Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents authenticity issues article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: Index, 1

Archives

1 Index

[edit] "Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents"

This is a logically invalid statement in the lede that was added by a now departed IP. There are multiple ways to "authenticate" a given document to what would be an acceptable degree. For instance if a document contains information that could not have been known by a supposed forger, and it can't be reasonably explained otherwise, that's a form of authentication independent of appearance. There is also the fit of the format, character spacing, and such to contemporaneous documents. While having the originals would make things a lot easier, there are other ways to determine if a given document is likely true or fake or not. Agree/Not Agree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the "authenticity of the information" with the "authenticity of the document". If the original document has, say, paper that could not have been manufactured before 2000, but that document self-claims to be written in 1950, it's not an authentic document, regardless of what it says. htom (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not talking paper or anything other than the issue of original documents versus photocopies in regards to authentication. You have a photocopy of document "A" from some time ago in the past. The claim inserted into the lede says that this can't be authenticated because it's a photocopy. But if the only options are that the document is either (1) a forgery or (2) real, and if the contents of the document could not have been known by any forger, then you eliminate option (1), leaving only option (2), which is defacto authentication. This is elementary logic. Agree/Not Agree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that you do not have the original document, your syllogism does not apply. The best you could hope for would be "possibly authentic", but if the copy displays information not otherwise known to be known at the time of the putative publication, that would tend to indicate forgery, and hence "inauthentic". htom (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are getting off point. Let me try to simplify: document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree?

Consider more closely the claim being made: if you have a photocopy of a document -- be it a military memo, an old tax return, your high school transcript, whatever -- you can't use that for proof under any circumstances because of it only being a photocopy. In other words, the lede currently claims that if, say, you accidentally throw out boxes containing all your past tax returns, the copies your accountant has on file are worthless for proving anything because they are only photocopies. Is this a reasonable claim?

Also, even if you have supposedly original documents, there is still an authetication process to go through, and it's also dependent on things like signatures, format, dates and such, much the same with any photocopies. You are always dealing with degrees of authentication -- unless of course there is some telltale bit that only fits one way. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several alternatives that you seem to be ignoring. What we have is a computer image (image) of what is claimed to be a faxed image (fax) of a photocopy (copy) of a document (document). There is nothing that I can think of available in the image that would show that the document is authentic. There could be many things available in the image that would show that the document is inauthentic. In this case, we don't have the document (and there may never have been a document at all, other than a computer file sent to a printer pretending to be the copy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, you keep veering off point -- we are NOT talking about a "computer image," we are NOT talking about a "faxed image, and we are NOT even talking about how you wouldn't be convinced by an "image." What we ARE talking about (or at least I'm trying to) is the claim inserted into the lede that basically says that photocopies in general can NEVER be proof of authenticity. This presumably includes copies of tax returns, school transcripts and so on. This claim also suggests that even Bush's Guard records maintained by the DoD here are no proof since they are all apparently from microfiche and photocopies (there might be some merit in this case -- the "October 5, 2004" docs have apparently been tampered with). It might be helpful and kind of you to directly address the point I've already stated a couple of times:

• Let's say document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree?

If you disagree, please, pretty please explain so in the context of this scenario, and not some tangential issues involving your opinion about printers and faxes and such -- that again is NOT what the issue is here. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will explain it. Even with the original documents, there would never be proof of authenticity. What there could be, would be a lack of demonstration of inauthenticity. What people mean when they say "provably authentic" is something like "all tests for inauthenticity up until now have failed." This is logically different than proof of authenticity, and allows for some future test to be discovered and applied. When you have only the image, fax, or copy, and not the original, you start with have failed a test for inauthenticity: producing the original document.

Sorry, but again you're going off into another tangent. We're NOT talking about what you think is needed for authenticity -- we are supposedly discussing a specific assertion in the lede that basically claims that photocopies can never be proof of authenticity, period. I also gave you specific examples to address as well. Please, pretty please, with sugar on top, try to bring yourself to address just those things and not everything else but. I'm just looking for an on-point objection to why "Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents" should not be removed/changed.

To put this in your terms of (1) real .exclusive-or. (2) fake, there is never, ever, proof that something is real. You can have proof that something is not yet shown to be fake, but that is not proof of realness. Some future test may prove (2). You may have more and more belief in (1), but your belief is not proof; something could come along and throw it over. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics come to mind; unproven but accepted. Neither can ever be proven. htom (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is never, ever, proof that something is real"? That's very metaphysical and deep, and implies that all encyclopedias are the stuff of dreams, but that still doesn't quite address my somewhat more mundane points, does it?

