When I was in elementary school, I ordered a book on historical mysteries through one of those Schoolastic book catalog/fliers they hand out to students. That book was one my first influences which got me interested in learning and later researching history. One of the mysteries in the book was the Vinland Map and whether it was authentic. Now by the time this book was published (and read by school boy me), most scholars had already come to the conclusion the map was a forgery with a smaller group believing that the forgery claim hadn't been proven yet. Well a recent study by Yale University, the owner of the map, has come to an even more definitive conclusion of forgery. The story is well worth the read, especially if you're interested in how investigators can come to the conclusion a document is a forgery:

https://news.yale.edu/2021/09/01/analysi...-its-fake?

In case any of you are curious, no I don't think that book had historical mysteries related to Abraham Lincoln.

Fascinating! Thanks for posting, Steve.

(10-10-2021 05:35 AM)Steve Wrote:  One of the mysteries in the book was the Vinland Map and whether it was authentic. Now by the time this book was published (and read by school boy me), most scholars had already come to the conclusion the map was a forgery with a smaller group believing that the forgery claim hadn't been proven yet.

Sometimes, it takes only a single fact to prove or disprove a theory, hypothesis, or even an erroneous conclusion of law by a court: "The analysis revealed that a titanium compound used in inks first produced in the 1920s pervades the map’s lines and text."

(10-10-2021 08:31 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Sometimes, it takes only a single fact to prove or disprove a theory, hypothesis, or even an erroneous conclusion of law by a court: "The analysis revealed that a titanium compound used in inks first produced in the 1920s pervades the map’s lines and text."

I'm not sure I agree with you David. More evidence is always better, if possible.

(10-11-2021 02:06 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 08:31 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Sometimes, it takes only a single fact to prove or disprove a theory, hypothesis, or even an erroneous conclusion of law by a court: "The analysis revealed that a titanium compound used in inks first produced in the 1920s pervades the map’s lines and text."

I'm not sure I agree with you David. More evidence is always better, if possible.

Depends of course (IMO anyway) on the quality and reliability of the "evidence".

We the People are so lucky to have well-documented evidence of President Lincoln's important communications and work in the form of speeches and published writings.

And, when there is controversy regarding private conversations, there is one reliable standard by which to judge: whether or not what President Lincoln allegedly said is "out of character."

(10-11-2021 06:07 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 02:06 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 08:31 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Sometimes, it takes only a single fact to prove or disprove a theory, hypothesis, or even an erroneous conclusion of law by a court: "The analysis revealed that a titanium compound used in inks first produced in the 1920s pervades the map’s lines and text."

I'm not sure I agree with you David. More evidence is always better, if possible.

Depends of course (IMO anyway) on the quality and reliability of the "evidence".

In the case at issue, one fact alone completely discredited any possibility that the map was genuine.

"The analysis revealed that a titanium compound used in inks first produced in the 1920s pervades the map’s lines and text."