Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 8

Archive 7, Edit History

The Edit History for this talk page before 2007-04-11 is now here.

I apologize for this stuff-up. I created Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by moving the page (which takes the edit history along), whereas previous archives were done by cut-and-paste (which leaves the edit history behind). The result is that the edit history of this discussion page prior to 11-Apr-2007 is now attached to Archive 7. Again, my apologies. CWC 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've WP:ARCHIVEd this page (because it was getting way too long), but copied the sections that seem to have on-going discussion here. If you wish to reopen one of the discussions I didn't copy, you can in decreasing order of preference

1. Link to it using wikisyntax like
       [[Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7#Misuse of this page]]
2. Copy and paste the relevant phrases
3. Copy and paste the whole section

Remember: this page is for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article, not for general discussion. Cheers, CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Esther Kartiganer

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Missing from the Aftermath section is the "reassignment" of Sr Producer Esther Kartiganer,[1] who sued CBS as a result.[2] No time to add this myself...but the story element is readily Googled. Andyvphil 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial LACK of skepticism in MSM

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by Andyvphil 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

The section "Initial Skepticism" doesn't explicitly cover the initial lack of skepticism in MSM. See the AP Story [3] with it's repetition of the misidentificaltion of Stoudt as heading TANG. And see [4] (search for "Washington Post"). The significance of this story is that that was overcome, so the initial gullibility/resistance maybe needs to be covered better? Andyvphil 13:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. You're a good editor, Andyvphil — do you want to have a go at it? Cheers, CWC 13:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. So much need for improvement, so little time. Andyvphil 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and WP:BLP warning

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to make a general warning on this page about avoiding personal attacks (such as [5] and [6]). Everyone in this discussion should also realize that Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy does indeed apply to article talk pages, as some people on this page have already stated. Anyone repeatedly violating these policies could be blocked. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Conflicts of Interest By Certain Editors and Contributers

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

It appears now that some of the people who have been attacking me in one way or the other perhaps have been doing so for reasons beyond what was represented: they are apparently supporters, or perhaps even members, of the Little Green Footballs blog site. Since LGF via Charles Johnson was one of the main instigators of the forgery charges, and since some of my cites undercut both Johnson's CYA memo experiment and his credibility, that would create a clear conflict of interest for this Wiki topic and a violation of WP:COI:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

You know who you are -- please recuse yourself from any further editing here unless you intend to follow the official Wikipedia policy for this situation:

If you feel the need to edit Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for review on the article's talk page or file a request for Comment, and let trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia.

FYI. Callmebc 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a registered commenter at LGF for years, and have not yet managed to accuse anyone here of intentional deception. Your attempt to sell your private page here, as well as attempting to surpress the negative information about the Killian documents, might be a better example of a CoI. htom 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it was nice of you to come forward like that. Good for you. But, unfortunately, you do have a really major conflict of interest here, so.....sayonara. Maybe you can honestly contribute to a more suitable Wikipedia article. Tell Charles that, well, research and logic does what research and logic does -- it's nothing personal. Callmebc 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc: Again, please avoid attacking other editors. Accusing people of conflicts of interest without proof violates Wikipedia's guideline of assuming good faith. This is the cornerstone on which Wikipedia is built. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "Alabamaboy," but you have no business being here, either. I'm a little embarrassed that it took me so long to figure out the pattern of attacks here. I'm putting back the full R.I.P. Rathergate post tomorrow night, as well as an obviously very necessary "Clean Up" tag on the main page. If you delete it again without a legitimate, specific reason, well -- you can't say I haven't given everyone more than enough chances to do the right thing (so to speak).... Callmebc 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Play nice

No user has the right to run off another user through intimidation or personal attacks. If you think another editor has a conflict of interest problem, please go to WP:COI/N and post a notice. In any case, you must be civil to other editors. That is non-negotiable. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sysop steps in

I have blocked Callmebc from editing for 72 hours for various policy violations. To other editors, my general recommendation about how to handle WP:COI is to declare affiliations in your own user space and exercise personal restraint at relevant articles. The safest route where COI is obvious (such as an article about one's place of employment) is to post material and citations to the talk page and let uninvolved Wikipedians evaluate it for inclusion in the article. Regards, Durova^Charge! 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Clean Up" banner for main page until improvements made?

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Lost in all the recent acrimony on this discussion page is the whole issue of what to do about the main page for the "Killian documents" -- if nothing else, I've demonstrated that there is a vast amount of information highly pertinent to both the memos and the forgery charges that are not referenced in any way. According to the Wikipedia's own "Encylopedia" article:

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

And by any defintion of "important accumulated knowledge," the main page is severely lacking. In particular:

1) The forgery charges originated with and centered on [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 unsupported claims] regarding the capabilities of 70's and even 80's office technology, but the main page has no references whatsoever indicating what 70's era office technology was really like, despite such information being readily available.

2) The contents issue, aka the "Fake but accurate" charge is also never addressed, despite the DoD maintaining a database of all of Bush's released military records. Actually, it appears that the DoD site is not even mentioned -- a very serious omission.

3) Many of the forgery charges center on format issues, often comparing the memos format to that of official records. However, Official USAF writing guides are available that clearly define the purpose of those memos and their recommended format, but again the Wikipedia main page has no reference to these either.

4) The main page is often wrong, lacking or extremely misleading in important details. Examples: both CBS and USA Today got 6 memos from Burkett -- CBS chose only to use 4 of them; Peter Tytell is a typewriter expert whose family up until 2001 owned a typewriter shop and not a "document expert" per se; there is an invalid passage that goes It was reported that the new Killian memos were inconsistent with his endorsement of Lt Bush's May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents. Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" -- this is highly misleading since the relevant performance review (aka a "Rating Report") that covers the time period of the memos is the 1972-1973 "Not Observed" rating report; Charles Johnson's animated overlay "experiment" of the "CYA" is noticeably featured but there is no reference to his inability to duplicate that with any of the other memos or to a similar graphic illustrating what happens when you do attempt that with one of the longer memos; and there is no link to a much more comprehensive interview of Marian by the Drudge Report where she essentially confirms that Staudt was indeed pressuring Killian, as well as no clarity on Knox's actual status -- was she indeed just a "pool clerk/typist" as has been alleged by Killian's son Gary? -- that would be very important in relation to what sort of memos and documents she would be privvy to.

Given all these inadaquacies of the main page in being able to "convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain," it would seem very wise and prudent at this time to place a "WP:CU" "Cleanup" banner at the top of the main page until many if not most of these issues are addressed. Agree or disagree? And please state specifically your justification for either. Callmebc

I've added a section head for you. While the page needs work, I think that your conspiracy theory and lack of understanding of the issue doesn't need a place thereon. htom 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a nonresponsive answer in regards to any of the points I made. I clearly asked "please state specifically your justification for either." Your comment "conspiracy theory and lack of understanding" is clearly an insult without merit. And there was no need to create another section for this discussion. If you have anything civil, relevant, and valid to add, please do so. If you wish to make insults instead, your behavior will be duly noted. Callmebc 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Section headings are important divisions of long pages, bringing topics to the attention of users and editors. I thought it was more appropriate to put the heading just before the question, because I didn't want to rearrange your text. I think you should move the last paragraph to be the first of the section, changing the reference from "given these" to "given the following". I don't agree with accepting them as "given", but that's another discussion. As far as your note taking, /shrug/ sharpen your crayon. htom 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with accepting them as "given", but that's another discussion.?!

Do you have any concept of what actually constitutes a "discussion"? One person raises a point and then the other person agrees or disagrees, and if disagreeing, addresses the point raised with some sort of counterpoint based on logic or evidence. If that second person disagrees, but only resorts to name calling, then by the generally accepted rules of debate, that person loses by forfeit. Your "shrug/ sharpen your crayon" comment therefore means you lost. That means I get to put "htom" down in "favor" of adding a "clean-up" banner. I'm leaning towards the "This may need a complete rewrite." version -- any thoughts regarding that? Callmebc 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. clean up tag. No.
2. your theories. No.
3. three: complete rewrite: No.

htom 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....correct me if I'm wrong, but appears you still haven't actually stated specifically any justifications for you not agreeing with my points. It's really hard to have a "discussion" when the other person simply states and restates general opinions that don't deal in any way with the issues raised. I'll give you yet one last opportunity to respond in a meaningful way: given all the inadaquacies of the main page I laid out earlier (and feel totally free to point out if and where I'm incorrect on any particular point), would it not be very wise and prudent at this time to place a "WP:CU" "Cleanup" banner at the top of the main page until many if not most of these issues are addressed? And please state specifically your justification for either agreeing or disagreeing. If you state yet more generalized comments and opinions in response, then I would have more than enough justification to claim that you had every opportunity to object and discuss adding the "Clean Up" tag, but that you kept refusing to offer up any specific reasons that in any way negate my points for adding the tag. Callmebc 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PS -- how's that new login procedure for searches working out for you guys? Callmebc 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't tried it. Didn't use it before, so I don't have any standard to compare it to. htom 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Updates and Edits

I see that Andyvphil is the first one back at editing. I'm still not quite ready to re-contribute yet, but I thought to stick in this new subsection for people to note or suggest updates. -BC aka Callmebc 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaaack.... Actually, I'm not back, though this page is still on my watchlist. Which is why I reverted Qworty's deletion of Category:Political Forgery. To which callmebc demurs. But, to repeat, this would be a Political Forgery article even if the memos were in some sense authentic... Andyvphil 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back for real. That was a strange, goofy interlude, but things worked out for the best, I think.... Whatever. My original intention had been only to update my posts from the fall, get into a few debates/arguments and then leave. I wasn't even going to touch the main page. But now, hmmm...I don't know. The forgery thing is a joke now as some of you well know, which kind of makes the Wiki entry for the Killian documents a wee bit awkward: it's one thing to discuss what the best current evidence shows, it's another to put that into the main article if it completely countermines what is generally believed to be the truth, as well as possibly impinge on the verboten "original research" especially where I'm concerned. On the other hand, if someone curious about the Killian memos comes here for info, what should he/she expect and deserve -- what is an encyclopedia for after all? Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's clear that most of the people commening on this article - and most experts, and most of the general public - disagree with your claim that "the forgery thing is a joke now." Most folks looking at the evidence, even including the additional information you've provided, are coming to a different conclusion than you are.

