Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First cut

I think this is a reasonable first cut at a split. However, I do think quite a bit of this needs to be NPOV'd. Right now, it starts off reading like we are going to present a case that these are conclusively forged. And we quite simply don't. The only real evidence here is the testimony of the "experts". So, we need to be careful that we present a balanced view of the range of opinions and statements by them, as well as their expertise and who asked them to comment. I'm not disagreeing that a bunch of them think these are highly suspicious, but I think the case may well be overstated that a consensus opinion is forgery.

Also, if one simply scans the headings on the "blogger evidence", one would assume that everything there is damning. In fact, most of that evidence is crap. I think we ought to find some way to relabel that explicitly as "blogger evidence" to indicate clearly that those aren't the issues that experts have raised. We need to be very clear about this delineation. The casual reader would probably infer that all those issues were raised by competent people.

Asides:

To me a great irony is that some of those issues, actually work against the MS Word hypothesis when you push on them ... like the superscripted th. Because, you'd have to go to a special effort _not_ to get the superscript for some of those cases. And if you're that conscious of it, you'd think you'd at least be consistent in typing up 4 docs. I clearly remember doing carriage rollbacks for superscripted footnotes on Selectrics in high-school typing class, and I'm only in my 30's. Who the hell came up with the idea that you couldn't superscript without a special key? But that's a danger, because you don't want to make the experts look like idiots when it's the bloggers who are. So you just can't jumble this stuff all up. Also, the crap about getting the jargon wrong ... I assume the prime suspect for forgery is Bill Burkett, and he damn well ought to know better than any blogger what jargon TexANG used. I'm not saying the typography guys are wrong, but some of these bloggers could use a remedial course in engaging their brains.

Also, did the fellow who made the "blinking gif" ever do the same for the other documents? I've always wondered because a bunch of the features really don't look like a great match to me. I'd find it a lot more compelling to see tham all done, otherwise it makes me wonder if he "cherry-picked" the only one that sort of looked ok. Just asking for my own curiosity. Derex 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

there are a lot of footnotes on this page that do not link to the text. Probably a carryover from the larger article. I will be pruning them shortly. Thatcher131 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pruned them. Let me know if I accidentally left any orphans. Thatcher131 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Planning some updates

I think this is an excellent article and congratulations to everyone who has worked on it! Where this article is weak is that it assumes a lot of prior knowledge of the issue and doesn't stand alone very well (for example it mentions Marian Carr Knox but doesn't say who she is). I would like to make some edits along those lines. I started with the th issue, to open with a background on what it signifies and what is actually in the memos, and then the analysis. I don't believe I have altered NPOV in any significant way, please let me know if you are unhappy. I also edited David Hailey, for two reasons. First, the article said he was accused by bloggers of flasifying his findings but did not provide any specifics. Second it did not acknowledge that Hailey has produced a more recent, more comprehensive report. Again, please let me know if you are unhappy with my work. Thatcher131 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote issues

The automated conversion of the citation template left some mistakes. I will try to fix them soon if no one else does. Also, if we place the citations at the text using the <ref></ref> template, the footnote section will automatically number correctly. I will work on this too if no one objects. Thatcher131 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• About half the article (the lower half) converted to the new WP:FOOTNOTE method, with the footnotes and links reconfirmed and verified. For the top half I removed the numbers from the notes since they no longer matched the number of the cites in the text (a defect of the {{cite}} and {{note}} method. The number in the text will still take you to the note and the arrow will take you back. I will fix the rest of the notes soon (1-2 days) Thatcher131 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

blockquote

the big blockquote under the typography section is not clearly attributed. if it's not actually a quote, the formatting is all wrong and the content probably pov. Derex 01:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• It appears to be adapted from Thomas Phinney quoted here (and footnote 2 in the article) but does not appear to be a direct quote. The whole section is laid out awkwardly as well. The Phinney blockquote should probably be moved and rewritten, or dropped if it is redundant with other material. Part of the problem I think is that this article originally developed day by day in 2004 at Killian documents. When it was forked here it was never cleaned up as a retrospective whole analysis. I will make a few small edits tonight and continue on it after Sunday (some real world interference). I also want to clean up and verify the footnotes as I did on the main Killian documents article. you're welcome to assist of course. Thatcher131 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I took it out and rewrote the opening paragraph of the section. Thatcher131 04:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ones versus Ells

I deleted this section

On September 13, CBS Evening News introduced two new experts to vouch for the authenticity of the memos. One of the individuals, a software designer named Richard Katz, stated that a lower case ell was used in place of the numeral one in the memos. Further, he asserted that this would be difficult to duplicate on a computer today. Mr. Katz did not publicly explain the details of how he made this determination

Mainly, Katz's argument has no bearing on whether the documents are authentic. Even if it is true that the memos used lowercase L's, it is not difficult to dpulicate on a computer, just type an L instead of a "one". The Thornburgh report basically repudiates CBS use of him as an "expert"; CBS made no attempt to verify his qualifications before putting him on the air. As a blow-by-blow account of the controversy as it was happening this was useful but as a retrospective summary it doesn't add anything verifiable to the article. Thatcher131 04:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the Formatting section I took out the links to google searches purporting to show that certain "unofficial" abbreviations are actually used because the claim about official style relates to the style in use in 1972, not the style in use in 2006; also because google search results can change daily and we don't know what might show up at some future date. Also, I removed the comment about the 1994 list of official abbreviations because again, not relevant to 1972 documents. Thatcher131 06:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Curved apostrophes

I think there might be an inconsistency in this statement:
"Bloggers have frequently asserted the documents use curly, or "smart", quotes – distinct left and right double quotes. This feature is common on modern word processors. In fact, the documents use no quotation marks of any kind, either single or double."
According to the second CBS News Document, the word “He’s” has a single quotation mark. Thus the documents do feature quotation marks. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Diablo Systems HyType

There's a brochure at computerhistory.org that dates the HyType 1 (from Xerox, after their purchase of Diablo) as 9-73; I'm inclined to think that it was "cutting edge" then, had been for a year or three, and was probably not found in the TexANG (or any other state's NG!) --htom 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The modern daisywheel printer was invented at Diablo Systems in 1969, and the chief engineer of that project (David S. Lee) went on to form Qume. --htom 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Diablo Systems Inc. Model 1200 HyType I Printer Maintenance Manual (Pub. No. 82003, 2nd ed., Nov. 1974) indicates that the printer supported a print line of "132 Columns @ 10 characters/in. (3.95 char/cm)" and "158 Columns @ 12 characters/in. (4.76 char/cm)" with column spacing of "60 Positions/in., 1/60th in./increment (23.6 pos./cm 152.4 mm/increment)" (Table 1-1, p. 1-1). The I/O interface included 11 data lines to carry BCD information representing carriage movement values. The high order bit represented the carriage movement direction. The ten low order bits represented the carriage movement distance, "in increments of 1/60th of an inch. Six increments equal 1 character column at 10 characters or columns per inch, while 5 increments equal 1 character column at 12 characters or columns per inch." (p. 4-2). This indicates that the Model 1200 HyType I printer was not capable of supporting the 18-units-per-em system of character widths used in the memos. 71.212.31.95 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blog

I added back the blog info, due to fact that the entire subject revolves around blogs. The reason the controversy existed in the first place was because of the blogs. I'm aware to the "no blog" policy, but does not apply to pages that are heavily dependent and focused on blogs. Removal can qualify as blatant omission of information. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Our prohibition against blogs as a reliable source does not fail to streatch to articles where information can only be sourced to blogs. Please don't make up policies.JBKramer 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V states that "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". It not an absolute rule, and certainly does not apply to a subject that is heavily dependent on blogs. Excluding all info from blogs will severely limit having a well balanced page.
Also, refrain from making accusations such as "Please don't make up policies", which has a patronizing tone. I will not add the blog info back until you reply in a reasonable time (to prevent an edit war). ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider 32 hours a reasonable amount of time, so I'm placing the blog info back. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:RS.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously. Another exception may be when an individual publishes their own personal biographical material (they are a subject matter expert in this case). See "Self-published sources in articles about the writers of those sources" later in this guideline.

I do not see any of the afformationed people. There is no policy that says "if it's necessary for a "balanced" article, you can break WP:RS." If the article cannot be balanced without original research, it should be deleted. JBKramer 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree again. The info in the blog has been cited in credible news organizations and the authors of the pieces are not anonymous. As I stated earlier, the rule against self-published sources is not absolute. I guess the sources can be resourced to major news publications, but that will be like quoting someone quoting a source. I'll wait for a response before further edits. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree, too. When the secondary sources don't accurately report what the primary sources did or said, they should be bypassed. It is more important that the article be accurate than that it cite tertiary authority. htom 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy is not a policy - in fact, it's expressly stated that we do not strive to be accurate, we strive to be verifiable. Blogs are not reliable sources, and as such, are not veriable. JBKramer 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that blogs are not reliable sources -- and implication that they are never reliable -- is at best prejudice and is not supported by the policies you cite. The newspapers you urge us to use instead are known to change their articles without notice or mention of their changes, making them no more reliable or verifiable than blogs. The prohibition against citing blogs is not absolute. In any case, if "verifiability is more important than accuracy" is indeed the goal of Wikipedia, why bother? Verifiable incorrectness presented as factual correctness is less than useless, it is anti-useful. Picking random information would then be more useful than Wikipedia, as it would sometimes be accurate. htom 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want a third opinion, I think JBKramer is clearly right on this one.

1. If a blog post were independently notable on its own as a historical document, then you might be able to argue that the blog should be linked as a primary source. At a minimum, this would require that the blog post itself be the subject of non-blog media coverage. (As an example, the original "Buckhead" post regarding the Killian documents received substantial press coverage, so you might be able to make an argument that the post itself might merit a link from the primary Killian documents article as a historically significant document, rather than to establish its contents. Of course, even the use of a self-published document as a primary source would violate the letter of Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, so if there was substantial controversy, it would probably just be wiser to cite to reliable source articles discussing Buckhead, and let people google if they want to view the original.)
2. In this case, it looks like Jumping Cheese wants to include a DailyKos post and another blog post not because those specific posts are themselves historically notable, but as support for the facts stated in those posts. IMHO, that's not even a close decision -- it's forbidden both by WP:V and WP:RS.

Just my 2 cents, TheronJ 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Blinking GIF

The original blinking gif comparison was by Charles Johnson at LGF. I think he did one other comparison, non-blinking, and one of his users did a high-resolution version of the blinking gif. I suspect that he would do the same for all six, if asked nicely, but those would be orginal research ....

The Smoking Memo post at LGF, with a link to the index of LGF posts about the memos: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only

htom 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Desktop Magazine and the Times Roman Font

Does the person who included the info about Desktop Magazine at the end of the "Proportional Fonts" section have the article and does the article specify the filenames of the Times Roman font in question? Was it a PC font? In particular, was it TrueType? A comment at Tim Blair's blog on Sept. 14 2004 (direct link to comment) claimed that the Killian memos font looked most like a PC TrueType font Times Roman and gave the filenames:
timr65w.ttf Times Bold
timr66w.ttf Times Bold Italic
timr46w.ttf Times Italic
timr45w.ttf Times Roman (screen name: Times)
74.72.218.159 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

David Hailey

I note that some editors seem to think that David Hailey has proved the documents to be genuine. Anyone who wants to go on believing that should not click on these links.

Dr Hailey's most recent work on this topic claims that "the memos were typed", but never even tries to explain the pseudo-kerning, varied space sizes etc. (In order to produce those documents on a typewriter, the typist would have to position the paper by hand before almost every character, and a simple memo would take hours to type!)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're linking to some Wizbang posts as being some sort of proof of something?! Hah! The irony -- I had just finish ruining some people's day(s) at Wizbang. This is probably not the best venue for this, but...what the heck. Thanks to Google Groups screwing up, I was lurking at Wizbang and I had picked a fight over a post involving Ted Koppel. In the course of that, someone brought up this web site I had put up about the Killian memos in order to take a snipe at me. That provoked a different fight with a very, VERY unexpected ending. I'm not going go into the details here, but for anyone interested and willing to run through a very long and winding debate thread, this is the link.

And as far as Hailey goes, he was apparently trying to describe a type of impact printing device that he didn't know existed at the time -- a proportionally printing computer printer. He was just thinking that there were only typewriters back then and that there was maybe something like an improved Executive model. The first proportionally printing daisywheel printers I could find being sold were OEM Diablos. The earliest shipping dates I could find for one was for the end of 1972 for Redactron, with quantity shipments starting in 1973. According to the "Business Machines Executive Newsletter" of May 1972, [courtesy of the Charles Babbage Institute}, IBM was selling so many MC/ET Mag Card Exec word processing systems that those models had a 14 week delivery delay. Also according to that same newsletter, the MC/ET's had 9-unit proportional spacing, automatic centering, single stroke underlining, and a bunch of other features. FYI.... -BC 65.78.25.69 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

blog sourced info

If the information I'm removing isn't just some guys webpage, please show how it meets WP:RS. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the revert warriors just going to revert, or respond here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] is a link to the CV of the individual with the weblog. I do not see any typesetting experience. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(The heading is wrong: Dr Newcomer's website is not a blog.)

Dr Joseph Newcomer was one of the pioneers of digital typography. From his résumé:

Pioneered desktop publishing — wrote one of the earliest word processing programs for a high-resolution xerographic printer (the “XGP”, ca. 1970, was a predecessor to today’s laser printers).

From http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm:

I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done, lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is “I was working with laser printers before they had lasers”, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography.

Also, the text you keep removing about sub-character spacing, negative escapement etc is common knowledge. Please leave it alone. Dr Newcomer is far better qualified than Dr Hailey, so please also leave the link to (and quote from) Newcomer's rebuttal of Hailey alone. (Furthermore, please allow other editors more than 10 minutes to respond to your comments in future.) Thanks, CWC(talk) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr Joseph Newcomer

Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has put a Template:self-published tag on this article. I'm guessing that he objects to using Dr Joseph Newcomer as a source. (The complete edit summary was "more blogshit". Since Dr Newcomer is not a blogger and his analysis is cogent and convincing, that's 2 unfortunatenesses in 3 syllables.) Let's look at Dr Newcomer's writings in the light of WP:RS. Although Dr N has published scholarly works, the relevant writings are not peer-reviewed, so the Non-scholarly sources section applies.

1. Attributability - Yes
2. Expertise - Yes, see #blog sourced info (sic) above
3. Bias - He writes "I am not a fan of George Bush", FWIW
4. Editorial oversight - No
5. Replicability - Yes
6. Declaration of sources - Yes
7. Use of confidential sources - None used, so no problem
8. Corroboration - by Dr. Philip Bouffard[2], Peter Tytell (CBS's own analyst!) and others
9. Recognition by other reliable sources - quoted as a recognised expert by the Washington Post here and here, and by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette here
10. Age of the source and rate of change of the subject - Not relevant here
11. Persistence (of web links) - No problem here

Of the 9 relevant criteria, Dr Newcomer satisfies 8. That's a pass.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have missed "Self-published sources as secondary sources" - "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And you appear to have missed WP:V#SELF - "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Jinxmchue 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He's neither. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that he does not appear to be a professional journalist (although what that has to do with the topic I don't understand.) He is, however, a computer science professional who I, at least, knew of before Bush announced that he was running for President. Dr. Newcomer's CV -- ::::http://www.flounder.com/resume.htm As well, he's been cited by several of the mainstream press:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp?pg=2

If you want to maintain that his informed opinion is not relevant, you have to do better than what you've done. Because you don't agree with him doesn't make his informed opinion either wrong or unverified; it appears to be both correct and verified.

htom 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You're saying there are mass media sources that will let me avoid blogs? Done. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the mania for verification, other things can be found. Of course, linking to the WP and WS is a dangerous activity, as both have been known to change pages without noting that they've done so. In any case, the page(s) provided by Newcomer are not a blog, although it is self-published. Please remove the warning tag, unless you have some other complaint. htom 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was working on fixing it as you were commenting. I was unable to find mention of kerning in the mass-media sources - if you have that, please include it also. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, it seems to me that we are using Dr Newcomer as a primary source which WP:RS#Types of source material defines as "a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event."

Another issue is that Appendix 4 of the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report is probably a better primary source, but is much harder to use because (1) that PDF does not allow copy and paste (!) and (2) it is written in indirect language. For example, the second para begins:

Tytell concluded, for the reasons described below, that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle.

Hence my preference for using Dr Newcomer as a primary source. However, if necessary, I will type in experts from Appendix 4. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use the report as opposed to some guys blog. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the paper published by Dr. Newcomer is "some guy's blog" while Dr. Hailey's paper is not. htom 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like his paper excised also? It looked like an academic paper to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not excise either, thank you. I prefer the "dated notebook" of the scientist, unpolished, presentation of Dr. Newcomer to the well-dressed handwaving of Dr. Hailey. I don't think that either presentation is a blog. htom 14:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Some days later:) I've WP:BOLDLY put back a much shorter version of the argument from "pseudo-kerning", citing Dr Newcomer as the source. Here's a copy:

Inter-character spacing

Joseph Newcomer, an expert cited by critics of the memos, claims that the memos display a simple alternative to kerning characteristic of TrueType fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f".<ref>{{cite web | title=The Bush "Guard memos" are forgeries! | url=http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm | author=Joseph Newcomer | date=2004-09-15 | accessdate=2007-01-29 }}</ref>

Please note that my version uses Newcomer as a primary source, and so plainly is quite acceptable per WP:RS and WP:V#SELF. Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Newcomer is not an acceptable primary source. Per WP:ATT "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." How is Newcomer very close to the situation? It appears to me that he downloaded the documents like anyone could and looked at them like anyone could. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the policy states that "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia." Self-published sources are only reliable in articles about themselves. This is not an article about Newcomer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I contend that

1. Joseph Newcomer is very close to the situation that "Joseph Newcomer ... claims ...".
2. Self-published sources are acceptable if from a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise", which Newcomer is.[3]
3. Newcomer indeed just "downloaded the documents like anyone could and looked at them like anyone could" — but he saw clear signs of forgery most people wouldn't, because of his deep knowledge of pseudo-kerning in TrueType fonts.

So IMO he is acceptable as a primary source for what he wrote. Two more important points:

(A) If anyone were to refute Newcomer's claims, his reputation and his business would suffer. He has a lot at stake here, so Wikipedia policies aimed at anonymous bloggers are much less applicable.

(B) There are other sources for this pseudo-kerning stuff. The only reason I keep arguing for using Newcomer is that it would be even more work to Google-and-winnow for an alternative source.

