Skepticism and the memo controversy

[phildonnia]

When someone says the earth is 4 billion years old, it is not required that the skeptic embark on a lifetime study astrophysics to verify the fact; it is sufficient that they let other experts check it out.

It is impossible to be skeptical about something that we have no expertise on. There is absolutely no way that an ordinary joe skeptic can authenticate this memo. That's supposed to be the job of the journalists, and in this case, they eventually did their job. Many of the posters on this board believed the original reports (as they should have) and then rejected them when new evidence emerged (as they should have).

 

[Brown]

Thanks for bringing an even bigger load of misdirection to the table...where did I ever say that I thought the documents were not forgeries?

Gee, I didn't think I was disagreeing with you or putting words in your mouth or putting you down. I was just expanding on what I thought was a good point.

I'm not at all clear as to how Occam's Razor cuts in this case. The simplest explanation for the documents might be that they are authentic. But because the documents surfaced shortly before an election, and because there is a history of the use of faked documents to sway elections, the simplest explanation might be that the documents are faked.

Where did the document come from? The simplest explanation is that it came from the Kerry camp. But if the forgery is so transparently fake, how could Kerry possibly hope to gain? Why would someone from the Kerry camp go to all the trouble to forge a signature, learn the names and other identifying information about people, bone up on military acronyms and lingo from the 1970s, and then make the bone-headed mistake of typing the damn thing up with a modern word processor, with which virtually everyone in the USA is familar?

It doesn't make sense, unless....

 

[BPSCG]

He tells me that if he had a mole in the DNC like you describe, he would have much better uses for him. Uses that wouldn't get his mole exposed.

Acknowledged - that would be pretty boneheaded.

But then that still leaves the question that Brown raises, namely, why go to so much trouble to get so many facts right, then screw up in such an amateurish way? What is the simplest possible explanation?

 

[corplinx]

Occam's Razor:
All other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

This has a corollary known as Darwin's Blade:
All other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity.



I invoke Darwin's Blade here, I think there is a good chance that someone was either plain stupid or stupid via arrogance and assumed nobody would check the sources. Leslie Stahl recently ran a load of bunk story regarding the pentagon employee who they claimed was spying for israel and nobody went after Stahl.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Quite true. It also does not require one to accept the simplest explanation, namely, that the documents are what they purport to be.

When evaluating claims of fakery, it is often interesting to ask, "If a person is going to go to such trouble to make a fake, and if the fakery is as obvious as you say, why did the hoaxer make such an obvious blunder?" Sometimes it turns out that the blunder isn't really a blunder at all.

Like with the Hitler diaries?

Designed as a fake, sold for huge amounts of cash, yet the forger made elementary errors on the selection of paper and ink


Obviously, then, he must have been -deliberately- trying to allow the fake to be caught, as it "just doesn't make sense" any other way. Forgers -- even though we don't know who they are --wouldn't make such errors.

My God, yet another conspiracy! Where was Rove when this Hitler diary came out, anyway. Hell, where was he when the bunker blew up, come to think of it ?


The following is how I see this developing in general, and is not a response to Brown:

First Line: These are not forgeries. The points being made can be easily countered and we can find dozens, nay, thousands, of examples. The arguments about forging are being made by unqualified partisan hacks in their pajamas over the net.

Second Line: These are so -obviously- forgeries that only the RNC could have produced them.


/scratches head.

Ok. If you say so. I note, however, that CBS STILL insists that the documents are 'authentic'*.



N/A



* For sufficiently broad definitions of authentic.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

so many facts right

Outside the scope of the argument over CBS's actions, but I guess we better see a list of what was right and what was wrong and what cannot be verified either way before we start tossing around broad generalizations like this.

A memo was written to bolser a particular point of view on the Bush story. What I would expect is that it contains "facts" that support that one side and that are corroborated by other sources, plus "facts" that are very much in dispute, with the list of "confirmed" facts being pointed to as proof that the other listed fact simply *must* be genuine.

 

[crimresearch]

The simplest solution *that matches the facts*....

But as long as we are playing 'why would', why would Rather accept a memo from White House or other unknown sources, and run it without a thorough check? Is he now supposed to be a Bush operative?
Or isn't it more likely that he felt the source was good enough to run the story after only a cursory examination by a graphologist?

 

[Brown]

Like with the Hitler diaries?