It would be interesting to see how much talk discussion would be left if you included only people who voted in the opposite direction of their opinion on the memos' authenticity. Thomas Phinney 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping you might drop by again. There are three basic issues that currently undermine the forgery claim: one is that sophisticated word processing systems with at least a minimum of 9 unit proportional spacing were widely available beginning in 1972; the second is that no modern word processor can accurately recreate all the memos; and the third is that the Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo that CBS had but did not use in its report could not have been forged under any circumstances because the key info that would have been needed to create part of its contents, Bush's flight records, was released only after CBS had obtained all the memos. Ipso facto.

And since you conveniently happen to be a typographer, think you could you identify the font used in this August, 1973 draft press release regarding an early word processor, [7]? It looks kinda close to a recreation I did in Arial 12pt Bold, 1.5 line spacing here, [8], but Arial wasn't created until about 1982 so how can that be? Curious minds might perhaps want to know.... -BC aka Callmebc 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The font on that other doc is not Arial. Nor is it Arial's cousin Helvetica (Arial is designed to match the advance widths of Helvetica). Many of the letterforms are much wider than Arial or Helvetica, almost extended. Also, the line-lengths "fingerprint" between your re-creation and the original fails in the relationship of the second to third lines. Finally, there is also some very visible pixillation similar to what one would see on a dot matrix printer, or some low-resolution digital device. Remember also that most old proportional typewriter fonts do not exactly match any particular non-typewriter typeface. These fonts were often adapted/created specifically for the device in question, which is why typographers tend not to know them. However, I wonder if the device in question was a typewriter or word processor at all - the text suggests that it was a typesetting device instead - until about 1985 that was a fairly distinct thing.

As for the "three basic issues," the first is not an issue at all. I mentioned the IBM Executive in my interview with CreativePro.com - but 9 unit proportional spacing is not the same as the 18 unit proportional spacing used in the memos. The second point is subject to debate: I have demonstrated that at least the line-length fingerprint *can* be exactly reproduced on a modern computer, while in the couple of years since, nobody has produced a device (short of a full-on typesetting machine) available in 1972 that can reproduce that fingerprint. Personally, I make no assertions as to the content, which is another matter entirely. Thomas Phinney 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That old psuedo/faux Helvetica sample versus modern Arial is directly analogous to the font/typeface used in the memos versus modern Time Roman/New Roman -- you had some sort of word processing system (or "intelligent typewriter" as they were also called back then) using a printer mechanism and printer element that approximated a standard typeface. How accurate the approximation was dependent on the typeface size, usually close to 12 point, versus the horizontal resolution, which apparently had common values around that time of 1/60", 1/72" 1/84", 1/96" and 1/120", with the three middle values being Selectric-based (the I/O version) and the two end values being daisywheel-based. The entire document the print sample came from is 5 pages long and when you recreate it with Arial Bold, you get some lines that are dead-on replicas, while others noticeably misalign just like in that sample -- as well as with the Killian memos. You yourself did an overlay experiment with the August 1, 1972 memo, [9], presumably with a best fit, and look at how again variable the alignment is, especially in detail: [10]. David Hailey got very similar results with the same memo,[11], which is taken from this later report of his: [12].

To get a sense about the capabilities of the old printers, I had worked out a formula to figure out the horizontal resolution you need to print proportionally at a given "Units per em": U/F x 72 = horizontal increments/inch where "U" is units, and "F" is the font point size. So for, say, 18 units/em at 12 point for standard Times Roman, the formula gets you: 18/12 x 72 = 108 increments/inch. Potentially, even the 1/60" resolution of the first daisywheels can get you 10 units/em spacing, slightly better than the 9 units/em rating of both the IBM Composer and the later "MC/ST" word processor that was a hotseller for IBM in 1972. One thing that has been a head scratcher is the capabilities of the OEM I/O Selectric mechanism that IBM was selling to other companies -- according this Feb. 19, 1972 Business Week article, [13], by 1972 IBM was selling 20-40,000 of these OEM units annually. With a resolution of 1/72", this gives a theoretical units/em capability of 12. I had also done a manual count of the character widths of CG Times Roman Bold, which approximates the character spacing of at least the latter daisywheel printers, and came up with only 15 unique widths. That's awfully close, but I haven't seen anything firmly indicating other companies using the I/O Selectrics for proportional printing at all. IBM's own MC/ST does show it could be done, however. The existence of that 5 page, faux-Helvetica draft from Aug., 1973 -- and it was indeed a draft with a number of handwritten corrections and some messed up printing -- shows that such capabilities were more than theoretical back then.

As far those three issues I had listed and that you addressed, the first issue is still an issue -- my exact words were "least a minimum of 9 unit proportional spacing were widely available beginning in 1972". See that word minimal? The daisywheel printers from the mid-70's could do 18 unit spacing, so the question is what the slightly older ones could do. Also neither you nor anyone else has established the unit spacing to be 18 for the typeface shown in the memos -- the reasoning has been something along the lines of: oh, that looks like Times Roman, and you need 18 unit spacing to do true Times Roman, therefore the memos use 18 unit spacing. You had created a "virtual IBM Composer" based on specs from what, the mid-60's? That's too much of a guesstimate to be that useful. Also, as I demonstrated, your own overlay experiment, tied in with that faux-Helvetica sample, indicates that the typeface used in the memos is no more than an approximation of a standard Times font. And the high variability in alignment relative to a Word recreation points to the unit spacing being less than 18 (or having very different font metrics at the very least). Which brings us to the my second issue -- you cannot accurately replicate the memos (plural) with a modern word processor. This isn't subject to debate because nobody has been able to do so, not Charles Johnson, not you, nor anyone else as far as I know. Your assertion that "the line-length fingerprint *can* be exactly reproduced on a modern computer, while in the couple of years since, nobody has produced a device (short of a full-on typesetting machine) available in 1972 that can reproduce that fingerprint" is grossly disingenuous and not exactly true: those old office systems from the 70's have been obsolete and scrapped for decades, and given their complexity and mechanical nature, even if one was found in a garage kept under cover, the odds of it coming to life and being usefully functional are slim to none, even if you don't factor in the supplies issue; and where is "the line-length fingerprint" "exactly reproduced" in your overlay experiment [14]? Apparently our definitions of "exact" line up about as well as your overlay -- an "approximate" matchup is not, um, exactly an exact match.

And while you may not want to make any comments about my third issue regarding the contents, issue, it's kind of hard to ignore the fact that the contents of one of the memos could not have been forged under any circumstances, and since that memo has the same print characteristics of all the other memos, well.... Ipso facto, as I keep saying. -BC aka Callmebc 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Goofing around

This 1967 IBM paper, The IBM Selectric Composer - Philosophy of Composer Design, [15], has a genuine print sample from an IBM Selectric Composer (page 5). As an exercise in curiousity, I recreated the print sample with WordPerfect 10 (WordPerfect handles that sort of right-justified typesetting a wee bit more gracefully than Word), first with CG Times Bold, and then used JASC's "Animation Shop 3" program to animate a transition from the original in blue to a recreation in red. I then did likewise with Times New Roman and that's the current animation on the right. Full justification warps true font comparison, but the end result is kind of amusing and served as an excuse to practice creating animated GIF's and posting them here. I'm thinking now of doing the same for the memos -- as shown a little further up in my response to Phinney, recreations with Times New Roman (and Times Roman) don't overlay that accurately, especially with the the longer memos. If you do a best bit overlay, including resizing, words and individual characters drift in and out of alignment in exactly the same way as with that Selectric Composer overlay animation. The pro-forgers have maintained from the beginning that multiple recopying/refaxing was done to make the memos look old, which people like Joseph Newcomer and especially Charles Johnson then used as as excuse for why overlay experiments like Johnson's (in)famous animated "CYA" GIF, [16], don't work for other memos -- that supposed deliberate aging process, in some not-too-well defined way, introduced too much distortion.

However, a close look at the misalignment shown in recreations by both Thomas Phinney,[17], and David Hailey ,[18], pretty clearly indicates that the misalignments are a bit more likely the effect of overlaying a modern digital rendition of Times (New) Roman over a version or close knock-off created with older, very likely non-digital technology.

