Insider: The Kensington Code
Jack Linthicum
discusses this TV program and the other recent events concerning the
Kensington Stone. "... the History Channel's take stands out from
garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by elevating a dense web
of improbable theories to the level of accepted science."
Insider: The Kensington Code
Volume 63 Number 3, May/June 2010
by Eric A. Powell
[image]
(Photo: Courtesy Kensingston Runestone Museum)
A puzzling documentary links the Knights Templar to Minnesota's
enigmatic runestone
Last fall, the History Channel aired Holy Grail in America, a two-hour
show that introduced more than a million viewers to the startling
claim that the Knights Templar sailed to the New World in the 14th
century. The medieval religious order, a fixture of (often anti-
Catholic) conspiracy theories in recent decades, has been a hot media
commodity since the 2003 publication of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci
Code, in which the knights played a role. But the History Channel's
take stands out from garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by
elevating a dense web of improbable theories to the level of accepted
science.
Produced by Committee Films, a husband-and-wife production company
based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Holy Grail in America takes as its
premise that evidence for a previously unknown "Templar voyage of
discovery" might be encoded on the infamous Kensington Runestone. The
program also suggested the knights, in the company of Cistercian
monks, brought the Holy Grail to the New World in the late 14th
century, and that the runestone might hold clues to the final resting
place of the Grail.
Eric A. Powell is deputy editor at ARCHAEOLOGY.
Tom McDonald
wrote:
> Four page article in the May/June 2010 issue of Archaeology magazine
> discusses this TV program and the other recent events concerning the
> Kensington Stone. "... the History Channel's take stands out from
> garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by elevating a dense web
> of improbable theories to the level of accepted science."
>
> Insider: The Kensington Code
> Volume 63 Number 3, May/June 2010
> by Eric A. Powell
>
> [image]
>
> (Photo: Courtesy Kensingston Runestone Museum)
>
> A puzzling documentary links the Knights Templar to Minnesota's
> enigmatic runestone
>
> Last fall, the History Channel aired Holy Grail in America, a two-hour
> show that introduced more than a million viewers to the startling
> claim that the Knights Templar sailed to the New World in the 14th
> century. The medieval religious order, a fixture of (often anti-
> Catholic) conspiracy theories in recent decades, has been a hot media
> commodity since the 2003 publication of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci
> Code, in which the knights played a role. But the History Channel's
> take stands out from garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by
> elevating a dense web of improbable theories to the level of accepted
> science.
I think that was the goal of the documentary. Whether one can say that
this is History Channel's take, in any official sense, is debatable. I
think it more likely that they did it for the advertising dollar and
the potential ratings.
As for elevating the subject matter to 'accepted science', no. It was
and remains a mish-mash, a catch as catch can of stuff connected
by . . . well, let's say it's a tissue of tenuous and curious
intersections of information and interpretations which build, house-of-
cards-like, into a structure that can't really stand much scrutiny.
Certainly not as science.
As I've said before, I think the strongest evidence for the KRS's
authenticity is Wolter's work on the dating. Though even that only
decreases the range of possible dates; it doesn't date it.
History Channel, and Committee Films, seem to agree, as they chose
Wolter to be the key narrator of the piece. But Wolter has stepped so
far out of his area of expertise that I don't think the whole air-
castle he's bought into (he certainly didn't build it) can stand the
light of day.
This is not to say that everything he wrote can safely be discarded.
It is to say that everything he wrote has to be investigated by
competent professionals, working in their fields of competence, before
anything beyond his geological work can be accepted.
> Produced by Committee Films, a husband-and-wife production company
> based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Holy Grail in America takes as its
> premise that evidence for a previously unknown "Templar voyage of
> discovery" might be encoded on the infamous Kensington Runestone. The
> program also suggested the knights, in the company of Cistercian
> monks, brought the Holy Grail to the New World in the late 14th
> century, and that the runestone might hold clues to the final resting
> place of the Grail.
It made for an interesting tale. But it's not something on which the
KRSers can, or at least should, hang their hats.
Jack Linthicum
And the great cincher, the mica data, has never been really examined
since 1909. And even then there was a question, never answered.
Eric Stevens
You should also credit him with his detailed photography which has
revealed previously unrecognised aspects of the runes. I think you
also have to give some weight to Nielsen's work on the runes and the
grammar.
>
>History Channel, and Committee Films, seem to agree, as they chose
>Wolter to be the key narrator of the piece. But Wolter has stepped so
>far out of his area of expertise that I don't think the whole air-
>castle he's bought into (he certainly didn't build it) can stand the
>light of day.
>
>This is not to say that everything he wrote can safely be discarded.
>It is to say that everything he wrote has to be investigated by
>competent professionals, working in their fields of competence, before
>anything beyond his geological work can be accepted.
The danger is that we he has laid out as bait to attract the scholars
may instead serve to drive them away. Unfortunately there are now so
many negative connotations attached to the KRS that few people have
the courage to work with it.
>
>> Produced by Committee Films, a husband-and-wife production company
>> based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Holy Grail in America takes as its
>> premise that evidence for a previously unknown "Templar voyage of
>> discovery" might be encoded on the infamous Kensington Runestone. The
>> program also suggested the knights, in the company of Cistercian
>> monks, brought the Holy Grail to the New World in the late 14th
>> century, and that the runestone might hold clues to the final resting
>> place of the Grail.
>
>It made for an interesting tale. But it's not something on which the
>KRSers can, or at least should, hang their hats.
It's a start, but leading where?
>
>>
>> Eric A. Powell is deputy editor at ARCHAEOLOGY.
>>
>> http://www.archaeology.org/1005/abstracts/insider.html
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
Quote from the article in Archeology, page 64.
"But by 2006, Wolter's zealous efforts to find evidence to prove his
claims linking the stone to the Templars became too much for Nielsen
and Kehoe to bear, and they have both ceased working with him. They
were particularly concerned that Wolter refused to submit his
weathering study to a peer-revoewed journal.
Larry Zimmerman, an archaeologist at Indiana University-Purdue
University who knows both Nielsen and Wolter and has followed the KRS
research, agrees the lack of peer review is a serious problem. "good
science demands peer review by practicioners with similar skill sets,
and good scientists actually seek such a review," he wrote in an
article on the KRS. When review seems to be avoided, the science
becomes immediately suspicious."
Wolter doesn't see the necessity. I would add that there is a passage
in my copy of Eric Wahlgren's The Vikings and America. On
page 103 he writes:
"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by *geologic criteria*
alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no more than thirty,
perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his own inspection of it
that year. Most damning of all were several contemporary paper texts
purporting to be copies from the stone, but contemporary study of
which indicates that they were experimental variants or rough drafts,
of a proposed inscription, made by one or more person involved in
promoting the hoax."
I know you are a believer, that the age of the runes is more than 200
years old. But here is a statement I have not seen refuted, that
whoever the "geologist" was, he was flummuxed by a statement of the
antiquity of the text. There are three candidates and I would like to
know more.
Tom McDonald
I do. But I don't consider that evidence for, or against, the KRS's
authenticity. It is simply more data. A good thing in itself, certs.
> I think you
> also have to give some weight to Nielsen's work on the runes and the
> grammar.
Lots of people have contributed more or less usefully to the study of the
stone. I think Nielsen has done some good work, but has also either done, or
been party to doing, unproductive speculation outside his expertise.
>> History Channel, and Committee Films, seem to agree, as they chose
>> Wolter to be the key narrator of the piece. But Wolter has stepped so
>> far out of his area of expertise that I don't think the whole air-
>> castle he's bought into (he certainly didn't build it) can stand the
>> light of day.
>>
>> This is not to say that everything he wrote can safely be discarded.
>> It is to say that everything he wrote has to be investigated by
>> competent professionals, working in their fields of competence, before
>> anything beyond his geological work can be accepted.
>
> The danger is that we he has laid out as bait to attract the scholars
> may instead serve to drive them away. Unfortunately there are now so
> many negative connotations attached to the KRS that few people have
> the courage to work with it.
It's not a matter of courage, it's a matter of the woo-woo factor. Far, far
too many of the folks who are interested in the KRS have gotten an idea of
what it all means, and have run with their idea to absurd lengths.
I just returned Reiersgord's 2000 book on the KRS. I'd hoped to get
something useful out of it, but the first part put me off. He claimed that
the KRS's 'red with blood and dead/death' was a description of plague
victims. And that the KRS author(s) had to use a description of the
disease's effects because they didn't have a term for the Black Death.
As has been pointed out, folks in the mid-14th century had several perfectly
good terms for the great plagues. So right off the bat, one of Reiersgord's
main theses, and any good opinion one might have had as to his research
skills, went down the tubes. It didn't help that he invoked later Dakota
folks first lugging the thing around, then burying it at the find site as
something bad, as a way of getting the Lake Mille Lacs rocky islands in as
the 'skerries'.
Before getting THX, I read eight or 10 other books on the KRS and/or the
Templars. Most were based on the proposition that the Templars continued
underground after their disbanding. Yet the discovery of the Chinon
Parchment, written up before most of these books, clearly showed that the
Church had cleared the Templars as an order of the crimes charged against
them. There was no reason for them to continue in secret (except perhaps in
France); and successor and brother orders existed that took in the remnant
that wanted to remain in holy orders.
Plus there's the Dan Brown effect. It's lots of fun to read fast-paced,
exciting, sensational fiction. Stringing a bunch of assertions, hypotheses
and speculation sprinkled with historical fact can be entertaining.
It's tempting to see some of the fiction as having a core of fact. (As when
several authors claim that Templars allied with Robert the Bruce turned the
tide at Bannockburn.) But anyone who actually and objectively studies the
history of the time and participants comes quickly to the conclusion that
what can work in fiction doesn't work in fact.
I see some good work being done in the KRS arena. The study of stone holes,
for instance; and the on-going work on the runes and language.
But Wolter, IMHO (well, in this I don't feel the need to be particularly
humble), screwed the pooch in THX. And if Jack is right that Wolter won't
put his geological work on the KRS in front of his professional peers, that
would seem to put paid to his usefulness as a serious investigator of the KRS.
>>> Produced by Committee Films, a husband-and-wife production company
>>> based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Holy Grail in America takes as its
>>> premise that evidence for a previously unknown "Templar voyage of
>>> discovery" might be encoded on the infamous Kensington Runestone. The
>>> program also suggested the knights, in the company of Cistercian
>>> monks, brought the Holy Grail to the New World in the late 14th
>>> century, and that the runestone might hold clues to the final resting
>>> place of the Grail.
>> It made for an interesting tale. But it's not something on which the
>> KRSers can, or at least should, hang their hats.
>
> It's a start, but leading where?
I think the TV documentary is a dead end, not a start.
Someone in that mix is going to have to have the gonads to tell KRS
supporters the truth -- that much of what they have been sold is crap, and
that science, history, linguistics, etc., on the issue need to be freed of
True Believer investigators before anyone of potential value to their cause
will take them seriously.
IMHO.
;-)
<snip>
--
Tom
Eric Stevens
I agree with everything you have written up to here. But Wahlgren is a
different matter. As I have said before, Wahlgren is a demonstrable
liar and one must be careful when considering anything he wrote.
>"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
>that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
>on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
>very large, hence very old tree.
The only geologist of note who expressed an opinion on the age of the
stone was N. H. Winchell. In his report which he read to the Minnesota
Historical Society on Dec 13, 1909 he wrote:
"I might say at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the
freshness of the angles and all the cutting of the characters that
constitute the the record of on this stone appear to be an
objection to its alleged age. On first examination the impression
was made on my mind that it was too lately inscribed. That
impression remains, but I have to admit that I have not any
experience of the duration of such cutting on such stone. According
to the date on its face the inscription was made 547 years ago. If
it be compared with glacial markings quartzite, which must have
been formed at least seven thousand years ago, preserved by some
drift covering, there is not much difference in the sharpness and
distinctness of the markings, or the sharpness of the exposed
angles." [Facsimile copy of the signed report in Appendix 1 of
volume 2 of 'Kensington Runestone' by Barry Hanson.]
However, by April 1911, Winchell had lost his doubts and wrote to
Holand "You must understand ... I personally think the stone is valid
and vindicated" [Quoted on page 12 of 'The Kensington Rune Stone' by
Alice Kehoe who in turn quoted it from Wahlgren 1958:102.]
As far as the roots of the tree are concerned, one of Winchell's note
books (and I don't have the reference at the moment) records that at
an early stage in his enquiries Winchell had concluded that the tree
was 20 years old and possibly 40 years old. This is hardly consistent
with 547 years.
>But to judge by *geologic criteria*
>alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no more than thirty,
>perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his own inspection of it
>that year.
Wahlgren may very well have made this up. This is inconsistent with
anything I know of Winchell's opinions.
>Most damning of all were several contemporary paper texts
>purporting to be copies from the stone, but contemporary study of
>which indicates that they were experimental variants or rough drafts,
>of a proposed inscription, made by one or more person involved in
>promoting the hoax."
In fact they have been shown to be an even more inaccurate copy of an
inaccurate copy of the original inscription.
>
>I know you are a believer, that the age of the runes is more than 200
>years old. But here is a statement I have not seen refuted, that
>whoever the "geologist" was, he was flummuxed by a statement of the
>antiquity of the text. There are three candidates and I would like to
>know more.
Doesn't your source re flummoxing that tell you who it was? Do we know
that such a person ever existed?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Exactly.
And that in itself has allowed progress to be made.
>
>> I think you
>> also have to give some weight to Nielsen's work on the runes and the
>> grammar.
>
>Lots of people have contributed more or less usefully to the study of the
>stone. I think Nielsen has done some good work, but has also either done, or
>been party to doing, unproductive speculation outside his expertise.
That's not a sin. Its how progress is made.
>
>>> History Channel, and Committee Films, seem to agree, as they chose
>>> Wolter to be the key narrator of the piece. But Wolter has stepped so
>>> far out of his area of expertise that I don't think the whole air-
>>> castle he's bought into (he certainly didn't build it) can stand the
>>> light of day.
>>>
>>> This is not to say that everything he wrote can safely be discarded.
>>> It is to say that everything he wrote has to be investigated by
>>> competent professionals, working in their fields of competence, before
>>> anything beyond his geological work can be accepted.
>>
>> The danger is that we he has laid out as bait to attract the scholars
>> may instead serve to drive them away. Unfortunately there are now so
>> many negative connotations attached to the KRS that few people have
>> the courage to work with it.