Designed as a fake, sold for huge amounts of cash, yet the forger made elementary errors on the selection of paper and ink

You're right, make no mistake about it, there are some pretty stupid forgers out there. (Stupid counterfeiters, too.) The "Hitler Diaries" forger made a really bone-headed mistake by using a cover that bore the intials "AF" on it instead of "AH."

The "Hitler Diaries," of course, were suspect on many more levels, not just on cover and paper and ink. The hoaxer didn't make just one blunder, he made dozens. According to some commentators, the document was not only fake, but a bad fake, and it was a mystery why certain "experts" had staked their reputations on the document being genuine. The forgery was exposed rather conclusively in a very short time, and even the "experts" admitted that they hadn't examined the document closely.

But, as I've said before, in some charges of fakery, the "obvious" blunders aren't really blunders at all, but come from a failure to understand what's really going on.

 

[corplinx]

The Rather Story and AP piece by Matt Kelley coincide with a new DNC cmpaign called Fortunate Son questioning Bush's guard service. I find the coincidental timing of these things highly suspect although there is no evidence of collusion.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

But, as I've said before, in some charges of fakery, the "obvious" blunders aren't really blunders at all, but come from a failure to understand what's really going on.

So all Rove had to do was make a bad forgery that was bad enough to be uncovered almost immediately, but not quite bad enough for CBS or any experts that it hired to notice the problems, which had to be obvious, but just the right level of obvious. . . .

Man. No wonder people are scared of Rove. He must be like that "Pretender" guy to be able to do that just right.

Or perhaps he kidnapped Rather and replaced him with a robot double. That way, when the document experts sent warnings that the documents were not authentic, the robot could wave the problems away.

Actually, the second scenario seems about as likely as the first.

Or just maybe some partisan hack who's been trying to sell the Bush AWOL story for 5+ years decided to create some documents to bolser the claim and Rather, who abandoned any claim at neutrality quite some time ago (attending/speaking at a Democrat rally, for example) simply allowed his wishful thinking to lead him to ignore anything that didn't support "the story."

Personally, I am going with the robot thing.


N/A

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The "Hitler Diaries," of course, were suspect on many more levels, not just on cover and paper and ink. The hoaxer didn't make just one blunder, he made dozens.

But that just doesn't make sense. The Hitler diaries must either be real or an RNC trick.

 

[Jocko]

But that just doesn't make sense. The Hitler diaries must either be real or an RNC trick.

How come no one has postulated the obvious? No grand GOP conspiracy, just the confluence of three circumstances:

1. Kerry has mere weeks to put a dent in Bush's lead.
2. James Carville and his wrecking crew joined the campaign a few weeks ago.
3. Dan Rather is, and has always been, a monumental partisan idiot.

Carville comes up with his usual firebrand style of smear. Owing to the tight timetable, he has Begala type it out on a pirated copy of MS Word, has Edwards sign it (he has the neatest handwriting, see) then Carville runs the output down to Kinko's where he xeroxes it a few dozen times before he skips out without paying for the copies.

Hillary slips the copies with a $20 bill under Rather's dressing room door, and before you know it Dan the man's gotta change his shorts before he has a CBS producer change that evening's headline. Add one partisan shill 86-year old biddy to swear up and down that it's more or less how she remembers things from 30-35 years ago, and you've got yourself one air-tight argument. Air-tight for democrats who were voting dem anyway, that is. The tap-dance goes on and Kerry Co. celebrates while they wait in vain for the polls to shift.

I would be impressed if Kerry actually WAS behind it personally, but frankly I think he lacks both the brains and balls to pull it off.

 

[Meadmaker]

Phildonia,

Thank you.

Acknowledged - that would be pretty boneheaded.

But then that still leaves the question that Brown raises, namely, why go to so much trouble to get so many facts right, then screw up in such an amateurish way? What is the simplest possible explanation?

Here is my own working hypothesis. Very speculative. I believe the following theory could explain the situation, but I would not ever, ever, suggest that this hypothesis is proven.

Someone who hates Bush somehow got his hands on memos very similar to these. There have been press reports about a purge of files done when Bush was governor. Perhaps someone pulled them from the trash at that time, or slipped them into their own hands when they should be throwing them away.

Of course, if this was done by an employee, this would be improper conduct. It could get you fired.

