Thanks for updating the developing story.

I agree with your previous commenters *(on your blog post of a few days ago) that we must not jump to conclusions on partial data (my wife calls this "jumping to a concussion").

However, there is, indeed, a lot of stuff that, at this point, doesn't seem to add up. If Bellesiles' Chronicle piece is able to withstand a serious review by other scholars and the Chronicle staff, fine. If not, then Bellesiles' writings will surely warrant no more attention from me.

My guess is that he had written a note of the soldier's name, but there was a flood in his office again that destroyed his notes. :)

Thank goodness that the other side in the gun debate really is this incompetent...

-Gene

Some people just can't let accuracy get in the way of a "good story".

Margaret Meade and Rigoberto Menchu both wrote hoaxes. The first started the sexual revolution, the scond got a Nobel. Both were found out eventually, both witnessed that lies can prove "the larger truth".

Bellesiles just wasn't as good a liar as those two, in his book, couldn't defend his work and got hurt for it. The other two made it to some level of "stardom".

I dunno if his story, this time, is true or not, what the Council's requirements for fact are. I hope Bellesiles can prove his tale just to see that he learned his lesson.

It would prove liars can change and might inspire some in the poltical class to reconsider their paths...

I predict Bellisiles' article will be redacted.