I won't post the memo overlays here since that would be a little bit more serious than just goofing around -- it would kinda constitute WP:OR in Wikipedia parlance. While replicatable by anyone with the appropriate software, it would nevertheless not be an easy process.

According to the March and May, 1972 issues of the Business Machines Executive Newsletter, in 1971 IBM revenues from their MT/ST-MC/ST word processors exceeded typewriter sales, with about 3600 units being shipped monthly, and these were $7000-$9500 machines. The latest IBM model at that time was the "MC/ET" ("Mag Card/Executive"), which utilized 9-unit proportional spacing much like that of the earlier Composer model (which was introduced in 1966), producing 6 different letter widths, as well as offering automatic centering and supposedly a bunch of other features. The MC/ET unit came out in April, 1972, and was in such demand that there was a 14 week waiting period on it, as well as hurting the sales of the older Mag models.

The point of all this, of course, being that the forgery charges were from the beginning based on widespread ignorance of common early office tech, an ignorance that the news media, mainstream-wise or otherwise, did not exactly make much of an effort, if any, to correct. Eff Why Eye. -BC aka Callmebc 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not So Goofing Around

This was a pain to do, but for anyone interested: [19]. -BC aka Callmebc

Categories

Wikipedia has a complicated sophisticated category system. To be useful (and Wikipedia's is very useful), such a system needs subcategories (ie., categories that are members of other categories). See Wikipedia:Categorization.

We have a Category:Killian documents. It has 3 parent categories:

(1) Category:Journalistic hoaxes

We should not call something a journalistic hoax without good evidence that journalists were knowingly perpetrating a hoax. Since both the main CBS journalists are still alive, WP:BLP requires very good evidence. I haven't seen any such evidence in this case, so I've just removed this as a parent category.

(2) Category:Political forgery

The description of the "Political forgery" category certainly fits the Killian documents (emphasis added):

This category deals with events, organizations, or people that have at some point been referred to as involving forgery for political ends or about political figures.

That still leaves the question of whether the category is appropriately named. Categories can be renamed.

(3) Category:United States presidential election, 2004

Finally, an easy one.

Thus this article and its category are both now in (2) and (3) but not (1). I think this is right. Does anyone disagree?

Cheers, CWC 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to have been a "journalististic hoax"; it appears that the journalists were willing dupes, not instigators. I'd be in favor of adding it to one of the general "hoax", "document forgery", or "forgery" categories, although which of those I'm not sure of. htom 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who was actually "duped" and what exactly was the "hoax," eh? As a side note, what is it with Wikipedians and their glacial response to even simple questions, if they respond at all? Gawd.... (Also a PS: [20]) -BC aka Callmebc 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

September, 2007 discussions

A marker for a future archivist. Please put new discussion below (or in) this section. Thanks, htom 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one still paying attention. I don't suppose you would know who's hiding behind IP 68.242.152.17, would you now? As annoying as I found the last battle, I'm not adverse to doing it again if need be. With that said, I hope things have been well with you. -BC aka Callmebc 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea, no desire for an edit war, either new or resumed; just hoping to make life easier for some future archivist. Personally, mostly well, except for a sprained ankle (Mom was right, don't run up carpeted stairs.) I hope you're doing well, too. htom 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proof?

-- Restoring edits and comments that User:Callmebc deleted without notice.

The idea that there is any serious argument that the documents aren't forgeries is bunk. If they weren't forgeries, the original documents would have been presented. End of story. You can't fake that. We haven't seen the originals because the originals are printouts from a computer using Microsoft Word. Anyone doubting that has to swallow that Bill Burkett burned the originals because this "Lucy Ramirez" person didn't want them forensically examined and traced back to her. Right. Fax the documents and then burn them? Give me a break. Hopefully none of the editors of this page were born yesterday.74.77.208.52 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That statement basically tells me one very important thing: that you have no clue whatsoever about any of this stuff and therefore have no business editing the main article. Your "proof" amounts to no more than some very poorly thought-out opinions and is hardly relevant to improving the article.

FYI -- you can't replicate all of the memos in Word. Go look at this LGF index of their "coverage" of the memos -- you will that Charles Johnson only recreated one the the memos with Word, the "CYA" one, which has the simplest format of the 4 memos CBS used and was the 2nd simplest of all 6 memos. If you look through that index, you have to wonder why didn't he recreate all of the memos if it was as easy as described. Perhaps if he did, he would have ended up with somewhat less than convincing results.

Also one of the memos that CBS had but didn't use, the very short one dated Feb. 2nd, 1972 not only contained a passing reference to redacted DoD info about a fellow pilot of Bush, James Bath, who was suspended exactly one month after Bush for the exact same reasons, but also a mention of some issue with Bush's flight certification. Careful analysis and charting of Bush's record flight records do show a problem. Central to the forgery scenario is that the supposed forger used publicly available information to recreate the contents of the memos. The problem with the Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo is that the flights records needed to have determined that there was an issue with Bush's flight certification were released by the DoD, via an AP FOIA lawsuit, on Sept. 7th, 2004. The issue is that CBS had obtained the memos, according to the Thornburgh-Boccardi report, on Sept. 2 & 5, 2004 -- too late. You combine this with how the official DoD records show many discrepencies with Bush's service [21] [22], and with how word processing, with full proportional spacing and and all the other bells and whistles were actually pretty common by the mid-70's, then to still believe that that memos were forged is to be, well, a moron, um, not well-informed.

And looking at all the inapproproprate edits on the main page that were done the past several hours without discussion, I'm afraid that I will have to revert most, if not all of them. But I'll leave that for tomorrow and give you some opportunity consider being a help to the quality of the article rather than a detriment. -BC aka Callmebc 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Johnson recreated that memo perfectly with Microsoft Word, something that no period typewriter has been able to do. He did it in mere minutes with the default settings. The idea that that is a coincidence is ludicrous on a positively galactic scale. That means it was forged. That means it's a deceitful hit piece that CBS either fell for or perpetrated.

No, No NO -- you obviously did not do a shred of research beyond reading the rants of the right wing blog sites. We're not talking about typewriters -- in 1972, we were dune buggying on the moon, we had pocket scientific calculators, we were playing video games at home, and most law offices had a computer looking thing that was called a "word processor". Remember that original post by "Buckhead" that started the forgery charges? ALL of the tech info in it is nonsensical -- he had no clue about what was common office tech in those days. And Johnson's recreation was not close to being perfect -- if you print out a Word document and feed it however many times through any recent (circa 2004) copier/fax, the characters will still overlay much cleaner than Johnson's results, unless there is a problem with the device, and then you would get smearing and distortion, but that does not show up, does it? You can't have it both ways. And in any case, as I pointed out, Word recreations with the longer, more complicated memos fail completely to come even close. -BC aka Callmebc 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Video games at home in 1972? What video games would those be? We barely had videogames at roller rinks in 1972. The Pong home console wasn't released until late 1975, but I digress. Charles Johnson overlayed the memo and his Microsoft Word recreation, just by eyeballing it, and got this. Not close to being perfect, eh? Baloney. 74.77.208.52 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Magnavox Odyssey home video game was sold in 1972. A key reason why the forgery nonsense took hold is that 1972 might as well be 1932 as far as people's recollection of technology goes, and this was one area where Google isn't that helpful because virtually all of the 60's and 70's tech had been long obsoleted and scrapped, along with their manuals, well before there was even a World Wide Web. A trip to good library is needed to gather info, and even then it has to be a pretty big library since the books I found were essentially technology guides for that time period and hence long obsolete. Also back in those days, people weren't exactly keen on saving things because they might be collectors items down the road, most especially office equipment. IBM Mag word processing systems, for instance, were all over the place from the 60's through the 70's, but just go to find any of them, nevermind a functioning one, these days. The same with the once very common proportional printing IBM Executive typewriters and their little replaceable type typebars of special characters -- these guys, made since the 40's, were gradually supplanted by the non-proportionally printing, but more reliable and simpler to operate Selectrics. From my research, proportional spacing was a big feature of the first generation of word processors beginning in the early 70's but fell out of favor by the time PC's began appearing in the late 70's. Just look at the format and character spacing of this declassified 1959 Memorandum for Record.

As far as Johnson's recreation of the CYA memo goes, I think I did an even better job. I also got a nice result with the shortest memo of all 6, the one dated February 2, 1972. But look what happens when you try this trick with the longer memos, like the August 1, 1972 one. Johnson had just 4 memos to work with, and if the "default settings" in Word were all that was needed to recreate them, then why only do one, the simplest one, and not all before claiming that a major news organization was using forgeries? You could also ask why was there a match up at all in the first place with any of the memos -- well, do you really think Microsoft invented proportional spacing? Where do you suppose they got their Times New Roman fonts and associated spacing parameters from? You might also want to take a looksee at another experiment that recreated the spacing of an old daisywheel printer with its proportional mode turned on. There is nothing special about the spacing used in Times New Roman -- it at least appoximates the spacing used by earlier word processing systems using Times and Times-like typefaces. Which would explain, by the way, why recreations of the shorter memos seem to work, but not the larger ones, where the discrepencies between the old Times-like font shown in the memos and that of Word's Times New Roman become more pronounced.