Now let us suppose that something on the originals would reveal the origin of the files. Perhaps the originals were actually torn up, and then the pieces retrieved from a trash bin? Perhaps a mark had been made on them that indicated they had been reviewed by a particular person? Who knows? One way or another, someone has them who is not supposed to have them, and the condition of the original was such that inspection of the original might reveal how that person got them.

So, he wants to reveal them, but he doesn't want anyone to know that he was the source. He makes a copy. To his eye, being a rank amateur, they look real enough. He knows the information is correct, and to him, they look real enough. Or possibly, he knows he is faxing them to CBS. He assumes that CBS wants their content, not the documents themselves. He figures that if CBS just has a fax, no way would they go on the air with just that.

CBS, meanwhile, thinks it has a scoop, and doesn't want to waste the time properly examining the documents. Or their "unimpeachable" source is trusted by them enough that Rather and company thinks they are solid.


I think Occam would like that explanation a bit better than the various forms of skullduggery that are suggested. It postulates that the content of the memos is genuine, which is why the source could speak about them as real. Since he has the real documents, he can sound totally sincere and convincing talking to CBS. He might even say "I'll give you copies of these documents." In his mind, his transcription of the documents is a "copy", but the person on the other end thinks he means a photocopy. CBS, meanwhile, is totally convinced of the authenticity of the source, and due to the miscommunication, thinks they have a photocopy. This only requires that you assume a certain amount of stupidity involved, but there is plenty of that to go around.



But, to reitterate my opinion, I am a genuine Bush-hater, and I don't care if every single word in these documents is the absolute truth. George Bush was a person of privilege who got into the guard to avoid Vietnam service, and then at the end, was more interested in working a political campaign than Guard service.

Tell me something I don't know. It makes me angry that the DNC, with explicit or implicit approval of the Kerry camp, thinks that this is a worthy topic for the campaign.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

so many facts right

This was repeated by MM.

Ever hear of a phenomenon called "counting the hits and forgetting the misses"?

Edited to add: There are a number of problems with the content of the memos, as well -- the criticisms are not limited to questions of typeface. Before this generalization becomes "common knowledge" in the discussion of the memos, it woulkd be good for us to go and actually count (1) hits; (2) possible hits (but may be disputed); and (3) clear misses.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ever hear of a phenomenon called "counting the hits and forgetting the misses"?

It was on the list of phenomena, but I didn't include it in my count.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Here is my own working hypothesis. Very speculative. I believe the following theory could explain the situation, but I would not ever, ever, suggest that this hypothesis is proven.

Someone who hates Bush somehow got his hands on memos very similar to these. There have been press reports about a purge of files done when Bush was governor. Perhaps someone pulled them from the trash at that time, or slipped them into their own hands when they should be throwing them away.

Of course, if this was done by an employee, this would be improper conduct. It could get you fired.

In 1972 it could have gotten them fired. In 2004?



What an elaborate house of cards. You make a mighty effort to keep alive the notion that there must be some memos, somewhere.

But with regard to your assertion that Ockham would have approved, I have to ask why we need "memos very similar to these" in the first place?

Someone who hates Bush makes up the memo, throwing in information about all the charges that have been made for the last 10 years and roughly trying to match them to memos already in the public domain.

This covers everything just as well as your speculation -- and some things better.

For instance, there are a number of mistakes in the content itself -- the misuse of military terminology or the use of acronyms and phrases that do not make any sense.

If the mystery person is looking at old versions of these memos, why does he not just copy the content? Why add extra information that is demonstrably wrong?

And if "extra" things have been added, how is that any different than making the entire document up from scratch? There is no way for us to know which parts were supposedly copied and which parts were made up on the spot.

There are a number of holes in your "simplest" scenario. It appears to be much like a claim that the simplest way to walk across the room is to copy the flying Wallendas and use trapezes, triple somersaults and all.


---
Edited to add: Come to think of it, the person keeping such documents would not have even been in trouble in 1972. "Throwing away" these memos would have been against TANG policy. The person who would have gotten in trouble is not the source under your scenario, but the people that tried to throw away the papers.

Even assuming that the person was afraid of the higher-ups in 1972 and therefore kept his mouth shut, what POSSIBLE harmful effects could occur now in 2004?