The article is going to end up mentioning that the "fr" (and "fe", and "fo") sequences in the memos could not have been produced by a typewriter ... because, guess what, that's the plain truth. If we don't cite Dr Newcomer, we'll just cite some other expert.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Joseph Newcomer is not very close to the situation. He is a guy who downloaded the documents and looked at them.
2. Joseph Newcomer has not been published in typeography... ever. He is not an expert.
3. Joseph Newcomer has no expert knowledge of "TrueType fonts," nor does he state such.
4. Joseph Newcomer's buisness of being a computer consultant would not be harmed by someone arguing about politics on the internet with him.
5. Please provide reliable sources for your claims. You have now stated, for the record, that they exist. How about someone that isn't self published? I'll return the fact tags untill such a person is found. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Newcomer is really, really close to the situation that Newcomer says the documents are forgeries. In fact, he's as close to that situation as anyone could be, donchathink?
2. Newcomer has published in typography. I put a citation in the article (diff); Hipocrite removed it! Much more relevant is chapter 15 of Win32 Programming.[4]
3. Newcomer is an expert in TrueType fonts. See chapter 15 of Win32 Programming, again. He has repeatedly stated that he has expert knowledge of using (though not of designing) TrueType fonts, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that he does have such knowledge. (Look at how well he uses "Font Explorer", one of the most advanced FOSS tools for examining TrueType fonts! If only we could see what the guy who wrote "Font Explorer" says about the Killian memos ... oh, wait.)
4. Newcomer's business of training and consultancy would be harmed, as would his reputation, if anyone could point out any major flaws in his arguments. Lots of people have tried; they all failed.

Since I stated quite plainly that finding another source would be lots of work, I regard Hipocrite's peremptory demands that I do so as baiting.

I pointed out at the start of this section that Newcomer satisfies 8 out of 9 relevant criteria for a WP:RS. No one has argued otherwise. Hipocrite responded with a statement that no-one else has found convincing, or even (AFAICT) relevant. I say that we treat Newcomer as a RS until someone shows a flaw in my earlier argument. What do other editors think? CWC(talk) 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the following over 10 days ago - "Hence my preference for using Dr Newcomer as a primary source. However, if necessary, I will type in experts from Appendix 4. " I asked you to type in. You have not done so. Why are you so adverse to using an actualy reliable source as opposed to someguysblog? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirty seconds with google brings the non-self published: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0744118

---

Accession Number : AD0744118 Title : XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation, Corporate Author : CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE Personal Author(s) : Reddy,R. ; Broadley,B. ; Erman,L. ;Newcomer,J. ; Robertson,G. Report Date : 28 MAR 1972 Pagination or Media Count : 69 Abstract : XCRIBL is a system developed at CMU for generating hard copy computer output of arbitrary type fonts, graphics, and grey-scale images using a Xerox Graphic Printer (XGP). XCRIBL can be used to generate documents approaching the quality of printed text with the use of a document generation language (XOFF or PUB) and a character set design program (BILOS). Textual and graphic information to be printed is shipped in its raw form from the host computer (PDP-10) to a mini-computer (PDP-11) which acts as an intelligent channel controlling the XGP. Careful design of the data structures and the hardware interface permit the mini-computer to generate each scan line as needed without having to resort to a brute force solution of generating a bit-image for the whole page (3.5 million bits) for off-line printing. Variable width characters and the ability to mix text and graphics distinguish the present solution from the known simpler schemes for scan line generation. (Author)

Descriptors : (*DATA PROCESSING, GRAPHICS), (*COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, INSTRUCTION MANUALS), INPUT OUTPUT DEVICES, OPTICAL IMAGES, INTERFACES, CONTROL SEQUENCES, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Subject Categories : COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND SOFTWARE COMPUTER HARDWARE Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

---

Close enough? htom 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about scan line graphics on the pdp-11. I'm begging that we use published reliable reports - like newspapers, magazines, journal articles, government reports, stuff like that, not someguysblogs. I hate blogs. They lie - dissemble, are regularly garbage and more ofen than not totally innacurate. I want every blog mention removed from this encyclopedia. You find me a blog being used as a source, and I will delete the blog sourced garbage. I want the blogs out of this article, but people keep puting some computer consultants website back in, even though they say the information is an exact copy of information in a reliable source. Why can't we just quote the reliable source? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are under the impression that stinet.dtic.mil is a site that hosts blogs? This is a reference in a military database to a published paper. Someone who was in at the START of digital publishing would have indeed probably worked on a PDP-11, Windows had not been invented then. There was a whole world of computing before Microsoft. Your hatred of blogs is clouding your reading comprehension, perhaps. htom 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt he wrote a paper about the pdp-11 in the mid 1970s.

Hipocrite asks me:

Why are you so adverse to using an actualy reliable source as opposed to someguysblog?

To summarize points made repeatedly on this page:

1. It's not a blog.
2. He's not just some guy: the Washington Post and other RSs called him an expert.
3. Newcomer is a reliable source. No-one has even tried to rebut my 8-out-of-9 argument, just dodged it.

I say that we simply treat Newcomer as a WP:RS in TrueType "pseudo-kerning". Barring reasoned objections that address all my previous arguments without relying on misquoting of Wikipedia policies, I'll edit accordingly in a day or two. CWC(talk) 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Attributability - Yes - agreed
2. Expertise - Yes, see #blog sourced info (sic) above - dubious - while he is clearly an expert on the pdp-11, he is unpublished with respect to modern typography or typography in use in the 1970's away from the pdp-11.
3. Bias - He writes "I am not a fan of George Bush", FWIW - disagree - his statements to his bias are not verifiable.
4. Editorial oversight - No - agreed - none whatsoever. Not a smidge. He could make up every word he wrote and no editor would say naught abotu it.
5. Replicability - Yes - Disagree - has not been replicated, has it?
6. Declaration of sources - Yes - Disagree - has no sources except primary document. This is not a declaration of sources, it's a declaration that he used no sources.
7. Use of confidential sources - None used, so no problem
8. Corroboration - by Dr. Philip Bouffard[5], Peter Tytell (CBS's own analyst!) and others - disagree - they do not corroborate his statements about TrueType, do they? They all think the document is a fraud? Fine. He is used to make specific factual claims.
9. Recognition by other reliable sources - quoted as a recognised expert by the Washington Post here and here, and by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette here - disagree - he is treated as a cute sidebar by all of these.
10. Age of the source and rate of change of the subject - Not relevant here - disagree. Flounder.com has no reputation.
11. Persistence (of web links) - No problem here - disagree. Flounder.com has no reputation.

I do not believe this qualifies as an unquestionably relevant source and ask that you find another one. Any other corroborating source of unquestionable reliablity, please. Just one. You said you had some appendix 4. Please use it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. An initial response:

#2: The 1972 paper and the book chapter deal directly with computer typography.

#6: He had one source (as H admits before contradicting himself) and he declared it.

#9: ("cute sidebar [in] all three")

      He was quoted more than any non-CBS expert in the WaPo items and was only topic of PG item!

      How on earth did H expect to get away with something that blatant?!

#5, #10, #11: more irrelevancies.

All my other arguments: H didn't even try.

Baiting rating: C+ for effort, F for quality. Cheers, CWC(talk) 22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, let's edit war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, let's not. Let's see if other editors think Dr Newcomer is a RS, then try to reach a consensus. (But I have a strange feeling that unanimous agreement might be a bit out of reach ...) I see no need to hurry. Cheers, CWC(talk) 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not edit war. I am quite against nuking Newcomer from this article. Arkon 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who, other than Tytell, Hailey, Phinney, and Newcomer are there? Where are all the other reliable sources i.e. typography experts, named and on the record with an analysis of the documents? You have to write the article with the sources you have, not the sources you wish you had. Is there a more detailed analysis of the typography of the documents on the Internet better than Newcomer's? patsw 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When the furor erupted, newspapers asked a whole bunch of experts (and not-so-experts) for their opinions. I suspect that Newcomer's bush2.htm is the best analysis, but I'm sure that other experts mention the pseudo-kerning. CWC(talk) 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WaPo cited Newcomer

In this article, the WaPo cited Newcomer on inter-character spacing:

One telltale sign in the CBS documents is the overlapping character combinations, such as "fr" or "fe," said Joseph M. Newcomer, an adjunct professor with Carnegie Mellon University. Blown-up portions of the CBS documents show that the top of the "f" overlaps the beginning of the next letter, a feat that was not possible even on the most sophisticated typewriters available in 1972.

Is there any reason we cannot use this as a WP:RS for the "Inter-character spacing" issue? (I feel really dumb for not noticing this until today.)

Perhaps we should reference the WaPo article and put "See also Newcomer's detailed analysis" at the end of the footnote?

Which reminds me: the references are in a real mess, with URLs as titles and independent references to the same sources. I've started tidying them up. (Take a look at reference [8].) I'll finish the job in a few days, unless some kind person does it first. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Newcomer is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a citeable expert. His website regarding the Killian memos is laughably wrong on key technical points, including completely omitting the vast array of proportionally spacing word processing sysems available in the early-mid-70's, most notably those using Diablo daisywheel printers. He labeled the memos as forgeries a week before he even looked at a print sample, a wedding program, from an IBM Executive, a one time very common typewriter that could proportionally print, super/subscript with small typefaces and actually had come available in with a choice of fonts in the form of interchangeble typebars. His site is very, very long on words but very, very short on actual comparisons between his supposed Word replicas and the original memos, making the whole thing utterly unscientific and worthless as a useful source. -BC 65.78.25.69 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how the scientific process works. You publish, others complain, you do research, publish again, answering their questions of your conclusions. I would like to see evidence that Diablo mechanisms were available at the offices where they would have been used to type these memos before worrying about them. The mid-seventies, btw, don't count; they have to be there by the dates on the documents. The comparisons, I grant, are done using numbers and measurements rather than .gifs. htom 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with user 65.78.25.69 (talk · contribs) about Dr Newcomer. Newcomer does discuss proportional-font typewriters. He points out that they used "escapements" which were multiples of 1/3-em — ie., every character was 1/3 em, 2/3 em or 1 em wide. His detailed analysis showed that the character widths in the memos had much finer variations than that. That was only one of the reasons he designated the memos as forgeries. He did not need to look at the output of an IBM Executive because he already knew all about them. Note especially his argument about negative escapements, which conclusively proves that no typewriter could have produced those memos, only a typesetter or a computer with a laser printer.

Whether 65.78.25.69 likes Newcomer, his website, his arguments or (more importantly, I suspect) his conclusions has nothing to do with whether Newcomer is a WP:RS.

(People who have some need to believe in these memos often suggest that an early word processor with a daisy-wheel printer could have produced them. However, such systems only became common years later. The first Wang Word Processing System was not released until 1975 and it used an IBM golfball typewriter. WYSIWYG systems driving daisy-wheels were common by the late 1970s (I used one), but required CRT-based computer terminals. I have not seen any evidence that any system available in 1972 supported escapements finer than 1/3 em, let alone a system that would be available to a secretary working for a bunch of part-time officers while the U.S.A.F. was conducting a very expensive war on the other side of the world.)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there is nothing "scientific" about Newcomer's methodology. Go look at his site again -- he's utterly wrong about 70's technology. Actually most people have no clue that the word processing market was in full bloom by the early to mid 70's with a slew of now utterly forgotten manufacturers like Redactron and NBI (Wang was a latecomer.) But if you're going to be an "expert" on the matter, you better know better than most people. Newcomer particularly and completely undermines his credibility regarding 70's tech with this statement from his site: The only other printer I am aware of in the 1970s that could print at reasonable quality was a research prototype I saw at Xerox PARC, called EARS, which could print at 300 dpi. It was not created until 1971, and I remember it has having several large cabinets of extremely expensive computer components controlling it. It was a “hand-built”, one-of-a-kind printer. All other technologies were quite elaborate and clumsy mechanical devices, and although there were some proportional-spaced typewriters (such as the IBM Executive) and print production technologies (such as the VariTyper), none of these would have produced something that was a near-perfect match for Times New Roman under Microsoft Word.

'Nuff said. -BC 65.78.25.69 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Link

So it's the link you really want in the article? What's your relation to the site? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(I guess this is addressed to me, following this edit.) I think including the link adds to the article (and conforms to Wikipedia rules), but it's not essential. As I tried to explain in the edit summary, since we mention the Weekly Standard article praising Dr Newcomer's analysis, I think we should link to that analysis. That's all.

I live on a farm in Australia and have nothing to do with Dr Newcomer, his company or his website.

For what it's worth, I think our combined edits have improved the "Dr. David Hailey's analysis" section quite a lot.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Blogs are not acceptable as sources about questions of fact. Inserting statements of the blog, and then stating "it's his opinion" does not get around WP:ATT - if no one reported the opinion in a reliable source, it doesn't exist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Blogs are reliable sources for what the blogger wrote. The statement "[b]logs are not acceptable as sources" is true for most articles, but not for all articles. In a small fraction of articles, things written by bloggers can be important and notable.

In an article about a political blogger, the blog is a RS for the blogger's opinions, for what the blogger has written, etc. See Glenn Greenwald#Views on other matters for a good example.

In articles about controversies in which bloggers played an important role, which blogger wrote what when can be important, and blogs are good sources there. In this article, a blanket no-blogs rule would exclude citing the LGF post with the blinking GIF in this article; I say that's a reductio ad absurdum proof that a complete and unconditional ban on blogs as sources is unwise.

Of course, that leaves lots of room for healthy argument about whether a particular blog post is relevant, notable, etc. OTOH, as Hipocrite rightly points out, using blogs to smuggle opinions etc into articles is not acceptable. Cheers, CWC(talk) 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr David Hailey

Remember Dr David Hailey? Holds a "PhD in technical communication"? So he'd know all about this stuff wouldn't he?

Wrong.

His PhD was in "Language and Rhetoric, Theory of Criticism" and was titled "The Objective Metaphor: An Examination of Objects as Metaphors and Metaphors as Objects".[6]

Not much about fonts and typefaces there!

I've fixed the article. CWC(talk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I tracked down the edit which introduced the "PhD in technical communication" idea. CWC(talk) 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

From the aheckofa.com guy

"BC" added this enormous comment in the "Planning some updates" section above. I've moved it to the end of the page and added this heading. CWC 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I never really noticed this separate "Killian documents authenticity issues" Wiki until recently. While I have made a couple of casual postings in regards to Newcomer, I hadn't really wandered through the entire section. Some of you may know me from this page I maintain, and which is due for a MAJOR update by, hopefully, the end of the month. For all intents and purposes, the authenticity discussion is now pretty much resolved -- it's impossible for at least one of them memos to have been forged because the contents had information connected to records that weren't released by the DoD until Sept. 7th, which happens to be after CBS had received all six memos from Burkett, two on Sept. 2nd and the rest on Sept. 5th. This shoots down a key contention the pro-forgers had used to explain the contents of the memos -- that the forger has used publicly available records, like those contained on this DoD site, to fill in the details of the memos.

The memo in question is a very short one dated February 2nd, 1972, that wasn't even used by CBS. The memo makes a very interesting passing mention of "Bath" aka James Bath, a future business partner of Bush, and who was verbally suspended by Killian exactly one month after Bush was and for the exact same official reasons, and whose name is now currently and very mysteriously redacted from currently available DoD records. Very, very interesing, but that's not even the relevant part. The memo also indicates a concern about flight certification for both Bush and Bath. Looking through the raw, unsorted flight records on the DoD doesn't really tell you much, so I thought to see what would happen if I entered those records into a spreadsheet and then sort, sum and graph in different ways to see any sort of obvious pattern that would connect to a flight certification worry. What I ended up with was this graph, which shows a clear, sharp rise in training flights (in yellow) coinciding with the date on the memo. Obviously the additional training flights were for Bush to meet certification. If we had Bath's flight records, we would likely see something very similar or even identical.

I had initially used this bit of analysis to show how ludicrous it is to believe that a forger would go all through this trouble just to get an indication that Bush needed training flights for something that the forger confidently guessed had to be for meeting flight certification. But that was before a nagging feeling got me to check when the flight records were actually released by the DoD, which turned out to Sept. 7th -- too late by just a couple of days for any forger to have used.

Some people I've already debated on this, while grudgingly admitting that I have a point here, claim that it could be that some of the memos are true while the others are fake. Since all of the memos show the same character type, spacing and other characteristics, that's an unfounded and basically idiotic explanation. If one is proven impossible to have been forged, then that becomes defacto authentication of not just that one memo but for all of them since there is no other explanation. A or B, forged or not forged. There is no "C" option.

This then gets back to how the forgery charges started and who is responsible and culpable for their spread, and whether it was done out of genuine confusion (even if pushed along by a political agenda) or with deliberate, malicious intent, and what roles did the bloggers and the mainstream media, especially CBS played in all this.

The [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 initial Free Republic post] by "Buckhead" was laughably wrong and confused in every way regarding 70's office technology, but that served well enough to stir up the right wing blog sites.

So the initial surge of forgery charges were based on a post, by a GOP activist, that was filled with utterly nonsensical information about 70's era office. An ignominious start for what will be an utterly ignominious episode of journalism being supplanted by mob news.

Those forgery charges then surged to another level with the posting of another blogger the following day, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who stated in a post with the title "Bush Guard Documents: Forged" that:

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date "18 August 1973," then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as "authentic."

And it was in this post Johnson that displayed his first overlay experiment using the "CYA" memo, which also happened to be the shortest and simplest of the 4 memos CBS used in their report. Subsequently he "refined" his overlay experiment and ended up with a post that included the animated GIF that got extremely wide circulation.

Now, near the beginning of this page, in an aside, "Derex" asks, Also, did the fellow who made the "blinking gif" ever do the same for the other documents? I've always wondered because a bunch of the features really don't look like a great match to me. I'd find it a lot more compelling to see tham all done, otherwise it makes me wonder if he "cherry-picked" the only one that sort of looked ok. Just asking for my own curiosity.

The answer is no, Johnson didn't. How do I know? I asked Johnson in a very recent email about whether he attempted to recreate any of the other memos in Word, and if not, why not since "It would seem logical and proper to have tried the overlay experiment with all of the memos before coming to the rather harsh conclusion that all of them were forged." His response was only a link to another post of his comparing but not overlaying one of the other memos, the one dated May 19th, 1972 the second simplest one of the 4 memos.

And what would happen if the overlay experiment was done on the some of the other memos? The much maligned (by right wing blog sites, that is) Dr. David Hailey obtained some high resolution copies of the memos from Mary Mapes and tried Johnson's overlay trick with the somewhat complicated Aug. 1st memo and got this result. A bit less convincing, no?

Since the proportional spacing in Times Roman (Mac, what Johnson used) and Times New Roman (Windows) is highly derivative of the proportional spacing used by the early word processing systems -- especially ones using Diablo and Diablo compatible daisywheel printers, which were the standard for about a dozen years prior to the first laser printers -- you would actually expect some sort of rough match-up on a shorter memo like the CYA one, but not so much with more complicated and/or longer one. Which is the exact situation we have here.

But does this necessarily mean Johnson deliberately perpetrated a fraud? Couldn't he have been just a rank amateur who got this interesting result from a test, reached a snap, poorly thought out conclusion and just couldn't wait to post it all? Possible in theory, but extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely. He made a number of postings from Sept. 9, 2004 through the 13thin regards to the memos, and spent considerable time futzing only with the CYA memo. In one of those posts, though, he discusses his qualifications -- or "bona fides" -- in regards to his tests and conclusions, stating:

I’ve been involved with desktop publishing software and scalable software fonts (as opposed to hot lead type) almost since their inception. I’m a former West Coast editor of a popular computer magazine for a now-orphaned computer, the Atari ST/TT.

