This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone has put a neutrality dispute notice on the article. I wasn't aware there was a dispute. I know Wolfman had some complaints, for example regarding the intro, but those seem to have been fixed. The article, as it stands right now, appears to me to do a good job of covering the available evidence thus far.
Also, since the person is anonymous and has not participated in any discussion, I feel it's ridiculous to randomly post such a notice. What does everyone say? Leave the notice? -- C S 08:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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? -- C S
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. -- C S
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Um, it's not my phrase, that's direct from Time magazine. Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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:
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)
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]
Besides, if he is a typewriter repairman that knows his stuff, why didn't he tell everyone the make and model of the typewriter that was used? Okay, maybe that's asking for too much, but at least narrow down the company or companies that produced something that could do all these things back in the early 1970s...
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)
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)
CBS = Credibility's Been Shot.
Sdaconsulting 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
SDA, please be more patient with Wolfman. He is generally reasonable and will address concerns that you raise. [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 06:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Boston Globe quote that Wolfman inserted has already been shown to be nonsense. The Globe claimed further review left Bouffard thinking the documents might be legit. Bouffard himself claimed that after further review he was more convinced they were forgeries. Knowing that, including the Boston Globe quote as corroborating evidence is dishonest: TimShell 05:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio with 30 years experience analyzing typewritten samples, had expressed early skepticism about the memos in an interview with the New York Times. But Bouffard more recently told the Boston Globe that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time. He changed his opinion after comparing the memos to contemporaneous Interpol documents known to be written on the Selectric Composer. "You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said. [6] However, Bouffard later claimed that he had been misquoted [7].
From George W. Bush military service controversy
Forensic document examiner Dr. Philip Bouffard has claimed there is at least a 90% probability that they memos are fake [8], yet the Boston Globe cited him as a "skeptic" whose "further study" caused his views to shift [9]. Bouffard claims that further study left him "more convinced" that the memos were forgeries. [10]
The Globe is stale on this - including it without explicit and lengthy rebuttal would be pointless. [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 06:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the 90% figure that was originally included because that is a number that INDC came up with, not Bouffard. When asked, he merely stated that 90% of known typefaces were eliminated as possibilities. To equate that with a 90% probability of inauthenticity is quite misleading. As a document examiner, Bouffard would not give a percentage of certainty, only a grading on a scale. I've reworded it to be more consistent with a realistic conclusion. TimothyPilgrim 17:08, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
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.
-
I've already cited over a dozen named qualified experts who are fairly sure to certain these documents are fake, most of whom are listed here:
[11]. Of the two listed as supporting the proposition that the memos are valid, one is not directly quoted anywhere as supporting them and I can find no resume for her (Lynn Huber) and the other has stated that he is not qualified to judge a typewritten document's validity as he is only a signature expert (Marcel Matley). CBS pulling former typewriter repairmen who change their stories and a "software expert" is not going to cut it next to the credibility of the people who say the memos are frauds (developer of document layout software, developer of truetype font technology, multiple document validation experts, etc, etc.)
Just because CBS has no standards and the Boston Globe is willing to lie about what people say, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to wait on those two organizations to fess up to their BS. Talk about waiting for Godot.
NO CREDIBLE NAMED EXPERTS with resumes. That's CBS has delivered. Along with people who change their story, people who say they were misquoted, and other abuses of the truth.
Sdaconsulting 06:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sdaconsulting 06:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CBS and Time cannot lie their way out of this. They have no credible experts, zero, zilch. Bill Glennon refuses to commit to a statement that he believes the memos are likely or certainly authentic, even as he quotes irrelevancies about the availability of proportional fonts and superscript. Nobody has created a credible copy with a typewriter, although dozens have with MS Word by simply typing with default settings. Sdaconsulting 07:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
However the word position is exact on all six documents versus using MS word to type them in, with default margins. The chance of that happening by chance are literally trillions to one. The documents were produced by MS word. Sdaconsulting 07:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We can never trust any of these "gotcha" documents again, especially anything from the MSM. Any future forgeries will be much better done from a typographic standpoint, and we will have to rely on content and format analysis errors. But even if they appear genuine, it is clearly no longer possible to buy off on any "new documentation" of this sort that CBS or the other non-credible mainstream media choose to shovel onto our plates. The wages of sin. Sdaconsulting 07:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can understand the argument that maybe the Bush people created forgeries and deliberately did it badly enough that, after the initial furor, the documents would be seen to be forgeries, and people would suspect that the Kerry campaign had done it. That's pretty convoluted, but I can at least understand the logic of someone who thinks that happened. Now, however, by this edit, an anon has added the suggestion that the Kerry camp deliberately created refutable forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter, so I don't want to be too hasty in deleting an accusation against Kerry -- but I can't for the life of me see how this would help Kerry. (Note that the context is the idea of deliberately creating documents on a word processor, so that a forgery would be discovered, rather than finding a 1970s typewriter still in working order. Doing that deliberately would be conceivable (however remotely) for the Bush campaign but not for Kerry's.) Can anyone explain this, or should the edit simply be reverted? JamesMLane 08:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kerry's campaigne now has CNN's James Carville and Paul Begala working for them unofficially. These are the same guys that worked for Clinton until the 1994 election that saw the Republican take over of both houses of Congress. Both men were knew for doing dubious things during the Clinton campaign then the congressional campaign of 1994. Just days after they announce that they are going to help Kerry these memos hit the air. CBS stated that they received the memos from reliable sources. Wouldn't these two men seem like reliable sources from CBS's stand point?
