"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > I just finished Carl Gustavson's A Preface to History (1955), and he
> > mentions the stone in it. It was the first I had heard of it. I came
> > here
> > to ask what the decision was on it. Imagine my surprise to find a
> > thread already.
> > I haven't studied it at all and barely just learned about it, but I am
> > convinced it's real.
> Not a very auspicious start. I could understand a leaning, or an
> impression, but to become "convinced" without studying it at all . . . .
> Is that wise?
> > I'm convinced that the chance of a total hoax
> > holding up for this long is dubious,
> Which only proves that you haven't studied it at all. The majority of
> scholars have dismissed it as a hoax.
The majority of scholars who have carefully studied the KRS,
and who are honest, have accepted it as probably authentic.
OTOH the scholars who are known frauds, such as Wahlgren,
have dismissed it as a fraud.
Also, some known incompetents, such as Birgitta Wallace,
have dismissed KRS. But why would anyone take her seriously?
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so,
it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"