I also co-owned a software publishing firm, CodeHead Technologies, for whom I designed and laid out packaging and manuals for more than a dozen products (in addition to developing most of those products, using 680x0 assembly language). We used a combination of DTP and traditional typesetting techniques for these jobs, and I cut my teeth on some of the first serious DTP software ever created for personal computers—including Aldus Pagemaker and Aldus Freehand on the Mac, and less recognizable titles available for Atari computers (anyone still using Calamus or Pagestream out there?).

My software company also marketed a word processing program (Calligrapher, written by a developer in Britain) that had the ability to import and use Postscript Type 1 fonts. And I had early experience with some of the dinosaur-like dedicated word processors that were available in the 70s/80s.

I’m not boasting like this just to pump up my lizardoid ego; it’s to let you know that I have an extensive background in these subjects—and when I tell you that there’s no way the CBS News documents were created on any machine available in 1972/1973, I ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie.

All of which makes it highly improbable in the extreme that he didn't at some point type up Word recreations of all 4 memos, and then proceeded to deliberately ignore the overt discrepencies in at least the May 4th and Aug. 1st memos for a "created by Word" scenario in order to go forward with his claim that all the documents were forged. Such deliberate cherry picking of data to support a hypothesis is considered outright fraud in the scientific community, and it's apparently no less the case here.

So the second escalation of the forgery charges came about from an apparently utterly fraudulent post. More ignominiousness.

Now whither the mainstream media, especially CBS, with their collective vast resources, in all this? MIA, basically. Research and investigation was limited to a few inclusive interviews and very, very little, if at all into the appearance issue, which is what the forgery charged were based on. Also completely lacking was any attempt to systematic match up the contents of the memos to official records -- there were all sorts of dated information, so.... No. How about the technology available in offices in the 70's -- anybody do much checking into that? Aside from relaying the evidently unchecked opinions of dubious experts like Joseph Newcomer, there was none at all -- it was virtually all Selectric this and Selectric that. It's very telling that is took a casual comment by Marian Carr Knox, an office pool secretary (no, she wasn't Killian's personal secretary) about how she had an Olympia typewriter that a little "th" key that there was even a suggestion that more than Selectric typewriters existed back then. Did the mainstream media follow up? No. Did they note this document in the DoD records with pristine, superscripted "th's" that was obviously not created on a modern word processor? No, again.

How about when the DoD, after having claimed to have finally posted all off Bush's records, quietly released, within days of CBS backing away from the memos, another PDF packet of files labeled Documents Released on September 24, 2004 that contained very pecularly formatted documents, including the only proportionally printed one in the entire DoD site -- did the news media make even a mention of this? No, again. Collectively they were absolutely worthless and journalistically incompetent in every way in regards to the memos mess, allowing for the forgery charges to grow futher, with every would-be Sherlock pointing out increasingly idiotic "proof" of forgery.

But what about CBS, the once proud network of Edward R. Murrow -- beset by the hounds of the right wing blogosphere and abandoned by their fellow news organizations, how did they respond? Fully investigate and address the forgery charges? No. Take a time out to see if they more fully authenticate the memos? No. What they ended up doing was turn tail and run, and then try to save face by setting up a supposedly independent panel to "probe" the memos story. The resulting "report" showed a laughably incompetent amount of real investigation was done, indicating that it was never more than a face-saving effort to find scapegoats for the memos mess. According to the DoD records, Bobby Hodges and especially Rufus Martin should have been able to answer and clear up a lot of the discrepencies in the official records, nevermind the memos, but they were only asked some lame questions that they disengenously evaded answering, including who even it was that suspended Bush from flight status.

So some people got ourright canned, including Mary Mapes, and Dan Rather was apparently forced out.

The one person who knew best of all whether the memos were real or not, Bush himself, was evidently never asked and who to this day avoided making any direct comments on the matter. Why would he not have made a comment? It was a while ago, but getting canned from flying would not be something you would forget, especially with a big shot dad who was a hotshot pilot in his day. Bush's silence only makes sense if the memos were real and not forged -- the right wing media was doing just fine and dandy in giving CBS and Dan Rather grief over the matter, including even dragging in Kerry, so why ruin a good thing? Obviously if Bush was a man of strong ethics and good character, he would have spoken up regardless, but....he never did.

So basically, to summarize, the forgery charges were bogus from beginning to end, the news media completely fell down on its collective face in sorting out fact from even outright nonsense, the blogosphere showed itself to be worthless as a legitimate alternative news media, and a really, really bad person got re-elected because of it all.

Hope this clarifies. -BC 65.78.25.69 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates

The main article is in serious need of updating, especially in regards to common early 70's office technology [7], which now appears to have been far more sophisticated than had been thought. There are also many factual errors as well. I will be creating a list of suggested and will post here for discussion. Others are also very much invited to offer up suggestions for improvement. -BC aka Callmebc 00:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the article you reference supports your argument that such things were "common" in TANG squadron offices at the times referenced. Dreamed of, perhaps. htom 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The forgery charges were based on extremely faulty if not ludicrously wrong assertions about common early 70's office tech. It also appears that people's recollection of what was around is just as off, which I guess makes sense since only engineers were not completely computer illiterate in those days -- there were an astonishing number of sophisticated printers and word processing systems sold during the early 70's [8] and yet few can remember them. It might be because many of those systems, especially the early models, looked typewriter-ish enough to not register as being something other than typewriters to people with no reason to know the difference. A Diablo daisywheel printer with the "KSR" option (Keyboard Send Receive) looks very much like an IBM Mag Card system or even a regular typewriter: [9], [10] & [11]. Also, I'm finding that most of what few Memorandums for Record posted online from the early 70's and even before are actually proportionally printed: [12] & [13]. So unless someone can say for sure what was around TANG or nearby (let's not forget law firms, JAG offices and such), then any reference that sheds better light on the true state of office technology would seem actually mandatory for inclusion in the best interests of the article. -BC aka Callmebc 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"One of the most significant innovations that affected the growth of word processing products was the development of the “daisywheel” printer technology, which became commercially available in 1972 [l0]." (Your reference 8.) That they were commercially available is very different than their being "common". The leadscrew feed for the Selectric mechanism is announced in 1973 for the MagCard II. No 1970's secretary would confuse a Selectric with a MagCard, either a Model I or a Model II. htom 04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The people making all the claims about 70's tech, with the exception of Knox, were not secretaries. And Redactron and other early word processing companies making word processors switched from using the mysterious OEM I/O Selectrics (mysterious in that what few specs on them indicate they were capable of proportionally printing like slow daisywheels, but it's unclear which companies used them despite IBM selling 20-40 thousand of them annually by 1972 -- see: [14]) to daisywheel printers beginning in 1972. And do you really think secretaries paid much attention to the details of the printer mechanism if everything else seemed more or less the same? Also most systems were apparently compatible with the Mag Card/Tape systems introduced by IBM in the 60's, meaning that a letter could be composed and saved on one system in, say, 1970, and printed out on another in 1973, much like people can today. The basic point is that by 1972, proportionally spacing word processing sytems were commonly available: [15]. All of which at the very least cast serious questions on key contentions of the pro-forgers. -BC aka Callmebc 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of venturing too much into WP:OR territory, I suppose I should mention that I recently finished creating animated overlays of all the memos, as well as two "bonus" ones for your slowing blinking pleasure/displeasure: [16]. I guess WP:IAR could apply here, though.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Word Wrapping

I'm a little distracted at the moment, but I will return with a whole buncha recommended fixes for the main page. I have noticed, though, a little editing done on the "word wrapping" issue. Aside from the word wrapping being of little or no value forensically if an old word processor had been used (standard margins with a similar enough font will word wrap at the same point), who exactly are the "critics" being referred to in this this comment: Critics have argued that it is implausible that a manual typist would have ended each line at precisely the same point as a computer program written decades later? I did a quick Google and the word wrapping seems to be only discussed in blog sites, which are not reliable sources. So if a reliable source cannot be found in regards to the word wrapping "issue," it would seem that the entire paragraph should be removed on the grounds of WP:RS. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a source for the F word

I seem to recall saying on this page or Talk:Killian documents that we had no Reliable Sources that called these documents forgeries. I may have been wrong. This profile of Charles Johnson describes the memos as "the forged documents". The question now is whether it counts as a Reliable source per Wikipedia rules. (Put me in the "don't know" column for now.) Comments, please? CWC 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. The right wing mediasphere as a group has labeled the memos as being faked, forged, phony, fraudulent, discredited, or a hoax especially by the blog sites and the hard right journals like the Weekly Standard and The National Review. Broader conservative media like Fox News and The Wall Street News let pro-forgey pundits have their say. The mainstream media mostly just "covered" matters in their now usual specious, he-said-she-said, non-investigative way, but the big guns like the Washington Post and even the NY Times gave credence to the forgery nonsense, including "liberal" use of the "F-word". The Post, though, really confused things with this idiotic "analysis".

As an aside, you and others may be wondering why I'm not doing more "updates" to the Killian wikis, especially after that little business back in the spring -- while I may know more than most about the true situation regarding the memos, I prefer to play by the rules whenever I can. And it would be very inappropriate for me by Wikipedia rules to source my stuff as evidence, however possibly compelling some people may find it, since I've never admitted to being anything than a smartalecky troll. I'm mulling over other options not involving Wikipedia, but....whatever. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BC. I'm now leaning to the "not a reliable source" side re that N Y Sun profile. (I hope the Red Sox are doing well.) Cheers, CWC 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is going to sound a bit strange coming from me, but since Wikipedia entries generally represent the "status quo" in terms of what is generally believed, especially in terms of press coverage on current or current-enough news, however inaccurate that may be, it would be kind of tricky to now modify that sources for this particular news story since the blogosphere and the mainstream media are kind of mooshed together here. Bloggers started the forgery meme and the mainstream media finished it (sort of). In terms of reliable sources, Wikipedia's definition WP:RS is rather vague in key areas: Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses; mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets; and mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets.

The vagueness comes with the terms "notable" and "mainstream" -- there are no clear boundaries between notable and nonnotable, mainstream and nonmainstream. The "NY Sun" for instance is neither a notable nor mainstream publication by my thinking, but obviously others might feel otherwise. I feel likewise about things like the Weekly Standard, Washington Times, National Review, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, but again others would likely feel very much otherwise. Regarding blog sites, some like Little Green Footballs are "notable" in the sense of being widely known and being mentioned in the press, but does that make them "notable" in the Wikipedia sense?

With that said and in terms of the Killian documents, the sources currently listed are mostly useless in terms of "reliable" and truly accurate and useful information regardless if the source is either mainstream or blog -- it's all degrees of misinformation.

In terms of the Red Sox, they aren't doing so bad. Thanks for asking. -BC aka Callmebc 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-superscripted superscript?

"have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout; however, they are not raised above the level of the normal text."

This sentence seems to contradict itself as "superscript" means that the text is raised above the rest.
—überRegenbogen 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are basically two types of superscripting: the full, traditional one on, like say, Word, mimics what had been done on typewriters -- a half line feed down prior to typing a character puts the text up in between the lines; but there is also a partial one that only goes up as high as a quote mark, which means it doesn't extend above the height of a capital letter like a true, full superscript. Example: this has a full superscript, 10¹², while this has a partial one, 10¹². -BC aka Callmebc 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mother's Day"

I removed the "Mother's Day" add on the main page because, well, it's based on nonsense. Please read the memo more carefully and then check the date when Bush left Ellington in this official DoD doc (page 2). -BC aka Callmebc 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The official DoD doc says Bush "cleared this base 15 May 1972". How is that in conflict with a supposed memo days before then? (SEWilco 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Um, because that explains why Killian wanted Bush to take his physical by the 14th -- that was the last day Bush would be on base. "Mother's Day" has nothing to do with this -- that was just some more amateur "Sherlocking" done by people who probably usually lose at "Clue". -BC aka Callmebc 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the source, the author is "William Campenni, an engineer living in Herndon, Virginia, served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s." He is not a detective, he was there. (SEWilco 23:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Why don't you read the source you provided [17] -- oh wait, you can't because the link doesn't work. Hmmm, let's see if we can find another copy with an exact quote...this Weekly Standard piece [18] seems to have the pertinent section verbatim: For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate. If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard. The drill weekend for May 1972 was the following weekend, May 20-21.

The slight problem with this is that Killian never ordered Bush to take his physical on the 14th -- the memo clearly says that Bush was to report for his physical "not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972" which as I pointed out, is also clearly shown by an official record to be Bush's last day on base before leaving for Alabama/parts unknown. Also check the date on the memo, May 4th, which means that Bush was actually given 10 days to take his physical. Ergo, Campenni's point is [not valid in my opinion] hence I again removed it from the main article. -BC aka Callmebc 07:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit you dislike is properly cited. However your reason for repeatedly deleting it is that you disagree. What you describe above is your original research. Please continue your edits to your partisan Killian website but please stop disrupting npov articles with them. 68.242.64.112 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to find some reliable source showing that the anecdote is correct and that the official record is wrong. -BC aka Callmebc 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way does that official record which mentions May 15 contradict something with dates May 4-14? (SEWilco 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

The link which I provided is correct, although obsolete for the Washington Times site, and is useful for archives. The fragment which you quoted implies that the base clinic was manned on certain weekends, but you're assuming without sources that Bush somehow could have reported to the clinic on days other than weekends. Campenni used the base then, can you provide other sources of its schedule? (SEWilco 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but that was only an anecdote told by a known Bush supporter; you're using a broken link; and the story itself is overtly refuted by the source documents. What are you not understanding? Or are you really just trying to weasel in some right wing POV?

Also, and at the risk of being accused of doing original research, May 4th, 1972 was on a Thursday [19] -- you figure out how many weekends there were until May 14th. -BC aka Callmebc 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article states May 4 was a Thursday. A letter dated May 4 would thus have been mailed no earlier than Thursday or Friday, thus delivery that Saturday was unlikely. (SEWilco 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

???? It's a memo from a commander to a subordinate on the same military base -- it gets handled in house or is hand delivered, meaning that Bush would have received it that day or the next day at the latest (which would be a Friday). Your logic would have a lawyer mailing a memo to his secretary. Also the Washington Times is not a paper of record, so without a working link, it would be extremely difficult to verify the contents of the "article" or even if it was only an opinion piece. I'm removing it yet again, this time citing WP:VERIFY. Please refrain from posting this illogical, unsupported, POV-pushing silliness any further. Thank you. -BC aka Callmebc 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In house mail might well mean being put in an officer's mailbox to wait for the next time they came for drill, which might be several weeks. htom 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now here's someone who knows how the Reserves work. 74.77.222.188 00:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it was to be hand delivered in person then having the wrong address would not be relevant. I wonder why an address was put on it. How often were National Guard soldiers on base so stuff could be hand delivered to them? (SEWilco 06:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

It's not at all hard to verify the contents. The article is described and the Washington Times web site has links to an archival service which makes the article available. Or you can get the article from a paper copy. It's verifiable and you already quoted from it. (SEWilco 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

3RR Warning for User:SEWilco

User:SEWilco's last revert to Killian Documents Authenticity evidently went beyond POV and has crossed over to deliberate fabrication

1) SEWilco substituted a passage from the Killian memo in question "not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972" in place of what William Campenni actually wrote in the Washington Times piece, ''For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed.

2) SEWilco asserts that the memo had the "wrong address" -- an unsupported contention that's also another fabrication: "The address used for Bush is his parents’ home, the official address used for much of his military documentation. The address of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron is correct" [20].

3) SEWilco asserts "Bush could not have been expected to get the letter in time to get a physical the weekend of May 6-7." -- yet another unsupported contention that likewise yet another fabrication: the memo clearly shows a date of May 4th, and it was from a commander to a subordinate on the same base so there would be no reason for it to be mailed -- it would immediately go into the recipient's slot at the base mail room [21].

Additionally:

4) SEWilco asserts "The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13-14". Aside from the relevance of this, there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to support this.

So given the above, I am obligated to remove yet again SEWilco unsupported and this time demonstrably fabricated "Mother's Day" insert. Any further attempts to reinsert this without meeting even the most basic Wiki standards for verification will force me to file a 3RR complaint. -BC aka Callmebc 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Campenni did write "report for a flight physical not later than May 14", that there was a wrong address, and that Bush was supposedly ordered to report when the base was closed for Mother's Day. (SEWilco 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Your link has five sentences from Campenni's column, and the first sentence is marked as having been altered. You think Campenni wrote a column which was five sentences long. (SEWilco 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Well since you added that Mother's Day thing in the first place, I do believe the burden of proof is on you [22]. Again weren't you also the one who said "It's not at all hard to verify the contents"? So just verify your claims and I'll be happy to leave "Mother's Day" be and withdraw the 3RR. -BC aka Callmebc 07:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I supplied the needed citation in every edit. You're not reading the source material nor the Wikipedia rules which you're linking to. (SEWilco 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

For a prepaid consulting fee of $50 I will post detailed instructions on how anyone can buy a copy of the the Campenni column. For an additional $20 I will have a printed copy sent to you. I am not responsible if you won't read those instructions any better than you've read what is above, and the detailed instructions can repeat anything which is above. (SEWilco 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I missed item 4. Campenni actually does mention supporting evidence that the Guard base was closed on Mother's Day and that the following weekend was a drill weekend. (SEWilco 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Apparently I need to revert you more often to get an admin to deal with 3RR. I just reverted you yet again. Let me just summarize all the issues here:

1) [BC does not believe Campenni satisfies] WP:SOURCES

2) The link you provide does not work.

3) Excerpts of the piece found elsewhere indicate that you are not accurately quoting from the piece, but instead one of the Killian memos.

4) You make utterly unsupported (and grossly illogical) additional contentions involving mail and addresess that are again unsupported.

5) Your claim that I should be the one to pay you $50 to post plus $20 to mail "instructions on how anyone can buy a copy of the the Campenni column" to prove that your assertions are correct is utterly nonsensical, as well as being directly contradicted by WP:PROVEIT.

6) If it was indeed just a "column" as you described, then it's only an opinion piece and not reliable information, again from a known Bush supporter and old friend.

7) Plus there's this: [23]

You apparently have little interest in being constructive -- or honest -- here. -BC aka Callmebc 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You still don't understand 3RR any better than you've read what has been posted here. You're still claiming things I stated something which is not in the source, but it is in the source. As I already stated the information in the citation is sufficient for finding the source material. If I quote from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica I am not required to mail you a copy for verification. (SEWilco 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

And you don't seem to understand the concept of WP:PROVEIT: You are for all intents and purposes a vandal and I'm done replying to your nonsense. I only wish an admin starts paying attention... -BC aka Callmebc 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are stating what is not in the source without knowing what is in the source. You can not delete sourced material just because you do not have a copy of the source. Wait for an editor with access to the Washington Times material verify what it says. (SEWilco 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Online "Exposing CBS"

Another editor has added a link to a copy of the Campenni column. I didn't check it word-for-word, but except for different paragraph structure it looks like it is probably complete. It's not identical to the Washington Times copy but seems to have the same words. I see it's in the first page of Google's results for "Exposing CBS", although I hadn't done that search until now. (SEWilco 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

What "Questions?"