>
>It's not a matter of courage, it's a matter of the woo-woo factor. Far, far
>too many of the folks who are interested in the KRS have gotten an idea of
>what it all means, and have run with their idea to absurd lengths.
It is a matter of courage. I have learned through private
communications of a very senior internationally recognised scholar who
was told that if he had time to study the KRS he had time to this very
unpleasant administrative task to which he was not at all suited. You
need courage to run this kind of gauntlet.
>
>I just returned Reiersgord's 2000 book on the KRS. I'd hoped to get
>something useful out of it, but the first part put me off. He claimed that
>the KRS's 'red with blood and dead/death' was a description of plague
>victims. And that the KRS author(s) had to use a description of the
>disease's effects because they didn't have a term for the Black Death.
You will remember that this theory was run in sci.archaeology some
years ago and never got anywhere. I, personally, have no time for it.
>
>As has been pointed out, folks in the mid-14th century had several perfectly
>good terms for the great plagues. So right off the bat, one of Reiersgord's
>main theses, and any good opinion one might have had as to his research
>skills, went down the tubes. It didn't help that he invoked later Dakota
>folks first lugging the thing around, then burying it at the find site as
>something bad, as a way of getting the Lake Mille Lacs rocky islands in as
>the 'skerries'.
They may well have done this but not for the reasons he put forward. I
am not aware of native americans lugging boulders around for
ceremonial reasons, although they may well have done so.
>
>Before getting THX, I read eight or 10 other books on the KRS and/or the
>Templars. Most were based on the proposition that the Templars continued
>underground after their disbanding. Yet the discovery of the Chinon
>Parchment, written up before most of these books, clearly showed that the
>Church had cleared the Templars as an order of the crimes charged against
>them. There was no reason for them to continue in secret (except perhaps in
>France); and successor and brother orders existed that took in the remnant
>that wanted to remain in holy orders.
It wasn't only the church that was after them.
>
>Plus there's the Dan Brown effect. It's lots of fun to read fast-paced,
>exciting, sensational fiction. Stringing a bunch of assertions, hypotheses
>and speculation sprinkled with historical fact can be entertaining.
>
>It's tempting to see some of the fiction as having a core of fact. (As when
>several authors claim that Templars allied with Robert the Bruce turned the
>tide at Bannockburn.) But anyone who actually and objectively studies the
>history of the time and participants comes quickly to the conclusion that
>what can work in fiction doesn't work in fact.
>
>I see some good work being done in the KRS arena. The study of stone holes,
>for instance; and the on-going work on the runes and language.
I have seen reference to a newly developed technique for dating the
holes but I have not yet heard how it works.
>
>But Wolter, IMHO (well, in this I don't feel the need to be particularly
>humble), screwed the pooch in THX. And if Jack is right that Wolter won't
>put his geological work on the KRS in front of his professional peers, that
>would seem to put paid to his usefulness as a serious investigator of the KRS.
I agree. It doesn't necessarily make him wrong. It just makes it ten
times harder to convince others that he is right (that is, if he is).
>
>>>> Produced by Committee Films, a husband-and-wife production company
>>>> based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Holy Grail in America takes as its
>>>> premise that evidence for a previously unknown "Templar voyage of
>>>> discovery" might be encoded on the infamous Kensington Runestone. The
>>>> program also suggested the knights, in the company of Cistercian
>>>> monks, brought the Holy Grail to the New World in the late 14th
>>>> century, and that the runestone might hold clues to the final resting
>>>> place of the Grail.
>>> It made for an interesting tale. But it's not something on which the
>>> KRSers can, or at least should, hang their hats.
>>
>> It's a start, but leading where?
>
>I think the TV documentary is a dead end, not a start.
>
>Someone in that mix is going to have to have the gonads to tell KRS
>supporters the truth -- that much of what they have been sold is crap, and
>that science, history, linguistics, etc., on the issue need to be freed of
>True Believer investigators before anyone of potential value to their cause
>will take them seriously.
>
>IMHO.
>
>;-)
>
><snip>
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
I wonder if you see any connection between Wolter's not seeking peer
review and your dismissal of Wahlgren's statements without proof that
he lied?
a letter from Winchell
The University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, July 19, 1910.
Prof. N. H. Winchell,
Dear Sir: I am going away tomorrow, and cannot attend
your meeting next Saturday. I have examined your report
carefully, have visited Kensington and neighborhood, and have
read most of the papers and articles relating to the rune stone.
I have always believed with the great authorities of Nor-
way and Sweden, Magnus Olsen, Moltke Moe, M. Hogstad,
Bugge, Noreen, Schrick, Montelius, that the language is too
modern, besides being faulty ; and a more careful study of the
words has not changed my opinion. In some places where the
rune \> (thorn) is used, it is not used properly. But I shall not
enter into details at this time.
That the Norwegians discovered Vinland is a fact. That they,
in the fourteenth century, may have penetrated into the coun-
try as far as the present Kensington, is possible. But what
has been testified to about the finding of the stone is not con-
vincing, and I do not consider the Kensington stone authentic.
It seems to me that the stone should be brought to Norway
to be examined by expert runologists, and, in my opinion,
nothing else will dispose of the matter.
Yours respectfully,
http://www.archive.org/stream/kensingtonrunest00minn/kensingtonrunest00minn_djvu.txt
Tom McDonald
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:33:17 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
>>> The danger is that we he has laid out as bait to attract the scholars
>>> may instead serve to drive them away. Unfortunately there are now so
>>> many negative connotations attached to the KRS that few people have
>>> the courage to work with it.
>> It's not a matter of courage, it's a matter of the woo-woo factor. Far, far
>> too many of the folks who are interested in the KRS have gotten an idea of
>> what it all means, and have run with their idea to absurd lengths.
>
> It is a matter of courage. I have learned through private
> communications of a very senior internationally recognised scholar who
> was told that if he had time to study the KRS he had time to this very
> unpleasant administrative task to which he was not at all suited. You
> need courage to run this kind of gauntlet.
That does not make it a matter of courage, it makes it a matter of time and
priorities. If the issue were courage, the scholar's job would have been
threatened.
In the event, his superior (I presume at an institution of higher learning
or research) probably noted that he was spending, or intending to spend,
time on something outside of his direct responsibilities, and so assigned
him some normal work that pretty much every worker in academic fields has to
do at one time or another in their career -- necessary but onerous scut work.
This may be one of the things that is hard for folks to understand who
wonder why professionals don't dive right in to the questions they'd like
them to. Time. It takes time to do one's own job in academia or government.
It takes further time to pitch in with the scut work of administration that
nearly every professional needs to do; and that every academic or
governmental organization needs to have done.
I doubt that you will find many academics who actually enjoy, for instance,
grant writing. Yet that is part of the job. I doubt you will find many
academics who enjoy departmental meetings, departmental paperwork, engaging
in university functions that take time away from research or teaching, or
sharing the load of departmental, division or university administration.
But that's part of their normal functions in most academic organizations. It
is a gauntlet, if you will. But it isn't designed to keep folks from doing
fringy work; it's designed to let the system function in such a way that it
keeps chugging along.
If your scholar is determined to work on the KRS, he is certainly free to
carve out some time from his personal life. Or he could request a sabbatical
to do the KRS work. Or he could request a reduction in work load (and
probably salary) to free up time. Or he could use vacation or holiday time.
Or he could take time from family responsibilities.
The bottom line is that, in the example you've given, it's not courage that
is required, it's better time management. But since most academics are balls
to the wall for time most of the time, it may take some real effort to make
the time available.
There. That's my rant on some of the realities of the academic's life that
so many non-academics don't understand when they ask (or demand) that the
professionals investigate their pet project or idea.
All that said, academics do engage in this sort of free-time work when they
can, and if their personalities don't intrude. But when you have, as with
the KRS, a long history of woo-woo claims and True Believer demands, you
have to realize (and I know you do, Eric) that many more obviously relevant
and less crap-appearing projects are available to said academics.
<snip>
>> Before getting THX, I read eight or 10 other books on the KRS and/or the
>> Templars. Most were based on the proposition that the Templars continued
>> underground after their disbanding. Yet the discovery of the Chinon
>> Parchment, written up before most of these books, clearly showed that the
>> Church had cleared the Templars as an order of the crimes charged against
>> them. There was no reason for them to continue in secret (except perhaps in
>> France); and successor and brother orders existed that took in the remnant
>> that wanted to remain in holy orders.
>
> It wasn't only the church that was after them.
Yes. The King of France was after them. He died shortly after the
suppression of the Templars; though his successor may not have wanted to be
in debt to them, either.
The diaspora of the Templars is well known. But the reason for their secular
oppression was specific to France, AFAIK. The ex-Templars didn't seem to
have any problems in Portugal, Scotland, the Nordic countries, etc.
<snip>
>> I see some good work being done in the KRS arena. The study of stone holes,
>> for instance; and the on-going work on the runes and language.
>
> I have seen reference to a newly developed technique for dating the
> holes but I have not yet heard how it works.
That is interesting news. If you have more info, I'd be happy to learn of it.
>> But Wolter, IMHO (well, in this I don't feel the need to be particularly
>> humble), screwed the pooch in THX. And if Jack is right that Wolter won't
>> put his geological work on the KRS in front of his professional peers, that
>> would seem to put paid to his usefulness as a serious investigator of the KRS.
>
> I agree. It doesn't necessarily make him wrong. It just makes it ten
> times harder to convince others that he is right (that is, if he is).
This is what I mean by the KRS fans shooting themselves in the foot with
professionals and academics. The world is filled with interesting things to
look into; and free time to devote to outside work is achingly limited. It
does not take a conspiracy to make it near-impossible to keep the necessary
professionals away from the KRS. All it takes is the appearance, after
reading a few of the pro-KRS 'works', that time spent on it is probably time
wasted.
Again, someone in the pro-KRS bunch is going to have to have the stones (tee
hee) to stand up to their fellows and tell the truth about how they look to
the very folks they need to get on the case.
Or, in the alternative, they need to raise enough money to fund specific
investigations into specific issues in relevant professionals' (preferably
academics') fields that would advance the *professional's* own work.
I know this has been done. That's how Wolter got into the affair. If he
would have stopped at the edge of his professional competence, and if he had
published his findings in a referred journal, he would have made a clean and
useful addition to knowledge.
Maybe the next guy. . . . Inshallah.
--
Tom
Eric Stevens
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 1:32áam, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:46:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>
>>
>>
>> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 20, 5:47ápm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
>>
>> >> <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 20, 6:55áam, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> Four page article in the May/June 2010 issue of Archaeology magazine
>> >> >> discusses this TV program and the other recent events concerning the
>> >> >> Kensington Stone. "... the History Channel's take stands out from
>> >> >> garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by elevating a dense web
>> >> >> of improbable theories to the level of accepted science."
>>
>> >> >> áInsider: The Kensington Code
>> >> >This is not to say that áeverything he wrote can safely be discarded.
>> >were particularly concerned áthat Wolter refused to submit his
>> >weathering study to a peer-revoewed journal.
>>
>> >Larry Zimmerman, an archaeologist at Indiana University-Purdue
>> >University who knows both Nielsen and Wolter and has followed the KRS
>> >research, agrees the lack of peer review is a serious problem. "good
>> >science demands peer review by practicioners with similar skill sets,
>> >and good scientists actually seek such a review," he wrote in an
>> >article on the KRS. When review seems to be avoided, the science
>> >becomes immediately suspicious."
>>
>> >Wolter doesn't see the necessity. I would add that there is a passage
>> >in my copy of Eric Wahlgren's The Vikings and America. áOn
>> >page 103 he writes:
>>
>> I agree with everything you have written up to here. But Wahlgren is a
>> different matter. As I have said before, Wahlgren is a demonstrable
>> liar and one must be careful when considering anything he wrote.
>>
>> >"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
>> >that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
>> >on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
>> >very large, hence very old tree.
>>
>> The only geologist of note who expressed an opinion on the age of the
>> stone was N. H. Winchell. In his report which he read to the Minnesota
>> Historical Society on Dec 13, 1909 he wrote:
>>
>> á "I might say at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the
>> á áfreshness of the angles and all the cutting of the characters that
>> á áconstitute the the record of on this stone appear to be an
>> á áobjection to its alleged age. áOn first examination the impression
>> á áwas made on my mind that it was too lately inscribed. That
>> á áimpression remains, but I have to admit that I have not any
>> á áexperience of the duration of such cutting on such stone. According
>> á áto the date on its face the inscription was made 547 years ago. If
>> á áit be compared with glacial markings quartzite, which must have
>> á ábeen formed at least seven thousand years ago, preserved by some
>> á ádrift covering, there is not much difference in the sharpness and
>> á ádistinctness of the markings, or the sharpness of the exposed
>> á áangles." [Facsimile copy of the signed report in Appendix 1 of
>> á á volume 2 of 'Kensington Runestone' by Barry Hanson.]
I don't see any connection and there is ample proof that Wahlgren
lied.
>
>a letter from Winchell
>
>The University of Minnesota,
>Minneapolis, July 19, 1910.
>Prof. N. H. Winchell,
>
>Dear Sir: I am going away tomorrow, and cannot attend
>your meeting next Saturday. I have examined your report
>carefully, have visited Kensington and neighborhood, and have
>read most of the papers and articles relating to the rune stone.
>
>I have always believed with the great authorities of Nor-
>way and Sweden, Magnus Olsen, Moltke Moe, M. Hogstad,
>Bugge, Noreen, Schrick, Montelius, that the language is too
>modern, besides being faulty ; and a more careful study of the
>words has not changed my opinion. In some places where the
>rune \> (thorn) is used, it is not used properly. But I shall not
>enter into details at this time.
>
>That the Norwegians discovered Vinland is a fact. That they,
>in the fourteenth century, may have penetrated into the coun-
>try as far as the present Kensington, is possible. But what
>has been testified to about the finding of the stone is not con-
>vincing, and I do not consider the Kensington stone authentic.
>
>It seems to me that the stone should be brought to Norway
>to be examined by expert runologists, and, in my opinion,
>nothing else will dispose of the matter.
>
>Yours respectfully,
You say that letter is written by Winchell in 1910. Presumably you got
that from Wahlgren. I believe I have already trumped you with my
quotation of a letter from 1911 in which Winchell says "You must
understand ... I personally think the stone is valid and vindicated".
No matter what his uncertainties may have been in the early days, by
1911 he had reached a firm conclusion.
