Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 7

Hopefully someone can can merge the info from the George Bush military controversy page into this article.

Also, should this article be retitled? Killian memos controversy, perhaps. I kind of like Rathergate, too. TimShell 22:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blogs and any media that use that term phrase it "Ra^thergate." -Joseph 22:09, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

I'm fine with a rename to either one. I'm assuming the incoming links in other wikipedia pages will be fixed automatically. Sdaconsulting 17:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason to rename it. Also, we should not insinuate any affiliation with the new rathergate.com blog site. -Joseph (Talk) 18:11, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I think the name "Rathergate" smacks of a bias and we should avoid it. Also, I don't think this name has caught on in the mainstream media. I'm fine with Killian memos controversy, but I prefer the title the way it is. After all, the article is about them. And when the controversy dies down, the title will still be apt and descriptive. --Chan-Ho Suh 18:15, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect Ra^thergate will end up sticking at some point. But we can afford to wait. Sdaconsulting 21:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerning

Do the Killian memos really have kerning? This seems to be a matter of some dispute on the blogosphere.

What is the source fot the claim that they do, as mentioned in the article? --Chan-Ho Suh

I dunno, but here's one guy who talks about it, and does a pretty good job of addressing it: Flounder His connection has been saturated, so he is looking for mirrors. -Joseph (Talk) 18:27, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Wikipedia is butchering that link. You will have to paste it into your browser to see it. -Joseph (Talk) 18:36, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I managed :-) Interesting! So he seems to be saying that Word does not use kerning (by default) but the TrueType fonts use a kind of "pseudo-kerning" which also appears (according to him) in the memos. Is this good enough for a change to the article section on kerning? Or should we wait for more verification? --Chan-Ho Suh 18:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it merits inclusion. He's not the only one who said it. Charles Johnson from http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/ was the first one to point it out. Johnson was one of the authors of PageStream, a DTP program. He didn't quite do it in such a scientific manner, though. I don't think we should go into heavy detail, and once the article above is on a stable mirror, we could include a link. -Joseph (Talk) 19:12, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

IBM Executive typewriter

Some are claiming that some models of the IBM Executive have the required features of the Selectric Composer. This is important since the Executive is much cheaper. --Chan-Ho Suh

Even the Composer doesn't have all of the required features. I'll not dig too deeply into that since there are plenty of weblinks that address that point. -Joseph (Talk) 18:27, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't taken a look at all the links yet, but maybe you could name one of the required and missing features?

BTW, the Executive is proportional, and much cheaper and more common. So the statement from the article that "Typewriters using proportional fonts were very rare and expensive in 1972. " should be changed.

You should go to ibmcomposer.org for more info. And be sure to sign all of your statements on Talk pages. -Joseph (Talk) 18:37, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! I guess the kerning link above pretty much answers my question on a missing feature. But I'll check out this link also. --Chan-Ho Suh 18:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Fans of these typewriters should get ahold of one and type up a match to the Killian Memos that I can make in a minute using MS word. If you do it with 1972 technology, you can win $36000 (and growing!). Sdaconsulting 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blogosphere is to CBS as Wikipedia is to Britannica

These are two applications of the same principle: the guardians of knowledge crumbling as information is democratized and power devolves to the fringes. I think it is strange that any Wikipedian would be reluctant to see this happen. TimShell 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Won^derful point, Tim! Sdaconsulting 00:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm curious about this article. Right now, it seems like a bullet list of arguments that the Killian memos are forged. However, there are numerous experts who disagree with this assessment. And the journalistic community is, as yet, largely undecided. I'd be happy to offer links if the editors here are unaware of the opposing side of this issue.

Unfortunately, I don't at the moment have time to get involved in editing this page. Perhaps next week though. Wolfman 03:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Numerous" would be a minority, though. Let's not declare give it an {{NPOV}} tag until we're further into this thing. I think that once either time has passed by, or the situation has reached resolution, it will straighten itself out. Anyhow, two of the main experts who vouched for it on CBS' behalf have backed out. -Joseph (Talk) 03:29, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Well, I didn't put a NPOV tag on it. I wouldn't do that unless someone tried to balance it, and the balance was rejected. At the moment, it very clearly is not balanced. However, I would prefer to attribute that to lack of knowledge rather than bias. Regards, until I get some time to work on this. Wolfman 03:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out that the memos are genuine, then yes, this would be NPOV. If it turns out the memos are fake, then this ceases to be an NPOV issue and these become fact, ergo... -Joseph (Talk) 03:45, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Yes, well that does raise the question of why there is already an article on this, now doesn't it. If the memos are proven fake, no article will be required as it will be generally accepted. Likewise, if they are proven genuine. So, the only real reason to have an article is to influence opinion while the facts are still being sorted out. Not so much the intent of Wikipedia, but oh well. Wolfman 03:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason there is an article on this is probably the same reason many of us are fascinated by it -- the sudden new way that "old media" are affected by the Internet, and blogs, specifically. Sdaconsulting may be a bit enthusiastic in his description of this fact, but it is the reality nonetheless. The actual issue at hand is of little consequence (and will likely not harm or help Bush much either way) but the effect that the Internet is having on the way CBS, specifically, and "old media" in general, conduct business is something that is very interesting to me and others. -Joseph (Talk) 03:54, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I see. Well blogs are indeed fascinating creatures. Since blogs are the motivation, you might have a look over at the dailykos blog or again here. Wolfman 04:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "blogs are the motivation" would be overly simplifying it. It's much more than that. We're watching CBS' equivalent of Operation Tailwind, which CNN never recovered from. The WSJ had five articles on this today, for christ's sake. -Joseph (Talk) 04:04, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