A curious mind would like to know.... -BC aka Callmebc 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding a "Commonly believed misconceptions FAQ"?

As you can see from the above Mother's Day "debate," a large number of unsubstantiated, if not overtly malicious, rumors and outright falsehoods regarding the memos are in wide circulation, especially among the right wing/conservative media and blogosphere. I think it would therefore be very wise, as well as save on needless, unending debate, to create a new section that lists at least the most common of these misperceptions along with a description of where and how the misperception originated and then contrast that to what the actual verifible evidence indicates. I think that would help alleviate much of the circular bickering this topic tends to cause, especially so in this particular wiki, which is supposedly specifically concerned with Killian documents authenticity issues. This I believe will aid greatly in improving the article, especially in terms of people coming here looking for well-sourced, reference material, not to mention information and summaries presented as accurately and as fairly as possible. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should describe the misconceptions here. (SEWilco 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Formatting

As some may have noticed, I made several changes to the "Formatting" section, primariy in adding refs to applicable courses and adding "citation needed" for the many, MANY unsourced, unref'd, and generally unsupported allegations that somehow made their way into the article. It's quite safe to say that one of the "misconceptions" regarding the memos is that they are in the wrong format. If you look at the old version,[24] , the section starts off immediately with misinformation: "Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time. However, authenticated contemporaneous documents sometimes vary from the style manual as well." As can be best determined, the central charge that the memos were inconsistent with some unnamed "Air Force style manual at the time" is no more than an outright fabrication. The definitive Air Force writing guide for 30 years has been "The Tongue and Quill" [25][26]. Its section on Memorandums indicate that there are no formatting issues with the Killian memos, and this has not changed for typed/written correspondence for decades. Samples of similar memos found online from both the time of the memos and as far back as 1959 [27] again show no evidence for the claims that the formatting was inconsistent. The sources for the allegations are not listed, but a quick Google shows that the charges came from conservative/right blog sites. As is entirely typical with those sites, none of the people making the charges had offered up anything for supporting evidence other than their evidently very faulty memory.

The Washington Post did post a graphic comparing one of the official records to one of the memos, [28]; however, the author of the piece seemed unaware that all sourced AF writing guides, like the Tongue and Quill, are very specific in noting that the format for official correspondence and letters is marketly different from that of memorandums, which are not official records. Sloppy, sloppy....

Anyway, I dutifully did some clean-ups, but citations are still needed for the original claims of formatting discrepencies. If anyone would like to help with this.... -BC aka Callmebc 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the first two paragraphs of the first reference to the Tongue and Quill above --

8/18/2004 - MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. (AFPN) -- What started as a research paper here nearly 30 years ago has become the Air Force’s leading reference on writing and speaking. In 1975, then-Air Command and Staff College student Maj. Hank Staley submitted as his research paper the first version of what is now “The Tongue and Quill.”

How can you contend that even this original paper somehow controlled a document written several years earlier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tongue and Quill above is called a reference. Maybe an official Air Force manual which specifically states "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" would be more relevant? You might try following the links of superceded documents back to the 1970s: AIR FORCE MANUAL 33-326 1 NOVEMBER 1999 PREPARING OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS, AFMAN 37-126, 10 February 1995, AFMAN 37-127, 25 November 1994, AFDIR 37-135, 31 March 1995. (SEWilco 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry boys -- see Air Force article: Within a couple of years, the Air Force decided the ‘T and Q’ was valuable as an all-encompassing guide for the Department of Defense, and because it was born here, it stayed here. For the most part, the 2004 edition retains most of the writing and speaking tips of past editions. Revisions include improved organization of the information, a rearranged layout, updated quotes, art and word lists, and new information on writing and speaking such as persuasive communications, meetings, briefings and electronic communications.

It's not only the definitive AF writing guide, but it's been like that for decades, and it's an official military reference. And who said anything that it "controlled a document written several years earlier"? What, you're trying to claim it rewrote all the ways the military had been formatting documents? Apparently the format for things like memorandums is pretty standard and has been like that for some time [29]. See also this memo from 1959. But if you can come up with any of those other alleged AF writing guides rumored about on the right wing blog sites that purportedly show the Killian memos having the wrong, it would not just be good, but downright dutiful of you to do so. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That "within a couple of years" might take us from 1975, then, to 1980, but not to 1970. htom 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On one one hand we have an AF writing guide, certainly no more that a half dozen or so years later, showing that the memos are in the correct format; and on the other we have declassified military memo from about a dozen years earlier also indicating that the Killian memos are in the correct format, so....what are you claiming again? -BC aka Callmebc 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're citing a 1990s writing guide, not "a half dozen or so years later". You're also not citing someone saying that it is relevant. (SEWilco 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Reverts by anonymous IP 68.242.153.205

We seem to have a vandal using IP 68.242.153.205 to make reverts to the old introduction that makes the entirely unsupported, un-ref'd, unsourced allegation that the "formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" -- an allegation that's in fact contradicted by whatever writing guides exist. He also keeps removing the 1959 "Killian" memo under the pretense that it's original research. He/she is also apparently confused about the difference between a fixed font and a proportional one -- in the edit summary, he/she wrote "the given cite appears to be a fixed font." I don't want to be lured into another automatic 3RR block, so I'll just report him/her as is. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1959 memo cite you give does not say it is proportional font, its just a pdf that is being posted. You seem to believe anything that supports your strong pov, you even have your own Killian conspiracy website. Considering that this article is about forgeries, we need better and more informative cites. The entire section "formatting" is very weak on background and I'd support

removing it entirely. 68.242.153.205 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what a "proportional font" is? Your comment indicates that you don't, which pretty much indicates how much business you have in editing anything in connection to the Killian memos, regardless of whatever IP address you use to hide behind. Whatever....we all know why you are here. -BC aka Callmebc 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1959 memo is irrelevant to Air Force standards and equipment anyway. Andrew Goodpaster was an Army officer serving as Staff Secretary to the President in the White House at the time the memo was typed, in all probability to White House standards on White House equipment. It is a proportional font (the "i" is narrower than the "w") but has obviously been produced by a typewriter (e.g. irregular character spacing). Dcxf 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, not so fast. So you do agree that it's proportionally printed, a "Memorandum for Record" from way back in 1959, although I'll ignore your "obviously been produced by a typewriter (e.g. irregular character spacing)" unless you can offer up more than your opinion for that. But that's only one part of what the memo demonstrates -- correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't another core rationale for the forgery charges revolve around the overall look and appearance of the Killian memos, and how they didn't look like official records in that the date formats were wrong, the signature block was on the wrong side, blah, blah, blah? And all without any other military memorandums for record, Air Force wise or otherwise, offered up demonstrate any of these allegations? Well, here is a Memorandum for Record, an old one at that, and if you are going to have ANY allegation about supposed formatting irregularities with the memos in either of the Killian wikis, especially if the allegations are being made without a shred of backing proof, then....well, what should be the fair and prudent NPOV action for an encyclopedia and its editors in this situation? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the section is "the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time.". It makes no sense to use a memo from another organization written 13 years earlier to try to disprove that. It has obviously been typewritten just as it is obviously proportionally spaced, as per your original statement in the article, which didn't provide a cite. Dcxf 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a little slow here, but that "the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" bit seems to be without a shred of supporting evidence. Where is this mythical "the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" that gets referred to? Under yonder rock? There lurking behind the big oak tree? Perhaps it is stirring up the intestines of yon big hairy dog? For my part, I did find some AF writing guides from about 1997 on, primarily the "Tongue and Quill," that clearly shows the Killian memos to be in the correct format as far as they are concerned, and the formatting of that 1959 military memo likewise very clearly shows very similar formatting to the Killian memos. So are you really claiming that the recommended format of Air Force memorandum somewhere between 1959 and 1997 drastically changed for a period of time before changing back? And that there is an "Air Force style manual" proving this, but since nobody has been able to produce a copy of it, we should just assume that this is the case? Hmmm....I don't know...I'm generally a pretty open minded guy, but this seems just a wee bit too much of a stretch. I think the article would be best served by using information that we actually have at hand, but if that mysterious, elusive "the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" shows up, you be sure to post it here so that we can all enjoy a good discussion of it. Deal? -BC aka Callmebc 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, each service (Army, Air Force, Navy, USMC, and Coast Guard) had their own style guides. These were not consistent from service to service, and with each service, they were not always consistent. Further, they were not always collected into a single document. I think that the Tongue & Quill was the first such "unified" document for a service, but I could be wrong. Local authority, too, could overrule the manual; if the commanding general wanted five space indents rather than the half inch in the reference (six spaces on a typewriter with elite type) you delivered five spaces and hang the half inch. Or vice versa, depending on what he (then there were no she generals then) wanted. htom 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your argument: while I'm sure you're being sincere -- you may be an LGF noodge, but you seem to believe what you say generally - there is not a single bit of evidence to support anything you just said, except for the bit about the Tongue & Quill being the first such "unified" document for a service. Let me attempt to illustrate better the fundamental issue of evidence regarding the formatting question:

Side one

Claim: "The formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time"

Evidence offered: Nada, squat, zilch, vague recollections

Side two

Claim: The formatting of the Killian memos is very consistent other similar memos and Air Force recommendations for at least the past several decades.

Evidence offered: A) All Air Force/military writing guides that can be found on the Internet; B) other TexANG memos from the time found by Mary Mapes; and C) a 1959 Memorandum for Record.

Do you see now the issue with your claim and that of some of the others here? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I was never given a style document to follow; errors were marked and I retyped. I suspect that others in the military at the time did the same. The number of documents that I retyped (with three or four carbons) that had both indents and blank lines between paragraphs (We were to use block with blank lines or indents without, never both -- unless it was a Navy document, in which case both were required!) ... all of the services ran, then, on a mountain of verbally passed "how to do it", and you will never find documents of this as they don't exist. That does not mean that your imagining of how we did things, and did not do things, is more correct than our memories. Note, please, that I have not offered much criticism of the documents' "style" as I know that what I know (as a Marine in that time) is not relevant to Air Force document style (then or now.) Because we did not document our standards then so that you could find them now (shrug) that's how things were done then. You could do a pile of original research and perhaps discover the style that was used then and there, but citing T&Q as the governing authority is just silly. You can believe the non-existant data that's not on the internet, or the veteran's memories. I admit to being biased, in such circumstances, to believing other vet's memories. "Better to say nothing than say something wrong" is supposedly one of our standards. htom 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, in other words, it appears that there never really was an "Air Force style manual in effect at the time" that showed the formatting as "inconsistant" -- that, like the Mother's Day thing, was essentially just made up, either deliberately or from very fuzzy recollections. The lack of any supporting sample memos is also indicative of that -- someone, somewhere should have had a couple of old memos stashed away from about that time, but....well.

There may have been an Air Force manual, or an AFReserve manual, or a Texas NG manual, ... or all of those. My recollection is that when I was AFROTC in Michigan (before I joined the USMC) we used some civilian manual of style if needed; which of those I have no memory of. There may have been some AF manual that we were ignoring, too. There are probably piles of old things but that would be OR. htom 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As far the"Better to say nothing than say something wrong" bit....hmmm....that's tricky. The formatting issue was brought up in not just the right wing blog sites, but in the mainstream media as well. If it's left out completely, then the article is obviously incomplete. But if it's left in....well, refs are refs, as well as the lack thereof. This gets back to my whole "Common Misconceptions" point -- regardless of how widespread they are, most of the widely believed accusations and claims about the memos have been baseless from the start. If all nonsupported claims are removed from the main article, there will be only a sentence left, something like, CBS did not fully authenticate the memos, leading to a maelstrom of baseless charges among the conservative media, which then spread to the general public, but which the mainstream media never corrected.

"Baseless" would be rather opinionated, and incorrect, IMAO htom 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind of hard to justify a full wiki with just that, no? -BC aka Callmebc 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proportional font which puts so much empty space around letters, such as 'e'. But which source stated this is a proportional font? (SEWilco 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Absolutely, that is what makes it obviously typewritten. It is the simplest form of proportional spacing where the narrower letters are given less space than the wide letters, but the typewriters didn't know which character had been hit previously so they used arbitrary spacing between letters, which makes the gaps between e.g. "r" and "e" look wider than they should be. Obviously this is OR, as is the claim that the font is proportional in the first place. Dcxf 06:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the document is obviously proportionally spaced without having to "research" anything. Considering that the entire forgery charge originated with the claim by "Buckhead" that "In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts", [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47], and that no samples of 1972 military memos were offered up as proof, then or even later, supporting that claim, it's not exactly responsible to not reference it since it is a highly verified document from a very reliable source . And there are more proportionally printed memos and docs from about 1969 on at Mary Mapes's site [30]. Ya think? Or do you would rather (so to speak) do your darndest to block including it just because it doesn't gel with your POV? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the issue. How is your analysis of this document and, for that matter, your association of this document with this issue not original research? Unless you can find a reliable source that provides this analysis and association it should not be in the article. Dcxf 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What "analysis"? Old military "Memorandums for Records" are really hard to come by since they are not normally archived. I found one on the Internet and merely pointed out some obvious things about it in relation to the Killian stuff -- kind of, there it is, look at the format and look at the type of spacing is being used. Would you be happier if I just point out the memo and maybe just note that that the reader might want to compare it to both the Killian memos and to things like that very silly Washington Post comparison chart [31]? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis comprises: (a) "many of the above claims for what the proper military format should have been are seemingly contradicted" and (b) "The memo is both proportionally printed (along with an attached report) and in a format very similar to that of the Killian documents". These are not self-evident facts provided by the cited material; for example, another analysis could claim that the memo formatting is quite different because it doesn't contain a centered title block, a date in the format "04 May 1972", or a Subject: line, and that the font and character spacing is obviously different from the Killian documents. WP:OR: "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Dcxf 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I asked, Would you be happier if I just point out the memo and maybe just note that that the reader might want to compare it to both the Killian memos and to things like that very silly Washington Post comparison chart. Well? -BC aka Callmebc 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no basis for its notability or relevance to the article's topic, other than your own analysis. Dcxf 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So do you have any other justification for trying to insert this material, or do you accept that it is not up to Wikipedia standards? IMHO if you want to do a more productive rewrite of this section, a lot of the counter-claims in it come from Mary Mapes so it shouldn't be hard to find a source for the original claims or at least a reference to them in her book or online writings. This would obviously need balancing but it would be a better basis than the list of claims in the current section, which looking back appears to be sourced from an anonymous correspondent to the Powerline blog. Dcxf 20:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Just because this looks like a bunny rabbit, [32], it's not explicitely stated that it is one, which means it could be a fox, a tiger, a frog, Britney Spears, whatever. And just because a document uses characters that are proportionally spaced based on their width, like an "M" taking up more space than an "i",[33], doesn't mean it's proportionally printed, although technically, I suppose, that is sorta, kinda the definition of proportional printing...hmmm...tricky, eh? -BC aka Callmebc 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that basis-for-White-House-memo document being linked to? Has a source cited it as an example of proportional font use? Has a Killian expert stated it is relevant? Those should be cited. (SEWilco 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Copy of "Mother's Day" talk moved from Talk:Killian documents

The following were placed in the wrong Talk page by User:Callmebc so have been moved here. (SEWilco 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I think not:[34]. But it is probably just as good to have a copy of it here as well, for obvious reasons. -BC aka Callmebc 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2) A very good example of #1 is the "Mother's Day" anecdote that was stuck into the Killian documents authenticity issues by SEWilco -- it originated in a Washington Times column written by William Campenni, and he uses one of the Killian memos dated May 4, 1972, [35], to make a series of claims: the address on the memo was wrong; Killian ordered Bush to take a physical on a Mother's Day weekend, May 13-14, 1972; the base was closed on Mother's Day weekend and May 20-21 was the next drill weekend; Killian would have known all this; therefore the memo is a forgery. [36]; Killian had ordered Bush not later than the 14th, which according to this DoD record, [37] was Bush's last day before he "cleared" the base on the 15th to head to Alabama (or parts unknown); Bush's flight logs at the DoD, [38], when matched with an appropriate calendar, [39][40] clearly shows that as pilot who had to fly regularly to maintain certification, Bush was taking flights all through the week and month; the memo in question was from a commander to a pilot under his command on the same base -- it would have just been put in the pilot's mail box at the base mail room, meaning that Bush would have gotten the memo Friday morning, May 5, 1972, at the very latest, meaning that there is was another full weekend for drilling, May 6-7 (if that had mattered). … -BC aka Callmebc 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Discuss "Mother's Day" in the Talk page for the article where the material exists. (SEWilco 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

[redacted] appearing on both the main Killian wikis, and in more direct response to misinformation presented in recent discussions on this talk page [41]. Hence it's in regards to improving the quality of both articles and quite relevant.

But since you popped in, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind explain to me and the other editors this sequence of edits on your part along with your reasoning:

1) You were the original editor who added the Mother's Day anecdote on Sept. 21, [42]. Your original entry went:

---

The document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. Even if the wrong address on the letter had been correct, Bush could not have been expected to get the letter in time to get a physical the weekend of May 6-7. The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13-14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20-21.

---

!!!! This is a revised quote!!!! It originally had "ordered Bush to take a physical on a Mother's Day weekend, May 13-14, 1972" WTF!!! OOOOooooo....and I just checked the diff histories: it's all through them now. Someone is in deep, deep trouble..... -BC aka Callmebc 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

2) I reverted the add as "unsupported nonsense -- check the talk page for details)" and showed why on the talk page:[43].

3) You re-added your Mother's Day entry nevertheless, and kept doing so regardless of my showing serious issues with it based on source docs. Your primary justification was that it was "properly cited material" despite it being only an anecdote from William Campenni, and appearing a couple of years ago in a relatively minor, conservative newspaper, The Washington Times. You also kept including a broken link to the article, which was no longer available online by the paper.

4) At one point, I used an except of the article that appeared in the Weekly Standard, [44], that showed you changing the wording the anecdote: you quoted Campenni as writing that Killian had "ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" but the Weekly Standard had the it quoted as "1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972". I also pointed out that your quote was indeed actually taken from the Killian memo in question, [45], dated May 4th, 1972: "not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972".

5) But you nevertheless still claimed, [46], that Campenni did write "report for a flight physical not later than May 14" and dismissed my using the Weekly Standard excerpt as "Your link has five sentences from Campenni's column, and the first sentence is marked as having been altered. You think Campenni wrote a column with five sentences." [47].

6) When I disputed your version over and over, including citing WP:PROVEIT, you actually wrote at one point,"For a prepaid consulting fee of $50 I will post detailed instructions on how anyone can buy a copy of the the Campenni column. For an additional $20 I will have a printed copy sent to you. I am not responsible if you won't read those instructions any better than you've read what is above, nor if the detailed instructions repeat anything which is above."[48].

