Yourish.com comments: No flames, please.
In the initial discussions when Memogate broke, someone pointed out another proof of forgery: the fact that the "letterhead" had centered type. I'm sure you remember back when centering proportional type was a non-trivial problem!
Ohmigod, PapayaSF, you just made me remember how hard it was to center the headers in my term papers.
Atex has a perfectly wonderful centering command. In those days, type was either justified, rag left, rag right, or rag center (rl, rr, and rc in the Atex command language).
But my term papers? Count the characters and spaces, subtract from 80, divide by two, go to space 40 and backspace the result, rounding up.
Gawd.
I was one of many who retyped those memos in Word. I also retyped at least one of them in Lotus Word Pro and in WordPerfect. The line endings and character alignments in the Word version matched the sample docs perfectly. Even after tweaking margins and such, the docs type in both Word Pro and WordPerfect DID NOT MATCH. The character spacing and line spacing are different, even with the same font.
But Meryl, you understate how difficult it was to center proportionally spaced type. (You described what the process entailed with a monospace typewriter font.)
I actually used an IBM Selectric Composer on my high school newspaper, in the early seventies. As I recall, when you were centering or justifying text, you had to type each line twice, once so the machine could calculate the proper spacing, then a second time so it could actually apply it.
Of course if you made a mistake in either iteration, you had to start over, then cut (literally, with scizzors or a knife) the bad line, and paste (again literally) the pieces together.
Instapundit links ot Pein's own resume. It would be quite amusing to compare it to Newcomer's. Evidently, going to "The Evergreen State University" and Columbia School of Journalism makes one an expert in everything, even at a very young age.
"Experience? We doan't need not steenkin' experience!"
I'm beginning to think that the only thing that can swell your head more than going to an Ivy League Law School is going to any grad J-schoool.
Jim, I wasn't priveleged enough to touch an IBM Selectric in high school. I never used the model you describe.
However, I wasn't understating how easy it is to center type in electronic publishing. I wish I could say it's always been that way, but my memory of CompuGraphic machines is very sketchy. I do remember having to take out the font cartridge every time we changed font on the machines we used in college. That mean from roman to italic, too.
Kids today. We had to walk uphill, both ways, to get OUR newspapers out.
Pein writes "The accompanying analysis was long and technical, discouraging close examination."
"long and technical" does not discourage close examination by the competent. L&T can, however, make it more difficult for someone who can write but has no relevant skills/knowledge to write criticism that has comparable weight.
"there is no such thing as an amateur typographer. Either you know type, or you don't."
Either this is a very eccentric use of the word "amateur," or the mutation of English has proceeded faster than I'd realized. "Amateur" and "expert" are not antonyms (even if Pein means to imply that they are). I don't know whether the fault lies with the Merriam-Webster Third Unabridged, which dropped "preferred" usage, or the perversion of the word "amateur" wrought by attempts to let pros dominate the Olympics.
The further reasoning is weak. The fact that someone created computer fonts falls far short of making him an expert. Half of all people who create things do a less-than-average job of it, just by the definition of "average". Genuine status as a pioneer of anything makes him, well, a pioneer, not a current expert. Lord Kelvin pioneered electrical instrumentation vital to the communications industry, but that wouldn't qualify him to hook up your telephone. And I hope we don't fall into the obvious trap of degree worship. A Ph.D. in computer science may be a qualification for something, but I don't know what. I know far too many Ph.D.s who stayed at school because they were too helpless to do anything else. The guy may be a whiz but it's not the Ph.D. that makes him one. And I'm not just dumping on technical degrees for fun - I'm an MIT man myself, double major ME and physics, and we MIT geeks like degrees as much as anybody. But I still don't have an answer to that old question, "you have an MIT degree, how come you can't fix my TV?"
I don't doubt that Pein is a hack, a twerp, an embarrassment to his profession, and a blot on civilization in general, but paragraphs two through six don't really drive a stake through his heart. And it sounds like he's earned that, at the very least.