By the way, this is all original research and so can't be included in the main wiki under any circumstances. I'm only including it here for the purposes of discussion, and even then only because it's easily enough reproduceable. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 19:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You raise good questions and make good points. Nice job with your website, too. You have a point, BC. There's still too much to swallow for me to say they aren't forgeries, whatever they were typed on. Why are they photocopies so many generations removed from the originals? Why have the originals, to this date, never surfaced? Why did some mysterious people supposedly enlist a well-known liar and Bush basher as their conduit for the memos? It just doesn't make any sense. But what does make sense is that a well-known liar and Bush basher produced the very documents he'd been claiming existed for years by making them himself, replete with his own army lingo vs. air national guard lingo, photocopied them multiple times to hide their age, and then concocted a fantastic story about how he acquired them when his name was outed in the press. But, who knows. Thanks for the robust debate and for the history lesson. Cheers, mate. 74.77.180.178 06:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you have to separate the things you can examine, the memos themselves, from the things you can only speculate about. And when you do try to fit a forgery scenario to the memos, it simply doesn't work however you try to force things. Ergo the memos were not forged -- end of story. Spin it all you want, but the forgery claim was never more than malicious BS. But if you really want me to speculate, as far as Burkett goes, go read this piece by the Nation that predates the memos controversy by a month. Also, while were doing all this speculating, haven't you ever wondered why the one person who would really know for sure if the memos were real or not, George Bush himself, never said anything publicly one way or the other? If the memos really were forged as claimed, do you honestly believe Bush and his campaign team would not have used it to directly crucify CBS and drag Kerry into it instead of chancing it with the right wing blogosphere? Think these things through because I will be making some changes to the main page beginning tomorrow and I'm not going to spend a lot of time justifying why I had to remove overtly clueless, unsupported, and ill considered edits. -BC aka Callmebc 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A forgery scenario doesn't fit? LMAO. It fits perfectly. Who cares what they were typed on? Photocopies many generations removed, obtained from a known liar and Bush basher, who, when pressed, said he burned the documents he received! Dig your head out of the sand. Geez Louise! 74.77.180.178 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry - I thought I clearly pointed out in extreme detail how the forgery scenario doesn't fit in any way with all the available evidence. If there is a part you didn't understand, or if you need more additional references to aid in your comprehension, please feel free to bring it up and I will endeavor to explain it in a more easily understandable way. -BC aka Callmebc 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't clearly point out anything. It doesn't make a bit of difference if all the memos can't be reproduced with Microsoft Word's default settings. It doesn't mean a forgery scenario doesn't fit. It doesn't mean that at all. You want to know why? Because the forger could have typed them up using anything and we'll still be looking at copies of memos that had been photocopied over and over again for no good reason, memos where the originals are still missing, or ludicrously "burned," and that came to light through a frothing Bush basher and known liar. 74.77.180.178 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your aim in regard to this article is abundantly clear from reading the discussion and your talk page. Where are the original documents, Callmebc? If they were real they would have surfaced. Burkett was asked where the originals are and he replied with something to the effect of, "Oh, uh... I burned them." A rational person would dismiss everything he has to say right there. Actually, a rational person would dismiss him long before that based on his long track record of lying and obsession with bringing down George W. Bush. He's lied on multiple occasions about George W. Bush. Why believe he's telling the truth now? He was the complete opposite of an "unimpeachable source." Apparently he says that all he ever had were copies of the memos and that all he burned were copies. Which just raises the question again, where are the originals? They were reported to have come from Killian's personal files, right? Except his wife and kids say he didn't keep files. So, where are Killian's files? Did they just contain those six memos? Or does this mythical file contain lots of documents? If so, where's the file, Callmebc? And then there's this "Lucy Ramirez" character. Burkett said he would produce phone records proving that this woman called him. Funny, we never heard about that again. Do you think we ever will? Where's the phone record, Callmebc? If all Burkett burned were copies, why have the originals never surfaced? If those people wanted to expose the truth, why leave Burkett and CBS to twist in the wind when all they had to do was produce the originals? Why use Burkett as an intermediary in the first place?

We don't care about Burkett's actions because all we have to work with are the documents. And the documents have two aspects that need to be considered: their appearance and their contents. And if you want to guess at why Burkett would burn the originals, go look at the situation with the Downing Street Memo. We can speculate, but all we have are the memos to work with. Bear in mind that the most likely situation for those type of memos to be preserved (they are considered personal papers and are usually destroyed if not specifically saved away) would be if Killian had consulted legal counsel -- this is also speculation but it's grounded in logic: the official records show that Bush was not only a problem pilot (this isn't arguable) with a very influential dad, but was shown favoritism by his first base commander, William Staudt, as well as some ranking intermediaries like Rufus Martin, and the official records indeed show that both Killian and Harris were pressured to rate/evaluate Bush for a period that Bush was not on base (this is also not arguable -- it's even in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report). If you were in Killian's situation, what would you do? Maybe seek legal advice? If so, what do lawyers always want you to bring? And if those papers were in a law office all this time, their removal/copying was probably criminal. This is again only speculation, but at least it follows logic. And when you factor in the contents, it is the forgery scenario that becomes absolutely ludicrous, as you might (and probably will say). -BC aka Callmebc 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Killian's own secretary said they were obvious fakes full of army terminology and incorrect acronyms. William Staudt was long since retired by the date of that memo. Retired officers have zero pull. Killian wasn't a typist by the testimony of both his secretary and his family. He certainly didn't have a top of the line word processor costing thousands of dollars, and neither did his TANG office, since none of the documents produced from that office look anything like these fake memos. Someone typed up those memos using John Kerry's own campaign website as a guide. Your idea that some law office has been sitting on those documents all this time is what's ludicrous. If the originals were genuine they'd be public. 74.77.208.52 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh....you basically have come in at the end of the movie and are making a lot of wrong and outright dopey assumptions: Killian didn't have his "own" secretary -- Miriam Knox was a pool secretary who worked for other officers besides Killian, hence she wouldn't be privvy to sensitive personal matters; Staudt left the Air National Guard as a full general -- you tell the big military firms that their hiring of retired generals to help lobby for them is a waste of money; the word processing market was already huge at the point, but if you were computer illiterate or had little reason to know the difference, you wouldn't be able to tell a word processor from a basic Selectric; and that "American Thinker" piece is moronic -- "AFM 35—13" is the correct cite, and not AFM 160—1, because AFM 35-13 is also what's cited in the official DoD records here and here, and the reason that Killian ordered Bush to get his physical by May 14th is because Bush was leaving for Alabama on the 15th, which is mentioned in the backdated "Not Observed" rating report.

Are you seeing a pattern yet? You and plenty others were/are completely misinformed on all of this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm seeing a pattern all right. Miriam Knox said she was Killian's right hand and that he shared everything with her. She said they were like one mind. But you dismiss that because you don't like her utter castigation of the idea that those memos were genuine. The idea that Killian typed out six memos, all pertaining to Bush, on a word processor that he never used to type any other documents, shows you what an obvious scam this was. They thought they could get away with it because Killian is dead. He doesn't even have a personal file, for Pete's sake! If he does, where they hell is it? His freaking family would sure like to know. As for Staudt, unless you can demonstrate that he went to some big military firm after retiring, and then decided to break the law by interfering with military business, your point is meaningless. 74.77.180.178 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry - I thought I clearly pointed out in extreme detail how Killian likely had the memos typed up elsewhere. And didn't Knox say that the contents of the memos were accurate? Let's do that research thing, shall we: [23] "I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct." Knox says the information in the four memos that CBS obtained is very familiar, but she doesn't believe the memos are authentic. She does, however, remember Killian being upset over Mr. Bush's failure to take a physical.