In fact the URL (below) which you have cited contains evidence that by
1909 Winchell had reached the conclusion that the KRS was genuine.
>
>http://www.archive.org/stream/kensingtonrunest00minn/kensingtonrunest00minn_djvu.txt
The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of the
report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical Society.
Towards the end it lists the resources used when compiling the report.
These include:
"H. Winchell, Prof. Andrew Fossum, and Dr. Kniit Hoegh, all in
defense of the genuineness of the inscription. Pioneer Press, St.
Paul, Minn., Dec. 14, 1909."
It makes me wonder whether Wahlgren (if he was the source) has used
the right date in reference to the letter you have quoted.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
> >On Apr 21, 1:32 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:46:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
>
> >> >> <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> Four page article in the May/June 2010 issue of Archaeology magazine
> >> >> >> discusses this TV program and the other recent events concerning the
> >> >> >> Kensington Stone. "... the History Channel's take stands out from
> >> >> >> garden-variety Templar conspiracy narratives by elevating a dense web
> >> >> >> of improbable theories to the level of accepted science."
>
> >> >weathering study to a peer-revoewed journal.
>
> >> >Larry Zimmerman, an archaeologist at Indiana University-Purdue
> >> >University who knows both Nielsen and Wolter and has followed the KRS
> >> >research, agrees the lack of peer review is a serious problem. "good
> >> >science demands peer review by practicioners with similar skill sets,
> >> >and good scientists actually seek such a review," he wrote in an
> >> >article on the KRS. When review seems to be avoided, the science
> >> >becomes immediately suspicious."
>
> >> >Wolter doesn't see the necessity. I would add that there is a passage
> >> >page 103 he writes:
>
> >> I agree with everything you have written up to here. But Wahlgren is a
> >> different matter. As I have said before, Wahlgren is a demonstrable
> >> liar and one must be careful when considering anything he wrote.
>
> >> >"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
> >> >that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
> >> >on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
> >> >very large, hence very old tree.
>
> >> The only geologist of note who expressed an opinion on the age of the
> >> stone was N. H. Winchell. In his report which he read to the Minnesota
> >> Historical Society on Dec 13, 1909 he wrote:
>
> >> "I might say at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the
>
> read more »
And I now have proof that you just cling to your
borrowed opinions without checking anyone elses cites. This is from:
"THE KENSINGTON RUNE STONE.
Preliminary Report to the
Minnesota Historical Society by its Musuem Committee.
Published by the Society
THE VOLKSZEITUNG COMPANY,
ST. PAUL, MINN.
DBCEMBEB, 1910.
r\'
^ i
UJ ^^
> 3"
UJ ^
o
< *^
f
THE KENSINGTON RUNE STONE.
Preliminary Report to the
Minnesota Historical Society by its Musue.m Committee.
It
Published by the Society
the volkszeitung company,
st. paul, minn.
december, 1910.
sin
t\..:^.'US^>ntWJL
f*n2 • «n
CONTENTS
The Discovery 1
The Inscription 6
References to the Topography of the Region 7
Where was Vinland 1 10
Tlie Slight Weathering of the Rune Stone 13
^Discussion of the Authenticity of the Rune Record 17
Other Rumors Concerning Mr. Ohman 20
The Tree That Grew on the Rune Stone 25
Review of the Finding of the Rune Stone 26
Notes on the Record (jiven by the Inscription. . . .■ 20
Linguistic Objections 84
Collateral Evidence 47
Resolutions Adopted by the .Museum Committee 47
APPENDIX.
Professor Flom 's Investigation 50
Pronunciation and Spelling 50
Inflexions 51
Meaning of Certain Words 51
The Runes 52
Discussion of these Objections 52
Investigation of the Rumor Relating to Sven Fogelblad. . 57
Bibliography 61 "
Which you would have known if you had bothered to check the cite. You
are a pathetic imitation of a scholar, a charlatan who keeps to a set
of manufactured beliefs without any question. I kind of guessed it
several sessions of this stuff ago, but now there is proof.
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:33:17 -0500, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> The danger is that we he has laid out as bait to attract the scholars
>>>> may instead serve to drive them away. Unfortunately there are now so
>>>> many negative connotations attached to the KRS that few people have
>>>> the courage to work with it.
>>> It's not a matter of courage, it's a matter of the woo-woo factor. Far, far
>>> too many of the folks who are interested in the KRS have gotten an idea of
>>> what it all means, and have run with their idea to absurd lengths.
>>
>> It is a matter of courage. I have learned through private
>> communications of a very senior internationally recognised scholar who
>> was told that if he had time to study the KRS he had time to this very
>> unpleasant administrative task to which he was not at all suited. You
>> need courage to run this kind of gauntlet.
>
>That does not make it a matter of courage, it makes it a matter of time and
>priorities. If the issue were courage, the scholar's job would have been
>threatened.
The threat of being over-burdened with administrative trivia does not
encourage one to pursue a line of enquiry. No doubt had the scholar
persisted more administrative tasks could be found for him.
>
>In the event, his superior (I presume at an institution of higher learning
>or research) probably noted that he was spending, or intending to spend,
>time on something outside of his direct responsibilities, and so assigned
>him some normal work that pretty much every worker in academic fields has to
>do at one time or another in their career -- necessary but onerous scut work.
It was within his field of expertise. The work had previously been
done by administrators before the scholar showed an interest in the
KRS.
>
>This may be one of the things that is hard for folks to understand who
>wonder why professionals don't dive right in to the questions they'd like
>them to. Time. It takes time to do one's own job in academia or government.
>It takes further time to pitch in with the scut work of administration that
>nearly every professional needs to do; and that every academic or
>governmental organization needs to have done.
>
>I doubt that you will find many academics who actually enjoy, for instance,
>grant writing. Yet that is part of the job. I doubt you will find many
>academics who enjoy departmental meetings, departmental paperwork, engaging
>in university functions that take time away from research or teaching, or
>sharing the load of departmental, division or university administration.
>
>But that's part of their normal functions in most academic organizations. It
>is a gauntlet, if you will. But it isn't designed to keep folks from doing
>fringy work; it's designed to let the system function in such a way that it
>keeps chugging along.
No doubt this scholar already did these things.
>
>If your scholar is determined to work on the KRS, he is certainly free to
>carve out some time from his personal life. Or he could request a sabbatical
>to do the KRS work. Or he could request a reduction in work load (and
>probably salary) to free up time. Or he could use vacation or holiday time.
>Or he could take time from family responsibilities.
>
>The bottom line is that, in the example you've given, it's not courage that
>is required, it's better time management. But since most academics are balls
>to the wall for time most of the time, it may take some real effort to make
>the time available.
>
>There. That's my rant on some of the realities of the academic's life that
>so many non-academics don't understand when they ask (or demand) that the
>professionals investigate their pet project or idea.
>
Now you have talked yourself into believing that the problem is time
management you will no doubt ignore the possibility that his scope of
work was being deliberately limited.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
--- snip -----
>Notes on the Record (jiven by the Inscription. . . .? 20
>
>Linguistic Objections 84
>
>Collateral Evidence 47
>
>Resolutions Adopted by the .Museum Committee 47
>
>APPENDIX.
>
>Professor Flom 's Investigation 50
>
>Pronunciation and Spelling 50
>
>Inflexions 51
>
>Meaning of Certain Words 51
>
>The Runes 52
>
>Discussion of these Objections 52
>
>Investigation of the Rumor Relating to Sven Fogelblad. . 57
>
>Bibliography 61 "
>
>
>
>Which you would have known if you had bothered to check the cite. You
>are a pathetic imitation of a scholar, a charlatan who keeps to a set
>of manufactured beliefs without any question. I kind of guessed it
>several sessions of this stuff ago, but now there is proof.
Thank you for showing that you did not read what I wrote before you
deleted it from your reply without any mention of the fact. At the end
of the article I wrote (in full):
Begin quote
---------------------------------------------------------------
You say that letter is written by Winchell in 1910. Presumably you got
that from Wahlgren. I believe I have already trumped you with my
quotation of a letter from 1911 in which Winchell says "You must
understand ... I personally think the stone is valid and vindicated".
No matter what his uncertainties may have been in the early days, by
1911 he had reached a firm conclusion.
In fact the URL (below) which you have cited contains evidence that by
1909 Winchell had reached the conclusion that the KRS was genuine.
>
>http://www.archive.org/stream/kensingtonrunest00minn/kensingtonrunest00minn_djvu.txt
The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of the
report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical Society.
Towards the end it lists the resources used when compiling the report.
These include:
"H. Winchell, Prof. Andrew Fossum, and Dr. Kniit Hoegh, all in
defense of the genuineness of the inscription. Pioneer Press, St.
Paul, Minn., Dec. 14, 1909."
It makes me wonder whether Wahlgren (if he was the source) has used
the right date in reference to the letter you have quoted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
End quote
You say "I now have proof that you just cling to your borrowed
opinions without checking anyone elses cites."
The contrary is true. You will note that, above, among other things I
said:
"The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of
the report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical
Society."
I had already confirmed that I knew what that text represented.
Its incomplete if only for the reason that it lacks the diagrams and
footnotes which form part of the original. I suggest you go back to
site and download the PDF version. If you go to original page 64 you
will see that on May 13th 1910 Winchell wrote an article titled "I
believe the stone is genuine" for the Norwegian American.
There is plenty of evidence that, contrary to Wahlgren, Winchell did
not consider the KRS to be a forgery. Wahlgren is not to be trusted.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the committee
charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS and an article in
an ethnic newsletter? Pick and choose and still no actual record of
anything proving that Wahlgren lied. Did Winchell use any diagrams and
footnotes in his letter to the Museum Committee? If not, then that
statement is irrelevant but in line with your methods of "argument".
Tom McDonald
No doubt some *could* have been found. But *would* they have done? I think
you have one side of the story, and may be embellishing what you do know.
Absent a direct threat to one's job, an administrative decision to share the
administrative work load may be nothing more than that -- a request for a
senior scholar in an academic setting to shoulder some of the administrative
burden of the institution. That happens all the time in American
universities and institutions; and happens more frequently as the scholar
gains seniority. In fact, in most instances, it is required as one advances
in the institution.
Even if the purpose is to discourage a certain line of inquiry, that may
have a reasonable, albeit political, rationale. If the higher-ups think that
officially pursuing certain lines of study might affect the grants that such
institutions rely on, or the ability of the institution to attract
high-quality scholars (i.e. if the status of the institution might be
threatened by a perception of woo-woo-dom), it would be reasonable of them
to discourage that sort of activity.
That's not an excuse in a perfect world. But we seem to be short of those
Earths at the moment.
>> In the event, his superior (I presume at an institution of higher learning
>> or research) probably noted that he was spending, or intending to spend,
>> time on something outside of his direct responsibilities, and so assigned
>> him some normal work that pretty much every worker in academic fields has to
>> do at one time or another in their career -- necessary but onerous scut work.
>
> It was within his field of expertise. The work had previously been
> done by administrators before the scholar showed an interest in the
> KRS.
See above.
But we only have one part of the story. I don't even know whether we have
the story direct and unfiltered from the scholar himself. If not, a second
or third-hand account may not be reliable.
All that said, I'd prefer academic freedom in every instance; and there are
egregious examples of such being stifled. But sometimes, a cigar is really
only a cigar. Do we know that the scholar in question has no desire for
advancement in the institution, which would almost certainly involve being
given additional administrative responsibilities? I don't know. Do you?
>> This may be one of the things that is hard for folks to understand who
>> wonder why professionals don't dive right in to the questions they'd like
>> them to. Time. It takes time to do one's own job in academia or government.
>> It takes further time to pitch in with the scut work of administration that
>> nearly every professional needs to do; and that every academic or
>> governmental organization needs to have done.
>>
>> I doubt that you will find many academics who actually enjoy, for instance,
>> grant writing. Yet that is part of the job. I doubt you will find many
>> academics who enjoy departmental meetings, departmental paperwork, engaging
>> in university functions that take time away from research or teaching, or
>> sharing the load of departmental, division or university administration.
>>
>> But that's part of their normal functions in most academic organizations. It
>> is a gauntlet, if you will. But it isn't designed to keep folks from doing
>> fringy work; it's designed to let the system function in such a way that it
>> keeps chugging along.
>
> No doubt this scholar already did these things.
Possibly. I don't know that. Do you?
>> If your scholar is determined to work on the KRS, he is certainly free to
>> carve out some time from his personal life. Or he could request a sabbatical
>> to do the KRS work. Or he could request a reduction in work load (and
>> probably salary) to free up time. Or he could use vacation or holiday time.
>> Or he could take time from family responsibilities.
>>
>> The bottom line is that, in the example you've given, it's not courage that
>> is required, it's better time management. But since most academics are balls
>> to the wall for time most of the time, it may take some real effort to make
>> the time available.
>>
>> There. That's my rant on some of the realities of the academic's life that
>> so many non-academics don't understand when they ask (or demand) that the
>> professionals investigate their pet project or idea.
>>
> Now you have talked yourself into believing that the problem is time
> management
I haven't talked myself into believing anything. I don't know enough to make
such a judgment. And I doubt you do either.
My purpose in writing what I did was to get off my chest the irritation I
feel when folks without a reasonable knowledge of academic life think it
takes some grand conspiracy to keep good folks from working on their pet
projects. It may; but the realities of university/institute life are often
sufficient to explain the situation innocently.
I don't put you in that group; I know you are in the second group ;-)
(reference to your old sig file)
> you will no doubt ignore the possibility that his scope of
> work was being deliberately limited.
Of course I will not do that. Sometimes a cigar is more than a cigar.
But even if what you suggest was the case, what would stand in the way of
his doing the work on his own time, away from the office? It might take some
time management; it might take some courage; but it could be done with a
judicious application of both.
Perhaps what is missing in this equation is the necessary level of desire to
do the work?
I don't know. Neither do you. If some enterprising journalist dug into the
story, and got on-the-record details from all parties, we might have a much
better idea what's happening. And that would be wonderful.
As of now, we have one part of the story, perhaps not even from the horse's
mouth. We are in a situation not dissimilar to those we regularly see here,
when we have a journalistic story based on one person or team, with the
story seen through their eyes. When a broader perspective is brought to
bear, the original story might be confirmed; or we might see that there
really are more sides to the story.
<snip>
--
Tom
Jack Linthicum
Figures at the citation
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical
Support from US States Data
The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia
might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because
it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs.
Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report
“negative” results (results that fail to support the tested
hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific
bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be
higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments.
This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of
positive results in a large random sample of papers with a
corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers
were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding
authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced
more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased
when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study
characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the
frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology.
Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be
excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the
most clever and successful in their experiments), these results
support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase
not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same
phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic
competition and pressures to publish are high.
Daniele Fanelli*
INNOGEN and Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and
Innovation (ISSTI), The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United
Kingdom
Abstract Top
The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia
might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because
it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs.
Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report
“negative” results (results that fail to support the tested
hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific
bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be
higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments.
This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of
positive results in a large random sample of papers with a
corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers
were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding
authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced
more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased
when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study
characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the
frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology.
Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be
excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the
most clever and successful in their experiments), these results
support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase
not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same
phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic
competition and pressures to publish are high.
Introduction
The objectivity and integrity of contemporary science faces many
threats. A cause of particular concern is the growing competition for
research funding and academic positions, which, combined with an
increasing use of bibliometric parameters to evaluate careers (e.g.
number of publications and the impact factor of the journals they
appeared in), pressures scientists into continuously producing
“publishable” results [1].
Competition is encouraged in scientifically advanced countries because
it increases the efficiency and productivity of researchers [2]. The
flip side of the coin, however, is that it might conflict with their
objectivity and integrity, because the success of a scientific paper
partly depends on its outcome. In many fields of research, papers are
more likely to be published [3], [4], [5], [6], to be cited by
colleagues [7], [8], [9] and to be accepted by high-profile journals
[10] if they report results that are “positive” – term which in this
paper will indicate all results that support the experimental
hypothesis against an alternative or a “null” hypothesis of no effect,
using or not using tests of statistical significance.
Words like “positive”, “significant”, “negative” or “null” are common
scientific jargon, but are obviously misleading, because all results
are equally relevant to science, as long as they have been produced by
sound logic and methods [11], [12]. Yet, literature surveys and meta-
analyses have extensively documented an excess of positive and/or
statistically significant results in fields and subfields of, for
example, biomedicine [13], biology [14], ecology and evolution [15],
psychology [16], economics [17], sociology [18].
Many factors contribute to this publication bias against negative
results, which is rooted in the psychology and sociology of science.
Like all human beings, scientists are confirmation-biased (i.e. tend
to select information that supports their hypotheses about the world)
[19], [20], [21], and they are far from indifferent to the outcome of
their own research: positive results make them happy and negative ones
disappointed [22]. This bias is likely to be reinforced by a positive
feedback from the scientific community. Since papers reporting
positive results attract more interest and are cited more often,
journal editors and peer reviewers might tend to favour them, which
will further increase the desirability of a positive outcome to
researchers, particularly if their careers are evaluated by counting
the number of papers listed in their CVs and the impact factor of the
journals they are published in.
Confronted with a “negative” result, therefore, a scientist might be
tempted to either not spend time publishing it (what is often called
the “file-drawer effect”, because negative papers are imagined to lie
in scientists' drawers) or to turn it somehow into a positive result.
This can be done by re-formulating the hypothesis (sometimes referred
to as HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known [23]), by
selecting the results to be published [24], by tweaking data or
analyses to “improve” the outcome, or by willingly and consciously
falsifying them [25]. Data fabrication and falsification are probably
rare, but other questionable research practices might be relatively
common [26].
Quantitative studies have repeatedly shown that financial interests
can influence the outcome of biomedical research [27], [28] but they
appear to have neglected the much more widespread conflict of interest
created by scientists' need to publish. Yet, fears that the
professionalization of research might compromise its objectivity and
integrity had been expressed already in the 19th century [29]. Since
then, the competitiveness and precariousness of scientific careers
have increased [30], and evidence that this might encourage misconduct
has accumulated. Scientists in focus groups suggested that the need to
compete in academia is a threat to scientific integrity [1], and those
guilty of scientific misconduct often invoke excessive pressures to
produce as a partial justification for their actions [31]. Surveys
suggest that competitive research environments decrease the likelihood
to follow scientific ideals [32] and increase the likelihood to
witness scientific misconduct [33] (but see [34]). However, no direct,
quantitative study has verified the connection between pressures to
publish and bias in the scientific literature, so the existence and
gravity of the problem are still a matter of speculation and debate
[35].
To verify this hypothesis, this study analysed a random sample of
papers published between 2000 and 2007 that had a corresponding author
based in the US. These papers, published in all disciplines, declared
to have tested a hypothesis, and it was determined whether they
concluded to have found a “positive” (full or partial) or a “negative”
support for the tested hypothesis. Using data compiled by the National
Science Foundation, the proportion of “positive” results was then
regressed against a sheer measure of academic productivity: the number
of articles published per-capita (i.e. per doctorate holder in
academia) in each US state, controlling for the effects of per-capita
research expenditure. NSF data provides an accurate proxy of a state's
academic productivity, because it controls for multiple authorship by
counting papers fractionally. Since the probability for a paper to
report a positive result depends significantly on its methodology, on
whether it tests one or more hypotheses, on the discipline it belongs
to and particularly on whether the discipline is pure or applied [36],
these confounding effects were controlled for in the regression
models.
Results Top
A total of 1316 papers were included in the analysis. All US states
and the federal district were represented in the sample, except
Delaware. The number of papers per state varied between 1 and 150
(mean: 26.32±4.16SE), and the percentage of positive results between
25% and 100% (mean: 82.38±15.15STDV, Figure 1). The number of papers
from each state in the sample was almost perfectly correlated with the
total number of papers that each state had published in 2003 according
to NSF (Pearson's r = 0.968, N = 50, P<0.001), as well as any other
year for which data was available (i.e. 1997, 2001 and 2005, r≥0.963
and p<0.001 in all cases). This shows the sample to be highly
representative of academic publication patterns in the US.
thumbnail
Figure 1. Percentage of positive results by US state.
Percentage and 95% logit-derived confidence interval of papers
published between 2000 and 2007 that supported a tested hypothesis,
classified by the corresponding author's US state (sample size for
each state is in parentheses). States are indicated by their official
USPS abbreviations: AL-Alabama, AK-Alaska, AZ-Arizona, AR-Arkansas, CA-
California, CO-Colorado, CT-Connecticut, DC-District of Columbia, FL-
Florida, GA-Georgia, HI-Hawaii, ID-Idaho, IL-Illinois, IN-Indiana, IA-
Iowa, KS-Kansas, KY-Kentucky, LA-Louisiana, ME-Maine, MD-Maryland, MA-
Massachusetts, MI-Michigan, MN-Minnesota, MS-Mississippi, MO-Missouri,
MT-Montana, NE-Nebraska, NV-Nevada, NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey,
NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, OH-
Ohio, OK-Oklahoma, OR-Oregon, PA-Pennsylvania, RI-Rhode Island, SC-
South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, TN-Tennessee, TX-Texas, UT-Utah, VT-
Vermont, VA-Virginia, WA-Washington, WV-West Virginia, WI-Wisconsin,
WY-Wyoming. All US states were represented in the sample except
Delaware.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g001
The probability of papers to support the tested hypothesis increased
significantly with the per capita academic productivity of the state
of the corresponding author (b = 1.383±0.682, Wald test = 4.108, df =
1, p = 0.043, Odds-Ratio (95%CI) = 3.988(1.047–15.193), Figure 2). The
statistical significance of per capita academic productivity increased
when controlling for the per capita R&D expenditure, which tended to
have a negative effect instead (respectively, b = 2.644±0.948, Wald =
7.779, p = 0.005, OR(95%CI) = 14.073(2.195–90.241), and b =
−5.993±3.185, Wald = 3.539, p = 0.06, OR(95%CI) = 0.002(0–1.285), see
Figure 3).
thumbnail
Figure 2. “Positive” results by per-capita publication rate.
Percentage of papers supporting a tested hypothesis in each US state
plotted against the state's academic article output per science and
engineering doctorate holder in academia in 2003 (NSF data). Papers
were published between 2000 and 2007 and classified by the US state of
the corresponding author. US states are indicated by official USPS
abbreviations. For abbreviations legend, see Figure 1.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g002
thumbnail
Figure 3. “Positive” results by per-capita R&D expenditure in
academia.
Percentage of papers supporting a tested hypothesis in each US state
plotted against the state's academic R&D expenditure per science and
engineering doctorate holder in academia in 2003 (NSF data, in million
USD). Papers were published between 2000 and 2007 and classified by
the US state of the corresponding author. US states are indicated by
official USPS abbreviations. For abbreviations legend, see Figure 1.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g003
The effect of per capita academic productivity remained highly
significant when controlling for expenditure and for characteristics
of study: broad methodological category, papers testing one vs.
multiple hypotheses, and pure vs. applied discipline (Table 1,
Nagelkerke R2 = 0.051). Similar results were obtained when controlling
for the effect of discipline instead of methodology (Table 2,
Nagelkerke R2 = 0.065). Adding an interaction term of discipline by
academic productivity did not improve the model significantly overall
(Wald = 20.424, df = 19, p = 0.369), although contrasting each
discipline's interaction term with that of Space Science showed
significantly positive interaction effects for Neuroscience &
Behaviour (b = 8.098±4.122, Wald = 3.860, p = 0.049) and Pharmacology
and Toxicology (b = 11.201±4.661, Wald = 5.775, p = 0.016).
thumbnail
Table 1. Logistic regression slope, standard error, Wald test with
statistical significance, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of
the probability for a paper to report a positive result, depending on
the following study characteristics: per capita academic productivity
of US state of corresponding author, per capita R&D academic
expenditure of US state of corresponding author, papers testing more
than one hypothesis (only the first of which was considered in this
study), papers published in pure as opposed to applied disciplines,
and methodological category of paper.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.t001
thumbnail
Table 2. Logistic regression slope, standard error, Wald test with
statistical significance, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of
the probability for a paper to report a positive result, depending on
the following study characteristics: per capita academic productivity
of US state of corresponding author, per capita R&D academic
expenditure of US state of corresponding author, papers testing more
than one hypothesis (only the first of which was included in the
study), and discipline of journal in which the paper was published (as
classified by the Essential Science Indicators database, see methods).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.t002
The proportion of papers published between 2000 and 2007 that
supported the tested hypothesis was completely uncorrelated with the
total (i.e. non per capita) number of doctorate holders, total number
of papers and total R&D expenditure (b = 0±0 and p≥0.223 for all three
cases). Controlling for any of these parameters did not alter the
results of the regression in any meaningful way.
Sensitivity analyses
The analyses were run using 2003 data from the Science and Engineering
Indicators 2006 report [37], because this year had the most complete
data series (all parameters in the report had been calculated for that
year), and because it fell almost in the middle of the period 2000–
2007. However, state data was also available from the 2004 and 2008
reports, and for the years 2000–2001 and 2005–2006 (year depeding on
parameter). Some discrepancies between reports were noted in the data
on some states and years (in particular, but not exclusively, for DC).
However, similar results were obtained using different data sets or
combinations of them. For example, the state productivity averaged
over the 2000–2001 and 2005–2006 data series and excluding the 2003
series was still a statistically significant predictor, controlling
for expenditure (Per capita number of papers: b = 2.496±1.100, Wald =
5.145, p = 0.023; per capita R&D: b = −6.628±3.742, Wald = 3.138, p =
0.076).
Discussion Top
In a random sample of 1316 papers that declared to have “tested a
hypothesis” in all disciplines, outcomes could be significantly
predicted by knowing the addresses of the corresponding authors: those
based in US states where researchers publish more papers per capita
were significantly more likely to report positive results,
independently of their discipline, methodology and research
expenditure. The probability for a study to yield a support for the
tested hypothesis depends on several research-specific factors,
primarily on whether the hypothesis tested is actually true and how
much statistical power is available to reject the null hypothesis
[38]. However, the geographical origin of the corresponding author
should not, in theory, be relevant, nor should parameters measuring
the sheer quantity of publications per capita. Although, as discussed
below, not all confounding factors in the study could be controlled
for, these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic
environments increase not only the productivity of researchers, but
also their bias against “negative” results.
All main sources of sampling and methodological bias in this study
were controlled for. The number of papers from each state in the
sample was almost perfectly correlated with the actual number of
papers that each state produced in any given year, which confirms that
the sampling of papers was completely randomised with respect to
address (as well as any other study characteristic including the
particular hypothesis tested and the methods employed), and therefore
that the sample was highly representative of the US research panorama.
The total number of papers, total R&D and total number of doctorate
holders were completely uncorrelated to the proportion of positive
results, ruling out the possibility that different frequencies of
positive results between states are due to sampling effects. Although
the analyses were all conducted by one author, expectancy biases can
be excluded, because the classification of papers in positive and
negative was completely blind to the corresponding address in the
paper, and the US states' data were obtained by an independent source
(NSF). We can also exclude that the association between productivity
and positive results was an artifact of the effects of methodologies
and disciplines of papers (which are elsewhere shown to be significant
predictors of positive results [36]), because controlling for these
factors increased the size and statistical significance of the
regression, suggesting that the effect is truly cross-disciplinary. In
sum, these results are likely to represent a genuine pattern
characterising academic research in the US.
An unavoidable confounding factor in this study is the quality and
prestige of academic institutions, which is intrinsically linked to
the productivity of their resident researchers. Indeed, official
rankings of universities often include parameters measuring
publication rates [39] (although the validity of such rankings is
controversial [40], [41]). Therefore, it could be argued that the more
productive states are also the ones hosting the “best” universities,
which provide better academic structures (laboratories, libraries,
etc…) and more advanced and stimulating intellectual environments.
This could make scientists better at picking up the right hypotheses
and more successful in testing them, increasing their chances to
obtain true positive results. Separating this quality-of-institution
effect from that of bias induced by pressures to publish is difficult,
because the two factors are strictly linked: the best universities are
also the most competitive, and thus presumably the ones where
pressures to produce are highest.