"The Evergreen State College
Olympia, WA
B.A., liberal arts -- September 2003
* Studied economics, politics and philosophy. Thesis on domestic propaganda in the war on terrorism."
Above quote from Pein's resume. Evergreen State is an ultra-liberal college and was also the school which produced Rachel Corrie, she of bulldozer crushed fame while defending the Palestinian terrorists right to smuggle arms through tunnels.
I too did "type" back in the 70s - using a typesetting machine for paste-up jobs, and spending hours creating letterheads, news articles, and ad copy. It was real *work* to get type onto a page.
This Pein guy is a poseur. He seems to have no idea what it meant to set up type before the days of Word/ WordPerfect / Wordstar / Multimate / Ami Pro.
Too bad so many ignorant people think he's qualified to sneer just because he did his time at Evergreen State, where a diploma IS worth the paper it's printed on.
Snicker... if he'd done the Word test like most of us skeptics he'd have been convinced... that is if Evergreen State left him with some functioning brain cells. As previously stated, he has already decided on the result; why bother with the experiment?
Big D, I'm going to put up a new post to answer you. You're missing my point, I think.
Update: And the post is here.
He's not even good enough to be a poseur. I did type in high school, a typewriter in the USMC, and read "TeX and Metafont" in the Digital Press version. I installed it on a Vax, and became addicted.
The problem with the memos is that they do not appear to have been done with a typewriter. ANY typewriter. Now it may be that there are real documents that these are strangely copies of ... but these are copies, generated in Word. If so, they're still frauds, because they're copies.
I think, too, that we're going to see this paper cited in the CBS "investigation" -- as proof that the memos are real!
I've come away think that Pein is grandstanding to boost his own CV.
The proper term is "brown nosing".
Don't know whether this is discussed in the CJR piece, but at my high-school paper in Ohio (in the late 70's and early 80's) we did use the machine that as I recall was often noted as a possible means of production in apologetic stuff about the Rathergate memo: the IBM Composer. It was huge and enormously expensive for a typewriter, and nobody would have used it to type memos for any National Guard unit. Extremely cumbersome in its operation, it used memory to store text and associated commands in order to spit out finished copy at the end (during which process it would pause to let you manually change the type stylus for different sizes and styles), and you almost always had to print copy out and tweak it several times to get things looking right if you wanted centering, superscripts, and so on. It just doesn't stand to reason that anyone anywhere--much less a secretary at a military unit--would go through that to type a memo. And that was the state-of-the-art typewriter at the time--the only one I know of that could even come close to the results that are apparently easily generated in this case with default settings on MS Word. And even those results, I'm sure, would not have been close in the end, as M. Yourish indicates.
Everything everyone is saying is all to the good, but all you need to know is that the wraparound in Word matched perfectly. Anyone who has ever used a typewriter knows that the odds of that happening are about equal to the odds of Margaret Cho actually being funny.
All of you are being too hard on Pein, and Hailey, not to mention Mapes and Rather too. Haven't you ever wanted something too be true so badly that you'll grasp at any straw, ignore any fact, tell any lie (except its not really a lie becuase you really believe it)? It's not their fault that they are in positions where they should be above that and be able to see the facts dispassionately. You're all heartless bastards, you won't even admit to yourselves how much you wanted Santa Claus to be real when you were 10, and what lengths you'd go to try to convince yourself and others that he was real. And thats what those memos were to Rather, Mapes, Pein et al. They thought it was their early Christmas present from Santa, and you, all of you, the whole blogosphere had to play Scrooge and ruin it all. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
Ya gotta love a guy who says "The accompanying analysis was long and technical, discouraging close examination."
In other words, he's complaining that Newcomber shows his work, so that other experts can evaluate it. Pein is complaining that a blogger had a detailed argument that could have possibly been debunked if it was wrong (but not by Pein, because he isn't a real expert).
He prefers the CBS Stonewall to the openness of the bloggers... because CBS's message was simpler.