If neither you nor anyone else can come up with a slightly more serious objection, I'll take that as tacit approval to fix that claim in the lede. But I'll give you and whoever more time. No rush. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're playing word games with "proof" and "authenticity" rather than the meaning of the phrasing. As for the content containing proof, you're ignoring a number of possibilities, including that a forger might have been lucky in using specific phrasing. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence is the same as having the sentence begin with "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents". I suggest changing the sentence to begin with that phrase. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion here -- a claim was inserted into the lede that basically claims that photocopies can never be proof of authenticity, period. I brought up specific examples of how this would not necessarily be true. Are you saying that the claim is true? If so, then point out the fault in my logic.

Also "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents" again has nothing to do with the points I brought up and have restated a few times already. I'll restate it again for your benefit, but please respond to the points I'm making and not just make tangential comments:

• Let's say document "A" is a photocopy. There are two scenarios -- it is either:(1) a forgery; or (2) real. There is no (3) option. In order for it to have been forged, the forger would have needed certain information to create the contents. If it turns out that information needed for the contents was not available for any would be forger, then you eliminate (1) the forgery scenario. If all that's left is the (2) scenario, then that's what it is. Ipso facto -- it's authenticated. Agree/Disagree? If disagree, please explain why. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How could there be information available to the supposed original author that would not be available to a forger? htom (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....that's a toughie.... how about once classified documents? Or long sealed government records that only became public under FOIA lawsuits? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, that is a phony argument you are making and it does not apply here. From your edit history, you appear to be a single purpose editor, is this subject, a bunch of 4 yr old discredited documents all you care about at wikipedia? 216.30.180.132 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing "phony" and is not really a neutral, NPOV description. Secondly, what I mostly care about is accuracy and fairness, and if I happen to know a few things that would improve the accuracy and fairness of a given article...well? And I have done some stuff over at Global Warming, most recently adding a graph to the main page. That's something, no? As I explained at some point before, I'm not interested in going after "CJ" or any other blogger in particular. I'm willing to give him and the others the benefit of the doubt that they were all mistaken because of all the bad information that got into widespread circulation. The general press did a lousy, lousy job, there was a lot of apparently deliberate disinfo, and well....that's what happens. But I'm not here to refight the battle -- I'm merely trying to correct some of the more obvious bad content by simply following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if this seemingly modest and noble effort wasn't meeting such odd resistance, perhaps I would have more time to spend on other articles, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

Actually he's stated that he's trying to waste our time here so we won't bother the Global Warming articles, so he has two interests. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"We"? Funny -- I'm not seeing much if any edits by you or the others listed for Global Warming - are you somehow implying that there is some sort of mischievous sock puppetry going on there and that my being here is distracting from it? Isn't that a no-no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Questioned document examination has everything to do with the sentence being discussed. Your original research as to whether the information in the documents seems correct is not relevant to being able to examine the original documents. These documents were presented as being real, and the original documents can not be examined. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are on a tangent that has nothing to do with my points, including bringing up "original research" -- what does that have to with anything here? Let try another proposition: let's say we have a classified "Document B" from 1970 that originated as a fax and was stored in microfiche format. It gets declassified on say January 1st, 1990, and a PDF of it is available on a government website. Bearing in mind that there is no "original" document available, what can we say about how authentic is that PDF of Document B? Well? -BC

Let's say the copies have a known provenance. The provenance of documents is not relevant to the simple replacement of "Questioned document examination is not possible without original documents" in the phrase which you wanted to alter. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 ??? The phrase I want to alter goes: "Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents" and your comments so far have had no demonstrable bearing on any of the points I have been trying bringing over and over again. If you are not really intending to join in on the discussion in a meaningful way, perhaps it might be best if you move on to other articles, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I proposed a specific alteration to the phrase which you mentioned. That should have some bearing on the phrase. What is your proposed change? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What you did was seemingly ignore all my points for a non-sequitur-ish suggestion to change a demonstrably incorrect claim to an apparently illogical one. That's not exactly participating in a discussion in the meaningful way by most standards. But since you asked, why don't we just change it to "Proof of authenticity is more difficult without original documents"? Accurate, simple, neutral and not arguable, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no proof of authenticity, with or without the original documents. Your version is not accurate, overly simple, and an argument begging to happen; it does "sound" neutral, but it isn't, it presumes facts not present. htom (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Was there some part of my last answer to you object to? You didn't respond and now you're just restating points that I had already addressed. Here, let me replay our last exchange:

• How could there be information available to the supposed original author that would not be available to a forger? htom (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm....that's a toughie.... how about once classified documents? Or long sealed government records that only became public under FOIA lawsuits? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to the above before just restating your opinion. I do believe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is considered disruptive behavior. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Verifiable Chain of Custody

The introduction should also mention that no one except Burkett has ever claimed to have seen the "originals". There is no chain of custody or even explanation for where they came from. It is impossible to authenticate these "documents" since the faxed photocopes are too easily faked. Jmcnamera (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These comments appear to be unref'd and seem to be only your personal opinion, hence they are not relevant to improving the article. Also they are not connected in any way to the main points currently being discussed. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a new discussion, which is why he put it in a new section with a comment which is not connected to the other points. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion also involves the introduction. And what do you have to say about the main part of my comment? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion is about the phrasing of the lack of original documents, not provenance. And as you said, these comments are not connected to the main points thus they belong in a separate discussion. What main part — the part about Jmcnamera's comments being unref'd and opinion? I didn't address them because I don't know if there are references. He or someone else who has something to say will answer. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting a separate discussion regarding the article introduction while there is another ongoing discussion regarding the introduction is not helpful for moving the overall discussion along, especially when the "new discussion" only involves someone stating an unsupported opinion. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a separate thread to keep the topic of lack of originals and lack of provenance separate, simple as that. The only connection of the faxed photocopies to Killian is that Burkett says they are connected and that needs to be in the top of the article. We shouldn't discuss the documents as being from Killian without mentioning that there is no verifiable link. Jmcnamera (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of "lack of provenance" seems to be only your personal concern -- can you present any reliable sources showing this to be a genuine issue? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject was brought up by many of the experts who found the documents to lack authenticity. Here's a Boston Globe cite 4 fired at CBS for report on Bush - Lack of scrutiny, rush to broadcast found and it was mentioned in many other reports as well as the independent reportt commissioned by CBS. C'mon BC, you have your own partisan website on this subject and you must have noticed that provenance, and "chain of custody" are still issues. Burkett first claimed he had the documents, then he said he burned them. First he got them from one person, and then from another. Typography is not the only problem with these documents being unable to tie them to Killian also is an issue. Jmcnamera (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We had discussed your "Chain of custody" thing before and I don't want to restart that. This really is just your thing unless you can follow Wikipedia rules for use of sources. And please don't bring up my website -- the contents on it, except for possibly the DoD docs, are not for discussion here. (And I have the feeling that you and some others know who's right and are only looking for areas to cast some doubt on.) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is that previous discussion? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The mists of time, perhaps? Or way back on my Talk page? Go ask Jmcnamera -- as I said, it's his thing. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The only mention of "provenance" in the Archive is at Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues/Archive 1#Original research.2C Aheackova, but the topic is not discussed well. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it may -- or may also -- have been IP 74.77.222.188/74.77.180.178 -- I seem to recall "it" bringing up Burkett, Mapes and "Lucy Ramirez" a lot, with this being typical. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The anonymouse user you mention is not me - please don't suggest that again. I still don't see any real discussion of this issue. You seem to have no problem in bringing up issues repeatedly, however, I am not doing so here.

Back to the topic, I've given a source (Boston Globe) where the issue is discussed. Do you know any reliable sources that indicate there is a verifiable chain of custody? Jmcnamera (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I suggest that? It doesn't appear that way, although this diff does seem to suggest that you guys know each other in some fashion. Also that Boston Globe article only brings up "chain of custody" in terms of a quote contained in summary of elements of what the CBS Panel report said, and NOT what the Globe itself thought or came up with in relation to its many investigations into Bush's service record. That's just quoting and not a "discussion" by any means. Again if you can find a reliable media source that had examined the question of "Chain of Custody," we can then discuss it for inclusion. Additionally there are other issues regarding the article that have already been brought up and never resolved, so it would seem best to not clutter up the discussion with tangential matters until there is some sort of consensus on unresolved discussions. Seems fair, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He started a separate section and is not cluttering up the other discussion, unlike some people whose discussion wanders wildly within a paragraph. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the basic problem with why these discussions get unwieldy and wandering is that some editors evidently have serious difficulty staying on point and answering questions directly, resulting in highly redundant restatements of questions and issues. The net result being that little or nothing gets accomplished and the article remains in poor condition -- biased, incomplete, badly written and missing many needed references. Perhaps some energy should be directed away towards having me endlessly repeat my points and towards something somewhat more productive like, say, dealing with all those "citation missing" tags. Actually did you not attempt to delete a large amount of material in George W. Bush military service controversy just because they lacked citations? Why not consider doing that here? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)