However, the quality-of-institution effect is unlikely to fully
explain the findings of this study for at least two reasons. First,
because if structures and resources are really important, then
positive results should also tend to increase where more R&D
expenditure is available, but a negative (though non statistically
significant) trend was observed instead. Second, because the
variability in frequency of positive results between states is too
high to be reasonably explained by the quality factor alone. At one
extreme, states yielded as few as 1 in 4 papers that supported the
tested hypothesis, at the other extreme, numerous states reported
between 95% and 100% positive results, including academically
productive ones like Michigan (N = 54 papers in this sample), Ohio (N
= 47), District of Columbia (N = 18) and Nebraska (N = 13). In absence
of bias of any kind, this would mean that corresponding authors in
these states almost never failed to find a support for the hypotheses
they tested. But negative results are virtually inevitable, unless all
the hypotheses tested were true, experiments were designed and
conducted perfectly, and the statistical power available were always
100% – which it rarely is, and is usually much lower [42], [43], [44],
[45], [46].
As a matter of fact, the prestige of institutions could be expected to
have the opposite influence on published results, in analogy with what
has been observed by comparing countries. In the biomedical
literature, the statistical significance of results tends to be lower
in papers from high-income countries, which suggests that journal
editors tend to reject papers from low-income countries unless they
have particularly “good” results [47]. If there were a similar
editorial bias favouring highly prestigious universities in the US –
and some studies suggest that there is [9], [48] – then the more
productive states (prestigious institutions) should be allowed to
publish more negative results.
A possibility that needs to be considered in all regression analyses
is whether the cause-effect relationship could be reversed: could some
states be more productive precisely because their researchers tend to
do many cheap and non-explorative studies (i.e. many simple
experiments that test relatively trivial hypotheses)? This appears
unlikely, because it would contradict the observation that the most
productive institutions are also the more prestigious, and therefore
the ones where the most important research tends to be done.
What happened to the missing negative results? As explained in the
Introduction, presumably they either went completely unpublished or
were somehow turned into positive through selective reporting, post-
hoc re-interpretation, and alteration of methods, analyses and data.
The relative frequency of these behaviours remains to be established,
but the simple non-publication of results is unlikely to be the only
explanation. If it were, then we should have to assume that authors in
the more productive states are even more productive than they appear,
but wastefully do not publish many negative results they get.
Since positive results in this study are estimated using what is
declared in the papers, we cannot exclude the possibility that authors
in more productive states simply tend to write the sentence “test the
hypothesis” more often when they get positive results. However, it
would be problematic to explain why this should be the case and, if it
were, then we would still have to understand if and how negative
results are published. Ultimately, such an association of word usage
with socio-economic parameters would still suggest that publication
pressures have some measurable effect on how research is conducted and/
or presented.
Selective reporting, reinterpreting and altering results are commonly
considered “questionable research practices”: behaviours that might or
might not represent falsification of results, depending on whether
they express an intention to deceive. There is no doubt that negative
results produced by a methodological flaw should either be corrected
or not be published at all, and it is likely that many scientists
select or manipulate their negative results because they sincerely
think their experiments went wrong somewhere – maybe the sample was
too small or too heterogeneous, some measurements were inaccurate and
should be discarded, the hypothesis should be reformulated, etc…
However, in most circumstances this might be nothing more than a “gut
feeling” [49]. Moreover, positive results should be treated with the
same scrutiny and rigour applied to negative ones, but with all
likelihood they are not. This latter form of neglect is probably one
of the main sources of bias in science.
Adding an interaction term of discipline by productivity did not
increase the accuracy of the model significantly. Although we are
currently unable to measure the statistical power of interaction terms
in complex logistic regression models, the lack of significance
suggests that large disciplinary differences in the effect of
publication pressures are unlikely. Interestingly, however, some
interdisciplinary variability was observed: Pharmacology and
Toxicology, and Neuroscience and Behaviour had a significantly
stronger association between productivity and positive results
compared to Space Science. Of course, since we had 20 disciplines in
the model, the significance of these two terms could be due to chance
alone. However, we cannot exclude that a study with higher statistical
power could confirm this result and reveal other small, but
nonetheless interesting differences between fields.
This study focused on the United States primarily because they are one
of the most scientifically productive countries, and are academically
diversified but linguistically and culturally rather homogeneous,
which eliminated the confounding effect of editorial biases against
particular countries, cultures or languages. Moreover, the research
output and expenditure of all US states are recorded and reported by
NSF periodically and with great accuracy, yielding a reliable dataset.
Academic competition might be particularly high in US universities
[1], but is surely not unique to them. Therefore, the detrimental
effects of the publish-or-perish culture could be manifest in other
countries around the world.
Materials and Methods Top
The sample of papers used in this study was part of a larger sample
used to compare bias between disciplines [36]. Papers within this
latter were obtained with the following method. The sentence “test*
the hypothes*” was used to search all 10837 journals in the Essential
Science Indicators database, which classifies journals univocally in
22 disciplines. Only papers published between 2000 and 2007 were
sampled. When the number of papers retrieved from one discipline
exceeded 150, papers were selected using a random number generator. In
one discipline, Plant and Animal Sciences, an additional 50 papers
were analysed, in order to increase the statistical power of
comparisons involving behavioural studies on non-humans (see below for
details on methodological categories). By examining the abstract and/
or full-text, it was determined whether the authors of each paper had
concluded to have found a positive (full or partial) or negative (null
or negative) support. If more than one hypothesis was being tested,
only the first one to appear in the text was considered. We excluded
meeting abstracts and papers that either did not test a hypothesis or
for which sufficient information to determine the outcome was lacking.
All data was extracted by the author. An untrained assistant who was
given basic written instructions (similar to the paragraph above, plus
a few explanatory examples) scored papers the same way as the author
in 18 out of 20 cases, and picked up exactly the same sentences for
hypothesis and conclusions in all but three cases. The discrepancies
were easily explained, showing that the procedure is objective and
replicable.
To identify methodological categories, the outcome of each paper was
classified according to a set of binary variables: 1-outcome measured
on biological material; 2- outcome measured on human material; 3-
outcome exclusively behavioural (measures of behaviours and
interactions between individuals, which in studies on people included
surveys, interviews and social and economic data); 4-outcome
exclusively non-behavioural (physical, chemical and other measurable
parameters including weight, height, death, presence/absence, number
of individuals, etc…). Biological studies in vitro for which the human/
non-human classification was uncertain were classified as non-human.
Different combinations of these variables identified mutually
exclusive methodological categories: Physical/Chemical (1-N, 2-N, 3-N,
4-Y); Biological, Non-Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-N, 4-Y); Behavioural/
Social (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-N), Behavioural/Social + Biological, Non-
Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-Y), Other methodology (1-Y/N, 2-Y/N, 3-
N, 4-N). Disciplines were attributed based on how the ESI database had
classified the journal in which the paper appeared, and the pure-
applied status of discipline followed classifications identified in
previous studies (for further details see [36]).
From this larger sample, all papers with a corresponding address in
the US were selected, and the US state of each was recorded. Data on
state academic R&D expenditure, number of doctorate holders in
academia and number of papers published were taken directly from the
State Indicators section of the Science and Engineering Indicators
2006 report [37]. This report compiles data from three different
sources: Thomson ISI - Science Citation Index and Social Sciences
Citation Index; National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics - Survey of Doctorate Recipients; National
Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics -
Academic Research and Development Expenditures. When counting the
number of papers by state, NSF corrects for multiple authorship by
dividing each paper by the number of institutions involved. The
scoring of papers as “positive” and “negative” was completely blind to
the corresponding author's address. As explained in the Results
section, data from other reports were extracted and used for
sensitivity analyses.
Statistical analyses
The ability of independent variables to predict the outcome of a paper
was tested by standard logistic regression analysis, fitting a model
in the form:
in which pi is the probability of the ith paper of reporting a
positive result, X1 is the number of papers published per capita (per
doctorate holder in academia) in the state of the corresponding author
of the ith paper, X2 is the ith paper's state R&D expenditure per
capita, and Xn represents the various characteristics of the ith paper
that were controlled for in the models (e.g. dummy variables for
methodology, discipline, etc…) as specified in the Results section.
Statistical significance of the effect of each variable was calculated
through Wald's test. Except where specified, all parameter estimates
are reported with their standard error. The relative fit of regression
models was estimated with Nagelkerke's adjusted R2.
Multicollinearity among independent variables was tested by examining
tolerance and Variance Inflation Factors for all variables in the
model. All variables had tolerance≥0.42 and VIF≤2.383 except one of
the methodological dummy variables (Tolerance = 0.34 and VIF = 2.942).
To avoid this (modest) sign of possible collinearity, methodological
categories were reduced to the minimum number that previous analyses
have shown to differ significantly in the frequency of positive
results: purely physical and chemical, biological non-behavioural, and
behavioural and mixed studies on humans and on non-humans [36]. This
removed any presence of collinearity in the model. All analyses were
produced using SPSS statistical package.
Figures
Confidence intervals in the graphs were obtained independently from
the statistical analyses, using the following logit transformation to
calculate the proportion of positive results and standard error:
Where p is the proportion of negative results, and n is the total
number of papers. Values for high and low confidence interval were
calculated and the final result was back-transformed in percentages
using the following equations for proportion and percentages,
respectively:
Where x is either Plogit or each of the corresponding 95%CI values.
Acknowledgments Top
I thank Harry Collins, Robert Evans, and two anonymous referees for
helpful comments, Edgar Erdfelder for advice on power analysis, and
François Briatte for crosschecking the reliability of data extraction.
Author Contributions Top
Conceived and designed the experiments: DF. Performed the experiments:
DF. Analyzed the data: DF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis
tools: DF. Wrote the paper: DF.
References Top
1. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC (2007) The
perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.
Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 437–461. Find this article online
2. Feller I (1996) The determinants of research competitiveness
among universities. In: Teich AH, editor. Competitiveness in academic
research. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of
Science. pp. 35–72.
3. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ (2000)
Publication and related biases. Health Technology Assessment 4: Find
this article online
4. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, et al. (2008)
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias
and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3: e3081. Find this article
online
5. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J (2007) Time to
publication for results of clinical trials (Review). Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews. Find this article online
6. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E (2007) Full publication of
results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews. Find this article online
7. Kjaergard LL, Gluud C (2002) Citation bias of hepato-biliary
randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55: 407–
410. Find this article online
8. Etter JF, Stapleton J (2009) Citations to trials of nicotine
replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-
impact-factor journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 831–837.
Find this article online
9. Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005) What determines the citation
frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 28–
32. Find this article online
10. Murtaugh PA (2002) Journal quality, effect size, and publication
bias in meta-analysis. Ecology 83: 1162–1166. Find this article online
11. Gigerenzer G, Swijtink Z, Porter T, Daston L, Beatty J, et al.
(1990) The empire of chance: How probability changed science and
everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Kline RB (2004) Beyond significance testing: Reforming data
analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
13. Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Almost all
articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant
results. European Journal of Cancer 43: 2559–2579. Find this article
online
14. Csada RD, James PC, Espie RHM (1996) The “file drawer problem”
of non-significant results: Does it apply to biological research?
Oikos 76: 591–593. Find this article online
15. Jennions MD, Moller AP (2002) Publication bias in ecology and
evolution: An empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method.
Biological Reviews 77: 211–222. Find this article online
16. Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ (1995) Publication
decisions revisited - The effect of the outcome of statistical tests
on the decision to publish and vice-versa. American Statistician 49:
108–112. Find this article online
17. Mookerjee R (2006) A meta-analysis of the export growth
hypothesis. Economics Letters 91: 395–401. Find this article online
18. Gerber AS, Malhotra N (2008) Publication bias in empirical
sociological research - Do arbitrary significance levels distort
published results? Sociological Methods & Research 37: 3–30. Find this
article online
19. Nickerson R (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in
many guises. Review of General Psychology 2: 175–220. Find this
article online
20. Rosenthal R (1976) Experimenter effects in behavioural research.
Enlarged edition. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
21. Marsh DM, Hanlon TJ (2007) Seeing what we want to see:
Confirmation bias in animal behavior research. Ethology 113: 1089–
1098. Find this article online
22. Mahoney MJ (1979) Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative
review. Social Studies of Science 1979: 3. Find this article online
23. Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are
known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2: 196–217. Find this
article online
24. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004)
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized
trials - Comparison of protocols to published articles. Jama-Journal
of the American Medical Association 291: 2457–2465. Find this article
online
25. De Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC (2006) Normal misbehavior:
Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical
Research on Human Research Ethics 1: 43–50. Find this article online
26. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify
research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS
ONE 4: e5738. Find this article online
27. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial
conflicts of interest in biomedical research - A systematic review.
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 289: 454–465. Find
this article online
28. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical
industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic
review. British Medical Journal 326: 1167–1170B. Find this article
online
29. Babbage C (1830) Reflections on the decline of science in
England and on some of its causes. In: Campbell-Kelly M, editor. The
Works of Charles Babbage. London Pickering.
30. Shapin S (2008) The scientific life : a moral history of a late
modern vocation. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
31. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR (2007) Causal factors
implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files.
Science & Engineering Ethics 13: 395–414. Find this article online
32. Anderson MS, Martinson BC, De Vries R (2007) Normative
dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US
scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2:
3–14. Find this article online
33. Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosengerg L (1995) Academic misconduct
and values: The deparment's influence. The Review of Higher Education
18: 393–422. Find this article online
34. Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earle J (1994) Disciplinary and
departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student
misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education 65: 331–350. Find this
article online
35. Giles J (2007) Breeding cheats. Nature 445: 242–243. Find this
article online
36. Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” Results Increase down the Hierarchy
of the Sciences. PLoS ONE in press.
37. National-Science-Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators
2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. NSB 06-01, NSB
06-01A.
38. Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, El ghormli L, Rothman N
(2004) Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: An
approach for molecular epidemiology studies. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute 96: 434–442. Find this article online
39. Cai Liu N, Cheng Y (2005) The academic ranking of world
universities. Higher Education in Europe 30: 127–136. Find this
article online
40. Florian RV (2007) Irreproducibility of the results of the
Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 72: 25–
32. Find this article online
41. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura FK, Tatsioni A, Evangelou
E, et al. (2007) International ranking systems for universities and
institutions: a critical appraisal. Bmc Medicine 5: Find this article
online
42. Maddock JE, Rossi JS (2001) Statistical power of articles
published in three health psychology-related journals. Health
Psychology 20: 76–78. Find this article online
43. Brock JKU (2003) The ‘power’ of international business research.
Journal of International Business Studies 34: 90–99. Find this article
online
44. Jennions MD, Moller AP (2003) A survey of the statistical power
of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behavioral
Ecology 14: 438–445. Find this article online
45. Breau RH, Carnat TA, Gaboury I (2006) Inadequate statistical
power of negative clinical trials in urological literature. Journal of
Urology 176: 263–266. Find this article online
46. Dyba T, Kampenes VB, Sjoberg DIK (2006) A systematic review of
statistical power in software engineering experiments. Information and
Software Technology 48: 745–755. Find this article online
47. Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S (2006) Country
development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published
studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6: 37. Find this article online
48. Shakiba B, Salmasian H, Yousefi-Nooraie R, Rohanizadegan M
(2008) Factors influencing editors' decision on acceptance or
rejection of manuscripts: The authors' perspective. Archives of
Iranian Medicine 11: 257–262. Find this article online
49. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving
badly. Nature 435: 737–738. Find this article online
Citation: Fanelli D (2010) Do Pressures to Publish Increase
Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLoS ONE
5(4): e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010271
Eric Stevens
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
---- snip ------
See. This (or something similar) is what you do when you delete text
from an article. That way the reader knows that if they want to know
more they can go back further up the thread. This is a very old news
group convention.