7) Clashwho (aka 74.77.222.188) reverted my edit and added this more full reprint of Campanni's column, [49], [50], but that also showed the exact same wording as reported by the Weekly Standard piece I used: "1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972".

8) This was your response to the identically worded Rantburg ref: "Another editor has added a link to a copy of the Campenni column. I didn't check it word-for-word, but except for different paragraph structure it looks like it is probably complete. It's not identical to the Washington Times copy but seems to have the same words. "[51].

9) I was blocked at this point, but continued arguing over it with Clashwho/74.77.222.188 at my talk page [52]. This apparently led to him changing the Mother's Day wording to indicate that the wording was the memo's and not Campenni's, leading to very confusing wording, [53].

So it would appear that you knowingly fabricated at least one key element of that now utterly discredited anecdote, and hence kept re-adding it out of deliberately malicious intent. But I admit appearances can be deceiving, so I at least would welcome a good explanation for the above sequence of your actions. -BC aka Callmebc 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here can chack whether the phrase "to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" is used by Campenni, but you should not be trying to use this example someplace other than where it has already been discussed. Don't move the example away from its existing responses and don't scatter the conversation. Discuss that item in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues. (SEWilco 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm....I'm sorry, but I still don't see "to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" is being used by Campenni in this reprint, [54], which you yourself said was "a copy of the Campenni column." Perhaps it might help if you could copy and paste it in this discussion (which is, of course, highly germane to both Killian wikis, I do believe.). -BC aka Callmebc 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Days after being able to use Control-F to search the text you still haven't found the phrase? (SEWilco 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm....I do believe the burden of copying and pasting proof of your claim(s) was, well yours. And please stop moving my stuff around without good cause, and just making up excuses is not exactly good cause. -BC aka Callmebc 05:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The source material contains what you formerly claimed it does not contain. Now you're not claiming the phrase is not in the source material, you're only claiming I must supply a copy of the material. Supplying a copy of source material is not required, it is up to an editor to obtain source material which they desire. (SEWilco 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Read what you just wrote out loud. Also see my talk page. -BC aka Callmebc 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See following subsection. (SEWilco 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Friendly note on reverting

Note: Some material copied from User talk:Callmebc. (SEWilco 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Just a friendly note to encourage more discussion and compromising and less reverting on Killian documents authenticity issues. I know that controversial political subjects can raise the temperature but remember that readers can often smell heavily POV edits and check the tags on an article, and so they will check to see if a different version is in the history. Sam Blacketer 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of hard to have discussions with rotating IP addresses whose "discussions" on their side consist mostly if not solely of not exactly relevant comments in their edit summaries. And as far as people like SEWilco go....I boxed him in over a deliberate fabrication that he kept denying and denying and denying until he had no way out. And during the last time I was blocked, besides a pile of reverts to my Killian edits, there was evidently also a wikistalking "raid" over to Global Warming in an attempt to cause problems there as well (that's my only other wiki of interest). Which resulted in full protection to the article (and an email apology from me since I didn't factor this in as a possibility). Fortunately, after I was unblocked, and as predicted, the Global Warming vandalizing, um, magically stopped and they were able to drop full protection. Most (but fortunately not all) of the guys I'm dealing with at the Killian wikis are not very nice people, and have little or no intention of "improving" anything. It's mostly a game of strategy involving bending 3RR, sockpuppets, citing inappropriate Wiki rules, and basically doing everything other than discussing how to create well-research, well-sourced, well-written, highly informative and truly NPOV encyclopedia articles. I can only promise to make some genuine effort to try to have a more Wiki-like collaboration/debate, but my ability to suffer fools has never been my strongest trait. But I will make the effort. -BC aka Callmebc 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Callmebc boxed himself in with a claim that a phrase is not in a text which he had not read. [55] (SEWilco 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

???? Maybe this will refresh your memory:

Hmmm....I'm sorry, but I still don't see "to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" is being used by Campenni in this reprint, [56], which you yourself said was "a copy of the Campenni column." Perhaps it might help if you could copy and paste it in this discussion (which is, of course, highly germane to both Killian wikis, I do believe.). -BC aka Callmebc 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) -BC aka Callmebc 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the second paragraph, first and second sentences: "The selected memo is that dated May 4, 1972, wherein the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian orders 1st Lt. Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. This memo is the most expository of the memo forgeries for several reasons." Hope this helps. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that is a quote from the Killian memo, but which SEWilco misrepresented as what Campenni had written -- this is in fact what Campanni wrote: for the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day..

SEWilco then utterly refused to attrib or reword his quote to make it accurate -- another editor ended up doing it. -BC aka Callmebc 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I and HelloAnnyong have pointed out, that phrase is indeed in Campenni's text. (SEWilco 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

So you are now saying that you never quoted an except from a Killian memo and then misrepresented it as Campenni's claim? And that you didn't keep denying and denying it, including reverting many attempts to remove the bogus article entry that you used it with? Well? And I suggest that you stop removing the Air Force writing guides and memo refs off the main page -- you might be mistaken for a vandal. -BC aka Callmebc 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent that phrase. My source for it was the Campenni material. My discussion about the Air Force and White House-related memo of unknown relevance is up in the Talk sections above where those are being discussed. (SEWilco 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Please -- I already posted the series of diffs showing you to be a liar. Keep it up -- we both know that you are here for no good reason, and the more vandalistic edits you make, the better the case I can make to have you blocked or banned. -BC aka Callmebc 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, you say I'm lying because I'm saying he said what he said. We got that. What other part of your collection says I'm a liar? (SEWilco 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Original research, Aheackova

BC, will you please leave your original research on your personal Killian website, aheckova.com and stop placing it here? The Air Force writing guide is interesting but it is also from 26 years later. I left the statement in the article regarding that no writing style guide has been shown for the time, but we can't stick in a guide from a quarter century later simply because it validates your opinion. Jmcnamera 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- you weren't really following the discussion we were having further up: that writing guide, the Tongue and Quill, actually dates back to the 70's and it consolidated all the document formatting standards for the Air Force prior to that. Now that you know this, I'm sure won't mind me reverting your honestly mistaken revert. -BC aka Callmebc 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we need to show a style guide conteporary in time to the faxed photocopies of alleged memos that Lucy Ramirez gave Bill Burkett. Guides change and one from 26 years later isn't a valid cite for your research. Even so, it wouldn't answer any real questions here since the provenance of the memos can't be proven without access to the originals. Jmcnamera 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what exactly does "Lucy Ramirez gave Bill Burkett" have to do with Air Force memorandum formats? -BC aka Callmebc 22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proportional Fonts

Hmmm....I just noticed an inconsistency with the beginning of the "Proportional Fonts" section. It starts off as:

One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of proportional fonts. The majority of typewriters available in 1972 used fixed width fonts, and, according to The Washington Post[1], all of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed width fonts commonly associated with typewriters.

But this is immediately contradicted by the sentence immediately following it: One document released by the Pentagon on September 24, 2004 used a proportionally-spaced font somewhat similar to the font used in the Killian memos.

There is an explanation, though: The Washington Post story is from September 14, 2004, while the DoD withheld releasing three unusually formatted documents, including the sole proportionally printed record, until September 24, [57], just a few days after CBS apologized for the memo story on September 20 [58]. All remaining records were suppose to have been released much earlier under an AP FOIA lawsuit, and it took a judge to intervene to get these [59].

So that opening paragraph needs to be reworded to fit some of this background in.

Also, I've notice that there are are some highly misleading statements included further down:

• John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com, stated that word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.[5]

According to old publications, the typical cost was actually less than $10,000, and this is when Selectric typewriters were costing upwards to $1000 (Selectric II's went for $1400 [60]). A Business Machines Executive Newsletter from March and May of 1972, said that in 1971, IBM revenues from MT/ST-MC/ST word processors exceeded typewriter sales, with about 3600 units being shipped monthly about that time, and these were $7000-$9500 machines. And that the latest IBM model at that time was the "MC/ET" ("Mag Card/Executive") [61], and that came with proportional spacing and automatic centering. Also remember that typical early IBM XT office computer systems with a daisywheel/NEC Spinwriter printer had cost about $6000 [62]. I'm not sure why some random executive at a typeface company would be considered an expert on old office equipment.

• Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype, stated "It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with."

This is contradicted by the TexAng memos that Mary Mapes located, and by other memos found on the Internet. Also, again, I'm not sure why some random executive at yet another typeface company would be quoted as though he was an expert on old military office equipment.

• William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.

Pretty much all of Willian Flynn's assertions in the referenced Washington Post article are contradicted by online sources. Did anyone at the Post really check his credentials?

• The Washington Post also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents".

This was already discussed.

• There is a lot of space given to Thomas Phinney the typographer

Despite all the space given to Phinny, there is no detail of what Phinney did: he created a suppose "emulator" of the IBM Composer (See this Creativepro article) based on specs contained a collection of 1967 IBM reference documents located here [63] for the first model of the Composer (it was upgraded a few years later [64]). Also in the Creativepro article is this passage:

Now, this eliminates all typewriters of that time. What remains are the low end of typesetting machines. First, one has to understand that these were not typewriters. They took more training to use, and were slower and less efficient. They also cost a lot of money, even the cheaper ones cost $4,000, which would be like $15,000 today. But these machines did offer justification, centering, and most of them had proportional spacing.

The primary device proposed by people who've done their homework as being capable of doing this kind of proportional spacing, using a Times-like font, was the IBM Selectric Composer -- a "Selectric" in name and external appearance only. This is actually one of these low-end typesetting machines, sold mostly to folks doing newsletters and newspapers rather than for general office work. But some offices wanting to do really spiffy stuff could have had one.

His comment, "Now, this eliminates all typewriters of that time. What remains are the low end of typesetting machines" is directly contradicted by online IBM docs and any authoritative publication, book or article covering the word processing technology that was in common use since the 60's.

• Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman.

There are no refs to this. And while Googling for one, I ironically found this blog post by Phinney [65] who mentions it, but only because he saw on the "Wikipedia entry on authenticity issues". All the other references are similar -- they repeat vitually word-for-word what's in the wiki but without a source link, like this "Physics Daily" mention:

Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. The article did not dispute that superscripts and proportional fonts were available in the 1970s.

Well, any thoughts on any of this? -BC aka Callmebc 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Deal with the existing issues, then introduce each additional issue following Talk page formats which allow discussion. (SEWilco 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

?? In case you haven't noticed, I just created a new Talk section to deal with issues with the Proportional Fonts section and I carefully laid out some problems I spotted. -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Deal with the existing issues, then introduce each additional issue. (SEWilco 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Dcxf 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I dare ask who was that comment addressed to? ;) -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More Memo Samples

• Oct. 15, 1969 USAF
• Oct. 4, 1971 (Also Proportional)
• Nov. 30. 1971 (Also Proportional)
• Feb.17 1972 (Also Proportional)
• Mid 70's UFO sightings

FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these described by Killian document experts? (SEWilco 04:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

I do believe that the overall assertion -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- has been that "It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time", but without any refs or even a shred of evidence offered to support this. And didn't someone complain that the 1959 "memorandum for record" I had used as a sample was too old, saying, "It makes no sense to use a memo from another organization written 13 years earlier to try to disprove that"? [personal attack deleted] -BC aka Callmebc 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proportional typesetting has been around for a while. The existence of proportional documents is not an issue. Whether documents are relevant to the Texas Air National Guard is an issue. Do you have sources where someone has analyzed those documents in a way which is relevant to this article? (SEWilco 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

So you're saying that they used typesetters back then to write up memos? Wasn't that the argument against the IBM Selectric Composer, which people people claimed would be too complicated to use for stuff like memos? Well? And what's to "analyze" exactly? Wasn't the central complaint against the memos was they they were proportionally spaced and didn't look like records kept by the DoD? Well, here are some actual "Memorandum for Record" samples from military sources. So what exactly is your complaint, then? Also, while I'm standing down to let my latest 3RR complaint (and sockpuppet note) run its course, [personal attack deleted]. -BC aka Callmebc 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we don't know in what way random documents are related to this article. We can't use a photo of cherry blossoms as a reference for an article, we need a source which provides information about cherry blossoms. (SEWilco 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm saying we don't know in what way random documents are related to this article.

Umm, cuz' the Killian memos are "memorandums for records" and the samples are also contemporaneous military "memorandums for records," from from verifiable sources? And that a good chunk of the pro-forgery claims centered around people claiming Killian memos had all sorts of formatting issues, but without a single shred of proof offered? Yes? No? You don't care?

By your logic, if there was a Wikipedia article somehow involving a widespread claim of how back in the early 70's, cherry blossoms were yellow and purple, but not pink, you would object to including any sourced pictures of pink cherry blossoms from the early 70's because "we wouldn't know how such random pictures are related to this article." [personal attack deleted] -BC aka Callmebc 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that when discussing the cherry trees of Washington, D.C., a picture only shows that something which looks like cherry trees are there; for information about the diplomatic and emotional reasons why the cherry trees are there I'd have to cite sources which describe why the cherry trees are there. Or if the article is about the biological classification of those trees I'd have to cite an authority which identifies the type of those trees. (SEWilco 04:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

For some strange reason, your answer -- again -- reminds me of this:[66]. -BC aka Callmebc 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with these memo samples (apart from having no cite to link them to the Killian documents issue of course):

• Oct. 15, 1969 is from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the USAF as stated.

It's signed off by a USAF general

That does not make it a "USAF" document. The document would have been prepared by the secretarial staff at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to their own standards on their own equipment. Dcxf 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still best evidence -- memorandums for records are not generally archived, as I pointed out. And it's still military, however you want to nitpick. Are you arguing that it was more appropriate to compare the Killian memos to military records that were not memos and therefore with completely different formatting conventions? Well?

• Oct. 4, 1971,Nov. 30. 1971,Feb.17 1972: Vernon Walters was deputy-general of the CIA at the time (or, if you prefer, "Defense attache to the American Embassy") so these are not military memos.[67]

The signature says "Major General"

That does not make it a "military document". The document would have been prepared by the secretarial staff at the CIA or the embassy, to their own standards on their own equipment. Dcxf 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, best evidence in regards to what's available.

• Mid 70's UFO sightings: These memos from the National Military Command Center are monospaced and obviously typewritten, and do not match the format of any of the Killian memos: the letterhead is preprinted, a military-format time is included under the date, and single-digit day numbers do not have a leading zero (page 29).

Did I mark it as "proportionally spaced"? And I do believe, and feel totally free to correct me if I'm wrong, that another part of the formatting part of the forgery charges centered around the overall layout of the memos, including which side the signature block should be and all that. See this Washington Post article for reference. And I do believe that the memo samples would fit in well with not just the Killian memos but with the AF writing guides -- wasn't there an argument at some point to the effect that the available versions of the "Tongue and Quill" are too long after the Killian memos to be relevant? Well are some memos from the around the time of the Killian memos and even earlier that apparently follow what's in even the most recent version of the the guide. So....

It is not nearly notable enough to have a memo from a different organization that contains "memorandum for" and has a signature block on the right-hand side. For a memo to be notable and relevant you would have to show a memo that is at least from the USAF and preferably from the Texas ANG that shows the same style as the Killian memos, without the obvious differences encountered here. Dcxf 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What "different organizations"? Did you actually read through the assortment? I saw "AFB" -- didn't you? And again it's best evidence -- military memos from the 70's. And again, they are completely relevant to the Killian memos because they are all showing the same basic layout in formating, as well as illustrating how they are not formatted like other type of military docs. If so much of the formatting questions didn't surround stuff like position of the signature block, the date, where "Memorandum for Record" appears, blah, blah, blah, I would agree they would not be especiallly notable, but....it's what's out there and you have to admit to a certain consistency in the layout in all of them, no?

So please remind us, Callmebc, how these documents are in any way relevant to the style in force in a Texas ANG base? Dcxf 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I just did that. By the way, which side of the page should I mark you on: the one that says "Wants to improve article" or the other side? It's kind of hard to keep score at times....-BC aka Callmebc 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made several constructive suggestions to you for different ways to improve the Killian articles, which you have ignored. [68] [69] Dcxf 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually had addressed the 2nd one, and the first "point" is just an opinion not really based on anything substantial: "So do you have any other justification for trying to insert this material, or do you accept that it is not up to Wikipedia standards?" Yes or no: a chunk of the forgery charges are based on both the appearance and layout of the Killian memos? Yes or no: none of these of these charges are substantiated, yet nevertheless somehow made their way into the Wiki article and still without a single ref? Yes or no: the inclusion of the AF writing guides as well as some sample military (in some aspect) memos help clarify how typical or untypical the Killian memos are? Yes or no: considering how many remaining indisputably unsubstantiated and unref'd junk is still remaining in the main article, you spending so much time arguing over items that have indeed a lot of reasons given for inclusion is not exactly being helpful to improving the overall article?

Well? Again, which side are you on? -BC aka Callmebc 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I and other editors have already agreed that the Formatting section has problems. I suggested that it be rewritten to remove the unsourced claims, someone else suggested that it be removed altogether. Throwing in more material on top of it which is in some cases not even peripherally related to the situation (e.g. the CIA memos) and with false claims about their origin (the memo described as "USAF") is making the article worse, not better. Saying that it is "best evidence" is not an excuse. Your assertion that they show "the same basic layout in formating" and "a certain consistency in the layout" is OR and flawed as I have already pointed out. Read WP:OR again: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... Any interpretation of a primary source requires a secondary source." Dcxf 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What "other" editors? I've only seen sockpuppets so far and that you and "others" seem to think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has no application here. Yes or no: have you ever considered doing something genuinely useful like, oh say, addressing all those "Citation Needed" markers? Also yes or no: are you here strictly to do this? -BC aka Callmebc 01:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd agree that keeping OR out of the article is genuinely useful. You need to justify the inclusion of this material by showing that it is relevant and not WP:OR. Accusing others of being sockpuppets etc. does not help with that. Dcxf 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of how "OR" applies here doesn't quite seem to quite match up, surprise, surprise, to what Wikipedia says:

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

So again -- Yes or no: have you ever considered doing something genuinely useful like, oh say, addressing all those "Citation Needed" markers? Also yes or no: are you here strictly to do this? -BC aka Callmebc 14:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read your own cite: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about". Your documents are anything but. And you still haven't addressed the analysis required to relate them to the Killian documents, which makes them OR. Dcxf 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me yet again ask you: Yes or no: have you ever considered doing something genuinely useful like, oh say, addressing all those "Citation Needed" markers? Also yes or no: are you here strictly to do this?

What's so difficult about the question? Unless of course you don't want to answer it because you don't want to lie outright or admit to just being an obstructive pest/sockpuppet with no intention whatsoever of being constructive. Very naughty.

