findings peer reviewed, if so by whom? Which administration officials were involved in commissioning the work and/or authorizing publication? The list of questions is long, and I intend to get a statement from university officials Friday morning.
Update: The University apparently took his site down. Not just this project, but the whole site.
Update 2: I have been in contact with university officials, who are reviewing the situation. They will be back to me with a statement shortly. There's More! Read the rest of the story »
Backstory
Paul, as noted in the initial article, contacted university officials about Hailey's work that intended to prove the documents used by CBS were created on a typewriter. Between the time of that call and the initial publication of our story, Hailey set out to cover his tracks by changing his documents to explain away our findings. We weren't kidding about having copies of everything, it just took us a while to get them up and available for comparison.
Pavel, whose questioning helped propel our rushed coverage, has now seen what we saw 2 days ago and has created a PDF difference file (wicked cool, BTW) that verifies everything Paul said about the good professor trying desperately to cover his tracks.
Paul Adds There has been some confusion during this whole event. To try to be brief, I called the University with my concerns and after I wrote my initial post, the Professor edited his work.
Within seconds of learning this I made a post saying I'd evaluate his "new evidence." While his new updates did make it clear he was not claiming they were actually physically typed, unfortunately for the professor, they exposed critical flaws in his methodology and to be frank, appeared to damn him more.
To fully understand the whole thing you must read all the updates on the original posts and reading the 200 or so comments would not hurt either. -P
The search tool is your friend.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=fact&q=quick&m=any&o=time&SX=415d8305d17ba995333d5964fd749524f8c2aff8
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.