All this started when you you quoted from Wahlgren:
"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the
language on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the
roots of a very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by
*geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no
more than thirty, perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his
own inspection of it."
It was I who pointed out the 'puzzled and reluctant geologist' was
most likely N. H. Winchell and that his views were completely
misrepresented by the quotation from Wahlgren.
I have already told you that Robert A Hall has convincingly shown
Wahlgren to be a liar and if you need any confirmation Wahlgrens
depiction of Winchell's opinion should give you cause to think. Rather
than reconsidering what you have been told by by Wahlgren you have
launched a campain to show me that I am wrong. You have ignored what I
have written and on at least one occasion, without acknowledgement,
you have deleted significant parts of what I have written as though
they have never existed.
As above, you have used this technique to accuse me of not reading
what you wrote (as above) even when you are responding to a quotation
from it.
Now you say:
"Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the
committee charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS
and an article in an ethnic newsletter?"
But Winchell's submissions to the committee were never in question. If
you read the opening paragraph of the committee's report you will
find:
"For this purpose the results of the three visits made to that
locality by Prof. N. H. Winchell, investigating the subject for
this Committee, will here be cast into one statement."
Clearly Winchell had much more input to the committee than the one
letter you have cited.
Getting back to Wahlgren: we don't know the identity of the geologist
he had in mind (though you may know from the text) but if it was not
Winchell then it was someone of secondary importance. From the
comittee report it was clear that while Winchell may have been
puzzled, he was far from reluctant.
It is clear from reading the geological aspects of the committee
report that geological estimates of the age were not at all based on
the language or the purported size of the tree. The conclusion as to
age based on geological considerations is given on page 15 of the
report:
"If the slab was separated from from its neighbour 548 years ago, it
must have lain with its face side down during the most of that
period, and if separated earlier it it must have been covered by
drift clay. If it was so separated fifteen or thirty years ago, it
may have lain with its face side up and would show no more
weathering than it now evinces."
Yet Wahlgren wrote:
"But to judge by *geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the
inscription was carved no more than thirty, perhaps no more than 15
years anterior to his own inspection of it."
Wahlgren has turned one of several possibilities into a definitive
statement.
Wahlgren wrote that 'the geologist' thought "that it [the stone] had
been dug up out of the roots of a very large, hence very old tree."
However the committee report with which Winchell was intimately
involved spends several pages discussing the age of the tree.
"Mr Samuel Olson and Mr John E. Johnson signed a joint statement
that the tree must have been at least ten years old, and more
likely twenty or thirty years old."
Winchell cannot have been under the impression that it was 'a very
large, hence very old tree'.
There is nothing in your quote from Wahlgren which will withstand
close examination and it serves only to illustrate Hall's claim that
Wahlgren was a liar.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:02:02 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
There is still no peer review of Wolter's very interesting method of
showing the stone to be old rather than new. And you still have no
solid statement by anyone that contradicts anything Wahlgren wrote.
Eric Stevens
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Apr 22, 5:34ápm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:02:02 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>
>> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> á á ---- snip ------
>>
>> See. This (or something similar) is what you do when you delete text
>> from an article. That way the reader knows that if they want to know
>> more they can go back further up the thread. This is a very old news
>> group convention.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Thank you for showing that you did not read what I wrote before you
>> >> deleted it from your reply without any mention of the fact. At the end
>> >> of the article I wrote (in full):
>>
>> >> Begin quote
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> You say that letter is written by Winchell in 1910. Presumably you got
>> >> that from Wahlgren. I believe I have already trumped you with my
>> >> quotation of a letter from 1911 in which Winchell says "You must
>> >> understand ... I personally think the stone is valid and vindicated".
>> >> No matter what his uncertainties may have been in the early days, by
>> >> 1911 he had reached a firm conclusion.
>>
>> >> In fact the URL (below) which you have cited contains evidence that by
>> >> 1909 Winchell had reached the conclusion that the KRS was genuine.
>>
>> >> >http://www.archive.org/stream/kensingtonrunest00minn/kensingtonrunest...
>>
>> >> The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of the
>> >> report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical Society.
>> >> Towards the end it lists the resources used when compiling the report.
>> >> These include:
>>
>> >> á á"H. Winchell, Prof. Andrew Fossum, and Dr. Kniit Hoegh, all in
>> >> á á defense of the genuineness of the inscription. Pioneer Press, St.
>> >> á á Paul, Minn., Dec. 14, 1909."
>>
>> >> It makes me wonder whether Wahlgren (if he was the source) has used
>> >> the right date in reference to the letter you have quoted.
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> End quote
>>
>> >> You say "I now have proof that you just cling to your borrowed
>> >> opinions without checking anyone elses cites."
>>
>> >> The contrary is true. You will note that, above, among other things I
>> >> said:
>>
>> >> á "The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of
>> >> á á the report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical
>> >> á á Society."
>>
>> >> I had already confirmed that I knew what that text represented.
>>
>> >> Its incomplete if only for the reason that it lacks the diagrams and
>> >> footnotes which form part of the original. I suggest you go back to
>> >> site and download the PDF version. If you go to original page 64 you
>> >> will see that on May 13th 1910 Winchell wrote an article titled "I
>> >> believe the stone is genuine" for the Norwegian American.
>>
>> >> There is plenty of evidence that, contrary to Wahlgren, Winchell did
>> >> not consider the KRS to be a forgery. Wahlgren is not to be trusted.
>>
>> >> Eric Stevens
>>
>> >Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the committee
>> >charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS and an article in
>> >an ethnic newsletter? Pick and choose and still no actual record of
>> >anything proving that Wahlgren lied. Did Winchell use any diagrams and
>> >footnotes in his letter to the Museum Committee? If not, then that
>> >statement is irrelevant but in line with your methods of "argument".
>>
>> All this started when you you quoted from Wahlgren:
>>
>> á á"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
>> á á that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the
>> á á language on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the
>> á á roots of a very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by
>> á á *geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no
>> á á more than thirty, perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his
>> á á own inspection of it."
>>
>> It was I who pointed out the 'puzzled and reluctant geologist' was
>> most likely N. H. Winchell and that his views were completely
>> misrepresented by the quotation from Wahlgren.
>>
>> I have already told you that Robert A Hall has convincingly shown
>> Wahlgren to be a liar and if you need any confirmation Wahlgrens
>> depiction of Winchell's opinion should give you cause to think. Rather
>> than reconsidering what you have been told by by Wahlgren you have
>> launched a campain to show me that I am wrong. You have ignored what I
>> have written and on at least one occasion, without acknowledgement,
>> you have ádeleted significant parts of what I have written as though
>> they have never existed.
>>
>> As above, you have used this technique to accuse me of not reading
>> what you wrote (as above) even when you are responding to a quotation
>> from it.
>>
>> Now you say:
>>
>> á "Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the
>> á ácommittee charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS
>> á áand an article in an ethnic newsletter?"
>>
>> But Winchell's submissions to the committee were never in question. If
>> you read the opening paragraph of the committee's report you will
>> find:
>>
>> á á"For this purpose the results of the three visits made to that
>> á á locality by Prof. N. H. Winchell, investigating the subject for
>> á á this Committee, will here be cast into one statement."
>>
>> Clearly Winchell had much more input to the committee than the one
>> letter you have cited.
>>
>> Getting back to Wahlgren: we don't know the identity of the geologist
>> he had in mind (though you may know from the text) but if it was not
>> Winchell then it was someone of secondary importance. From the
>> comittee report it was clear that while Winchell may have been
>> puzzled, he was far from reluctant.
>>
>> It is clear from reading the geological aspects of the committee
>> report that geological estimates of the age were not at all based on
>> the language or the purported size of the tree. The conclusion as to
>> age based on geological considerations is given on page 15 of the
>> report:
>>
>> á "If the slab was separated from from its neighbour 548 years ago, it
>> á ámust have lain with its face side down during the most of that
>> á áperiod, and if separated earlier it it must have been covered by
>> á ádrift clay. If it was so separated fifteen or thirty years ago, it
>> á ámay have lain with its face side up and would show no more
>> á áweathering than it now evinces."
>>
>> Yet Wahlgren wrote:
>>
>> á "But to judge by *geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the
>> á áinscription was carved no more than thirty, perhaps no more than 15
>> á áyears anterior to his own inspection of it."
>>
>> Wahlgren has turned one of several possibilities into a definitive
>> statement.
>>
>> Wahlgren wrote that 'the geologist' thought "that it [the stone] had
>> been dug up out of the roots of a very large, hence very old tree."
>> However the committee report with which Winchell was intimately
>> involved spends several pages discussing the age of the tree.
>>
>> á "Mr Samuel Olson and Mr John E. Johnson signed a joint statement
>> á áthat the tree must have been at least ten years old, and more
>> á álikely twenty or thirty years old."
>>
>> Winchell cannot have been under the impression that it was 'a very
>> large, hence very old tree'.
>>
>> There is nothing in your quote from Wahlgren which will withstand
>> close examination and it serves only to illustrate Hall's claim that
>> Wahlgren was a liar.
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>There is still no peer review of Wolter's very interesting method of
>showing the stone to be old rather than new.
A non sequitur with which I agree. Its true, but a non sequitur never
the less.
>And you still have no
>solid statement by anyone that contradicts anything Wahlgren wrote.
Wahlgren was a master of the half truth and distorted statement.
Nevertheless in many cases he can be shown to be wrong as in the case
of the quotation we have been discussing above. Hall gives many
examples, including examples of outright lies:
Hall (1994:96)
"15.13. COMPLETE UNTRUTH is by no means absent from Wahlgren's
discussion throughout his 1958 book. In treating of what he terms
the "alleged" finding of the stone in 1898, he states categorically
(35) "At all events, the Kensington tree was never to our certain
knowledge seen by anybody. Cut from its stump at a point from 12
to 18 inches above its roots, it was speedily removed from the
runesite, one must suppose, and converted into firewood before
questions could be asked". Wahlgren makes an even more categorical
accusation against Ohman on p. 45 by saying "In fact, there is no
record of anyone's claim to having seen it in place except that of
Olof Ohman, the man most commonly suspected of forging the
inscription".
These flat assertions of Wahlgren's were completely
disproved by Landsverk (I960, through interrogation of Arthur Ohman
and a number of other persons who remembered very clearly that the
roots of the tree and the stone had been visible on Ohman's farm
for a considerable time after their discovery. Did Wahlgren ever
bother to make enquiries -in situ?"
... and did Wahlgren read the report of the Museum Committee to the
Minnesota Historical Society where the names and statements of a
number of people who had seen the tree were given?
Hall (1994:97)
"Another invention of Wahlgren's (1958:41) was his ascription to
N. H. Winchell, the state geologist, a report supposedly made at
a meeting of the Minnesota Historical Society to the effect that it
was Flaaten who had uncovered the stone and found no writing
on it, after which the stone lay neglected for a long time". He
goes on to say "This extraordinary information, however acquired
by Winchell, was soon suppressed and not again referred to,
either in the printed report of the MHS or in any of Holand's
extensive commentaries". Checking on this, the then Director of
the MHS, Russell W. Fridley,95 reported to Holand that this
statement had not been made as Wahlgren alleged (Holand [1962:61]).
Similar instances of fabrication of evidence are widespread in
Wahlgren (1958)."
All these things are reasons why I say that Wahlgren is completely
untrustworthy.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:32:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
>
> >> >> It makes me wonder whether Wahlgren (if he was the source) has used
> >> >> the right date in reference to the letter you have quoted.
> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> End quote
>
> >> >> You say "I now have proof that you just cling to your borrowed
> >> >> opinions without checking anyone elses cites."
>
> >> >> The contrary is true. You will note that, above, among other things I
> >> >> said:
>
> >> >> "The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of
> >> >> the report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical
> >> >> Society."
>
>
> >> >> Its incomplete if only for the reason that it lacks the diagrams and
> >> >> footnotes which form part of the original. I suggest you go back to
> >> >> site and download the PDF version. If you go to original page 64 you
> >> >> will see that on May 13th 1910 Winchell wrote an article titled "I
> >> >> believe the stone is genuine" for the Norwegian American.
>
> >> >> There is plenty of evidence that, contrary to Wahlgren, Winchell did
> >> >> not consider the KRS to be a forgery. Wahlgren is not to be trusted.
>
> >> >> Eric Stevens
>
> >> >Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the committee
> >> >charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS and an article in
> >> >an ethnic newsletter? Pick and choose and still no actual record of
> >> >anything proving that Wahlgren lied. Did Winchell use any diagrams and
> >> >footnotes in his letter to the Museum Committee? If not, then that
> >> >statement is irrelevant but in line with your methods of "argument".
>
> >> All this started when you you quoted from Wahlgren:
>
>
> >> It was I who pointed out the 'puzzled and reluctant geologist' was
> >> most likely N. H. Winchell and that his views were completely
> >> misrepresented by the quotation from Wahlgren.
>
> >> I have already told you that Robert A Hall has convincingly shown
> >> Wahlgren to be a liar and if you need any confirmation Wahlgrens
> >> depiction of Winchell's opinion should give you cause to think. Rather
> >> than reconsidering what you have been told by by Wahlgren you have
> >> launched a campain to show me that I am wrong. You have ignored what I
> >> have written and on at least one occasion, without acknowledgement,
> >> they have never existed.
>
> >> As above, you have used this technique to accuse me of not reading
> >> what you wrote (as above) even when you are responding to a quotation
> >> from it.
>
> >> Now you say:
>
> >> committee charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS
> >> and an article in an ethnic newsletter?"