Not that it will do any good, but let me quote from that OR section:

• Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Since we are discussing military "memorandum for records" -- the Killian documents -- and since so much of the fuss revolved around whether they are in the proper format, well....how about a couple of military writing guides that actually describe the recommended format for those types of documents and maybe also include a sampling of typical memos? By your logic, if a bunch of right wingers claimed that scientific pocket calculators didn't exist in 1972, and if there was a reference in a Wikipedia article referring to that claim in the form of "It has been said that pocket scientific calculators were not available until the early 90's," you would object to including stuff like this and this on the grounds of WP:OR. Ergo your "arguments" against including source material "which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" is and has been nonsensical from the start, and apparently never more than a gaming maneuver intended solely to obstruct improvements to the article. As I said, there are all those things with "citation needed" that clearly could use some TLC for starters, but actually fixing them or anything else isn't really why you're here, is it?

In any case, I'm done replying to your obviously obstructive nonsense -- and actually I did it this long mostly to just clearly establish a record of your intentions. I need to focus now on doing a little weeding out of certain miscreants, sockpuppets and whatnot who have not been playing very nice, not very nice at all.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been ignoring your questions about my motivation because I find them quite rude and unnecessary. I think I've been clear enough about my objections to these documents in this thread already. Clearly we differ on whether these documents are relevant and whether your claims about these documents are analytic, or indeed accurate. Perhaps some form of dispute resolution would be appropriate at this point. Dcxf 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

There has been some significant edit warning lately, so I've protected it for 48h, please discuss the issue here instead of doing constant edit warring. If the block needs to be lifted or extended please send me a message. Thanks!--JForget 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good -- I need a break from dealing with all these malicious, 3RR bending, anonymous IP editors, multiple sockpuppets, and generally bad people who have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than protect or slip in their crackpot political nonsense, by hook or by crook, facts be damned, refs snickered at, and/or logic and fairness despised. Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc thinks these articles are part of some sort of war [70], has stated an intent to cover these articles with changes [71], and expects to break 3RR a lot more [72]. Meanwhile, he erroneously challenges one small issue (Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#"Mother's Day") and pretends he expects us to resolve many entangled alterations. I have to admit he did produce one amazing work at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie (yes, he notified administrators of it). (SEWilco 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

FYI

The curious need only to backtrace the "contributions" of SEWilco and various anonymous IP's and revealed sockpuppets on both of the Killian wikis to see who started the "war," beginning with SEWilco's insertion of an anecdote printed in a conservative/right wing newpaper, the Washington Times, Did this matter to SEWilco? No. Go check the history of the contribs involving the "Mother's Day" section, as well as the "discussions" involving them (note that some have been deleted but show up in the diffs, unlike one certain little item of note that SEWilco refers to.) Also please check SEWilco's past responses to adding refs related to even the most elementary aspects of the Killian memos, like the supposed formatting issue: SEWilco and various sockpuppets seemed quite happy to keep this entry under Formatting "It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time" completely cite and reference free. And when an attempt was made to add refs to actual Air Force writing guides and other military "memorandums for records" for comparison, SEWilco and others tried and are still trying to block their inclusion. That should tell you something about the agendas floating around here. And for the record, while I was blocked, some Killian editors did indeed go over to the Global Warming wiki to "contribute" in a similar manner, resulting in full protection being put on the article. (Note that the diff he used is from a comment of mine in Global Warming, and consider why would that be located and then mentioned here.) FYI. This is all I'm going to say about this stuff. The key issue is that this article, as well as the Killian Documents wiki, have suffered from neglect (note all the missing citations) and editors sticking in unsourced, unverified if not outrightly false "information" for whatever reason. I fully intend to follow the Wiki rules both literally and in spirit to help genuinely improve things. Anyone coming to this wiki, as with any other, for information is entitled to have it presented as accurately, as completely and as fairly as is possible with the best sources available. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insert unsupported information into the main article

Placing upsupported opinions and anecdotes into the article, especially when there are available sources showing them to be false, hurts the quality of the article and essentially amounts to vandalism. Just a reminder. -BC aka Callmebc 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what we've been telling you. Glad that you noticed. (SEWilco 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Mother's Day insertion

Your insertion of the false "Mother's Day" anecdote and your speculation on "ordinals" versus my inserts of refs to military writing guides and memo samples? You know, there are an awful lot of things marked with "Citation needed" that are begging for some TLC.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Specify a single item in "Mother's Day" which is false. Only one, so that one can be resolved. You haven't understood the previous explanations, so try a single item at a time. (SEWilco 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

I asked for a single item and you copied a pile of stuff, which has been archived in #Mother's Day redux, redux, redux, redux.... below. Please specify a single item. (SEWilco 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Might I suggest you start with #1 and work your way down? -BC aka Callmebc 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mother's Day redux, redux, redux, redux....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Didn't I already specify, respecified, respecified again and again? What, there isn't enough stuff on this page and the Killian documents about it?

Well, this is a copy of the topic on my talk page in response to some "points" raised by Clashwho/74.77.222.188, who "orginally" modified your initial Mother's Day entry, that went over everthing in even more detail -- go knock yourself out finding fault in how it shows the entire Mother's Day anecdote to be utter nonsense:

Well, I added your point about Bush's last day at the TexANG base to the Mother's Day section. No original research, no speculation and no synthesizing, just the bare facts. Is there anything particularly pressing that you'd like me to edit while you're blocked? Clashwho 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm....it's such a huge list now, but let's just look at the current "Mother's Day" entry, shall we:

TANG pilot William Campenni disputed the document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, which ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed. The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13-14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20-21.[33][34] Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record.

1) This bit, According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed, which is also what you are now quoting. So why bring this up at all?

2) Campenni wrote [redacted].

3) The memo was dated 10 days in advance of the deadline, and that included 2 weekends -- May 4 was on a Thursday that year. So that means there was both the weekend of May 6-7 and May 13-14 before Bush left on the 15th, but that's assuming that Bush could only take his physical on a weekend and no other time -- there's yet again no backing reference to support this. So claiming that the next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20-21 is an utter fabrication. You can't even speculate that the memo could have, maybe, might possibly taken days to reach Bush because all bases have at least a mail room -- the memo would have been simply put in Bush's mail box when dropped off, meaning that it would have been in Bush's mailbox that Thursday, or else first thing Friday morning at the latest if it had been dropped off late Thursday.

4 Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record is not correct. The official record said he "cleared" the base on the 15th, meaning that's the day he left. So his last day on base was the 14th.

5) [redacted]

6) So all of this amounts no more than yet another confused and factually wrong anecdote floating around a handful of right wing websites, but nevertheless weaselly inserted into the wiki, and according to Jimmy Wales [73]: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

7) Also you and SEWilco (for starters) seem to fit quite nicely in this definition [74].

When I'm unblocked I have to first finish off a Global Warming thing I said I would do, and then the real fun and games will begin.

Honestly, why are you and the others bothering with this malicious crap -- you know what all the evidence clearly shows, so why bother? To be the bad guys? Just because? Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 07:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that reservists drill one weekend a month? Not every weekend. If the memo was mailed, it went to the wrong address. If it wasn't mailed, which any reservist will tell you is most likely, it sat in Bush's box at the base until he would come in to drill. Bush's last day on base is the day he left. He wouldn't be there at all on the 14th, since the base was closed for Mother's Day. Full-time support staff would be there on the Monday to see Bush off. Campenni says Bush was ordered to report on a weekend that the base was closed, because orders to report usually have a deadline of an actual drill weekend. Not a deadline that's impossible, which is what a deadline ending a weekend when the base is closed would be. Why do I bother? Precisely because I know what the evidence shows. If Bush was ordered to take a physical, it would be in the official record, not coming from a "personal file" that no one knows exists, that has somehow escaped detection for decades, that has still not been found, but, according to one man with a mad on for Bush and a history of lying, has suddenly produced six memos that look nothing like any documents from the TANG and hilariously all pertain to Bush. You want to prove your case? Find the rest of the file. Find the originals. Find what could have produced those memos. Your idea that he must have typed them up in a law office is absurd as anyone with actual military experience will tell you. You don't even need military experience to know that going to a law office to type up this is ludicrous. 74.77.222.188 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's cover yet again 74.77.222.188's "points":

1) Are you aware that reservists drill one weekend a month? Not every weekend.

Air National Guard pilots in 1972/73? Do you know that they are under USAF rules [75]? Cite?

Also, I thought to check Bush's flight logs[76] and match his last flights to the days of the week via this calendar[77]. This is what the records show for when he was on base (and this for when flight hours had fallen off dramatically when compared to the prior years, [78]):

Date          Aircraft Hours Day of week
3/1/72  	F102A	1.8	Wed	
3/8/72  	F102A	2.5	Wed	
3/9/72  	TO33A	1.6     Thurs
3/10/72 	TO33A	2.3     Fri
3/11/72 	TO33A	1.7     Sat
3/12/72 	SMF102A	1       Sun
3/15/72 	TO33A	2       Wed
3/19/72 	F102A	1.5	Sun 
3/31/72 	TF102A	3.8	Fri 
4/6/72  	F102A	1.3	Thurs	
4/9/72  	F102A	1.5	Sun	
4/10/72 	F102A	1.2	Mon	
4/11/72 	F102A	1.5	Tues	
4/12/72 	F102A	3.7	Wed	
4/15/72 	F102A	1.8	Sat
4/16/72 	F102A	1.1	Sun

2) If the memo was mailed, it went to the wrong address. If it wasn't mailed, which any reservist will tell you is most likely, it sat in Bush's box at the base until he would come in to drill.

Confused and absolutely baseless, nonsensical speculation not supported by a shred of evidence. An on-base memo by a commander written on Thursday would be in mail room and in the recipient pilot's mailbox that day or by the following morning, Friday, at the latest. Also that was the correct address -- it appears in other DoD records like this one [79]. Yet another fabrication.

3) Bush's last day on base is the day he left.

The official record has Killian saying the Bush "cleared" the base on May 15, 1972, a Monday. [80]. Unless Bush didn't pack up his stuff to leave until the very end of that day, then the 14th would have been his last regular day on base. In this case, though, there is slight wiggle room for interpretion, so let the record speak for itself.

4) Campenni says Bush was ordered to report on a weekend that the base was closed, because orders to report usually have a deadline of an actual drill weekend.

5) If Bush was ordered to take a physical, it would be in the official record, not coming from a "personal file" that no one knows exists.

Bush was verbally suspended by Killian from flying,[81], because he didn't take his physical. That's certainly in the official records:[82] and [83]. But none of the DoD records, [84], show any warning or even mention given in advance. Since it's ludicrous to think any responsible commander would suspend one of his pilots over a matter like a missing physical without some advance warming and certainly not without some attempt to try to recify the matter in time, there would have been at least some documents, memos or whatever, to this effect. If these Killian memos are not real, then where are the "real" records for this situation? Misplaced by the DoD? Thrown in a dumpster? The dog ate them? Check out this lesser known Killian memo ("for file") dated May 19, 1972, just a few days after Bush had left for Alabama, and where Killian notes a phone call he had with Bush [85]:

:2. Physical. We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status. He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advised him of our investments in him and his committment. He's been working with stuff to come up with options and identified a unit that may accept him. I told him I had to have written acceptance before he would be transferred, but think he's been talking to someone upstairs.

Isn't that exactly the sort of thing a commander would right in this situation, either as a personal memo for file or in a more official note to another military official? If this isn't the real one, then where....? Well?

-BC aka Callmebc 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supposedly ordered to report

1) This bit, According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed, [redacted] which is also what you are now quoting. So why bring this up at all?

-BC aka Callmebc 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Campenni states that, doesn't he? Campenni also states when the drill weekend was. (SEWilco 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes or no, this is Campenni's central claim: "how do I prove this memo is a fake? Easy — for the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate. If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard."?

Well? -BC aka Callmebc 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well? Read it again. What does Campenni say about official records? (SEWilco 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes or no: we are only concerned about what Campenni actually claimed and what the records and the memo in question actually say? -BC aka Callmebc 02:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer what you are concerned about. What does Campenni say about records? (SEWilco 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Here let me just repaste the orginal question(s) so you don't have to raise your eyes or scroll:

Yes or no, this is Campenni's central claim: "how do I prove this memo is a fake? Easy — for the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate. If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard."?

Just a Yes or a No answer, puh-leaze. BC aka Callmebc 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove comments. Arkon 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was really helpful on your part. And technically I had the right -- his nonresponsive, overt evasion in answering a question regarding an apparently fabricated anecdote he keeps re-adding was not in regards to improving the article. Which is why we're here, supposedly. And why are you here, actually? -BC aka Callmebc 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer that question yes or no. You're also being nonresponsive in mentioning "official records" but not answering the question about what records Campenni mentions. (SEWilco 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

OK, that's it. The main article is now protected yet again thanks to your vandalistic nonsense over your "Mother's Day" insert, which been shown over and over and over, ad infinitum, to be fabrication. And I was actually foolishly starting to think that you maybe slowly starting to not be so intentionally and maliciously disruptive. I'm taking a break from this time sucking nonsense, but when I return, it's ArbCom time, which I do believe you already have a passing familiarity with. -BC aka Callmebc 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're still having that much difficulty reading Campenni's text? You claim to find all official records, but can't find where someone mentions records in a page of text? (SEWilco 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Get a piece of notepaper and read the text. Whenever he mentions a record of some sort make a note of it. Summarize those mentions. What records does he mention? (SEWilco 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Back by popular demand, the Mother's Day anecdote

I see that once the the article was unlocked, SEWilco immediately reverted the Mother's Day entry to a version that's contradicted by all available official records. I reverted him of course, so let's all enjoy his "reasoning" when he no doubt again reverts it back. -BC aka Callmebc 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered yet: What does Campenni say about official records? (SEWilco 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

[redacted]

Which official records did Campenni mention? He did not mention official lunar cheese. (SEWilco 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

[redacted]

No. Which official records did Campenni mention? (SEWilco 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Your non sequitur and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense aside, are you absolutely refusing to answer whether Campenni's claims are refuted by the official DoD records? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked yes or no and you don't understand no? Now, if you're going to claim that Campenni is refuted by all official records, you need to consider the official records which Campenni mentions. Which records did Campenni mention? (SEWilco 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm...let me see if I can lay out your "logic" to our viewing audience: 1) You originally posted an anecdote by William Campenni that makes several claims involving Mother's Day, Killian and Bush; 2) [redacted]

For some strange reason, you logic here appears not so compelling for keeping your version of the anecdote in an encyclopedia article. Gawd.... -BC aka Callmebc 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your items 2, 3, and 4 are erroneous. You brought up all official records, but ignore the records which Campenni mentions. So which records does Campenni mention? If you can read all official records you can read his short piece of text. (SEWilco 05:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

How are they "erroneous"? All that Campenni refers to in his "short piece of text" is "A survey of the pay and flight records of several of the Texas Air Guard members of that period shows no activity for May 13-14, but drill pay vouchers and flights for May 20-21" but he doesn't source this to any official records. I, however, up above in the "Redux" archive, source a plethora of DoD records [redacted] You realize of course that this sort of dishonorable nonsense is going to ruin Wikipedia as a reputable information source (if it hasn't happened already). -BC aka Callmebc 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your version ([86]) is clearly original research, and I've reverted it. First, you give analysis and interpretation of a primary source (the DoD records). Second, you insert completely unsourced commentary (for example, "this type of anecdote is typical of the widespread misinformation"). Please take a look at WP:OR. - Merzbow 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, you found the full article. We were discussing this:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1) This bit, According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed,[redacted]

-BC aka Callmebc 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Campenni states that, doesn't he? Campenni also states when the drill weekend was. (SEWilco 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes or no, this is Campenni's central claim: "how do I prove this memo is a fake? Easy — for the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate. If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard."?

[redacted]

Well? -BC aka Callmebc 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Campenni does mention that pay and flight records support his claim that the base was closed for Mother's Day. So your claim is wrong that all official records available contradict Campenni, as Campenni already pointed out some records. He actually is pointing out the lack of records for that weekend, but as a contemporaneous member of the TANG he has expertise about the records and environment. His is a published interpretation of records, not your original research of only Bush records. Please start a new section if you have other suggested changes or issues. (SEWilco 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Archiving

This has gotten rather large with old discussions. Archiving will begin shortly. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Paper Size section -- WP:OR?

This looks very much to be original research. It describes how the US government had an "official" paper size of 8.5 x 10.5" until the early 80's before switching over to the much more common 8.5 x 11" size, and then it links to one of Killian memos contained on Mary Mapes's site with the unreferenced conclusion: In some authentic National Guard records, a solid line can be seen where the smaller paper was photocopied onto the larger paper. No such lines are visible on the Killian documents. Aside from the question of to what degree paper size usage was enforced, this section makes assertions that aren't referenced or cited elsewhere, which means they may be false or irrelevent, and then uses these assertions to make a conclusion that, again, is not supported by any references or cites to any reliable sources.

I think this section should be entirely removed if it can't be sourced adequately as per WP:VERIFY. But that's my opinion -- do others feel otherwise? If so, why? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The government paper size was common knowledge until it changed; I don't know if that is being taught now. Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment and wiki reference is only about paper sizes and appears not to address the issue of how this section in the main article apparently synthesizes paper size with unreferenced/uncited assertions about "solid lines" and "no such lines" and such to come to an original conclusion, again unsupported by any references/cites. Do you agree that this is WP:OR and that the section should be removed if it can't be cited properly? If you think not, feel free to disagree, but please give some reasoning for it. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Government size" was 8"x10.5", not 8.5"x11.5". It used to be common knowledge, at least among those who typed on government paper. I think the last two sentences

In some authentic National Guard records, a solid line can be seen where the smaller paper was photocopied onto the larger paper.[44] No such lines are visible on the Killian documents.

might be better phrased something like

The Killian documents show no signs of having been prepared in the government size.

The section itself is well referenced and correct and should not be removed. There's a flavor of synthesis in the last two sentences, that might need work. Not deletion of the whole paragraph. htom (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But where are the references for the assertions and conclusion? There is this link which gives a short history of the US's 8 1/2 x 11" paper size and this other link to one of the Killian memos hosted on Mapes's site, and that's it -- there is no connection between the two other than assertions made by whoever added this section, and more importantly there is no link to any reliable source making such a connection. This all seems then to be no more than pure WP:SYN: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The section currently appears to have a wee bit more than a "flavor of synthesis" -- it's more like a three course meal. Is this not an accurate assessment?

And even if orginal research was allowed on Wikipedia, this would be wholly inadequate -- you would need something along the lines of a comparison between all the memos to a good sampling of contemporaneous government documents and similar memos to even begin to support such an argument. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Intro?

