To summarize, the report never really comes out and says Bellesiles intentionally manufactured data, there are so many problems with his methods (described as sloppy) and with his presentation of the data (he selectively left out the key years 1774-1776 and 1861 from his table showing alleged gun ownership rates) that he lacked the integrity necessary for a scholar. He also allegedly distorted and apparently purposefully ignored work by another scholar that contradicted his key findings. I actually understand his reasons for leaving those particular years out of his data set, but the rest of the report is pretty damning.
Bellesiles could have put together some really interesting studies if he had behaved objectively and professionally. His failure of ethics, and his desire to write a political hit piece, rather than a work of historical scholarship, likely has proven to be his downfall.
Well, they come pretty close. "Yet the best that can be said of his work with the probate and militia records is that he is guilty of unprofessional and misleading work.... On Question 4, dealing with the construction of the vital Table One, we find evidence of falsification. And on Question 5, which raises the standard of professional historical scholarship, we find that Professor Bellesiles falls short on all three counts.."
I think that is pretty damning from the 'collegial' atmosphere of liberal academia. They got dead him to rights. That is why he resigned. Good work by his fellow liberals.