Likely had the memos typed up elsewhere? Are you freaking kidding me? Where is your evidence for that crackpot assertion? Typed up where? Who typed them? How come his own family doesn't know anything about this? His own wife? Your ceaseless, utterly unsubstantiated speculation is nauseating. I know what Knox said. I could not care less if the information was accurate. I was in the reserves. I know how many hours Bush put in during his years of service. He put in something like six times what was required in earlier years. If he loafed in his last year or two, I could not care less. And, by the way, the record for his last two years said he did the minimum required. 74.77.180.178 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the CBS story was only a "me too" piece in regards to Bush's service record, both the Boston Globe and especially the Associate Press had done far more research using official records and interviews that strongly indicated that had been major, unexplained discrepencies with Bush's service records. Indeed all of that forgery fuss completely overshadowed how the day before the AP's FOIA lawsuit forced the release of more of Bush's service records after many months of delays and excuses. And even then, AP reporter Matt Kelly wrote, on the very same day that CBS's story aired, that there were still key records missing. What, you missed all this? I guess there must have been other distractions going on..... -BC aka Callmebc 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Could not care less. 74.77.180.178 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are so many ludicrous leaps one has to make to believe the memos were genuine. But it's easy to believe they're fake. Burkett hated Bush and had Mapes and others breathing down his neck asking for documents proving his assertions about Bush. So he typed them up, photocopied and faxed them and thought he'd get away with it. Then it blew up in his face and he invented this absurd cloak and dagger story, said he burned the documents, and promised phone records to back up his story that never surfaced. Why didn't they surface, Callmebc? Because they never happened. Because the whole thing is a lie. An obvious lie. That's clear to anyone with an ounce of sense. So your attempt to carry water for Dan Rather, Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes is an exercise in foolishness and futility. Instead of trying to rehabilitate them, perhaps you should express some righteous outrage that those people, knowingly or unknowingly, used forged documents in an attempt to sway a national election. 74.77.208.52 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again this is all nonsensical speculation on your part. Focus on the memos and actual, hard evidence, and things might perhaps make more sense to you. Maybe.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all for hard evidence. Where are the originals? Somebody photocopied them, so they have to be out there, right? Maybe Bill Burkett will get that Lucy Ramirez phone number he promised us years ago. Then we can ask her. Do you really honestly believe those memos were typed in 1972 and have sat in some secret file somewhere for all these decades? Do you believe in unicorns, too? 74.77.208.52 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your speculations are again nonsensical. Say you went out today and consulted a lawyer because your bosses at work were asking you to do things that made you uncomfortable and might actually get you into trouble down the road. If the lawyer follows standard practice, you will be asked to bring along whatever material you can gather related to the matter, and when you get to the firm, copies of the relevant material will be made and filed away. How long do you think that file will be kept before being tossed, if ever. Instead of worrying about unicorns, you might try thinking these things through. -BC aka Callmebc 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Filed away where? Where is this lawyer? If the file was tossed, who made photocopies? When did they make them? Why did they make them? Why did they photocopy them over and over again, continually downgrading their quality? You're the one who hasn't thought this through. Nonsensical speculations? Do you even read what you type? You just invented a lawyer and a secret file that no one knows about, that to this day have not turned up, even when CBS was twisting in the wind for agonizing months. Say "hi" to the unicorn for me.74.77.180.178 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"A MUCH OVERLOOKED aspect of the controversy is that the contents of the memos appear supported by an analysis of Bush's military service records maintained by the U.S. Department of Defense" This statement at the beginning of the article should be in a critics section. Even with the citations, it is too POV oriented. This controversy was about the use of forged documents to support CBS's story. Whether or not the content was true, doesn't really matter. This was about journalistic ethics. --72.202.200.143 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's illogical -- the documents in question have numerous names, dates, and references to things said and done, and the DoD has a website containing the official records. Surely if the memos were forgeries, there would be some discrepencies, however slight. But guess what -- there aren't any discrepencies. In fact, even in the finest, most subtle and unobvious detail, there still aren't any discrepencies. A good example is the much discussed "CYA" memo -- Killian mentions how he will backdate the rating report. Well, was that report backdated and how could you tell? The dates for the rating report are based on Bush's enlistment date of May 27, 1968, making his report period for service and training points May 27 - May 26. If you rummage through his DoD records, you will see the May 26th date appear over and over again in regards to all of Bush's reports, including the rating reports, except for the "Not Observed" rating report referred to by the CYA memo -- hence making the May 2nd date for this rating report very, very much out of place. Meaning that it was indeed likely backdated as described in the "forged" memo. Do you really think a forger could be so smart to figure all this out but be dumb enough to not have used one of the many, many Selectrics still in service? -BC aka Callmebc 13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to come back to this one, because this is hilarious. No discrepancies? They even name dropped an officer who had retired long before. The abbreviations aren't even right - "grp" vs "gp" and "OETR" vs "OER". May 2nd vs May 26th isn't much of a backdate. I wouldn't even call it a backdate. Maybe you don't realize this, but reservists drill once a month, and where that drill falls in the month varies frequently. So you have a May rating report backdated all the way to... May. That's hilarious. A forger probably looked at the different date and drafted in the "backdate" idea in an attempt to create a memo that would gibe with the official documents already released. Nothing more. Too bad for the forger, so many mistakes had already been made that the little homework that was done didn't matter in the least. 74.77.222.188 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No discrepancies? Killian's secretary disagrees completely. She said they were full of mistakes. She ought to know since typing those kinds of memos was her job. Yeah, I do think the forger is that dumb. But, hey, if you think the forger used one of the "many, many Selectrics still in service," or that Killian used one in 1972 that he never used for any other documents, then get one of these "many, many Selectrics" and reproduce the memos. Tell us what you find on your website. 74.77.180.178 17:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep cluelessly claiming things without any refs. Knox was not Killian's personal secretary -- she worked in the office pool, so she wouldn't be privvy to sensitive info like that contained in the memos -- only personal/confidential secretaries do that -- which also means that the memos would have been typed by someone else regardless. If you had familiarity with corporate, legal or government office environments, you would know this. And I have no ideal what point you were trying to make with your "Selectric" comment. Again I strongly advise that you do some research before posting any further "info" here on on the main page. -BC aka Callmebc 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have plenty of experience in government office environments. Look up what a "yeoman" is in the Navy. And try reading the transcript of the Rather/Knox interview to see how wrong you are. You can't figure out my Selectric comment? That's what you think could have been used to make the memos, right? So prove it. Get a Selectric and reproduce the memos. Show us your animations. Shouldn't be too difficult, since, according to you, there are "many, many Selectrics still in service." Good luck. 74.77.180.178 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I said the memos were created on a Selectric? Do you know how to read? Or is it that you are so gung-ho on your little fantasy that you'll just discard anything or everything contradicting it? Your "Yeoman" comment only tells me that you were just a military clerk and that you really don't have any idea about general office procedure involving secretaries, just as all of your comments have indicated -- you might perchance ask someone who actually works at an office with personal and general secretaries about how confidential matters are handled. And about the law office stuff -- I said that was only speculation, but you did ask where the documents would have been stored all this time. Killian was dealing with problem pilot under his command, one who had a very influential, big shot dad with high-up military connections. If you were indeed in the military, just put yourself in Killian's circumstances where he was being pressured give a rating report on a pilot who was off-base for the period in question. What would you do if not only you felt uncomfortable about doing this, but you were concerned about the consequences if this came out somewhere down the road. I would ask you to give an honest answer, but I suspect that's something you don't do. Also I find it difficult to believe, for some strange reason, that you've never had to deal with lawyers, but you might want to ask someone who has or, better yet, works in a law firm and ask what happens to papers clients bring in, especially in regards to storage. Also, it might help to understand that the memos, because of certain content elements which I had already pointed out but which you likely went cognitive dissonant on, could not have been created by a forger in recent years under any circmstances -- a fact that pretty much completely trashcans all of your little "speculations". -BC aka Callmebc 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't know the first thing about confidential matters. I actually have a security clearance. Do you? I can handle confidential, secret and top secret documents that pertain to the carrying out of my duties. Those memos don't have any sort of clearance attached to them. There's absolutely no reason he couldn't use Knox to type them. None. Zip. Nada. Funny how Killian was supposedly having so much trouble with Bush that he supposedly went to a law office to type up memos that he supposedly put away in some secret file that remained dormant for decades, and has still yet to be found, and then these memos supposedly fell right into the lap of Bill Burkett of all people. Funny how Killian was supposedly having so much trouble with Bush and never talked to his own wife about it. You have not established that the memos couldn't be forged. At all. You want to do something useful? Find the 1972 technology that could have made those memos. Reproduce the memos using that technology. Then show us the animations on your website. You suggested a forger would have been smart enough to use a Selectric. Now you're backtracking. Whether it was a Selectric or something else, find out what it was and show us what typed them. Then, if you accomplish that (not bloody likely since it would have been done by now considering the $50,000 reward for it and the savaging of the reputations of CBS, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes), explain to us how they couldn't have been typed recently with that same technology, which will be impossible, because you will have just done it yourself. The only reason for the multiple generations of photocopying was to hide their recent creation. That's it. 74.77.222.188 00:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

-- End restoring comments User:Callmebc deleted. Jmcnamera 01:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Restoring more edits that User:Callmebc deleted.