The intro to the article goes "During the Killian documents controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was challenged by a variety of individuals and groups," but wouldn't it be more accurate to note that it was a group of conservative (some might say right wing) bloggers who initially challenged the documents' authenticity and actually drove the story, as this link indicates? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's an introduction and what you are describing is given in the main article. Why is this dead issue still being beat upon? I'm no right-winger but this is just a fraud done by a some guy in Texas that some producers at CBS fell for. 68.242.34.237 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could say that a "fraud" is certainly involved, but it perhaps may not be what you think it is.... But back to the point, it really was started and driven by conservative bloggers, as that link describes, and it would only a couple of words to the intro to mention this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the blog challenges originate from the bloggers or from people commenting in the blogs? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The sequence was apparently [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts a discussion of the memos] in the Free Republic caused Buckhead, aka Harry MacDougald, to make the first charge of forgery, which then spread to other conservative/right wing blog sites like Power Line and Little Green Footballs. It would be simple, clear and accurate to just mention that the authenticity challenges orginated with "conservative bloggers". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with someone pointing out problems with the documents? It doesn't matter that they were or were not a blogger nor their political affiliation. Especially since 60 minutes's producers choose ue to make it a political issue by cancelling otther content and publishing it at that time without background checking. That the provenance of the docs could not be shown should have been a red flag. Why does it matter who first brought up the fraud except that they did so? 65.14.229.26 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You actually point out a problem with this article and the main Killian documents wiki -- they are a bit confusing and not really accurately informative, and they also contain an awful lot of unsubstantiated and unsourced assertions orginating from those blog sites. And blog sites are not considered reliable sources for good reason. For instance, Buckhead's [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 original post] is factually incorrect in almost all areas: the font, judging by tests like this, was neither Palantino nor Times New Roman; by 1972, word processing was already a billion dollar industry, and IBM was making more money selling word processors than typewriters, and some models could proportionally space; at least one then common typewriter, the IBM Executive, could also proportionally print, and that typewriter evidently was present on base at Ellington judging from other memos Mary Mapes found; and so on. The odd thing about the Killian memos is that it really started off with sloppy, incomplete research on CBS's part, which caused them to be totally unprepared for when all the bloggers started throwing out their charges, and it just escalated from there because nobody did any substatial research and fact checking any meaningful way.

But Wikipedia is limited by its policies of only repeating basically what's already out there in terms of general knowledge. This makes things very awkward in this situation because the "general knowledge" in the case of the Killian memos appears to be substatially wrong, and can be demonstated as such by reseaching the history of office technology, locating other early 70's documents, and rummaging through the DoD database on Bush here. For all the intense discussions and charges surrounding the whole Killian memos saga, you would have thought that one of the major news outlets would have looked into matters more closely and more comprehensively, but that never happened for whatever reason. And Wikipedia isn't really the place to correct it, so all you can really do is be careful with allowing in unsubstantiated, non or poorly ref'd content and not let it slide by that this was really a blogger driven "story" for good or bad. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But the media did look into it and many document experts were checked and they said it was likely the docs were fraudulent. Mapes has a strong POV on the subject of the docs and Bush and isn't a very reliable source, no more so than a blogger. Yes, the history of how the fraud was identified should be shown but it seems you are more here to prove that they are real. 65.14.229.26 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the media never really looked hard at all into matters, and most of the document "experts" weren't quite expert enough. To Mapes's credit, she dug up some contemporaneous memos from Ellington, which actually showed more research effort than the general media combined. The Washington Post, for instance, couldn't be bothered to dig up "Memorandums for Memo" like these, and instead tried comparing the memos to official forms (which are completely different beasts) as they did here. Also when the DoD quietly and very belatedly released a PDF packet containing some prettty funkily formatted records, including a proportionally printed one, on Sept. 24, 2004, just a couple of days after CBS backed away from the story, I believe not a single major news source took note.

It is what it is.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He has stated he is here to distract us from the Global warming articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

? That seems to be a rather strange and random statement. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The preceding comment was that "you are more here to prove that they are real"; however accurate that may be, you have indicated that you're trying to have us spend our time in these Killian articles. So you're also here to waste our time. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

? Sorry, but that again seems like another random comment -- what does your prior comment about Global Warming have to with any of this? Also I was only pointing out some things to 65.14.229.26 that he/she might not have been aware of, especially in the context of the Wiki articles related to the Killian documents. If I posted anything inaccurate, I would be happy if you would point it out. As far as your rather not so AGF claim that I'm here to waste your time, again if I present any inaccurate information, please point it out. If you have a genuine interest in improving the article, and find my edit suggestions time wasting, there are plenty of other areas in the article that could use some TLC, like all those "citation needed" tags that have been left unattended for way too long. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Edit Summary

You reverted my edit, saying:

Your edit summary makes no sense -- use Talk please)

If the edit summary was unclear to you, why not try reading the actual edit made to the article before reverting? 67.168.86.129 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I did and it still didn't make any sense in regards to justifying the edits you made. Please, these are controversial articles you are making changes to, and your edits so far really should have been proposed and discussed beforehand. As I mentioned on your talk page, there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet in regards to these things and one has to be extra careful that this misinformation doesn't make its way into Wikipedia articles. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What was your specific objection to my edit? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents"

This is a logically invalid statement in the lede that was added by a now departed IP. There are multiple ways to "authenticate" a given document to what would be an acceptable degree. For instance if a document contains information that could not have been known by a supposed forger, and it can't be reasonably explained otherwise, that's a form of authentication independent of appearance. There is also the fit of the format, character spacing, and such to contemporaneous documents. While having the originals would make things a lot easier, there are other ways to determine if a given document is likely true or fake or not. Agree/Not Agree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the "authenticity of the information" with the "authenticity of the document". If the original document has, say, paper that could not have been manufactured before 2000, but that document self-claims to be written in 1950, it's not an authentic document, regardless of what it says. htom (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not talking paper or anything other than the issue of original documents versus photocopies in regards to authentication. You have a photocopy of document "A" from some time ago in the past. The claim inserted into the lede says that this can't be authenticated because it's a photocopy. But if the only options are that the document is either (1) a forgery or (2) real, and if the contents of the document could not have been known by any forger, then you eliminate option (1), leaving only option (2), which is defacto authentication. This is elementary logic. Agree/Not Agree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that you do not have the original document, your syllogism does not apply. The best you could hope for would be "possibly authentic", but if the copy displays information not otherwise known to be known at the time of the putative publication, that would tend to indicate forgery, and hence "inauthentic". htom (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are getting off point. Let me try to simplify: document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree?

Consider more closely the claim being made: if you have a photocopy of a document -- be it a military memo, an old tax return, your high school transcript, whatever -- you can't use that for proof under any circumstances because of it only being a photocopy. In other words, the lede currently claims that if, say, you accidentally throw out boxes containing all your past tax returns, the copies your accountant has on file are worthless for proving anything because they are only photocopies. Is this a reasonable claim?

Also, even if you have supposedly original documents, there is still an authetication process to go through, and it's also dependent on things like signatures, format, dates and such, much the same with any photocopies. You are always dealing with degrees of authentication -- unless of course there is some telltale bit that only fits one way. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several alternatives that you seem to be ignoring. What we have is a computer image (image) of what is claimed to be a faxed image (fax) of a photocopy (copy) of a document (document). There is nothing that I can think of available in the image that would show that the document is authentic. There could be many things available in the image that would show that the document is inauthentic. In this case, we don't have the document (and there may never have been a document at all, other than a computer file sent to a printer pretending to be the copy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, you keep veering off point -- we are NOT talking about a "computer image," we are NOT talking about a "faxed image, and we are NOT even talking about how you wouldn't be convinced by an "image." What we ARE talking about (or at least I'm trying to) is the claim inserted into the lede that basically says that photocopies in general can NEVER be proof of authenticity. This presumably includes copies of tax returns, school transcripts and so on. This claim also suggests that even Bush's Guard records maintained by the DoD here are no proof since they are all apparently from microfiche and photocopies (there might be some merit in this case -- the "October 5, 2004" docs have apparently been tampered with). It might be helpful and kind of you to directly address the point I've already stated a couple of times:

• Let's say document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree?

If you disagree, please, pretty please explain so in the context of this scenario, and not some tangential issues involving your opinion about printers and faxes and such -- that again is NOT what the issue is here. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will explain it. Even with the original documents, there would never be proof of authenticity. What there could be, would be a lack of demonstration of inauthenticity. What people mean when they say "provably authentic" is something like "all tests for inauthenticity up until now have failed." This is logically different than proof of authenticity, and allows for some future test to be discovered and applied. When you have only the image, fax, or copy, and not the original, you start with have failed a test for inauthenticity: producing the original document.

Sorry, but again you're going off into another tangent. We're NOT talking about what you think is needed for authenticity -- we are supposedly discussing a specific assertion in the lede that basically claims that photocopies can never be proof of authenticity, period. I also gave you specific examples to address as well. Please, pretty please, with sugar on top, try to bring yourself to address just those things and not everything else but. I'm just looking for an on-point objection to why "Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents" should not be removed/changed.

To put this in your terms of (1) real .exclusive-or. (2) fake, there is never, ever, proof that something is real. You can have proof that something is not yet shown to be fake, but that is not proof of realness. Some future test may prove (2). You may have more and more belief in (1), but your belief is not proof; something could come along and throw it over. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics come to mind; unproven but accepted. Neither can ever be proven. htom (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is never, ever, proof that something is real"? That's very metaphysical and deep, and implies that all encyclopedias are the stuff of dreams, but that still doesn't quite address my somewhat more mundane points, does it?

If neither you nor anyone else can come up with a slightly more serious objection, I'll take that as tacit approval to fix that claim in the lede. But I'll give you and whoever more time. No rush. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're playing word games with "proof" and "authenticity" rather than the meaning of the phrasing. As for the content containing proof, you're ignoring a number of possibilities, including that a forger might have been lucky in using specific phrasing. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence is the same as having the sentence begin with "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents". I suggest changing the sentence to begin with that phrase. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion here -- a claim was inserted into the lede that basically claims that photocopies can never be proof of authenticity, period. I brought up specific examples of how this would not necessarily be true. Are you saying that the claim is true? If so, then point out the fault in my logic.

Also "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents" again has nothing to do with the points I brought up and have restated a few times already. I'll restate it again for your benefit, but please respond to the points I'm making and not just make tangential comments:

• Let's say document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree? If disagree, please explain why. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How could there be information available to the supposed original author that would not be available to a forger? htom (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....that's a toughie.... how about once classified documents? Or long sealed government records that only became public under FOIA lawsuits? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, that is a phony argument you are making and it does not apply here. From your edit history, you appear to be a single purpose editor, is this subject, a bunch of 4 yr old discredited documents all you care about at wikipedia? 216.30.180.132 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing "phony" and is not really a neutral, NPOV description. Secondly, what I mostly care about is accuracy and fairness, and if I happen to know a few things that would improve the accuracy and fairness of a given article...well? And I have done some stuff over at Global Warming, most recently adding a graph to the main page. That's something, no? As I explained at some point before, I'm not interested in going after "CJ" or any other blogger in particular. I'm willing to give him and the others the benefit of the doubt that they were all mistaken because of all the bad information that got into widespread circulation. The general press did a lousy, lousy job, there was a lot of apparently deliberate disinfo, and well....that's what happens. But I'm not here to refight the battle -- I'm merely trying to correct some of the more obvious bad content by simply following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if this seemingly modest and noble effort wasn't meeting such odd resistance, perhaps I would have more time to spend on other articles, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

Actually he's stated that he's trying to waste our time here so we won't bother the Global Warming articles, so he has two interests. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"We"? Funny -- I'm not seeing much if any edits by you or the others listed for Global Warming - are you somehow implying that there is some sort of mischievous sock puppetry going on there and that my being here is distracting from it? Isn't that a no-no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Questioned document examination has everything to do with the sentence being discussed. Your original research as to whether the information in the documents seems correct is not relevant to being able to examine the original documents. These documents were presented as being real, and the original documents can not be examined. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are on a tangent that has nothing to do with my points, including bringing up "original research" -- what does that have to with anything here? Let try another proposition: let's say we have a classified "Document B" from 1970 that originated as a fax and was stored in microfiche format. It gets declassified on say January 1st, 1990, and a PDF of it is available on a government website. Bearing in mind that there is no "original" document available, what can we say about how authentic is that PDF of Document B? Well? -BC

Let's say the copies have a known provenance. The provenance of documents is not relevant to the simple replacement of "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents" in the phrase which you wanted to alter. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

??? The phrase I want to alter goes: "Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents" and your comments so far have had no demonstrable bearing on any of the points I have been trying bringing over and over again. If you are not really intending to join in on the discussion in a meaningful way, perhaps it might be best if you move on to other articles, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I proposed a specific alteration to the phrase which you mentioned. That should have some bearing on the phrase. What is your proposed change? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What you did was seemingly ignore all my points for a non-sequitur-ish suggestion to change a demonstrably incorrect claim to an apparently illogical one. That's not exactly participating in a discussion in the meaningful way by most standards. But since you asked, why don't we just change it to "Proof of authenticity is more difficult without original documents"? Accurate, simple, neutral and not arguable, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no proof of authenticity, with or without the original documents. Your version is not accurate, overly simple, and an argument begging to happen; it does "sound" neutral, but it isn't, it presumes facts not present. htom (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Was there some part of my last answer to you object to? You didn't respond and now you're just restating points that I had already addressed. Here, let me replay our last exchange:

• How could there be information available to the supposed original author that would not be available to a forger? htom (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm....that's a toughie.... how about once classified documents? Or long sealed government records that only became public under FOIA lawsuits? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to the above before just restating your opinion. I do believe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is considered disruptive behavior. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Verifiable Chain of Custody

The introduction should also mention that no one except Burkett has ever claimed to have seen the "originals". There is no chain of custody or even explanation for where they came from. It is impossible to authenticate these "documents" since the faxed photocopes are too easily faked. Jmcnamera (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These comments appear to be unref'd and seem to be only your personal opinion, hence they are not relevant to improving the article. Also they are not connected in any way to the main points currently being discussed. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a new discussion, which is why he put it in a new section with a comment which is not connected to the other points. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion also involves the introduction. And what do you have to say about the main part of my comment? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion is about the phrasing of the lack of original documents, not provenance. And as you said, these comments are not connected to the main points thus they belong in a separate discussion. What main part — the part about Jmcnamera's comments being unref'd and opinion? I didn't address them because I don't know if there are references. He or someone else who has something to say will answer. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting a separate discussion regarding the article introduction while there is another ongoing discussion regarding the introduction is not helpful for moving the overall discussion along, especially when the "new discussion" only involves someone stating an unsupported opinion. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a separate thread to keep the topic of lack of originals and lack of provenance separate, simple as that. The only connection of the faxed photocopies to Killian is that Burkett says they are connected and that needs to be in the top of the article. We shouldn't discuss the documents as being from Killian without mentioning that there is no verifiable link. Jmcnamera (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of "lack of provenance" seems to be only your personal concern -- can you present any reliable sources showing this to be a genuine issue? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject was brought up by many of the experts who found the documents to lack authenticity. Here's a Boston Globe cite 4 fired at CBS for report on Bush - Lack of scrutiny, rush to broadcast found and it was mentioned in many other reports as well as the independent reportt commissioned by CBS. C'mon BC, you have your own partisan website on this subject and you must have noticed that provenance, and "chain of custody" are still issues. Burkett first claimed he had the documents, then he said he burned them. First he got them from one person, and then from another. Typography is not the only problem with these documents being unable to tie them to Killian also is an issue. Jmcnamera (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We had discussed your "Chain of custody" thing before and I don't want to restart that. This really is just your thing unless you can follow Wikipedia rules for use of sources. And please don't bring up my website -- the contents on it, except for possibly the DoD docs, are not for discussion here. (And I have the feeling that you and some others know who's right and are only looking for areas to cast some doubt on.) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is that previous discussion? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The mists of time, perhaps? Or way back on my Talk page? Go ask Jmcnamera -- as I said, it's his thing. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The only mention of "provenance" in the Archive is at Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues/Archive 1#Original research.2C Aheackova, but the topic is not discussed well. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it may -- or may also -- have been IP 74.77.222.188/74.77.180.178 -- I seem to recall "it" bringing up Burkett, Mapes and "Lucy Ramirez" a lot, with this being typical. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The anonymouse user you mention is not me - please don't suggest that again. I still don't see any real discussion of this issue. You seem to have no problem in bringing up issues repeatedly, however, I am not doing so here.

Back to the topic, I've given a source (Boston Globe) where the issue is discussed. Do you know any reliable sources that indicate there is a verifiable chain of custody? Jmcnamera (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I suggest that? It doesn't appear that way, although this diff does seem to suggest that you guys know each other in some fashion. Also that Boston Globe article only brings up "chain of custody" in terms of a quote contained in summary of elements of what the CBS Panel report said, and NOT what the Globe itself thought or came up with in relation to its many investigations into Bush's service record. That's just quoting and not a "discussion" by any means. Again if you can find a reliable media source that had examined the question of "Chain of Custody," we can then discuss it for inclusion. Additionally there are other issues regarding the article that have already been brought up and never resolved, so it would seem best to not clutter up the discussion with tangential matters until there is some sort of consensus on unresolved discussions. Seems fair, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He started a separate section and is not cluttering up the other discussion, unlike some people whose discussion wanders wildly within a paragraph. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the basic problem with why these discussions get unwieldy and wandering is that some editors evidently have serious difficulty staying on point and answering questions directly, resulting in highly redundant restatements of questions and issues. The net result being that little or nothing gets accomplished and the article remains in poor condition -- biased, incomplete, badly written and missing many needed references. Perhaps some energy should be directed away towards having me endlessly repeat my points and towards something somewhat more productive like, say, dealing with all those "citation missing" tags. Actually did you not attempt to delete a large amount of material in George W. Bush military service controversy just because they lacked citations? Why not consider doing that here? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

whole lot of opinionating going on here

Half the stuff in there has a fact tag on it, and half the rest needs one. What I see is mostly repetition of a bunch of blow-hard bloggers claims about what 1970's documents, typography, and abbreviations were. Then as a tiny aside afterwards a little link showing that the claim is plainly contradicted by actual examples of documents at the time. I just fact-tagged the thing about NLT which purports that the style used was never used. Says who? Thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Drudge-light followed occassionally by a Fact-check whimper. 124.176.50.63 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasty decisions ...