So let's see: he has complete disdain for the truth, his audience, and for "amateurs" who are not media professionals like him (who are obviously oh-so-much-smarter than bloggers, even if he's fresh out of college). It sounds like he's got a bad case of ELITISM.
Of course, his column is transparently stupid (especially given that everyone else knows the memos were forged). So maybe making a donkey out of himself in public will help cure him. I doubt it, though. I mean, we all know the memos are forged... didn't he get the memo?
Kozinski, thanks, I needed to start my day with a laugh.
The legal comparison is inexact because anyone, even without traffic court experience, can argue before the Supreme Court. Plus, what's said in oral argument probably has little effect on the outcome of the case.
Perhaps dissecting a frog/performing a sucessful heart transplant might be a better analogy.
Mr. Pein's CJR article denigraties web-logs and extolls the mainstream media's performance in the Killian Memos affair. A comparison of its format to that of, say, this and the immediately following Yourish.com posts is instructive. Especially if your tastes run to irony.
Pein's hyperlinks: 0
Yourish's hyperlinks: 8+2=10
Pein's reader comments: CJR doesn't have any.
Yourish's reader comments: >19+>4=>23
Pein's trackbacks: CJR doesn't have any.
Yourish's trackbacks: >2+>0=>2
Which format allows the interested, skeptical, or curious reader to review the author's source material for herself? Which makes it easy for the reader to access dissenting views (e.g. big dirigible's, above)?
Even without the misrepresentations and errors of fact in the CJR article, Pein has given himself more than enough rope.
Raving Atheist. I am sorry but that is just not true.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
ct...softhecourt.pdf
While these rules are not overly specific, look at what the several states require for their attorneys to practice in their SCs as well as what is required for certification to practice in Federal Court.
cycleboy: Obviously it's preferable to get experienced counsel to argue your case, but the pro hace vice exception in Rule 6 allows any attorney, whether he's ever appeared in any court at all, to argue as long as he's of good moral character. I don't think that Michael Newdow, who argued the Pledge of Allegiance case before the Supreme Court, ever practiced law before bringing his suit. Of course, he was an atheist, and all atheists are supergeniuses.
Somehow I have recollections of stuttering non-lawyers having argued before the Supremes, but the rules now do seem to make it clear that only attorneys can so maybe that was in a bygone eras.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think that there's any requirement in the Constitution that the Supreme Court judges themselves be lawyers. I'm wondering if the Surgeon General has to be a surgeon.
Allow me another comparison: Pein is like the "musician" who thinks it's enough to scratch a record on a turntable and chant lyrics where every other words starts with an F (or S or D), then claims that the guitar technique of Jimmy Page, Yngwie Malmsteen, Eric Clapton, or John Petrucci doesn't qualify them to make "relevant" rock music.
As Richard Feynman once wrote in a letter to his wife: "An ordinary fool is alright: you can try to help him out. A pretentious fool --- now THAT I cannot stand!"
Just have to chime in on the "...analysis was long and technical, discouraging close examination." quote. Translation: The analysis was long and technical; I couldn't understand it and couldn't be bothered to find someone to explain it to me, so I'll ignore it." LOL!
For John Lilly: Shape of Days did a good analysis of why the Selectric Composer isn't a possible candidate. The linked post has overlays of the original memos -vs- actual Selectric Composer output. The findings: Mismatch both on character and line spacing, plus difficulties in producing the superscript "th".
This Google search will yield you more than you ever wanted to know about this issue, including some examples of the MSM touting the Selectric Composer theory as vindicating CBS's claims of authenticity.
It is interesting that no one has produced a version of the memos typed on an actual typewriter. I think that says volumes.
I am from Western Washington. Evergreen here has a reputation for its counterculture and creative academics (along with high marijuana consumption). The last I checked they didn't even issue grades, but I am sure some rantings on propoganda and the "War on terrorism" would have earned high marks there.