The punches are landing furiously to the stunned body of CBS News as competing news organizations go in for the kill. The veneer of civility and professional courtesy to Dan Rather and CBS News are vanishing as the language in news articles and editorials from the Washington Post to the NY Post grows ever more suspicious and even mocking of CBS' tall tales. Perhaps more misdirection from the Daily KOS can save the day? Perhaps CBS next expert cited will be Markos Moulitsas Zuniga himself (just don't let his comments about contractors in Iraq come out, Danny!) [15] Sdaconsulting 12:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some of the links posted here and in the article body are already stale with inaccurate facts overtaken by events. At this point there appear to be no domain experts willing to stake their credibility on the authenticity of these documents.
I would like to invite the Wikipidians here to post up-to-date information on any credible domain experts who are willing to state that these documents are most likely or certainly authentic, and were not produced using modern word-processing software and printers. Sdaconsulting 17:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Furthermore, the presence of a typed address header is suspicious in itself, as the standard practice was to use letterhead for all correspondence."
Looking at a the headers from other Bush documents, they appear to all to be typed, and all are extremely well centered.
http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc5.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif
So are all documents from President Bushes ANG service suspect?
Until now I've been content to let others quibble about typefaces and superscripts and merely snipped off the most egregious examples of partisanship. But this is rapidly getting out of hand. It's like all of you are not even trying to present even a figleaf's worth of evenhandedness. I notice that no one's moved Robert Strong's quote supporting the authenticity of the document over from George W. Bush military service controversy while there are plenty of quotes from Killian's family, etc. And while everyone raced to post a link to their favorite right-wing blog, nobody bothered to post links to the memos themselves until I did. After all, who needs to see the original source when your mind is already made up?
Yes, I could just as easily add that material myself, but that's not the point.
I'm sure that you all sincerely believe that the case for forgery has been proven, but what you or I believe isn't the point either. I understand some of you are new here and may not be aware of principles such as NPOV, but as long as you are wikipedia editors you have a duty to present the information evenhandedly and not create a brief for the case of forgery. It's not enough to add your pet theories and links and then assume someone else will stick in info for the other side, or just ignore the other side altogether. We have to each strive for NPOV individually, not assume it will simply emerge after each partisan gets in his or her licks.
I think these documents may very well be forgeries, but once again, what you or I think does not matter. The case for forgery has not been proven, and let me point out some flaws in this call for consensus, not in an attempt to prove authenticity of the documents, but merely to show that the case has not been closed:
Your appeal to authority based on the list of 11 experts is dubious. Are these indeed the "top experts" in the field? How do we know that they are? At least one of them is a partisan operative, which makes me suspicious of how truly representative these experts are of their field. What are these experts actually saying? Just because one of the 11 casts doubt upon a superscript doesn't mean that they believe that it was created in Microsoft Word. And is an expert in 1970s typesetting an expert in the capabilities of Word and Photoshop? The leap from possible forgery based on the capabilities of 1970s equipment to definite forgery created by Microsoft Word and Photoshop is not one that is substantiated even by these experts. And the Word + Photoshop scenario is veering into tinfoil hat territory, frankly. What evidence is there that Photoshop was used? Why would someone Photoshop a word doc instead of buying a typewriter at the Salvation Army store? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Two of the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.
"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.
"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.
"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News. . . .
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them.
"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."
I'm sure Gam will come back and say that it's not proven that the memos are fraudulent. Hmmn. None of the experts CBS hired will even vouch for the documents.
Gam, I know you aren't sure the documents aren't real, but you haven't demonstrated any expertise with the subject matter. The experts all say the memos are fraudulent. The secretary who worked with Killian says they are fraudulent, even though she thinks Bush is a devil. She says there was no typesetting proportional spacing printer in the office.
Based on what I have seen so far, there is NO justification for saying the question is "up in the air". None. CBS ran with a bogus story, the people they hired to authenticate the memos refused to except perhaps one, who later backed off and said he cannot vouch for them and doesn't even have the relevant expertise to do so.
