Why I'm Skeptical of the Hailey Report

Wizbang and others have done a fine job demonstrating that the "reasoning" used in the Hailey report is, well, unreasonable.

Cobbling together an approximation of the CBS Bush memos on a computer one letter at a time, using multiple different computer fonts, does nothing to show that they were ever typed on a period typewriter. This is so patently obvious that I've begun to have meta-suspicions about the Hailey report.

Is it really plausible that such shoddy reasoning could have been produced by a University professor? A credentialed scholar who regularly strolls the hallowed halls of academe? I quake at the very thought. Surely there must be some other explanation.

To whit, I have decided to perform a textual analysis of the Hailey report to PROVE that it could not be the product of a professor, and certainly not of an English professor (as the author is purported to be).

Consider the following excerpts from the Hailey report:

Interactive Media Research Laboratory is a small university lab…. Among other things, it is investigates archival and authentication problems.
If they were typed, did appropriate technologies exist at the time to have been typed then?
Example a selection typed with an IBM Selectric typewriter
Worn type will be especially prone to being effected [sic] by patterns in the paper or platen.
Differences between the above font and that used in the Bush memos are consistent with making the above font compatible with a proportional typewriter.
Proportional spacing permits a “one” to exits in space designed for a “one”
IBM is already on record, saying that the typewriter capable of producing proportional text has been available since 1944.

Surely we can all agree that this cannot be the work of a professor of English.

Hence, we must assume that the Hailey report is inauthentic.

(wink)