More Examples of Scholars Thinking Evidence is 'Forged' When it Contradicts their Presuppositions

[Secret Alias]

https://books.google.com/books?id=4P84A ... 9C&f=false

[neilgodfrey]

https://books.google.com/books?id=4P84A ... 9C&f=false

I would be interested in reading the articles cited by the author where his arguments and those of another scholar are said to discuss their case for forgery. Can you find a link to those articles?

It should not need to be said, but fwiw, it is not necessarily dishonest or unprofessional to conclude that a piece of evidence is a forgery if:

1) it is demonstrated that much other data points in a direction that leads in a direction contrary to what the disputed evidence indicates;

2) sound reasons can be advanced to establish the likelihood of forgery or interpolation.

None of the above conditions mean that a scholar would be arguing for a piece of evidence being fabricated simply because of said scholar's "presuppositions". Rather, fabrication would be proposed because it stands out like a rabbit's skeleton in a pre-Cambrian layer of rock or because an analysis of the skeleton demonstrated bones from modern chickens.