I am going to edit the article at some point to update based on what is now known about the case. The article is very unweildy and needs some focus. If you have any relevant, credible experts that take CBS side, please post them here. I've read just about every major news article on the subject and most of the blog posts and haven't seen any, but it's quite possible I missed something. Anything you could do to help get accurate and up to date information would be appreciated. Sdaconsulting 02:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The intro para has been changed to say: "Some experts feel that these documents are very forgeries; others do not", which makes it sound like expert document examiner opinion is fairly evenly divided. Here is what a couple of major news organizations say, about what the opinions are of experts they talked with:
Neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is known as an outlet for right-wing shilling, so I'm going to change that sentence to try and reflect what they are saying. If anyone has any references to major news organizations other than CBS which have talked with document examiners who have a contrary opinion, please add a reference. Noel 06:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring Time, but that story doesn't cite a document examiner, just that typewriter expert guy, Glennon - and another inteview with him indicates that "Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online" [18]. So you can't put him in the "authenticates" column.
The story states that they also consulted "forensic" experts (who would consider all aspects of the document), but alas they don't say how many, or summarize what they said. The story only says that the experts they consulted didn't agree - the implication being that some of them didn't think the documents were authentic (and, given the batting average at other places, it might have been all of them - but who knows).
Frankly, it's not very long on substance, but I'll leave it until we get something more. Noel 07:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First, I'm gonna give you the same feedback I gave Rex - don't get so wound up. If you think some document examiners whose opinions are brought forward either have a bias, or have problems with their competency, then please just simply produce some data to speak to that. May I remind you that I'm discounting Glennon simply because he himself apparently said "he .. could not vouch for the memos' authenticity".
Second, as far as experts go, I don't really have the time/energy to troll every major media entity's coverage and see if they list any document examiners, and if so, who, and what their call is. Part of the problem is that many (e.g. the Washington Post, Time) don't list which document examiners they consulted. Others (e.g. ABC) only name one. Others (e.g. the LA Times) do list one, but they say something off-point (in the LA Times' case, simply warning against working from something other than the originals).
The problem is that without doing something like that, and without CBS turning it all over to an independent investigation (a la CNN's handing of "Tailwind"), it's unclear to me how to produce a reasonably objective conclusion as to whether these documents are real or not. All we can do, in that case, is list the issues raised by the various parties which have looked at the documents, and summarize the opinions of various non-aligned major media entities. Noel 12:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am attempting to include the following information in the article:
Here is my justification:
-- Anonip 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see people keep cutting the first two sentences. I agree that the second sentence is considerably duplicative of the quote from the WPpost, and we can probably dispense with it. However, while the first sentence is somewhat in the nature of explaining the semi-obvious, it does provide context for the WPost quote (and someone less quick on the uptake might not get the point unless its put explicitly). Can someone please explain to me what harm it does to explain the significance of the WPost info? Please, this document needs major work elsewhere - can we stop having a donnybrook over one miserable little, relatively inconsequential, sentence? Thanks! Noel 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think the Washington Post came by this particular piece of data? Do you think that they just happened to randomly notice it in passing, and thought it an amusing curiousity they'd pass on to their readers? No, of course not. What you're watching, basically, is the scientific method in operation.
They had a hypothesis ("a machine capable of producing the disputed documents was available to Killian in 1972"), and that hypothesis led to a prediction ("it would presumably have been used to produce other documents in the same office at the same time"). Then they needed to perform an experiment (looking for such documents) to see whether the prediction would be confirmed, which would shed light on the validity of the original hypothesis.
You and I may be smart enough to "take the steps in threes", and immediately work out from the experiment what the hypothesis and prediction were, but the Wikipedia isn't just for Mensa members. There clearly was a hypothesis and a prediction, and I don't think it's NPOV to state it.
In fact, I think an earlier story of theirs said this would be a good thing to check. If I find it and quote it, will you remove it too, on the grounds that it's not NPOV? Noel 01:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I restored the following information, which someone deleted:
The subject of this article is the Killian memos, whose authenticity has been disputed. An important aspect of the article is a discussion of the arguments and evidence which might show whether or not the documents are authentic. The first sentence above indicates the significance in this context of the fact stated in the second sentence. The Washington Post reference provides additional specific evidence along these lines, but does not alone provide sufficient clarity. The additional text is useful to readers in clarifying the argument that is being described, while leaving readers free to reach their own conclusions as to the strength of the argument and evidence. Although some editors may feel the information in the additional text is implicit in the Washington Post reference alone, making the points explicitly is likely to be helpful to many readers. Removing this text simply serves to obfuscate. If someone believes otherwise, please discuss here before deleting the text again. Anonip 04:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Joseph, Why do you think I created this section on the talk page in the first place? I have explained twice why this text is useful to readers. No reasonable justification has been offered by those who are deleting this text, despite my request that they provide one. Anonip 05:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the last 15 hours, this page has seen 50 edits - many of them part of an edit war, with content being repetitively added and removed. I understand that this is a fast-developing story, and it's reasonable to be editing to add new stuff which is just coming out, but there's no reason for these edit wars. Please discuss contentious points on the Talk page, rather than just adding and deleting the same text over and over again.