Hello,
Am I confused? The memos were alleged to be a fraud because it was alledged that no typewriter could have produced the memos in questions. To my knowledge no one has produced such a typewriter. Hailey said that he used a typewriter font to produce the memo but if that particular font was not available on any typewriter Hailey's statements are irrelevant. I suspect no typewriter of that time could be found because typewriters do not have the intelligence to do kerning.
king Lee
RA- IF he's approved by the court and that is only going to happen if they really have a compelling interest in hearing the case. And while one does not have to be an attorney to receive a USSC nomination, they still have to survive the senatorial approval process. Can you name a justice who wasn't an attorney before practicing? The fellow from CA could also have been an exception as CA is the only state where one does not have to be a graduate of an accredited law school in order to take the Bar.
Either way, the real point was whether or not Meryl made a good analogy, a subjective criticism to be sure. If you understood her point, then the analogy is qualified. Besides, if the worst part of her explanation is one analogy then I suppose she did ok.
Maybe so, but I've sure been enjoying your back-and-forth.
Raving Atheist wrote:
"Of course, he was an atheist, and all atheists are supergeniuses."
Whoohoo!!!...uh, ...could you please fwd. your source for that; I'm having a little trouble convincing wifey re my infallibility.
*sigh*
Your blog and others actually prove the main points of the CRJ article about the blogs -- you're more like those spectators at that Pistons/Pacers game/fight: good for tossing garbage from the stands, causing fights and stirring up a lot of publicity, but not actually contributing anything useful. The CJR piece was actually way too kind to both the incompetent, lazy-ass journalism shown by the mainstream media -- NOT including CBS, which was mostly guilty of gutlessness -- and the primarily ideological, illogical, vengeful, cruel and dumbass nonsense coming from the blog mobs.
I recently posted an addendum of sorts to the CJR piece: http://tinyurl.com/5fo6v
And as far as Joseph M. Newcomer, Ph.D. goes, the CJR piece was way, WAY too kind to him. He was no more than a verbose charlatan whose forgery proof was as bogus as Freepers believing that they're doing anything more than shooting off your PC's about stuff they have very, VERY little understanding of. I was easily able to dismiss his "proof" a while back in another Usenet post: http://tinyurl.com/5qyxh
The best analysis so far indicates that the memos are NOT forgeries. At worst they are accurate transcriptions, at best they are exactly what they appear to be. But fakes, no. Sorry.
If they ARE accurate transcriptions (which I doubt) ... then they are forgeries. Can't be anything but, as they are not the originals.
I think they're bad fakes.
And yet, you still have not been able to explain how Charles Johnson was able to type the Killian memo into Word, using the default settings, and get a near-perfect match.
And if you don't mind, your bonafides are...?
I'm local to Evergreen- James' description is accurate.
I've got a post up about this over at Daily Pundit. I point out a couple of logical/epistemological flaws in Pein's piece. To wit: it's not Newcomer's job to show these documents could have been created in MS Word but CBS's to show the contrary, and the irrelevance of the hypothetical existence of 70's-era typesetting equipment.
Ignore this Anonymous character. If he had the stones he wouldn't hide behind a pseudonym. He has no standing. I've got years of experience in typography and typesetting too. Perhaps not at the profound level of Joseph Newcomer or Meryl, but I wrote a font outline visualiser for the Mac just after TrueType became available (there was nothing comparable commercially available). You can't do that without a depth of knowledge of font technologies that is out of the mainstream. I've written god knows how many million words in TeX and been involved as a programmer in the evolution of scalable font technologies from way back. I've built METAFONT fonts from scratch. I've programmed PostScript printers to do things that off-the-shelf programs couldn't do. At this point I am singularly uninterested in the maunderings of halfwits.
Anonymous (1/5/05 - 2:04pm)
* sigh *
Thanks for the post and the referrals to your earlier work on the subject. Much more informative than the "tinyurl" URLs is the extensive website you (as BC) assembled. The reference you give for that lenghty page is here.
It's really a masterpiece. You've assembled a timeline on Bush's TANG service, linked to authentic DoD material, linked to the CBS memos, and provided extensive commentary. This is the only quality site that presents "memos weren't forged" arguments that I have read since the story broke.