Journalistic Ethics

And in regards to journalistic ethics, it's a bit debatable who/what was the worst offender: the rushed and sloppy fact checking by Mary Mapes and her crew; the right wing mediasphere, including commentators for Fox News and the National Review, spewing whatever nonsensical "evidence" they could make up and quoting whatever crackpotty "expert" they can find to smear favorite whipping boy Dan Rather and indirectly Kerry; the rest of the mainstream corporate media who apparently couldn't be bothered to have even some interns to do the most elementary research into some of the claims being made in regards to early 70's technology, the reproducibility of the memos by a modern word processor, and consistency with the DoD records and document format standards -- not too mention letting Bush and his official spokespeople avoid commenting on the veracity of the memos despite Bush obviously knowing if they were true or not; or CBS News in particular for deciding to scapegoat and facesave rather (so to speak) than use their considerable resources to get to the bottom of it all. -BC aka Callmebc 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not debatable at all. CBS went ahead with a hit-piece in the middle of an election that used copies of memos that were obtained from a known crackpot. A known crackpot that they outrageously declared was an "unimpeachable source." They didn't bother to call the guy Burkett said he got them from (which would have exposed his lie instantly). They didn't bother to try to get the originals, so authentication could actually be possible. None of their experts vouched for the authenticity of the memos. They said the exact opposite, that they couldn't authenticate them. But they went ahead with the piece, anyway. Utterly disgraceful. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather are a disgrace. 74.77.180.178 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your absolutely clueless, wrongheaded yet firmly believed comments are actually best evidence for how journalism took a vacation during the memos mess. Burkett was not a "known crackpot" -- he served for 28 years in the National Guard and there is nothing in his history to indicate that he was ever more than a guy who tried to do the right thing. He was merely swiftboated and you were suckered. -BC aka Callmebc 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You don't know what you're talking about. Are you really unaware of Bill Burkett's continually changing stories about Bush's service records? Why do you think everyone laughed when he was outed as CBS's "unimpeachable source"? The man is a raving loon. He claimed to overhear several conversations about sanitizing Bush's records. He claimed to find Bush's records in trash bins, changing his story about what documents he saw in the trash several times. He claimed he witnessed Bush's records being destroyed in a facility where they weren't kept. Not even in the right state. Boy, he sure appears to end up in the right place at the right time an awful lot. Funny how it's always the same guy seeing these things and hearing these things. What are the odds, I wonder? Then, his story hilariously morphed into him being the one "ordered" to sanitize Bush's record, and that when he refused, he was sent to Panama. Yeah, he actually said that. Then he backtracked, saying, "That was not accurate, that was overstated." He went on rants saying that Bush personally held up his medical benefits. He posted on Democratic websites that "down and dirty" tactics to keep Bush from getting reelected were justified. He lamented not being able to find damning Killian memos mere weeks before they supposedly dropped into his lap like manna from heaven. Then he claimed that he and others had "reassembled" Killian's memos. He actually said that - "reassembled." This guy, this raving loon, this known liar, crackpot and frothing Bush hater was the source for the Killian memos. The only source. CBS went ahead with a hit piece on a president in the middle of a reelection campaign based solely on the word of someone who is the complete opposite of a credible source. They went ahead with this piece with memos that weren't even originals. Memos full of errors, even containing Army terms like "billet." And when they ask Burkett where the originals are, he says, "Oh, uh... I burned them." "Well," CBS said, "that's good enough for us!" They aired their horribly "sourced" hit piece. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are a disgrace. An utter disgrace to the field of journalism. And here you are, trying to claim that these pathetic documents from this utterly pathetic man are genuine. What a joke. 74.77.180.178 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen Up

I'm getting a little tired of your slandering, utterly clueless, utterly factless, crackpotted nonsense. You have consistently demonstrated that you don't have one friggin clue about Burkett, his history, his motives, the circumstances surrounding the CBS story, what the DoD records say about Bush's service regardless of the memos, how the contents of the memos match up with official records, the stonewalling by the Pentagon, what are proper common military documents formats, what is proper military lingo, what was common early 70's office technology and its capabilities, how reproducable -- or not -- are the memos with a modern word processor, and so on and so forth. So far you've only been spouting every stupid, uninformed, and laughably wrong cliche regurgitated endlessly by right wing bloggers regarding the memos. Not to mention how all of your comments and smears regarding Mapes, Dan Rather and Burkett, all without a shred of real evidence, violate a pile of Wikipedia protocols. You've shown that you have about as much business contributing to this wiki as you would to the one on Quantum Mechanics. I have other distractions right now, so there will be another day or so of grace before I start removing the more unsubstantiated (and moronic) edits from the main article. Either finally get real, responsible and serious or else go 'way. Shoo. -BC aka Callmebc 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just destroyed your pathetic argument. And it was fun. Ciao. 74.77.222.188 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

End of restoring more edits that User:Callmebc deleted. This does appear to be vandalism, hopefully I've fixed all of it now. Callmebc's edits continue after this and I'm adding a section head to keep it separate from the rest since he choose to delete it the last time. Vandalism corrected by Jmcnamera 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

CallmeBc's position

Please read slowly and carefully:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article.
     This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

This means that even if you're 100% certain that Mapes is the daughter of Satan because some guy named WhatsTheFrequencyMapes said so in a post at Little Green Footballs and that, of course, it makes total sense and that you would have to believe in unicorns not to see the obvious logic & evidence in it, it still doesn't belong here. The purpose of the Talk page is to discuss improvements to the main article, and not as a sounding board for deranged conspiracy theories, especially so when done without even a teensy, weensy bit of effort to supply even marginally credible references.

Unlike you, we have plenty of credible references, ranging from the Washington Post to CNN to USA Today and so on. We also have Bill Burket's own words, which are the most damaging of all. 74.77.222.188 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now with that said, let's see if there is anything worth preserving here -- because it's almost playoff time, I'll give you a turn at the bat with your supposed points:

1) The idea that there is any serious argument that the documents aren't forgeries is bunk. If they weren't forgeries, the original documents would have been presented. End of story.

Hmmm....The AP sued the DoD under FOIA to force them to release Bush's military records. The DoD did so very grudgingly [24]. Now how many of those documents were originals, you suppose? Apparently none -- they were all copies made from microfilm or whatever: [25], [26], and of highly variable quality if you bother to click through the DoD Pdf's. Are the DoD records forgeries because the are also not originals? Why would the memos, which had to have been likewise stored somewhere for 30+ years, be any different?

Strike one

Of course they aren't forgeries, because, get this: they came from the DoD not Bill freaking Burkett. 74.77.222.188 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2) Charles Johnson recreated that memo perfectly with Microsoft Word, something that no period typewriter has been able to do. He did it in mere minutes with the default settings. The idea that that is a coincidence is ludicrous on a positively galactic scale. That means it was forged.

Hmmm...well, there were 4 memos that CBS had used for their story. If it was so easy to recreate one memo "perfectly with Microsoft Word" "in mere minutes with the default settings," why not do all of them? If you were Charles Johnson and got such a good result recreating the first memo, wouldn't you be all excited to try it with another? Or would you stop at that point to go online and excitedly claim that ALL of the memos were forged? Well, Yeoman 74.77.208.52, what would you do? Or maybe Johnson did try at least one of the other memos and didn't like the result, but he still stuck with the one good result, just...because. One out of four -- a .250 average -- that wouldn't be too bad for a baseball player, but for a self-proclaimed expert: "I've been involved with desktop publishing software and scalable software fonts (as opposed to hot lead type) almost since their inception." [27]? I don't think so. And what happens when you try it with all the memos? Well there is my action packed animation page [28], but if you don't like that, you can also see the results typographer Thomas Phinney [29] and document archivist David Hailey got [30].

I have a draft press release dated August, 1973 created on some unknown system [31] that looks very much like a recreation I did with Arial Bold [32], even though Arial didn't even exist as a font in 1973 [33]. The coincidence for this must be at least on a multiverse/space time continuum scale by your standards, eh?

Strike two

We've been over this. Find the 1972 technology that produced those memos. No one has been able to do it. There's a $50,000 reward in it for you. Happy hunting. See if you can bag a unicorn, too, while you're at it. 74.77.222.188 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

3) "Killian's own secretary said they were obvious fakes full of army terminology and incorrect acronyms" The abbreviations aren't even right - "grp" vs "gp" and "OETR" vs "OER".

First familiarize yourself with what a "Memorandum For Record" is in the Air Force (which holds sway over the Air National Guard): [34]

Memorandums for record, or MFRs, are a simple, personal way to document information to be used at a later date. No header is required with MFRs, and they are constructed simply by typing MEMO FOR RECORD on the first line of a page using 1" top, left, and right margins, with the date in either extended (1 September 1999) or abbreviated (1 Sep 99) format justified against the right margin on the same line. The subject line is two lines below the MFR line, and the text body begins two lines below the subject. Paragraphs are not required. MFRs may have signature blocks, but they are not required. The writer may either sign his/her full name or initial the paper at the end of the text.

If you were truly a Yeoman (although I have a hard time believing anything you say), you should be familiar with the difference between a note to yourself and an official letter or form sent to a higher up or department. Killian used the term both "Gp" and "Grp" for "group" in his memos, and memos are NOT official records -- they are basically papers journals so the formatting for them is looser. So how strange would it be for an Air Guard/Air Force guy to refer to group as "Grp"? Well a little Googling and I found this [35], which was created by a "Sgt in USAF": TUSLOG Det 16 (USAF) AFCS Communications Group (with sub-dets throughout Turkey)---Det 16 was known as 2006 Comm Grp when at Elmadag in 83-84, they are listed at Incirlik/Adana in 1982.

As far as "OETR" vs "OER" goes, well there is this official form I had dug up one time, an inquiry by the USAF into Bush's missing....well, I don't want to spoil the surprise [36] (check the top). The full name for a USAF Form 77 is "Officer Effectivess/Training Report".

But it's not referred to as such in TANG documents and memos. Except for the Bill Burkett memos. It's not that exceptions can't be found here and there in the official record. It's the absurd idea that all the exceptions would be found in one place: Those six laughable forgeries provided by Bill Burkett. Find a Killian memo from the official record where he writes "grp" instead of "gp" or "OETR" instead of "OER". You won't be able to. They don't exist. Only in those six pathetic forgeries provided by Bill Burkett. 74.77.222.188 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm quite aware that there any number of supposed military people who posted on the right wing blog sites that OETR was never, ever used, that it was always OER (the slash "joins" training to effectiveness), but judging from similar comments about things I know about, one could safely regard the memory of trivial things from 30+ years ago to be a bit suspect, especially considering the much bigger issues. After all, Bush doesn't seem to remember any details about his service, including what Killian said or didn't say despite all these records and docs to function as a memory jogger [37], and even Bush's former base commander, Bobby Hodges, and Rufus Martin, the personnel officer, claim to not being able to even remember who it was that verbally suspended Bush from flying [38] despite official records showing that it was Killian. Also I have noted that Gerald Lechliter used OETR in his personal version of the analysis of Bush's Guard records, but not in the nicer one he wrote for the Times.