By any chance, did you read the links I added? If so, do you see why I might consider this article a wee bit unbalanced? Wolfman 04:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had already seen them. See response here. He also didn't do what the DailyKos said concerning shrinking the document. If you look around on LGF, he gives step-by-step instructions on how to duplicate the document. You should also read the link above from Joseph M. Newcomer. (The Flounder.com links.) He was one of the pioneers of desktop publishing. ABC, WSJ, NBC, etc. have duplicated Charlie Johnson's experiments. Kos came out of left field, literally, with that one. -Joseph (Talk) 04:10, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to quote Glennon in the article, when his credentials are suspect. -Joseph (Talk) 04:19, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Time magazine quoted him. What are the credentials of the bloggers you quote? Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One of them has patents from the early 1970s for desktop publishing and font kearning (Newcomer, a Kerry voter, is one of the acknowledged leaders in this field, just Google his name), one of them has written desktop publishing software (Charlie Johnson), several are attorneys with many jury trials behind them. -Joseph (Talk) 04:34, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Also, care to explain why a simple TexANG office would have a $25,000 typesetting machine? (2004 dollars) -Joseph (Talk) 04:25, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I don't know that they did. I reckon this stuff is still being sorted out by journalists.Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS can't manage to get a single recognized expert to vouch for the document's authenticity, while over a dozen have stated that documents are likely or certainly fraudulent. The guys CBS and Boston Globe have run keep backing away from any sort of authentication as they see the tidal wave cresting overhead. This article will be of historical interest for decades to come as a sign of the new media taking the old media to the mat and thrashing it, along with the very important story of how Dan Rather and 60 minutes cast away their credibility forever in the pursuit of victory for their choice in political candidate. Game over. Sdaconsulting 04:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He (Wolfman)'s on a quest, I can see. His 'lack of consensus' among major media outlets pretty much means everyone but CBS and Terry McAuliffe. -Joseph (Talk) 04:29, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Indeed, a 'quest' for at least the false pretense of neutrality; just a little figleaf please.Wolfman 05:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, Joseph, Terry's already suggested that Rove planted the forgeries. Sdaconsulting 04:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Even the mainstream media are screaming "forgery," while CBS is saying otherwise, and McAuliffe is taking yet another angle and saying "Yeah, I can see it's a forgery, Rove put it there." Three different angles. -Joseph (Talk) 05:03, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Um, it's not my phrase, that's direct from Time magazine. Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added this to Wolfman's Talk page, but I thought it would be useful here:

Links

Start here: [1]

then go here: [2][3]

Charlie Johnson, of LGF, is the guy who worked on PageStream and other DTP software. He knows more about page layout than you and I ever will.

-Joseph (Talk) 04:40, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

It's possible

In regards to the possibility that a particularly expensive and rare model typewriter just so happened to be the one used for the memo and just so happened to produce such a curiously matched to MS Word memo, well here's what has to have happened for that to be true:

A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
which would have drove him to produce memos
which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
and Ann Richards oppo team never found
and the Democratic National committee never found
which were not in the papers his wife still has
and not in his Guard files
but somehow were perfectly preserved
and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years
but even so, are indeed bona fide
and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
after having sat around all these years
since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
on a very rare and expensive typewriter
which the national guard had none of
using a particular typeface element
and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
but with no proof that this supposed typewriter configuration actually could produce such a result (only speculation)

I've heard of "totem pole hearsay", but this - this is "totem pole speculation" 17 times removed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Random typewriter repairman not qualified

But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices. [4]

Experts agree these are forgeries

CBS can't get anyone qualified to corroborate their cock-and-bull story about these documents being real. Versus over a dozen of the top experts who have examined it saying they are probably or certainly fake. I've removed the following text: "The authenticity of these memos is in dispute; forensic and typewriter experts consulted by major media organizations have not yet achieved a consensus.[5] "

If and when CBS can assemble several qualified professional resumes who say these documents are valid and don't change their story in 24 hours, we can put the dispute back in. Sdaconsulting 05:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Wolfman, there is no consensus yet, just a bunch of media outlets quoting the same few experts repeatedly. I doubt anyone here knows who the "top experts" are in the field of 1970s typewriters, and at least one person touted by the mainstream media as an expert is a GOP fundraiser. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and at least one of the experts is an avowed Kerry supporter. Sdaconsulting 05:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS has not capitulated yet. Statements declaring current media opinion and current "expert" opinion to be in full agreement may be premature. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman removed my changes with no evidence

Wolfman is asserting that that the documents are in dispute. There is no dispute among named experts as there are 'zero named qualified experts stating these documents are probably or certainly valid. "Former Typewriter repairman" does not qualify. Nobody wants their reputation ruined, and even the original sources have backed away.

As I stated, if somehow CBS manages to convince several qualified document experts to state their opinion that the documents are probably or certainly real, then you could honestly state that the veracity is in dispute. Sdaconsulting 05:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I quoted and sourced Time magazine. Your dispute is with them, not me. Wolfman 05:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The edits should be restored until this issue is discussed in more detail. Wolfman, please talk more before you delete. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, in fact Sdaconsulting initially edited my edits without discussion. I then edited his. He/she now states that I provided no evidence. In fact, I did provide a linked source. In contrast he/she did not. Wolfman 05:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)