A Fool’s Hope
It's almost totally unbelievable, but in this post on LGF, despite what Occam's razor tells us about stuff like this and all of the other material that makes up a "preponderance of evidence", we learn that some among us are still holding onto an irrational belief that the Bush/Killian memos might be authentic. David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. has a new analysis proving this.
Dr. Hailey's argument is full of a number of hilarious holes (like his use of a word processor to prove that a typewriter could have created the memos), but these errors in logic aren't the only reason he looks like a fool.... His credentials and his analysis might be a lot more impressive, if he had spent a little more time proofing the section of his analysis that attempts to extol his and his Lab's qualifications:
|
| Screenshot of Dr. Hailey's analysis from his website |
These errors are also present in the PDF version of the analysis (local copy).
$ ls -l Bush_Memos.pdf -rw-rw-r-- 1 bohnsack bohnsack 1278587 Sep 30 07:17 Bush_Memos.pdf $ md5sum Bush_Memos.pdf c3a9b2af0544e725cc80ccda0d25065f Bush_Memos.pdf
There are few of us who do not make the occasional grammar or diction mistake, but an error of this type in a paragraph that's supposed to lay out an English professor's credibility is beyond amusing. Details matter, especially when you're trying to prove something. If this English professor has so much difficulty with English, one has to wonder if he could have similar problems with critical thinking skills.
Update 2:39 PM - Not only does Dr. Hailey need a fifth grader to help with his grammar, it turns out he's also a total fraud. Ha. Ha.
There seems to be a trend developing here...
Update 6:36 PM - Maybe not a fraud, but still lame.
Update 10/1/2004 7:20 AM - The professor's website is down this morning and there are other developments
Update 10/7/2004 3:55 PM - Not a fraud, but unquestionably incompetent and blinded by bias.
September 30th, 02004 at 9:30 pm
No, a fraud. Check my updates.