The article structure is not really good at the moment; I'd like to add a modest-sized section which gives the outline of all of what has transpired, but the page is in such constant motion it's hard to tackle this. Noel 15:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Once again this article shows the pointlessness of writing articles on current news items before the full facts have come out. We shouldn't be writing on this type of topic until the facts -- or at least the points in dispute -- have been agreed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:43, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
Now that CBS is wavering about the authenticity of these utterly fraudulent documents, we can see an endgame in sight. Sigh. Sdaconsulting 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
According to this, [19], Killian's son was in the same ANG unit. If so, he would be in a pretty good position to refute Knox. Anyone seen evidence of his son being in the ANG as well? - Joseph (Talk) 05:36, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Is there anyone still around here who thinks there is a credible case that these documents are real, now that CBS is admitting they might be fake? I'd like to take a crack at reorganizing this whole document sometime this week but I don't want to get into some sort of edit war with people who are going to nitpick every change I make as not being fair to the "documents are real" camp. Sdaconsulting 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sdaconsulting, You will never succeed in improving this article in the usual wiki way. Any attempt by you to do so will be vigorously resisted by all the usual suspects. You can't win, so don't waste your time. What I would suggest is that you create a complete alternate version of the article on a subpage. Put a link to it on the main page ("An alternate version of this article is available..."), but otherwise leave the main page alone for now. Once the alternate version is finished, you can ask the Wikipedia community for opinions as to which version is better. I suspect that once an improved version is available for direct comparison, it won't be a difficult choice. If any of the people preventing progress here attempt to disrupt progress on the alternate version, ask them to desist and if they refuse seek sanctions. I'm afraid that is the only way that progress can be made. Anonip 06:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Our current discussion of smart quotes is confusing on one point. It gives the example of a curved apostrophe in one of the memos -- fine, that's a powerful piece of evidence, graphically presented. Then it goes on to discuss double quotes and wanders off into saying, "Double quotation marks are not used in any of the Killian memos." If it means that there are instances of curved left and right quotation marks, it should say so and give an example. If none of the documents happened to use quotation marks, so that there are no left/right marks and no old-fashioned straight double quotation marks, then the reference to double quotation marks is irrelevant and should be dropped. Because it's being referred to, I assume there are left/right marks somewhere in the documents, so can someone more familiar with them insert an example? Once there's such an example, the statement that there are no double quotation marks becomes peripheral; neither the authenticity nor forgery hypothesis would predict a mixture of quotation mark styles within the same document. JamesMLane 19:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From the ABC link:
Which was he? A Colonel or a Brigadier General? - Joseph (Talk) 20:41, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Answer: He was a Colonel at the time he handled Bush's application for the ANG, but he was a Brigadier-General when he retired in 1972.
From [20] :
I know this article is reg, but it's one of the key ones that people are talking about. Anyone have a reg-free link? [21] - Joseph (Talk) 15:02, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
This link requires no registration. I have added it to the article under "most recent news" [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here's the text of the article at the SFGate, but sadly they didn't use the "Fake but Accurate" headline: [22] - xfxf 2004 Sep 19
We still don't know the whole story, so let's not remove the {{current}} tag yet. - Joseph (Talk) 18:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC).
Lost in the discussion of CBS acknowledging that they can't authenticate the memos is the fact that they admitted they came from Bill Burkett. Burkett has a reputation of being vociferously anti-Bush and having a grudge against Bush and the TANG. He claimed to have gotten them from another Guardsman. This should have raised every red flag against using those memos, but CBS had to have its scoop. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have started the category with all those listed above. Does anyone object to placing the Killian memo in that category at this time? Even if the letters turn out to be copies of originals, I think they still count as forgeries. I'm going to go ahead and add the category here. If anyone does object, just remove it, and we'll wait a bit longer. Wolfman 17:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This story just gets more and more fascinating. Now it looks like Lockhart and Cleland have their fingerprints on this story too, along with Burkett. In conjunction with the amazing coincidence of launching the Operation Favored Son campaign (with a kickoff by John Edwards) a few hours after the 60 minutes II hit-piece, incorporating information from the phony memos, this is looking more and more like a DNC dirty tricks operation that blew up in their own faces. Sdaconsulting 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Joe Lockhart called me last week too. As he said, he "calls lots of people". [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 20:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone has put a neutrality dispute notice on the article. I wasn't aware there was a dispute. I know Wolfman had some complaints, for example regarding the intro, but those seem to have been fixed. The article, as it stands right now, appears to me to do a good job of covering the available evidence thus far.