Steeeeerike Threeeeee, you're out!

Now be the good ex-Yeoman, take a shower and go find some nice pots to crack.

-BC aka Callmebc 00:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, BC, but you didn't delete that entire discussion over and over again because you came off so well. You deleted it because you lost the argument. Badly. So you tried to excise it from the record. Everyone, read the argument under the Proof? headline and the following one under the Journalistic Ethics headline to see what BC so desperately didn't want you to see. He wanted you to not see it so badly that he deleted it three times. At least. Now that's three strikes, bud. I'd say you were out, but you were never on to begin with. Ciao. 74.77.222.188 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Left-leaning political bias vs. Karl Rove subterfuge

One has evidence supporting the allegation and one does not. Mary Mapes had contact with the John Kerry campaign about the progress of the story and put them in touch with Bill Burkett. That's a fact. That's clear evidence of Mary Mapes aiding a political campaign. The assertion that Karl Rove orchestrated the forged documents ruse in order to undercut attacks on Bush's military service has no evidence whatsoever. There is no sound reason to put forward these two theories in the lead as if they are equally credible. Until I see that sound reason, I'll keep making the change to reflect the crucial difference in the two theories.74.77.208.52 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your personal hypthesis is hardly relevant. -BC aka Callmebc 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't report theories according to editors' judgment of their credibility. We report what's notable. Prominent people (a U.S. Congressman and a DNC Chair) have voiced the Rove theory. That makes it notable. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting excising it. I'm only referring to mentioning that those "prominent people" offered no evidence to support their claims, unlike those suggesting political bias at CBS. The lead previously only mentioned the two theories, making no distinction in terms of supporting evidence.74.77.208.52 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And your offering your own judgement as being a valid arbitrator, but your comments and edits indicate you have very little understanding of the subject matter aside from what you've obviously read in right wing sources. -BC aka Callmebc 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, right wing sources like USA Today and CNN. 74.77.208.52 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit made

I have removed the last para from the lede. Please see my edit summary for reasoning. I would support the same textr elsewhere in the article, but not in the lede. 64.191.50.138 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this recent rash of edits are making the article worse because: they include too much of the right wing beliefs (which are wrong); leave off far too much of the content issue; don't indicate the context of the story -- it came a day after a release of official records by the DoD as the result of an AP FOIA lawsuit filed months prior; key backing refs are lacking; and don't include nearly enough source material related to the press coverage (which was specious and dumb) and the attitude of the right wing blogosphere (which was malicious and dumb). I think the editors need to do a wee bit more research before doing any more edits. I hate to toot my own horn, but my site does have by far the most info on the matter and it's heavily hyperlinked to reliable and original sources, many of which are difficult if not impossible to track down on your own, like copies of the pages of the manuals that were cited for Bush's suspension and such. I'm in the awkward position of being an accidental expert on this stuff and knowing that the forgery charges were never more than a pile of utter, confused nonsense, driven by malicious bloggers and aided by lazy reporters, that just falls apart completely with any serious scrutiny and research, but the way the Wiki works is that I can't really use this knowledge because it's original research. So unless it gets cited by a "reliable source," it's off limits. But consider this an education of how things are often not quite what you have been led to believe.

With that said, I will have to start spending more time cleaning up and improving the main site, assuming more people will come to it thanks to Rather's lawsuit, and this appears having to undo and modify a lot of the changes made. I will try to mention what I'm planning in advance as a courtesy (unlike the bulk of these recent edits). But I strongly recommend editors get a bit more familiar with the topic and its underlying foundation before making any more ill-considered edits. -BC aka Callmebc 06:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, The recent edits to the introduction you mention above have been your attempts to insert your POV from your personal Killian website, acheckofa, into this article. The introduction has been stable for months and the only changes in the last year for this artcle really just need to be Dan Rather's new lawsuit against CBS. If you want to write lots about the issue, please keep the partisan stuff on your website. Please cease your disruptive reverts to the introduction. 68.242.64.112 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's all opinionated, unsupported nonsense on your part. I've listed my reasons for making the changes, and none of your comments have addressed them. You have been using different IP addresses to revert the changes without a shred of reasoning given to justify them -- you're basically a vandal with no interest in improving the article. The article has serious problems with lack of context, references and proper NPOV. All I want now is semi-protection in order to deal with nuisances like you. Also, and I suspect you know this quite well -- I know "a heck of a" lot more about this stuff than you do, and that you're just here to try to keep the article unbalanced towards the view of some right wing web site. -BC aka Callmebc 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Alrighty then, enough with dealing with "74.77.208.52's" little fantasies, as amusing as that might be, and not just because that sort of insult-exchanging argument is against the Wikipedia policy of etiquette. I hate to be the one to point out rules of any sort, but I was reminded of how Wikipedia does have a few rules that make sense:

1) WP:NPOV Neutral point of view -- meaning that just because you personally think CBS was involved in a conspiracy and that Bill Burkett was a deranged liar doesn't exactly make it so, however firmly convinced you are, especially without any sort of supporting evidence from reliable sources.

2) Beware of playing fast and loose with the biographies of living persons -- meaning that just because your teddy bear told you that Dan Rather is evil again doesn't make it so. Generally speaking, smearing a person who is still around, especially without a shred of actual, verifiable evidence is a big no-no.

3) Verifiability -- research is your friend, and also it's in very poor form to add information in article edits, most especially major ones, without providing a backing reference via, again, reliable sources. Stuff you heard at a bar, overheard on a bus, discussed in a blog and/or such are not considered reliable sources.

4) Consensus -- meaning that before you decide to add/delete/change key aspects of an article, you should discuss the changes in the talk page first. However firmly you believe that, say, global warming is a vast left wing hoax or that Martian unicorns were behind the Killian memos conspiracy, there may be others who do not share those views, and they may actually even have supporting evidence for their side.

5) WP:DISRUPT Disruptive editing -- meaning that you shouldn't ignore evidence, logic, well-reasoned objections and such just because they don't fit in with your beliefs about what information should be put into the article. Tendentious editing just makes you a nuisance, if not an outright vandal, that will only likely get you blocked.

Please bear these basic elements in mind and not only will this help in making a useful, enlightening article, but it will help us all just get along. -BC aka aka Callmebc 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit of 07:51, 24 September 2007 Callmebc

The text of this edit is not supported by the sources. The CJR piece does not deal in any depth with the authenticity of the documents, addressing only two of the many document experts and being written before the Thornburgh-Boccardi report was released. Linking to Bush's entire military history does not justify "the contents of the memos appear supported by an analysis of Bush's military service records"; in any case if the documents were forgeries you would expect them to tally with his service records. Unless you can produce better sources I will revert it. Dcxf 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The original version was vague and had no refs or sources to support the statement "Subsequently, a number of expert forensic document examiners concluded that the six memos are almost certain forgeries." Also it was lacking in crucial detail, even for an introduction -- the CBS story was part of a long, ongoing overall investigation by the media into Bush's Guard service, and the memos were only a very, very small part of it. Indeed the very day before the story aired, there was another release of Bush's guard service records by the Pentagon thanks to a successful FOIA lawsuit by the AP [39]. The CBS report in that context was nevermore than a "me too" story, and the "Killian documents" only became only became notable because of the charges of forgery orginating from and driven by the right wing blogger, most notably at the Free Republic, Power Line, and Little Green Footballs. There were numerous reports throughout the year, completely outside of the memos issue, that had analyzed the sporadic releases of Bush's service records and found problems consistent with the contents of the memos. The NY Times report I linked to was just one of many -- here are a few others: [40], [41] [42]

By not mentioning the context of the Killian story, you give the highly false impression that this was just some singular, isolated effort by CBS. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to leave the intro as without at least mentioning the connection to the greater question of Bush's Guard service. Since there is nothing refutable here, I will again attempt to remedy the situation. In regards to the CJR piece I included -- that provided a detailed summary of how the bloggers originated and drove the story, and how the mainstream press covered it.

Unless you have a better, more factual response, I suggest you and the others concentrate on aiding in improving the article. -BC aka Callmebc 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro needed work but this is not an article about Bush's military record, it is about the Killian documents. To support the edit that you want to make you would need a source that specifically describes correlations between the content of the Killian documents and Bush's service record, and a source that specifically addresses all the document authenticity issues. Really the latter is better left to the Killian documents authenticity issues article. If you think the article needs more context the "Background" section would be a better place for it. The current edit [[43]] is a reasonable compromise I think. Dcxf 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You claiming that "this is not an article about Bush's military record, it is about the Killian documents" is about as logical as claiming that the polar ice cap melt is not about global warming. The sole reason there was that CBS report in the first place is because of long standing questions and issues about Bush's Guard service record. Indeed, from the Thornburgh-Boccardi report:

The interests of Rather and Mapes in pursuing a story about President Bush's TexANG service date back to at least 1999. At that time, and again during the presidential election of 2000, they investigated allegations that then-Texas Governor Bush had received preferential treatment in getting into the TexANG in 1968. Although Rather did two interviews about the subject in 1999, no story was put together for airing. They did little further investigating on this matter until 2004, when numerous stories appeared in the media about both presidential candidate's military service during the Vietnam War era.