I recommend it to skeptical readers; you deserve eyeballs for the big compilation and analysis efforts you made.
That said, you have conflated two issues. While they are each important, they are separable.
1. What is known, likely, probable, and possibly true as far as Bush's TANG service.
2. CBS' conduct regarding its 60 Minutes Wednesday story, both before and after it was aired.
I won't comment on Issue #1 except to say that I find it doubtful that Bush conformed to the letter or spirit of his service committment at the tail end of his enlistment. Very little of what one thinks on Issue #1, whatever that may be, is relevant to Issue #2--Mapes', Heyward's, and Rather's individual conduct, and CBS 60 Minutes' and CBS' institutional conduct. As journalists/journalistic institutions, and more basically as honest people with integrity. A third issue is the response of other parties to the story. I won't comment on that here, either.
Corante's 9/22/04 compilation of the memo story Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries contains the timeline and the links that show how CBS and its employees conducted themselves. Even if everything you wrote is correct--and I don't think it is, by quite a stretch--that would not excuse the misconduct that Corante describes. Beldar’s Blog took a very anti-CBS view, but was fair, I thought, in presenting links to and analysis of additional damning facts of the case. Check the archives September-December.
As far as the Killian memos, your writing exhibits a misunderstanding-in-detail of the key issue.
Forgeries will be correct in many or most of their details. Crude forgeries will have many or serious mistakes; excellent forgeries will have few, or none. Forgeries, by definition, will also have flaws in their chain-of-custody, detected or not.
Genuine documents will be “correct” in all of their details--by definition; they are geniune! They will be more useful and trustworthy if they also exhibit a clear chain-of-custody.
I commented elsewhere on the discrepancies in the Killian m
Continued (part 2 of 2)...
I commented elsewhere on the discrepancies in the Killian memos that Burkitt provided to CBS and USA Today. Examples of many of these can be seen in the screenshots that you provide on your web-page.
1–Formatting that was not used by the Texas Air Guard in contemporaneous memos.
2–Errors in titles, in addresses, in references to military documents and procedures.
3–Anachronisms as far as people named, and the jobs they held at the time the memos were proportedly written.
4–The fact that the documents use TrueType character spacing (e.g. kerning and pseudokerning) that was patented by Apple Computer in the 1980s.
5–The fact that the documents are easily reproduced with Word’s default settings, but very difficult or perhaps impossible to reproduce on any typing machine extant in the early ’70s, much less one that might have been present on a Texas Guard base.
If any one of these points stands, uncontested, the memos must be certain forgeries.
Sorry I am not providing hyperlinks, but at this late date, commentary on all of these points can be easily accessed either through Google, via this site’s archives, or via the links to ‘contrary’ sites that you provide on your page.
To my knowledge, you have failed to rebut any of these points, though you provide arguments on #s 1, 2, and 3. That you prefer Hailey’s position to Newcomer’s re: point #4 is understandable, but not defended, or defensible. On #5, you provide a possible explanation (law firm) but did not demonstrate that the memos could be readily reproduced by equipment available to Killian.
There’s also the chain-of-custody dimension. The explanation that Burkitt says he provided to CBS is preposterous. That CBS did not include it with the 60 Minutes story or its defense speaks volumes about its ethics in this matter.
I’ll close by repeating the central point. It’s not good enough to point out that a suspected forgery got “many things right.” One incontrovertable error sinks a document. The Killian memos have many such.
Sorry for the length. I hope this posts correctly, absent a preview!
I appreciate the fine debunking of peein.
Am I the only word user that thinks you should be able to LOOK at these documents and SEE and feel MSW. Without a 10000 word study?
Marcus, you would think so. But there are so many people denying the truth about the forgeries, that the 10,000 word studies appear to be necessary.
I think the animated GIF that switches between the "old" memo and the same text typed into MS Word, producing an exact match, is more persuasive. To people who will allow themselves to be persuaded, at least.
1ef34f 5fea58a87e
Commenting by HaloScan