Also, since the person is anonymous and has not participated in any discussion, I feel it's ridiculous to randomly post such a notice. What does everyone say? Leave the notice? -- C S 08:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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? -- C S
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. -- C S
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Um, it's not my phrase, that's direct from Time magazine. Wolfman 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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:
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)
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]
Besides, if he is a typewriter repairman that knows his stuff, why didn't he tell everyone the make and model of the typewriter that was used? Okay, maybe that's asking for too much, but at least narrow down the company or companies that produced something that could do all these things back in the early 1970s...
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)
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)
CBS = Credibility's Been Shot.
Sdaconsulting 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
SDA, please be more patient with Wolfman. He is generally reasonable and will address concerns that you raise. [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 06:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Boston Globe quote that Wolfman inserted has already been shown to be nonsense. The Globe claimed further review left Bouffard thinking the documents might be legit. Bouffard himself claimed that after further review he was more convinced they were forgeries. Knowing that, including the Boston Globe quote as corroborating evidence is dishonest: TimShell 05:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio with 30 years experience analyzing typewritten samples, had expressed early skepticism about the memos in an interview with the New York Times. But Bouffard more recently told the Boston Globe that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time. He changed his opinion after comparing the memos to contemporaneous Interpol documents known to be written on the Selectric Composer. "You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said. [6] However, Bouffard later claimed that he had been misquoted [7].
From George W. Bush military service controversy
Forensic document examiner Dr. Philip Bouffard has claimed there is at least a 90% probability that they memos are fake [8], yet the Boston Globe cited him as a "skeptic" whose "further study" caused his views to shift [9]. Bouffard claims that further study left him "more convinced" that the memos were forgeries. [10]
The Globe is stale on this - including it without explicit and lengthy rebuttal would be pointless. [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 06:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the 90% figure that was originally included because that is a number that INDC came up with, not Bouffard. When asked, he merely stated that 90% of known typefaces were eliminated as possibilities. To equate that with a 90% probability of inauthenticity is quite misleading. As a document examiner, Bouffard would not give a percentage of certainty, only a grading on a scale. I've reworded it to be more consistent with a realistic conclusion. TimothyPilgrim 17:08, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
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.
-
I've already cited over a dozen named qualified experts who are fairly sure to certain these documents are fake, most of whom are listed here:
[11]. Of the two listed as supporting the proposition that the memos are valid, one is not directly quoted anywhere as supporting them and I can find no resume for her (Lynn Huber) and the other has stated that he is not qualified to judge a typewritten document's validity as he is only a signature expert (Marcel Matley). CBS pulling former typewriter repairmen who change their stories and a "software expert" is not going to cut it next to the credibility of the people who say the memos are frauds (developer of document layout software, developer of truetype font technology, multiple document validation experts, etc, etc.)
Just because CBS has no standards and the Boston Globe is willing to lie about what people say, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to wait on those two organizations to fess up to their BS. Talk about waiting for Godot.
NO CREDIBLE NAMED EXPERTS with resumes. That's CBS has delivered. Along with people who change their story, people who say they were misquoted, and other abuses of the truth.
Sdaconsulting 06:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sdaconsulting 06:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CBS and Time cannot lie their way out of this. They have no credible experts, zero, zilch. Bill Glennon refuses to commit to a statement that he believes the memos are likely or certainly authentic, even as he quotes irrelevancies about the availability of proportional fonts and superscript. Nobody has created a credible copy with a typewriter, although dozens have with MS Word by simply typing with default settings. Sdaconsulting 07:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
However the word position is exact on all six documents versus using MS word to type them in, with default margins. The chance of that happening by chance are literally trillions to one. The documents were produced by MS word. Sdaconsulting 07:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We can never trust any of these "gotcha" documents again, especially anything from the MSM. Any future forgeries will be much better done from a typographic standpoint, and we will have to rely on content and format analysis errors. But even if they appear genuine, it is clearly no longer possible to buy off on any "new documentation" of this sort that CBS or the other non-credible mainstream media choose to shovel onto our plates. The wages of sin. Sdaconsulting 07:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can understand the argument that maybe the Bush people created forgeries and deliberately did it badly enough that, after the initial furor, the documents would be seen to be forgeries, and people would suspect that the Kerry campaign had done it. That's pretty convoluted, but I can at least understand the logic of someone who thinks that happened. Now, however, by this edit, an anon has added the suggestion that the Kerry camp deliberately created refutable forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter, so I don't want to be too hasty in deleting an accusation against Kerry -- but I can't for the life of me see how this would help Kerry. (Note that the context is the idea of deliberately creating documents on a word processor, so that a forgery would be discovered, rather than finding a 1970s typewriter still in working order. Doing that deliberately would be conceivable (however remotely) for the Bush campaign but not for Kerry's.) Can anyone explain this, or should the edit simply be reverted? JamesMLane 08:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kerry's campaigne now has CNN's James Carville and Paul Begala working for them unofficially. These are the same guys that worked for Clinton until the 1994 election that saw the Republican take over of both houses of Congress. Both men were knew for doing dubious things during the Clinton campaign then the congressional campaign of 1994. Just days after they announce that they are going to help Kerry these memos hit the air. CBS stated that they received the memos from reliable sources. Wouldn't these two men seem like reliable sources from CBS's stand point?