I do believe this clearly refutes your contention and helps supports my point that the article as is, especially at the very beginning, is grossly misleading. It's lacking context, accurate history, relevant refs, and is overall a very poor, uninformative article. Corrent me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the idea with an encyclopedia entry is not to misinform and confuse people -BC aka Callmebc 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the problems with your citations at all, to quote WP:TE: "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw. The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources." Unless you have a specific, up-to-date source for "no firm proof of this has ever been produced" and "that the contents of the memos appear supported by an analysis of Bush's military service records", you should not add these claims. If you believe the article needs more context, why not put it in the Background section? Dcxf 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

???? Are you somehow disagreeing with the fundamental point that CBS obtained and used the Killian Documents as a direct result of the ongoing controversy over Bush's service in the Air National Guard? Also are you likewise claiming that just because separate analyses of Bush's official records done by independent investigators and reporters show that there were indeed a number of discrepancies and deficiencies that match up quite well with that contents of the memos, that this doesn't matter? Even the deficient Thornburgh-Boccardi panel report [44] noted: The Panel notes that the official Bush records generally support the content of the June 24 memorandum. Lieutenant Bush’s last flight in an F-102 at Ellington AFB is reported to have been on April 16, 1972. The official Bush records show that Lieutenant Colonel Killian and Lieutenant Colonel Harris were asked to rate Lieutenant Bush for the period of May 1972 through April 1973. Those official records also show that both Guardsmen resisted filling out the evaluation due to the fact that they had not observed Lieutenant Bush’s performance because of his transfer to Alabama. Ultimately, Lieutenant Colonel Killian and Lieutenant Colonel Harris appear to have succeeded in their resistance, since in the end no rating was issued for Lieutenant Bush for that period. So, are you really also trying to claim that analyzes such as this and the others I had already listed don't pretty much say the exact same thing the memos do about Bush's Guard service? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from your website at aheckofa.com that you have a strong partisan pov on this subject and feel strongly about George Bush. However this article is supposed to be npov and is not about Bush directrly but about the Killian papers. Please stop adding your bias to the long-standing introduction and reverting any edits that attempt to improve on your edits. 68.242.64.112 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aheckofa.com contains a vast amount of sourced and excerpted information regarding the memos, official DoD records, 70's office technology, military document formats, and refs to books and journals that can't be found anywhere else on the Internet. If the net result (so to speak) is that it makes the forgery charges and Bush's behavior not very credible, that's just how the pieces fit. But how does any of this relate to my list of reasons and justification for updating the article page, and your weaselly, unjustified & unsupported reverts? Please stick to the topic at hand. -BC aka Callmebc 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I've been dealing with all these anonymous sockpuppet IP's (they are obviously familiar with Wiki editing, yet have only a very short history of IP edits to one or two articles) blocking any changes to the main article, which has a teeny bit of a problem with refs, POV and context starting with the opening paragraph. I've requested semi-protection but a sysop put on a full lock for edit warring, which make no sense since I'm dealing with sockpuppet IP's who've demonstrated no real intention of discussing matters. Please consider putting back this last change: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Killian_documents&diff=160027375&oldid=160015582

Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet. I just changed my router. My history is here:74.77.208.52 That's the IP address I was using when I began this with you. You're the one who doesn't want to discuss matters, since you're attempting to remove the argument that you lost from this talk page. Really bad form, but no surprise from you.74.77.222.188 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet either and I am not 74.77.xx. BC, since you know so much more than us about all things Killian, why don't you call Dan Rather and CBS and work with them to find the documents? It would be more productive than trying to turn this page into a public version of your existing Killian editorial site. 68.242.64.112 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe anything you say, given your "history". Don't you have a pot to crack? -BC aka Callmebc 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BC, Your joke obscures the issue that your pushing your POV here. You pretend to be the only expert here and keep pushing your view while saying everyone doesn't know what they are talking about. We all know extreme pov from your website you push now and then. Why don't you take a week off and go edit your "Killian docs are real" website? 68.242.64.112 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out that you never back up anything whatsoever you say/claim with any refs or anything resembling logic/reasoning? Like I said, go find some nice pots.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Talk Page

Callmebc vandalized this talk page on at least three occasions (now six and counting), excising arguments that didn't go his/her way. They're now back under their headers of Proof? and Journalistic Ethics. Callmebc has a website here, where it's claimed that it's impossible for the Killian documents to be forgeries. Impossible. The mental gymnastics gone through to arrive at such a conclusion are mind-bendingly humorous, with nothing more hilarious than BC's final conclusion. BC claims that Killian must have been so upset over George W. Bush that he sought legal counsel and thus went to a law office to type out the infamous Bill Burkett memos. According to BC, that's the only place Killian could have likely found the technology that typed those memos. Of course, Killian's own wife has no knowledge of her husband being upset about Bush in the least, let alone being so upset that he went to a lawyer. In fact, she has the opposite recollection: that Killian was happy with Bush's performance under his command. But BC is undeterred.

Now, I just finished a long stint in the military, including in the Reserves. The idea that a Lt Col in the Air National Guard would go to a lawyer over such a scenario is absurd to the extreme. Only someone with zero understanding of the military environment and protocols would suggest such a ludicrous scenario. That's why it's BC's thesis. A thesis so absurd that I can destroy it with one link. Does that look like a memo requiring a trip to a law office? Do any of them? Do you think Killian made trips to a law office from February of 1972 and on into 1973 to type up six memos on their high-falutin' equipment? Trips that no one who actually worked with Killian has ever suggested took place? BC even ridiculously suggests that Killian may have transcribed all of the memos on the same day in 1973 for clarity. Yeah, for clarity. That's actually suggested on BC's website. I wonder if BC even realizes that that would mean there's two sets of originals out there that have never been found.

BC, of course, has zero evidence that Killian did something so absurd. The entire scenario is a BC fabrication. Pure speculation. BC just knows that that's the only way those memos could possibly have been typed by Killian. He invents a legal office, a lawyer, and a secret file, the existences of which have been found by no one, not even by the likes of CBS, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, who happen to have the most obvious reasons to want such an absurd scenario to be true. That's BC's thesis. That's the only way the memos can be genuine. So, the most passionate defense of the memos' veracity to date ends up merely reinforcing how outrageously and obviously phony they are. Good work, BC. Oh, and if you're curious as to the motivations of BC in creating that website, just look at the very bottom of it. It's the very picture of anti-impartiality. 74.77.222.188 06:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"74.77.222.188's" Agenda and Behavior

Again, please read the masthead, as well as WP:NPA, WP:TPG and WP:CIV for starters. You have demonstrated zero interest in "improving" the talk page -- you just keep going into factless tirades against Mapes, Rather and CBS without offering a shred of evidence to support any of your contentions, while ignoring, denigrating, and deliberately confusing any and all sourced refs on my part refuting your "points" one by one or en mass. You should also perhaps read WP:NOT#SOAP. You keep up this unhelpful, if not malicious behavior and I will see about having you blocked. I've tried taking just three of your contentions to demonstrate the shortcomings of your "Proof," and your response shows quite clearly that you are here just to be an obstruction and nothing else. It's likewise quite clear who are the real vandal(s) here. -BC aka Callmebc 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:BLP in regards to personal attacks and smears of living people, especially in regards to Mary Mapes and Bill Burkett. While I personally think the evidence clearly shows George Bush to be a, well.... whatever, I am respectful enough of Wikipedia policies to not express him in that way, regardless of how large a pile of refs I could round up to support it, even in the Talk page, no matter how painfully tempting it may be.... -BC aka Callmebc 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You brought your website into this yourself by linking to it and referring to it on this Talk Page. You published your essay titled "Goofing Around" right here on this Talk Page even including an animation from your website. So don't talk to me about soapboxes. Spare me the hypocrisy. You were quite fine with tirades and essays when you were the one writing them. But when someone contests what you've written with tirades and essays of their own you suddenly become a proponent of Wikipedia guidelines. Give me a break. You have used your website as justification for your edits. So your website is fair game to be attacked for the heaping pile of ridiculousness that it is. You have repeatedly deleted arguments on this page, that you both participated in and initiated, precisely because they didn't go your way. Very bad form and rightly described as vandalism by third parties. My "tirades" against Rather, Mapes and Burkett are all in direct response to your absurd attempts at downplaying their roles in this political smear campaign. [BLP violations removed] That's not slander. That's not libel. That's simply true. You laughably call my tirades "factless" and "without a shred of evidence" when it's all supported by numerous mass media sources from the Washington Post to CNN to USA Today. If you can't stand the heat, BC... 74.77.222.188 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dial it back and calm down everybody. This isn't a soapbox or a message board. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violated BLP. Bill Burkett said himself that he lied to CBS about the origin of the memos. The conduct of Mary Mapes and Dan Rather in the vetting of their hit piece on Bush has been rightly described as journalistically disgraceful. 74.77.222.188 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one will formally ask for 74.77.222.188 to be blocked. His edits speak for themselves, I do believe -- it's really pointless to even try to address any of his posts -BC aka Callmebc 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You should be blocked for your repeated vandalism of this talk page. I haven't removed a single word you've typed here. You have repeatedly deleted my contributions to this talk page because they were discussions with you that you lost. 74.77.222.188 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)