>
> >> you read the opening paragraph of the committee's report you will
> >> find:
>
>
> >> Clearly Winchell had much more input to the committee than the one
> >> letter you have cited.
>
> >> Getting back to Wahlgren: we don't know the identity of the geologist
> >> he had in mind (though you may know from the text) but if it was not
> >> Winchell then it was someone of secondary importance. From the
> >> comittee report it was clear that while Winchell may have been
> >> puzzled, he was far from reluctant.
>
> >> It is clear from reading the geological aspects of the committee
> >> report that geological estimates of the age were not at all based on
> >> the language or the purported size of the tree. The conclusion as to
> >> age based on geological considerations is given on page 15 of the
> >> report:
>
>
> >> Yet Wahlgren wrote:
>
> >> "But to judge by *geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the
>
> >> Wahlgren has turned one of several possibilities into a definitive
> >> statement.
>
> >> Wahlgren wrote that 'the geologist' thought "that it [the stone] had
> >> been dug up out of the roots of a very large, hence very old tree."
> >> However the committee report with which Winchell was intimately
> >> involved spends several pages discussing the age of the tree.
>
>
> read more »
You just don't understand or refuse to understand. To actually prove
your statements that Wahlgren lied and lies, you need to find
testimony that the geologist who said he was told the writing was old
and so therefore the inscription was old, didn't say that. Citing
other statements does not disprove Wahlgren, however much you wish it
did. The same with Wolter, if he can't face a jury of his peers he has
an opinion and not a proven fact.
You named Winchell, you need to find a statement by Winchell that he
never said such to Wahlgren or drop it. It is 100 years, I find the
old original statements and memories better for the case than
petroleum engineers and Romance language specialists. Plus all the
Europeans seem to agree from year one to today that the KRS is a joke
and an example of American stupidity.
Jack Linthicum
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:32:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
> >> >> It makes me wonder whether Wahlgren (if he was the source) has used
> >> >> the right date in reference to the letter you have quoted.
> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> End quote
>
> >> >> You say "I now have proof that you just cling to your borrowed
> >> >> opinions without checking anyone elses cites."
>
> >> >> The contrary is true. You will note that, above, among other things I
> >> >> said:
>
> >> >> "The text referenced in the URL appears to be an incomplete copy of
> >> >> the report of the Museum Committee to the Minnesota Historical
> >> >> Society."
>
>
> >> >> Its incomplete if only for the reason that it lacks the diagrams and
> >> >> footnotes which form part of the original. I suggest you go back to
> >> >> site and download the PDF version. If you go to original page 64 you
> >> >> will see that on May 13th 1910 Winchell wrote an article titled "I
> >> >> believe the stone is genuine" for the Norwegian American.
>
> >> >> There is plenty of evidence that, contrary to Wahlgren, Winchell did
> >> >> not consider the KRS to be a forgery. Wahlgren is not to be trusted.
>
> >> >> Eric Stevens
>
> >> >Do you know the difference between a letter submitted to the committee
> >> >charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS and an article in
> >> >an ethnic newsletter? Pick and choose and still no actual record of
> >> >anything proving that Wahlgren lied. Did Winchell use any diagrams and
> >> >footnotes in his letter to the Museum Committee? If not, then that
> >> >statement is irrelevant but in line with your methods of "argument".
>
> >> All this started when you you quoted from Wahlgren:
>
>
> >> It was I who pointed out the 'puzzled and reluctant geologist' was
> >> most likely N. H. Winchell and that his views were completely
> >> misrepresented by the quotation from Wahlgren.
>
> >> I have already told you that Robert A Hall has convincingly shown
> >> Wahlgren to be a liar and if you need any confirmation Wahlgrens
> >> depiction of Winchell's opinion should give you cause to think. Rather
> >> than reconsidering what you have been told by by Wahlgren you have
> >> launched a campain to show me that I am wrong. You have ignored what I
> >> have written and on at least one occasion, without acknowledgement,
> >> they have never existed.
>
> >> As above, you have used this technique to accuse me of not reading
> >> what you wrote (as above) even when you are responding to a quotation
> >> from it.
>
> >> Now you say:
>
> >> committee charged with determining the genuineness of the KRS
> >> and an article in an ethnic newsletter?"
>
> >> you read the opening paragraph of the committee's report you will
> >> find:
>
>
> >> Clearly Winchell had much more input to the committee than the one
> >> letter you have cited.
>
> >> Getting back to Wahlgren: we don't know the identity of the geologist
> >> he had in mind (though you may know from the text) but if it was not
> >> Winchell then it was someone of secondary importance. From the
> >> comittee report it was clear that while Winchell may have been
> >> puzzled, he was far from reluctant.
>
> >> It is clear from reading the geological aspects of the committee
> >> report that geological estimates of the age were not at all based on
> >> the language or the purported size of the tree. The conclusion as to
> >> age based on geological considerations is given on page 15 of the
> >> report:
>
>
> >> Yet Wahlgren wrote:
>
> >> "But to judge by *geologic criteria* alone, he wrote, the
>
> >> Wahlgren has turned one of several possibilities into a definitive
> >> statement.
>
> >> Wahlgren wrote that 'the geologist' thought "that it [the stone] had
> >> been dug up out of the roots of a very large, hence very old tree."
> >> However the committee report with which Winchell was intimately
> >> involved spends several pages discussing the age of the tree.
>
You just don't understand or refuse to understand. To actually prove
JerryT
snip
> You named Winchell, you need to find a statement by Winchell that he
> never said such to Wahlgren or drop it.
He never did
Newton Horace Winchell 1839 – 1914
Erik Wahlgren, 1909-1990
Eric Stevens
You only need to read the Museum Committee's report to know that
Wahlgren lied about nobody ever having seen the stump. If you had read
that document you would know that two people swore affidavits as to
the size of the tree which they had seen.
As far as Winchell is concerned, you only have to read the contents of
his note books and correspondence to realise that while he had initial
doubts he later concluded that the KRS was authentic.
I know you don't want to know these things but that's your problem.
I've done more than enough to point you in the right direction. Its up
to you now.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kLzZEoZi5Gw/RpMHMDUjZXI/AAAAAAAAAMY/jIlA3HxhySA/s320/Aint+Thirsty.jpg
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
Bad grammar on my part, should have been Winchell told "anyone" that
he hadn't said that. I have Wahlgren's 1958 book, which has that
original reference, on the way from a book dealer. Also a Library of
Congress search for those 9 pages from Hall. Very expensive book so I
went the duplication route.
I would add that there is a passage
in my copy of Eric Wahlgren's The Vikings and America. On
page 103 he writes:
"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by *geologic criteria*
alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no more than thirty,
perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his own inspection of it
that year. Most damning of all were several contemporary paper texts
Eric Stevens
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 7:45 pm, JerryT <jer...@glocalnet.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Apr, 01:05, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > You named Winchell, you need to find a statement by Winchell that he
>> > never said such to Wahlgren or drop it.
>>
>> He never did
>>
>> Newton Horace Winchell 1839 – 1914
>>
>> Erik Wahlgren, 1909-1990
>>
>> > It is 100 years, I find the
>> > old original statements and memories better for the case than
>> > petroleum engineers and Romance language specialists. Plus all the
>> > Europeans seem to agree from year one to today that the KRS is a joke
>> > and an example of American stupidity.
>>
>>
>
>Bad grammar on my part, should have been Winchell told "anyone" that
>he hadn't said that.
Bad grammar be damned. You wrote what you meant at the time and now
you are wriggling.
>I have Wahlgren's 1958 book, which has that
>original reference, on the way from a book dealer. Also a Library of
>Congress search for those 9 pages from Hall. Very expensive book so I
>went the duplication route.
Very expensive be damned. Earlier today I found a copy for sale on the
Internet for $30.00.
>
>I would add that there is a passage
>in my copy of Eric Wahlgren's The Vikings and America. On
>
>page 103 he writes:
>
>"A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
>that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
>on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
>very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by *geologic criteria*
>alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no more than thirty,
>perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his own inspection of it
>that year. Most damning of all were several contemporary paper texts
>purporting to be copies from the stone, but contemporary study of
>which indicates that they were experimental variants or rough drafts,
>of a proposed inscription, made by one or more person involved in
>promoting the hoax."
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Does Wahlgren say who the geologist was?
Does he give a source for the statement about geologic criteria?
Does he give a source for those 'contemporary studies'?
Of course not, but you continue to hang your faith on that wooly and
unattributed (by Wahlgren) statement.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
You named Winchell.
Jack Linthicum
By the time the book is shipped the price is closer to $40 US. No
library closer than Washington DC (Library of Congress) has a copy.
JerryT
> On Apr 23, 7:45 pm, JerryT <jer...@glocalnet.net> wrote
> > >
> > On 24 Apr, 01:05, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > You named Winchell, you need to find a statement by Winchell that he
> > > never said such to Wahlgren or drop it.
>
> > He never did
>
> > Newton Horace Winchell 1839 – 1914
>
> > Erik Wahlgren, 1909-1990
>
> > > It is 100 years, I find the
> > > old original statements and memories better for the case than
> > > petroleum engineers and Romance language specialists. Plus all the
> > > Europeans seem to agree from year one to today that the KRS is a joke
> > > and an example of American stupidity.
>
> Bad grammar on my part, should have been Winchell told "anyone" that
> he hadn't said that. I have Wahlgren's 1958 book, which has that
> original reference, on the way from a book dealer. Also a Library of
> Congress search for those 9 pages from Hall. Very expensive book so I
> went the duplication route.
>
> I would add that there is a passage
> in my copy of Eric Wahlgren's The Vikings and America. On
>
Vikings and KRS ??? I don't get it.
No wonder it's unreliable.
JT
> page 103 he writes:
>
> "A puzzled and reluctant geologist was induced to conclude in 1909
> that the inscription was ancient because he was told that the language
> on it was medieval and that it had been dug up out of the roots of a
> very large, hence very old tree. But to judge by *geologic criteria*
> alone, he wrote, the inscription was carved no more than thirty,
> perhaps no more than 15 years anterior to his own inspection of it
> that year. Most damning of all were several contemporary paper texts
> purporting to be copies from the stone, but contemporary study of
> which indicates that they were experimental variants or rough drafts,
> of a proposed inscription, made by one or more person involved in
> promoting the hoax."- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Jack Linthicum
Wahlgren wrote that book as a part of the Ancient Peoples and Places
series, edited by Glyn Daniel. The Chapter is called "Buckram
Vikings", buckram is that stiff cheese cloth stuff that lines drapes
and baseball caps. In other words a survey of all of the bull shit
Viking-related stuff. The Newport Tower, the Vinland Map, a set of
phony runes announcing the discovery of Europe, the Spirit Pond map,
the best summation is his own "Is there any limit to human
gullibility?"
Eric Stevens
I guessed Winchell. You never said I was wrong so I assumed you agreed
with me. In any case, while Winchell was not the only (pre-Wahlgren)
geologist who looked at the KRS, he was by far the most important
geologist to do so and he was the only one to do so thoroughly.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Where are you (approximately)?
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
Middle of Florida, by the way $30 is a lot for a 136 page book
Jack Linthicum
No, I didn't say one way or the other, again you jump at a conclusion
that isn't there. You might know that I gave someone else the Wahlgren
statement. They didn't name Winchell.
JerryT
You keep repeating this Buckram. You stick to Wahlgren, whom
most consider unreliable and you obviousely think the stone is
a fake. Why do you keep posting?
> In other words a survey of all of the bull shit
> Viking-related stuff.
What bull shit Viking related stuff
> The Newport Tower, the Vinland Map,
None is Viking related.
> a set of
> phony runes announcing the discovery of Europe, the Spirit Pond map,
> the best summation is his own "Is there any limit to human
> gullibility?"
Why does Whalgren deal with this in a book about Vikings?
It seem to me as if he is a kind of victim of his one words.
JerryT
>
You are ridicoulus, Jack. How Ingerish.
Jack Linthicum
Buckram is a kind of cloth, it is used to support thin cloth uses such
as curtains. There are about 15 "Viking" related hoaxes put down in
this 19 page chapter. My guess is that Wahlgren was hired to do the
book because his own, The Kensington Stone, a Mystery Solved, was
considered to be the last word at the time he wrote the Viking book.
Subjects in the Buckram Vikings chapter include but are not limited
to:
19th Century decision by Oscar Montelius that the Newport Tower was of
Viking construction, which led to
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's popular poem "The Skeleton in Armor".
An 1833 "rune" was discovered and said to be a poetic story of the
8th Century Battle of Bravalla. Later seen as a series of random
cracks in the stone. James Russell Lowell wrote about a rune stone
that could be read the same no matter where you turned it, followed by
an 1867 hoax about finding the grave of Thorfinn Karlsefni's daughter.
There were runes in Heavener Oklahoma, Dighton Rock in Massachusetts
has been Welsh, Portugese, Chinese, Hebrew and Old Norse. There is Dr.
Ole G. Landsverk who can date all of these "runic inscriptions" to
exact days. It goes on, but you can see that the stage was set for any
new hoax.
The United States is a great melting pot but those who come here also
honor their country of origin. The Irish has St. Brendan and the Welsh
Prince Madoc and his Welsh Indians, the Scandinavians just seem to be
like Mr. Ohman, wanting to put their mark on pre-Columbian America so
they can drink beer on some designated day. Lief Ericsson's day is
October 9, usually two days before Columbus Day. Columbus Day is the
second Monday in October, so it is possible that it could occur before
LED.
October 9 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the day that the
ship Restauration arrived in New York from Stavanger, Norway on
October 9, 1825. This was the start of organized immigration from
Scandinavia to the USA. The date is not associated with an event in
Leif Erikson's life.
JerryT
It seem (to me) as if Öhman was more interested in the history of the
country he left than to put any mark on his new.
JT
> they can drink beer on some designated day. Lief Ericsson's day is
> October 9, usually two days before Columbus Day. Columbus Day is the
> second Monday in October, so it is possible that it could occur before
> LED.
>
> October 9 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the day that the
> ship Restauration arrived in New York from Stavanger, Norway on
> October 9, 1825. This was the start of organized immigration from
> Scandinavia to the USA. The date is not associated with an event in
> Leif Erikson's life.- Dölj citerad text -
Jack Linthicum
It is the way of the immigrant. My last name is believed to be Welsh
by all of that surname who interpret a saying by the first Linthicum
in Maryland as such. He said "I am a gentleman from Wales". Its a
funny name so Welsh sounds like a logical explanation. Scores of Welsh
genealogists tell me it isn't. It turns out to be English, a whole
slug of them from the Midlands to Devon. Old Tom seems to have left
Ireland, where John Popham set up a colony from Somerset, during a
rising in the 1640s, and ended up in Wales.