The punches are landing furiously to the stunned body of CBS News as competing news organizations go in for the kill. The veneer of civility and professional courtesy to Dan Rather and CBS News are vanishing as the language in news articles and editorials from the Washington Post to the NY Post grows ever more suspicious and even mocking of CBS' tall tales. Perhaps more misdirection from the Daily KOS can save the day? Perhaps CBS next expert cited will be Markos Moulitsas Zuniga himself (just don't let his comments about contractors in Iraq come out, Danny!) [15] Sdaconsulting 12:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some of the links posted here and in the article body are already stale with inaccurate facts overtaken by events. At this point there appear to be no domain experts willing to stake their credibility on the authenticity of these documents.
I would like to invite the Wikipidians here to post up-to-date information on any credible domain experts who are willing to state that these documents are most likely or certainly authentic, and were not produced using modern word-processing software and printers. Sdaconsulting 17:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Furthermore, the presence of a typed address header is suspicious in itself, as the standard practice was to use letterhead for all correspondence."
Looking at a the headers from other Bush documents, they appear to all to be typed, and all are extremely well centered.
http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc5.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif
So are all documents from President Bushes ANG service suspect?
Until now I've been content to let others quibble about typefaces and superscripts and merely snipped off the most egregious examples of partisanship. But this is rapidly getting out of hand. It's like all of you are not even trying to present even a figleaf's worth of evenhandedness. I notice that no one's moved Robert Strong's quote supporting the authenticity of the document over from George W. Bush military service controversy while there are plenty of quotes from Killian's family, etc. And while everyone raced to post a link to their favorite right-wing blog, nobody bothered to post links to the memos themselves until I did. After all, who needs to see the original source when your mind is already made up?
Yes, I could just as easily add that material myself, but that's not the point.
I'm sure that you all sincerely believe that the case for forgery has been proven, but what you or I believe isn't the point either. I understand some of you are new here and may not be aware of principles such as NPOV, but as long as you are wikipedia editors you have a duty to present the information evenhandedly and not create a brief for the case of forgery. It's not enough to add your pet theories and links and then assume someone else will stick in info for the other side, or just ignore the other side altogether. We have to each strive for NPOV individually, not assume it will simply emerge after each partisan gets in his or her licks.
I think these documents may very well be forgeries, but once again, what you or I think does not matter. The case for forgery has not been proven, and let me point out some flaws in this call for consensus, not in an attempt to prove authenticity of the documents, but merely to show that the case has not been closed:
Your appeal to authority based on the list of 11 experts is dubious. Are these indeed the "top experts" in the field? How do we know that they are? At least one of them is a partisan operative, which makes me suspicious of how truly representative these experts are of their field. What are these experts actually saying? Just because one of the 11 casts doubt upon a superscript doesn't mean that they believe that it was created in Microsoft Word. And is an expert in 1970s typesetting an expert in the capabilities of Word and Photoshop? The leap from possible forgery based on the capabilities of 1970s equipment to definite forgery created by Microsoft Word and Photoshop is not one that is substantiated even by these experts. And the Word + Photoshop scenario is veering into tinfoil hat territory, frankly. What evidence is there that Photoshop was used? Why would someone Photoshop a word doc instead of buying a typewriter at the Salvation Army store? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Two of the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.
"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.
"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.
"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News. . . .
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them.
"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."
I'm sure Gam will come back and say that it's not proven that the memos are fraudulent. Hmmn. None of the experts CBS hired will even vouch for the documents.
Gam, I know you aren't sure the documents aren't real, but you haven't demonstrated any expertise with the subject matter. The experts all say the memos are fraudulent. The secretary who worked with Killian says they are fraudulent, even though she thinks Bush is a devil. She says there was no typesetting proportional spacing printer in the office.
Based on what I have seen so far, there is NO justification for saying the question is "up in the air". None. CBS ran with a bogus story, the people they hired to authenticate the memos refused to except perhaps one, who later backed off and said he cannot vouch for them and doesn't even have the relevant expertise to do so.