It's been less than a week. You've proposed this, one or two others have commented. I'll urge you to incorporate you latest change into the previous version, and let the rest stew for at least the rest of the week (until, say, the 12th or 13th.) Thank you. htom (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

formatting

The issue on the authenticity of the six "Killian" memos supplied by Bill Burkett to CBS News should be their consistency (or lack of) with the dozens of memos known to be from Killian's office. Finding similarities between the CBS/Burkett memos and a "1969 letter from then Texas Air National Guard Gen. Ayers" or a "1973 official memo from Gen. Straw" is irrelevant: the CBS/Burkett memos do not match the formatting, jargon usage, etc. of memos from Killian's office in that time frame. This is not the "Gen Ayers" or "Gen Straw" memos controversy: it is the "Col Killian" memos controversy. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

?? There are no memos from Killian's office to match up with them -- memorandums like those, while encouraged by the USAF for journaling meetings, decisions and such, are considered personal documents, hence are rarely if ever archived, especially if they are by lower level commanders like Killian. All of the other Killian-connected documents in the official records, are, well, official forms and letters, and so are of a different document type altogether, including having a different format. For instance, personal letters and memos have their signature block on the right, whereas official letters have them on the left. There are official USAF writing guides to all this stuff if you want to verify this info (I had included the writing guides as references at one point, but they were found to be too factual and made the articles too informative, so were removed by popular right wing/puppet/anonymous IP demand). What memos that can be found on the Internet from that time period and before are usually by generals and often had been classified at some point. And pretty much all of those have the same formatting characteristics of the Killian documents, and most appear to be proportionally spaced as well. Not that anyone cares anymore about that stuff, especially the right wingers guarding this and the other Killian Wikipedia article, and who have made both articles fountains of disinformation and right wing blog talking points. -BC aka 209.6.203.12 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The guides you posted were written considerably AFTER the memos in question -- and did not apply to them. I haven't looked at your site recently; at one point the proportional examples you had were all from people in the Pentagon. "Popular right wing/puppet/anonymous IP demand" is the kind of language that may result in your leaving again. htom (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have zero intention of ever editing a Wikipedia article again thanks to the behavior of you and the others. You in particular have made edits and reverts based solely on what you claim to remember without ever offering one shred of supporting evidence, but you've gotten away with it thanks to all these random other editors conveniently popping in to support you regardless of how much in violation it was of basic Wikipedia principles. I had offered up other military memos contemporaneous to and predating the Killian memos but you and others blocked including them for no reason aside from them being damning to the central, mythic premise of both Killian articles. That guide I offered up, The Tongue & Quill, was/is the definitive military writing guide, and that dates back to the mid-70's and not "considerably after" as you claim, and it was based on then existing military formats. Contrast that to how currently the claim in the article that goes Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time is and has been completely and utterly without merit since no such "Air Force style manual" can be found or referenced that supports this. Indeed the only locatable "Air Force style manual" is The Tongue & Quill, but we both know that shows the format of the Killian memos to be correct, hence something else to be ignored since it's not in keeping with the article's premise. But this is all stuff that you know since it's been pointed out over and over again in the past to no avail, eh?

I notice that another article I use to help out with, Global Warming, is still under constant attack and slowly deteriorating, thanks in part to the departure of its most reliable defender, Raymond Arrit. Do you know that the sort of stuff that happened to me is exactly the sort of stuff that drove him away? I just popped over to there now, and this low level vandal -- the type that makes a pile of minor edits to disguise making substantial agenda and/or politically driven ones -- I had spotted a long while back, "Grundle2600," is currently making all sorts of noise on the talk page. I came here to edit articles that interest me and involve topics that I have some knowledge in, and not to engage in time sucking, bizarre warfare with anonymous IP's, obvious puppets hiding behind proxies, hackers, low level vandals, and deliberately obstructive editors with political agendas. As bad as all that was, I also had to deal with odd, very odd admins who seem to just wander in out of the cold with no idea about what's going on, and who then seemingly pick random Wikipedia rules to enforce while skipping over others with neither rhyme nor reason. Not to mention how a certain rather infamous admin in particular got suckered by a totally bogus OTRS complaint.

Actually, it was a mistake for me to pop back here: this is just reminding me what an eye-rolling mess Wikipedia is when it comes to politically sensitive articles. What was I thinking.... -BC aka 209.6.203.12 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no memos from Killian's office to match up with them --Bush enlistment documents (USA Today) Page 31 is a 3 Nov 1970 memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush. Washington Post not only found this memo from Killian's office but another to match against the Bill Burkett/Mary Mapes/CBS News "not Killian" documents. Of the six documents supplied by Burkett to Mapes, one "Killian" document was an "official" order to Bush to take a physical, and the format does not match orders from Killian's office in the archives. Authenticated Killian documents are typewriten with a manual typewriter, use Tex Air National Guard terminology and abbreviations: the CBS "Killian" documents are typeset, misuse TexANG abbreviations or terminology, or use Army terms like "billet". Killian's son and wife say that if Col Killian kept personal notes or memos they would have been handwritten because he did not use a typewriter. He certainly would not have kept notes or memos or written orders in the early 1970s using Microsoft Word and Truetype Fonts not available until at least the mid 1980s.

Again, I will repeat: the four CBS Reports "Killian" documents keep getting put out there and nobody seems to want to put out authenticated documents from Killian's office for comparison. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume that you are confused rather than, umm, up to dubious purposes, which characterizes most of the people who edit the Killian related articles. As I wrote, there are no "memos" from Killian's office -- what you are bringing up are a section of the archived official records -- very big difference. The DoD has a complete (well, sorta) archive of Bush's official records here but there isn't a single actual memo (as in "Memorandum for...") included there. Why? Because memos of the type that constitute the Killian Documents are not official records -- they are considered personal documents that are not included in official records, and hence are rarely archived unless they were classified like this guy from 1961. By the way, there is also a 1993 memo regarding an FOIA request included in that hyperlinked PDF file, and if you look carefully enough, you should note that the 1961 memo is proportionally printed while the 1993 one isn't, although that one is right justified. You can decide for yourself what that all means cuz this is really the last time I'm posting here. Good luck. -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

The 5 Nov 1970 memo "Promotion of Officer" signed by Jerry Killian is not valid for comparison to the CBS News/Bill Burkett/Mary Mapes memos? But a memo on "Secretary McNamara's Visit to JSTPS, 4 February 1961" is? That 1961 memo is not from Lt Col Killian's office or even Ellington AFB. The 1961 memo is not an example for comparison. Killian's wife and son both stated he did not keep personal files, so any Killian memos about W. Bush would be in the official TexANG records. One of the CBS Memos is allegedly an order to Lt Bush to report for a physical, which would not be a personal memo, when Killian's clerk claims he never wrote orders for physicals. Marian Carr Knox was clerk typist for Lt Col Jerry Killian at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. Knox stated Ellington AFB switched from Olympia manual typewriters to IBM Selectric typewriters about 1975. The CBS website memos are dated 4 May 1972, 19 May 1972, 1 Aug 1972, 18 Aug 1973, so they could not have been typed at Ellington AFB on an IBM Composer typewriter with porportional fonts (which is a different model than IBM Selectric anyway). Several times Knox stated the CBS memos were not authentic and looked nothing like typewritten documents produced in Killian's office from 1972-1973. Knox stated the CBS memos were not TexANG format or terminology. I may be confused or umm, up to dubious purposes in the opinon of an anonymous IP poster but at least I sign my name. 67.232.94.35 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Or, at least I sign me name when I am logged in and the cache doesn't deceive me into thinking I am. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

???? If it doesn't say "Memorandum for...," it's not a "memo" -- the military has strict formatting standards for this and other documents to distinguish them. Check this old time USAF writing guide from about page 137 on for all the different formats. Which means, and as I've already said more than once, there are no memos from Killian's office for comparison. Did you even bother to look through the DoD database of Bush's records? If you did, you would not see any record that had "Memorandum for...." at the top. All your other points are purely speculative (and very much wrong.) If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the Killian "Memorandum for..." memos to other "Memorandum for..." memos from about that time or earlier. Do your own homework from now on -- I'm done. BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - If you're that confused about military document formats (or common early office technology for that matter) and can't make the effort to either learn the differences, find related and appropriate authoritative guides & sources, or locate contemporaneous documents of the same type for apples-to-apples comparison, do you really believe that you could actually "improve" the article anymore than if you were, say, just a right wing vandal account only pretending to be badly (and stubbornly) confused? -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So Lt Col Killian's "Memoranda for..." would be typed in Microsoft Word in Times New Roman proportional font, while all other documents from Killian's office in the 1968-1973 time frame were typed on an Olympia manual typewriter in monospace typeface? The only valid comparison for the CBS memos alleged to be from Killian's files would be documents from Killian's office, not 1961 documents from DoD. Killian's secretary Knox, Killian's wife and son all have stated Killian did not type . Killian's wife and son have said he did not keep personal files. Any typewritten documents from Killian's office would have been typed by Marian Carr Knox on her Olympia typewriter and the typographic style would have matched the 3 Nov 1970 document. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've been down this road too many times before -- three times now I've pointed out that there no actual memos from "Killian office" to compare the Killian memorandums to. I explained why, and I gave you links and references for you to do your own checking and not take my word for it. Your response so far, though, is to just ignore all of that and instead just restate your comments. The Killian Documents, like the Global Warming related articles, tend to attract right wingers who only intend to vandalize the articles with stuff they get off right wing blog sites. Characteristic of these vandals is that they almost never engage in actual discussion: they will simply ignore WP:DEVELOP, WP:IDHT as well as any sources, links, and whatever that contradicts them to either restate their original comments, or else go off on some tangent and ignore the discussion at hand. If you want to refer to zebras as "striped ponies" or claim that chickens were invented in 1970, and then add these vital bits of info to the Killian Documents articles, go ahead. They are already dumpsters of disinfo, so what's a little more random rubbish? Knock yourself out. -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To your comment Well, I guess we know for sure why you're here, I made the opening post starting this head because in the Killian documents authenticity issue the test of the authenticity of the CBS "Killian" documents should be authenticated documents from Killian's office or Killian's clerk typist or Ellington AFB 1968-1973, and none were posted or linked at that time for comparison. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Go back up - you had referred to "the dozens of memos known to be from Killian's office" and I had explained (and then explained, and then explained some more....) that there are no such beasts from "Killian's Office" because "memos" are not considered official records, however official seeming they might appear, and hence are not archived unless they were classified (which is something else I had explained). That's why there isn't a single memo in the DoD archive of Bush's military records. The bulk of military "memos" that you will find online -- which yet again is something I had already explained -- are declassified ones like that 1961 memo I pointed out. And most of the memos from the 60's and early 70's appear to be proportionally printed. You might wonder, if this was/is the case, why wasn't this brought out at the time of the "Killian Documents Controvery" -- you can look at the current "Climategate" stuff (aka edit war) that's now raging on Wikipedia's Global Warming-related articles to get an idea of what happened: Rathergate was never more than a BS "controversy" manufactured by right wingers fuzzy-headed or completely clueless about military document formats and common office technology from the early 70's (I bet you didn't know that IBM was making more money selling word processors than typewriters by 1970, eh?), much like the hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In the case of the CRU email hack, if you actually read through them, you would just see a pretty random collection of email being sent back and forth among climate researchers, often expressing (well-justified) exasperation and anger at global warming deniers and their media enablers, whom they consider to be anti-science nuisances. The emails themselves collectively change nothing about the science, but right wingers parsed out little bits and pieces, and then deliberately or ignorantly grossly misrepresented what they meant. This then spread to some mainstream media outlets, even if mostly in equally dopey opinion columns, and that added fuel to a growing wildfire of ignorance.

In Rathergate, you started with an insufficiently researched, me-too, 12 1/2 minute piece by CBS into Bush's service (it came towards the end of many other media investigations into Bush's very questionable service record, and even then it mostly featured an interview with Ben Barnes), and starting with a laughably tech-ignorant posting by "Buckhead" at the Free Republic charging forgery, it just grew and grew. Take Charles Johnson's supposed animated recreation of one of the memos that's featured on the other Killian article page: it shifts too much to have been created by the same type of word processor -- it's much more typical looking of a Times Roman overlay of a earlier Roman-style font; and more importantly, did you ever wonder why Johnson never showed similar recreations of the other three memos that CBS featured? Because, being longer, more complex documents, they utterly fail, as does all other recreation attempts by others. All the other added stuff about formatting, terminology, Killian supposedly scheduling a health exam were also just BS, and as with Climategate "coverage," aided and abetted by irresponsible he said/she said-type "coverage" by mainstream media people too lazy to hit a good library to look up early word processing and proportional printing typewriters, dig up equipment records of what the military was using then for office equipment, look up guides for proper military document formats, or even just locate other contemporaneous military "Memorandum for..." files for comparison. Fake "experts" with no real papers or publication to their names came out of the woodwork and got featured, and all in all it was just a complete breakdown of journalistic investigation, with CBS behaving more like a deer caught in headlights that couldn't wait to escape. The defenders of the Global Warming-related articles have been forced by likewise shoddy media coverage to walk a thin line on what constitutes reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, is normally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (although it shouldn't be -- ever since Murdoch took it over, it's been utter rubbish on anything not specific to the financial industry), but its "coverage" of the CRU hacking stuff has just been regurgitated right wing blog site nonsense, so like newspapers in general it's been deemed non-reliable for a science-based article like Global Warming. In general, peer-reviewed science articles have been considered the only truly reliable sources. If that was the case with the Killian Documents articles, they would not at all resemble the heaps of rubbish they are now, but unfortunately, there was little or no interest by genuine forensic document examiners in the topic (and tellingly, none were hired by any of the interested parties), so you were left with worthless right wing sources and almost as worthless mainstream ones. And if you are wondering what's a "genuine forensic document examiner," go to Google Books and do a search on "Ordway Hilton".

There -- all nicely up to speed, Mr. MENSA Man? -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of early word processing systems. I started in the (TDP) Tape Data Processing department at Kingsport Press in 1969 when Friden typewriters could produce, then read back and print, data punched into paper tapes. We used the paper tape output from Friden typewriters as input to an IBM 1130 computer to produce justified and hyphenated text tapes for driving Mergenthaler Linotype linecasters. In 1970 IBM did introduce a magnetic tape based system for running Selectric typewriters and called it a "word processing" system, but it was far short of the desktop publishing technology required to duplicate those CBS documents. The fact that the CBS documents match Microsoft Word, a modern desktop publishing package, does not mean they match 1970s typewriter based "word processor" output. The point is, the CBS documents do not match 1970s typewriter output at all. Even the Wang word processor of 1972 used an IBM Selectric typewriter as an output device. The P900 Composition System that Raymond McDavid designed and he and I wrote at Kingsport Press and used at the Press from 1973 to 1987 with the VideoComp and from 1987 to 1994 with the Linotron 202 (like the early composition systems such as RCA GSD Page-1, Pica Ultra, IBM Composition 360 and Arcata Butler Composition System (ABCS)) used only spaceband adjustment for justification (Linotype linecasting from molds meant no letter kerning, and most early typesetters mimicked Linotype; therefore, features of the CBS "Killian" documents such as letter pair kerning ("r" backspaced under "f") were done manually by inserting a backspace code and then only for large pointsize heads where the space was really noticable. Optional automatic letter pair kerning for heads was one of the last modifications I made to the P900 system before the Press switched to Ventura Publisher on the PC and Quark XPress on the Mac. The letter pair kerning of the CBS "Killian" documents is a dead give-away that they were not produced on a 1970s typewriter or a 1970s "word processor" driving a typewriter or even the typical 1970s typesetting system. I go back to my opening post: only the Washington Post newspaper (remember Watergate?) have bothered to compare the CBS documents with documents from Killian's office. I did reject your "right wing vandal" label, but since the 1985 American Mensa Newsletter Award Committee voted me one of the ten best regular contributors, I do accept your "Mr. MENSA Man" label. This attempt to shake hands with a clinched fist has been a bruising experience. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but working in some tech department at some point in the past makes you no more an expert on the state of office equipment then than a typical office worker today -- actually even much less so given that there were far, FAR more different vendors of such equipment during the 60's and 70's and much less standardization. And actually your comments reflect the same unresearched, barely or completely misremembered nonsense that dominated the Rathergate "discussions" at the time -- for instance you are dead wrong about "1970 IBM did introduce a magnetic tape based system for running Selectric typewriters": IBM's Mag Tape & Card "word processing" systems date back to 1964, and by 1972, the year of the first Killian memo, IBM was backordered on their proportionally printing Mag Card systems. All your other tech-related comments are just as utterly clueless. Might I suggest, that is if you are genuinely interested in any of this stuff, that you visit a good library (you would likely need a big city library) and look up some of several word processing books that were written during the 70's, as well as old issues of Business Weeks from that time period? Not only might you get enlightened, but you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you did more research than the entire blogosphere and mainstream media did at the time of "Rathergate." -BC aka 66.251.53.50 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge amount of OR

This article has a massive amount of OR. Every time we do primary source research (this document looks different/the same as this other document) is a prohibited violation of WP:OR, and needs to be removed. Hipocrite (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here's my attempt to start a discussion on each disputed item I found in this edit. (2 of the URLs were dead, but I found replacements, which I've marked with "(URL fix)".) Feel free to add more disputed items. Cheers, CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1.1 Proportional Fonts We cite this CNSNews item (URL fix) for "John Collins ..." and "Allan Haley ...".

• Looks good to me. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1.3 Superscripted "th" The second para ("Among the 6 memos ...") uses 2 PDFs from TruthAndDuty.com.

• Classic OR, I say. The para has to go. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1.6 Reproduction using contemporary technology In the first para, we use http://www.defeatjohnjohn.com/2004_09_05_archive.htm for the sentence "The political weblog defeatjohnjohn.com ...". The rest of the first para is uncited.

• We need to find a RS for this (unlikely?) or delete the paragraph. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The second para has no cites.

• I think we probably can find cites for this one. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2.6 Formatting Errr .... I'm not going to try to summarize this. It has several {{fact}} tags and lots of cites to examples of (mis)formatting.

• Lots of OR here. I'm pretty sure one of the newspapers mentioned that the alleged memos used army style instead of USAF style, but I've already spent way too long on this edit to track it down now. In any case, this subsection is way too long. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2.7 Paper size We use the American Forest and Paper Association (URL fix) and a PDF from TruthAndDuty.com for this subsection.

• OR. Whole subsection has to go, even if true. CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

3 Dr. David Hailey's analysis The recent changes here were removal and restoration of a cite to Dr Newcomer's refutation of Hailey's claims.

• I see no reason to mention Dr. Hailey at all in this article: his arguments fell flat, and what bloggers said about him, or did to him, are irrelevant here. I say we delete the whole section but move two sentences (slightly edited) to the end of the "Inter-character spacing" subsection:

The Weekly Standard called Newcomers explanation the "definitive account" of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries."<ref>{{cite web | title=What Blogs Have Wrought | author=Jonathan V. Last | date=2004-09-27 | url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp}}</ref>

The Washington Post quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.<ref name=WaPo14/>

What do other editors think? CWC 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am on board with all of your statements except for the CNSnews cite. I don't believe we consider CNSnews a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, I do not regard CNSNews as reliable (in any sense of the word), but this particular report seems OK. No big deal.

Thanks for making these changes, Hipocrite. However ...

I think we should briefly mention the formatting problems if and when we can find decent sources for them.

I'd also like to look for good sources for the claim from the second para of "Reproduction using contemporary technology": what matters is not possible duplication of the typographic features with 1973 technology, but whether any typewriter a remote national guard base might have had in 1973 would have matched as closely as the Microsoft Word samples (my phrasing). I vaguely recall some reliable source(s) making this important point. I'll try to look for one this (southern hemisphere) summer.

Cheers, CWC 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

formatting Marian Carr Knox was clerk typist for Lt Col Jerry Killian at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. Knox stated the CBS memos were not Texas Air National Guard format and the terminology like "billet" was Army/Navy usage neither USAF nor TexANG. (Thornburg Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, p.198-199) The source of the CBS memos, Bill Burkett, was Army National Guard. But I guess I'm approaching synthesis. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC) corrected spelling Naaman Brown (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)