See, I know my ancestry, but as has been pointed out enough times that
it should sink in, when Öhman discovered the stone, the journey of
Leif Ericson to Vinland (North America) was being widely discussed and
there was renewed interest in the Vikings throughout Scandinavia,
stirred by the National Romanticism movement.
Linguists and rune people dismissed the stone as a hoax, but one man
got behind the idea that it was genuine and, for some, it has been
genuine ever since. But at a distance of 120 years we don't see the
objections that arose at the time, those have all been "disproved".
There is the school that says "if I find something later that
disproves your statement, then I am right". It comes down to dating
the inscription, not whether some rune showed up in a secret tailors'
code book or fantasy Templars accompanied by Cistercian Monks, hauling
the Holy Grail across the Atlantic at a time when sailing that far
would be a miracle. Let alone trekking a thousand miles to Minnesota.
That's overkill, but dating the inscription by a peer review would
make any other "truth" irrelevant.
JerryT
big snip
>
> There is the school that says "if I find something later that
> disproves your statement, then I am right".
If someone say that a rune is made up by a carver and the rune is
later found to exist, there is no wrong made by the carver to use that
rune.
>It comes down to dating
> the inscription, not whether some rune showed up
Study of runes is a common practice to understand runic inscriptions.
The use of nonsense runes don't make the inscription a fake.
It just make a uninterpretable inscription. The inscription is there
and real.
>in a secret tailors'
> code book or fantasy
Was Carl a taylor?
The German letters was not a secret, They was thought in schools back
then.
The futhork was not secret. The medieval runic alphabet was not a
secret but
existed in quite a few versions. The pigpen cipher was not a secret.
It was in
use by people in the area where Larsson lived. Why Larssons alphabet
is
so similar to the KRS inscription is unknown but not a secret just
because it.
What is the ''secret''?
>Templars accompanied by Cistercian Monks, hauling
> the Holy Grail across the Atlantic at a time when sailing that far
> would be a miracle. Let alone trekking a thousand miles to Minnesota.
>
That the Templar connection is based on a owners mark does
not make it wrong. Just way more unlikely.
The hooked X may be a better clue.
> That's overkill, but dating the inscription by a peer review would
> make any other "truth" irrelevant
Peer review of what?
I do belive that physical sience one day may be able to date any
inscription
on any surface. So far geology indicate age until otherwise is shown.
The
scientific value of Wolter's study may be nil but it is done.
The language on the stone has been shown not conclusive.
JT
Jack Linthicum
Well on the peer review the main charge against Wolters is that he
drew his "evidence" by "collecting samples from slate gravestones in
Maine that showed biotite mica beginning to mechanically come off the
surfaces after 197 (plus or minus 5) years, but not the complete
breakdown seen on the rune stone. What the comparison cannot tell is
what conditions the rune stone endured after it was carved—for
example, how long the inscription was exposed to the air before ending
up face-down.
Some critics have noted the surviving sharpness of the chisel work,
asking how this could have endured centuries of freeze-thaw cycles and
seepage. However, the back of the stone has crisply preserved glacial
scratches that are thousands of years old. Other observers contend the
runes have weathered consistently with the rest of the stone."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone
There is also some contention about the apparent use of an iron tool,
probably a nail, to clean out the incised lines.
Who is Carl? The man who had a copy of the tailors' Futhark was Edward
Larsson.
JerryT
>
What is a tailors' futhark?
Carl Emil Larsson signed the older (1883 of the two sheets with the
runic alphabet similar to the Kensington runes. Edward Larsson
signed the later (1885), and it has been proposed that he simply
copied
the one from his older brother. I do not know anything about Carl.
JT
Jack Linthicum
JerryT
>
OK let us go closer to the source.
On page 9 of the PDF
http://www2.sofi.se/daum/katta/katta13/katta13.pdf
you can see that the older document is signed C. E . Larsson.
That is Carl Emil Larsson, Edwards older brother.
Now, how about secret cipher and masonic connectios. Did the
one who started all that shit know anything about Carl?
JT
Jack Linthicum
>
> OK let us go closer to the source.
>
> On page 9 of the PDF
>
> http://www2.sofi.se/daum/katta/katta13/katta13.pdf
>
> you can see that the older document is signed C. E . Larsson.
>
> That is Carl Emil Larsson, Edwards older brother.
>
> Now, how about secret cipher and masonic connectios. Did the
> one who started all that shit know anything about Carl?
>
> JT
There is no way I can read that. My only real question is the age of
the text on the Kensington Stone. It is either 1362 or 1894.
JerryT
Carl Emil Larsson it is.
>My only real question is the age of
> the text on the Kensington Stone. It is either 1362 or 1894.
>
OK It's 1362.
JT
Jack Linthicum
Prove it
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
I have received my copy of The Kensington Stone, A Mystery Solved. On
page 64 there is a discussion.
Professor Winchell, to summarize, concluded that there were two
alternative possibilities. The inscription showed degree of weathering
that would comport with one of two possibilities: an inscription that
was medieval, and the stone had lain face down through the years, or
an inscription which had been exposed to the elements for a short
period of years. In the latter case, the degree of intactness pointed
to an age of "fifteen or thirty years" [page 235] and again, "probably
less than 30 years". [page 236] Furthermore , his "first impression
derived from the inscription is that it of a recent date, and not 548
years old." [page 234]
A later summary of the findings says: "Owing to the easy
disintegration of calcite in the weather, it is evident that the
inscription is either recent or the stone was placed (or was
overturned) as to protect the inscription from the weather." [page
248]
Then a further paragraph
"I f Winchell arbitrarily ruled out the first possibility in favor of
the second, he clearly did so on the basis of nongeological evidence
derived from other sources: He was taken in by the story about the
roots of the tree, [page 248 and page 246] and, unfamiliar with
Scandinavian philology, he accepted Holand's arguments on the runes
and the language of the inscription." 9pp 254 ff]
There are a series of footnotes from the Minnesota Historical Society
Report. Pages are given here.
Winchell examines the grooves and sees the small pieces of iron,
accepts the explanation that the grooves were cleaned out with a nail.
He states that the only way to preserve the text was to bury the
stone immediately upon its completion. If it was left to the weather
the inscription is less than 100 years old and probably less than 30
years.
Several experts stated that the inscription was amazingly sharp for
the age ascribed to it. The left and right handed carver is described
by a sculpture, John K. Daniels, who was amazed at the quality of the
work. He calls it "one stroke", where the hammer and chisel work from
right to left but near the end the strokes are from left to right.
Eric Stevens
I am not sure where Wahlgren got this from but the paragraph above
appears to be a paraphrase of the report of the Museum Committee to
the Minnesota Historical Society. It certainly is not an accurate
summary of Winchell's final conclusions which he had reached and
published well before Wahlgren wrote his book.
>
>
>A later summary of the findings says: "Owing to the easy
>disintegration of calcite in the weather, it is evident that the
>inscription is either recent or the stone was placed (or was
>overturned) as to protect the inscription from the weather." [page
>248]
>
>Then a further paragraph
>
>"I f Winchell arbitrarily ruled out the first possibility in favor of
>the second, he clearly did so on the basis of nongeological evidence
>derived from other sources: He was taken in by the story about the
>roots of the tree, [page 248 and page 246] and, unfamiliar with
>Scandinavian philology, he accepted Holand's arguments on the runes
>and the language of the inscription." 9pp 254 ff]
That's nonsense. The Museum Committee report (which is based in part
on Winchell's note books) makes it clear that Winchell knew the
approximate age and size of the tree. Nor did he take he take Holand's
views on the age of the runes without question, but studied the
subject himself over a period of time.
>
>There are a series of footnotes from the Minnesota Historical Society
>Report. Pages are given here.
>
>Winchell examines the grooves and sees the small pieces of iron,
>accepts the explanation that the grooves were cleaned out with a nail.
>He states that the only way to preserve the text was to bury the
>stone immediately upon its completion. If it was left to the weather
>the inscription is less than 100 years old and probably less than 30
>years.
>
>Several experts stated that the inscription was amazingly sharp for
>the age ascribed to it. The left and right handed carver is described
>by a sculpture, John K. Daniels, who was amazed at the quality of the
>work. He calls it "one stroke", where the hammer and chisel work from
>right to left but near the end the strokes are from left to right.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
Then write what are the correct versions and stop dodging your
responsibility to substantiate your statements.
Eric Stevens
I have no responsibility to substantiate my statements: I am
contradicting yours. You are the one making the claims about what
Winchell may or may not have concluded. You are the one who is
obliged to support your claims. Despite your persistence you cannot do
that by quoting Wahlgrens demonstrably inaccurate paraphases of
Winchell. You have several times been told and had demonstrated that
Wahlgren is a most unreliable source, yet you keep using him.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
There are nice solid quotation marks and footnotes referencing the MHS
report. If Wahlgren had fiddled them wouldn't someone have noticed and
called him on it? Instead it is described several times in the
literature as putting the final cap on the whole KRS hoax.
Eric Stevens
The only nice solid quotation marks I've seen are for you quoting
Wahlgren.
Does Wahlgren give a source for his 'quotes'?
No? I thought not.
Do you know the source of his quotes?
No? I thought not.
How do you know that someone hasn't noticed, "and called him in"? Its
not as though you have read anything much else about the KRS.
In fact, I've already told you that Professor Robert A. Hall has
noticed "and called him in" nearly twenty years ago.
What is "the literature" which describes Wahlgren "as putting the
final cap on the whole KRS hoax"? Whatever it is, its probably written
by someone whose mind was already made up and who applauded Wahlgren
for reinforcing their own opinions. It won't be someone who has read
extensively the literature on the KRS.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:39:19 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
You don't read English do you? I have said and you should have read
that the cites are from the Minnesota Historical Society's report to
the Society's Executive Committee on May 9, 1910 and published in
December of that year. You keep writing like you were familiar with
this document. I gave quotes from that document and pages for the
quotes. Something you seem unable to understand but I can assure it is
very normal academic procedure.
here they are
"April 26, 2:01 p.m.
I have received my copy of The Kensington Stone, A Mystery Solved. On
page 64 there is a discussion.
Professor Winchell, to summarize, concluded that there were two
alternative possibilities. The inscription showed degree of weathering
that would comport with one of two possibilities: an inscription that
was medieval, and the stone had lain face down through the years, or
an inscription which had been exposed to the elements for a short
period of years. In the latter case, the degree of intactness pointed
to an age of "fifteen or thirty years" [page 235] and again, "probably
less than 30 years". [page 236] Furthermore , his "first impression
derived from the inscription is that it of a recent date, and not 548
years old." [page 234]
A later summary of the findings says: "Owing to the easy
disintegration of calcite in the weather, it is evident that the
inscription is either recent or the stone was placed (or was
overturned) as to protect the inscription from the weather." [page
248]
Then a further paragraph
"I f Winchell arbitrarily ruled out the first possibility in favor of
the second, he clearly did so on the basis of nongeological evidence
derived from other sources: He was taken in by the story about the
roots of the tree, [page 248 and page 246] and, unfamiliar with
Scandinavian philology, he accepted Holand's arguments on the runes
and the language of the inscription." 9pp 254 ff]
There are a series of footnotes from the Minnesota Historical Society
Eric Stevens
I do read English and have read your efforts in that language. You
will have to forgive me for thinking that you were responding to my
remarks about you "quoting Wahlgrens demonstrably inaccurate
paraphases of Winchell".
>You keep writing like you were familiar with
>this document. I gave quotes from that document and pages for the
>quotes. Something you seem unable to understand but I can assure it is
>very normal academic procedure.
I did not expect that you would claim you having quoted from the MHS
report as a defence of your reliance on Wahlgren. If anything its a
condemnation of your reliance on Wahlgren as Wahlgren distorts so much
that is in the report.
>
>here they are
>
>"April 26, 2:01 p.m.
>I have received my copy of The Kensington Stone, A Mystery Solved. On
>page 64 there is a discussion.
So what follows here is not a quote from the MHS report but a quote
from Wahlgren summarising what the MHS preliminary report says. There
is no way to tell exactly what Winchell originally wrote.
>
>Professor Winchell, to summarize, concluded that there were two
>alternative possibilities. The inscription showed degree of weathering
>that would comport with one of two possibilities: an inscription that
>was medieval, and the stone had lain face down through the years, or
>an inscription which had been exposed to the elements for a short
>period of years. In the latter case, the degree of intactness pointed
>to an age of "fifteen or thirty years" [page 235] and again, "probably
>less than 30 years". [page 236] Furthermore , his "first impression
>derived from the inscription is that it of a recent date, and not 548
>years old." [page 234]
>
>A later summary of the findings says: "Owing to the easy
>disintegration of calcite in the weather, it is evident that the
>inscription is either recent or the stone was placed (or was
>overturned) as to protect the inscription from the weather." [page
>248]
>
>Then a further paragraph
>
>"I f Winchell arbitrarily ruled out the first possibility in favor of
>the second, he clearly did so on the basis of nongeological evidence
>derived from other sources: He was taken in by the story about the
>roots of the tree, [page 248 and page 246] and, unfamiliar with
>Scandinavian philology, he accepted Holand's arguments on the runes
>and the language of the inscription." 9pp 254 ff]
Wahlgren was no doubt referring to the first line on page 246 of the
MHS preliminary report which says:
"The shortest time that has been assigned to the growth of the
tree is ten years."
The levant text on page 248 is likely to be:
"8. The age of the tree which was growing on the stone seems to
show that the inscription was made prior to the occupancy of the
farm by Mr Ohman."
It is difficult to see how Winchell could have concluded that the age
of the inscription was 547 years on the basis of that information. The
plain fact of the matter was that Wahlgren was (again) distorting the
truth of the matter.
>
>There are a series of footnotes from the Minnesota Historical Society
>Report. Pages are given here.
>
>Winchell examines the grooves and sees the small pieces of iron,
>accepts the explanation that the grooves were cleaned out with a nail.
>He states that the only way to preserve the text was to bury the
>stone immediately upon its completion. If it was left to the weather
>the inscription is less than 100 years old and probably less than 30
>years.
Which statement reaches no conclusion about the age of the KRS.