I am going to edit the article at some point to update based on what is now known about the case. The article is very unweildy and needs some focus. If you have any relevant, credible experts that take CBS side, please post them here. I've read just about every major news article on the subject and most of the blog posts and haven't seen any, but it's quite possible I missed something. Anything you could do to help get accurate and up to date information would be appreciated. Sdaconsulting 02:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The intro para has been changed to say: "Some experts feel that these documents are very forgeries; others do not", which makes it sound like expert document examiner opinion is fairly evenly divided. Here is what a couple of major news organizations say, about what the opinions are of experts they talked with:
Neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is known as an outlet for right-wing shilling, so I'm going to change that sentence to try and reflect what they are saying. If anyone has any references to major news organizations other than CBS which have talked with document examiners who have a contrary opinion, please add a reference. Noel 06:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring Time, but that story doesn't cite a document examiner, just that typewriter expert guy, Glennon - and another inteview with him indicates that "Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online" [18]. So you can't put him in the "authenticates" column.
The story states that they also consulted "forensic" experts (who would consider all aspects of the document), but alas they don't say how many, or summarize what they said. The story only says that the experts they consulted didn't agree - the implication being that some of them didn't think the documents were authentic (and, given the batting average at other places, it might have been all of them - but who knows).
Frankly, it's not very long on substance, but I'll leave it until we get something more. Noel 07:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First, I'm gonna give you the same feedback I gave Rex - don't get so wound up. If you think some document examiners whose opinions are brought forward either have a bias, or have problems with their competency, then please just simply produce some data to speak to that. May I remind you that I'm discounting Glennon simply because he himself apparently said "he .. could not vouch for the memos' authenticity".
Second, as far as experts go, I don't really have the time/energy to troll every major media entity's coverage and see if they list any document examiners, and if so, who, and what their call is. Part of the problem is that many (e.g. the Washington Post, Time) don't list which document examiners they consulted. Others (e.g. ABC) only name one. Others (e.g. the LA Times) do list one, but they say something off-point (in the LA Times' case, simply warning against working from something other than the originals).
The problem is that without doing something like that, and without CBS turning it all over to an independent investigation (a la CNN's handing of "Tailwind"), it's unclear to me how to produce a reasonably objective conclusion as to whether these documents are real or not. All we can do, in that case, is list the issues raised by the various parties which have looked at the documents, and summarize the opinions of various non-aligned major media entities. Noel 12:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am attempting to include the following information in the article:
Here is my justification:
-- Anonip 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see people keep cutting the first two sentences. I agree that the second sentence is considerably duplicative of the quote from the WPpost, and we can probably dispense with it. However, while the first sentence is somewhat in the nature of explaining the semi-obvious, it does provide context for the WPost quote (and someone less quick on the uptake might not get the point unless its put explicitly). Can someone please explain to me what harm it does to explain the significance of the WPost info? Please, this document needs major work elsewhere - can we stop having a donnybrook over one miserable little, relatively inconsequential, sentence? Thanks! Noel 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think the Washington Post came by this particular piece of data? Do you think that they just happened to randomly notice it in passing, and thought it an amusing curiousity they'd pass on to their readers? No, of course not. What you're watching, basically, is the scientific method in operation.
They had a hypothesis ("a machine capable of producing the disputed documents was available to Killian in 1972"), and that hypothesis led to a prediction ("it would presumably have been used to produce other documents in the same office at the same time"). Then they needed to perform an experiment (looking for such documents) to see whether the prediction would be confirmed, which would shed light on the validity of the original hypothesis.
You and I may be smart enough to "take the steps in threes", and immediately work out from the experiment what the hypothesis and prediction were, but the Wikipedia isn't just for Mensa members. There clearly was a hypothesis and a prediction, and I don't think it's NPOV to state it.
In fact, I think an earlier story of theirs said this would be a good thing to check. If I find it and quote it, will you remove it too, on the grounds that it's not NPOV? Noel 01:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I restored the following information, which someone deleted:
The subject of this article is the Killian memos, whose authenticity has been disputed. An important aspect of the article is a discussion of the arguments and evidence which might show whether or not the documents are authentic. The first sentence above indicates the significance in this context of the fact stated in the second sentence. The Washington Post reference provides additional specific evidence along these lines, but does not alone provide sufficient clarity. The additional text is useful to readers in clarifying the argument that is being described, while leaving readers free to reach their own conclusions as to the strength of the argument and evidence. Although some editors may feel the information in the additional text is implicit in the Washington Post reference alone, making the points explicitly is likely to be helpful to many readers. Removing this text simply serves to obfuscate. If someone believes otherwise, please discuss here before deleting the text again. Anonip 04:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Joseph, Why do you think I created this section on the talk page in the first place? I have explained twice why this text is useful to readers. No reasonable justification has been offered by those who are deleting this text, despite my request that they provide one. Anonip 05:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the last 15 hours, this page has seen 50 edits - many of them part of an edit war, with content being repetitively added and removed. I understand that this is a fast-developing story, and it's reasonable to be editing to add new stuff which is just coming out, but there's no reason for these edit wars. Please discuss contentious points on the Talk page, rather than just adding and deleting the same text over and over again.