 

[Brown]

So all Rove had to do was make a bad forgery that was bad enough to be uncovered almost immediately, but not quite bad enough for CBS or any experts that it hired to notice the problems, which had to be obvious, but just the right level of obvious. . . .

Man. No wonder people are scared of Rove. He must be like that "Pretender" guy to be able to do that just right.

So you think Rove did it, eh? Better familiarize yourself with history. In the Nixon administration during Watergate, dirty tricks were never perpetrated by those so high up, and if this was a dirty trick from the Bush camp, there is no reason to think that the higher ups perperated it. Get real.

During Watergate, forgery of documents to achieve political gain was common, most of it done by Nixon's men. Nixon's men also made concerted efforts to try to discredit news agencies and organizations that were deemed "enemies," sometimes by "leaking" false information but giving it credibility. So forgive me if I don't find the idea of use of a forgery to discredit an enemy news organization to be too far-fetched.

You're forgetting that we don't have the whole story. If the documents are fake, whoever dangled them in front of CBS gave CBS some reason or reasons--so far not told to the public--that the documents are genuine. And CBS took the bait. Had CBS not taken the bait, the documents would still have been made public as cheap forgeries intended to smear poor, innocent President Bush, who was only trying to discuss the issues.

Of course, another alternative is that the documents are genuine. The White House has been asked by several news organizations--not just CBS--to declare that the content is inaccurate. All that the White House has done is issue what were called "non-denial denials" in the Watergate era. Most normal people, when confronted with a lie, would address it directly and immediately. But the White House has chosen to attack the messenger (as it has done many times in the past when presented with unflattering news).

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So you think Rove did it, eh? Better familiarize yourself with history. In the Nixon administration during Watergate, dirty tricks were never perpetrated by those so high up, and if this was a dirty trick from the Bush camp, there is no reason to think that the higher ups perperated it. Get real.

No, I don't think Rove did it. In fact, I thought the post made clear that I thought the idea of a plan to discredit CBS by releasing memos obviously bogus -- but not too obviously bogus, so that CBS (but no one else) fell for it seemed far-fetched.

I thought that was your theory. (You know, the errors were spotted too easily . . . . If I misread your point, I apologize)

You're forgetting that we don't have the whole story. If the documents are fake, whoever dangled them in front of CBS gave CBS some reason or reasons--so far not told to the public--that the documents are genuine. And CBS took the bait. Had CBS not taken the bait, the documents would still have been made public as cheap forgeries intended to smear poor, innocent President Bush, who was only trying to discuss the issues.

If you want to discuss poor, innocent President Bush, I can wait while you gather more straw. But I don't see where that supports speculation that the forgeries were produced by him or his partisans over anyone else.

Of course, another alternative is that the documents are genuine.

I am losing track. Are the documents possibly genuine, or are they so obvious as forgeries that the RNC must be responsible?

The White House has been asked by several news organizations--not just CBS--to declare that the content is inaccurate. All that the White House has done is issue what were called "non-denial denials" in the Watergate era. Most normal people, when confronted with a lie, would address it directly and immediately. But the White House has chosen to attack the messenger (as it has done many times in the past when presented with unflattering news).

Much like the CBS response to questions about the documents, come to think of it.



It appears that a new element has been added regarding the source of the documents:

via Kevin McCullough and wizbang.com (a source I am not familiar with and so will not vouch for its accuracy until/unless comfirmed):

According to the blog:

JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH ABILENE KINKOS: Bill Burkett has a standing account with the Kinkos in Abilene Texas, and while the lady who answered the phone would not be more specific she did say Burkett was in there last week....

TIME TO THINK ABILENE: According to the Washington Post for tomorrow - the documents at the center of the Rathergate appear to have faxed from a Kinkos Copy Center somewhere near Abilene, Texas.

Unsubstantiated at the moment, and I am not sure what evidence the Washington Post has. However, I recognize Mr. Burkett's name as a main source of the entire Bush AWOL charges that have been around for at least 5 years. If he suddenly produced papers backing up his story only after that amount of time (and this may all turn out to mean nothing), I'd like to hear an explanation regarding how they pop up now.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Just caught this gem from an interview with Mr. Burkett's lawyer:

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

 

[LW]

I think Occam would like that explanation a bit better than the various forms of skullduggery that are suggested.

I go with corplix in this subject:

The simplest explanation is stupidity of the forgers.