Thread:Pluto2/@comment-1272640-20161223000558/@comment-1272640-20161224022652

Do you have any sources saying his claim is not generally accepted?

If we have two sources, period, for research into a claim, neither one is fringe because there's only two studies, and thus no consensus. On the one hand, we have the poorly-researched Marvel study that is very, very obviously biased. On the other hand, we have the well-researched Hoar study, that is not biased. In the latter's case, both Union and Confederate claims are investigated. Marvel's study is several pages in a magazine. Hoar's study is two volumes, and has hundreds of pages, going into far more detail than Marvel does. So if there's only two studies on the subject, why is one fringe and the other one not? There has to be a consensus first. In this case, Kiney's claim is THOROUGHLY researched by Hoar (if I recall correctly, an entire section is devoted to his claim), based on correspondence between Hoar and Kiney's descendant. Meanwhile, Marvel's study didn't just go in blind, it didn't even get the right person named William Kiney. Completely different parents. Completely different life. In this case, Marvel's study falls flat on its face and fails to be a reliable source because in this instance, Marvel used the documentation of a man who happened to have the same name as "proof" the claimant was a fraud.