The article structure is not really good at the moment; I'd like to add a modest-sized section which gives the outline of all of what has transpired, but the page is in such constant motion it's hard to tackle this. Noel 15:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Once again this article shows the pointlessness of writing articles on current news items before the full facts have come out. We shouldn't be writing on this type of topic until the facts -- or at least the points in dispute -- have been agreed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:43, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
Now that CBS is wavering about the authenticity of these utterly fraudulent documents, we can see an endgame in sight. Sigh. Sdaconsulting 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
According to this, [19], Killian's son was in the same ANG unit. If so, he would be in a pretty good position to refute Knox. Anyone seen evidence of his son being in the ANG as well? - Joseph (Talk) 05:36, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Is there anyone still around here who thinks there is a credible case that these documents are real, now that CBS is admitting they might be fake? I'd like to take a crack at reorganizing this whole document sometime this week but I don't want to get into some sort of edit war with people who are going to nitpick every change I make as not being fair to the "documents are real" camp. Sdaconsulting 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sdaconsulting, You will never succeed in improving this article in the usual wiki way. Any attempt by you to do so will be vigorously resisted by all the usual suspects. You can't win, so don't waste your time. What I would suggest is that you create a complete alternate version of the article on a subpage. Put a link to it on the main page ("An alternate version of this article is available..."), but otherwise leave the main page alone for now. Once the alternate version is finished, you can ask the Wikipedia community for opinions as to which version is better. I suspect that once an improved version is available for direct comparison, it won't be a difficult choice. If any of the people preventing progress here attempt to disrupt progress on the alternate version, ask them to desist and if they refuse seek sanctions. I'm afraid that is the only way that progress can be made. Anonip 06:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Our current discussion of smart quotes is confusing on one point. It gives the example of a curved apostrophe in one of the memos -- fine, that's a powerful piece of evidence, graphically presented. Then it goes on to discuss double quotes and wanders off into saying, "Double quotation marks are not used in any of the Killian memos." If it means that there are instances of curved left and right quotation marks, it should say so and give an example. If none of the documents happened to use quotation marks, so that there are no left/right marks and no old-fashioned straight double quotation marks, then the reference to double quotation marks is irrelevant and should be dropped. Because it's being referred to, I assume there are left/right marks somewhere in the documents, so can someone more familiar with them insert an example? Once there's such an example, the statement that there are no double quotation marks becomes peripheral; neither the authenticity nor forgery hypothesis would predict a mixture of quotation mark styles within the same document. JamesMLane 19:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From the ABC link:
Which was he? A Colonel or a Brigadier General? - Joseph (Talk) 20:41, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Answer: He was a Colonel at the time he handled Bush's application for the ANG, but he was a Brigadier-General when he retired in 1972.
From [20] :
I know this article is reg, but it's one of the key ones that people are talking about. Anyone have a reg-free link? [21] - Joseph (Talk) 15:02, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
This link requires no registration. I have added it to the article under "most recent news" [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here's the text of the article at the SFGate, but sadly they didn't use the "Fake but Accurate" headline: [22] - xfxf 2004 Sep 19
We still don't know the whole story, so let's not remove the {{current}} tag yet. - Joseph (Talk) 18:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC).
Lost in the discussion of CBS acknowledging that they can't authenticate the memos is the fact that they admitted they came from Bill Burkett. Burkett has a reputation of being vociferously anti-Bush and having a grudge against Bush and the TANG. He claimed to have gotten them from another Guardsman. This should have raised every red flag against using those memos, but CBS had to have its scoop. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have started the category with all those listed above. Does anyone object to placing the Killian memo in that category at this time? Even if the letters turn out to be copies of originals, I think they still count as forgeries. I'm going to go ahead and add the category here. If anyone does object, just remove it, and we'll wait a bit longer. Wolfman 17:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This story just gets more and more fascinating. Now it looks like Lockhart and Cleland have their fingerprints on this story too, along with Burkett. In conjunction with the amazing coincidence of launching the Operation Favored Son campaign (with a kickoff by John Edwards) a few hours after the 60 minutes II hit-piece, incorporating information from the phony memos, this is looking more and more like a DNC dirty tricks operation that blew up in their own faces. Sdaconsulting 14:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Joe Lockhart called me last week too. As he said, he "calls lots of people". [[User:Rex071404| Rex071404 ]] 20:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)