UPDATE OF THE SMITHSONIAN CRITIQUE


Mar 30, 2001

Well, early in December I finally received an answer from the Smithsonian on my original letter. Some of the errors in the first printing have been cleared up as the result of that letter, however others of particularly major importance have been left unchanged. I continue to write to Dr. William Fitzhugh on the subject, but seem to have had little effect. Brigtitta Wallace, who I found out was the author of the section on the Kensington Runestone, did write a lengthy response to my list of errors. I have recently recieved permission to use this, and will be putting up the complete response, and eventually a full critique of that response in the future. I find there are a few places where her information conflicted with mine, and in such cases I will admit that it is reasonable for her interpetation to stand.
In other cases however, problems remain.

For instance Wallace's supposed rebuttal of my points 18 and 19 concerning the 1910 report of the Minnesota Historical Society, and what the geologist Newton Winchell said in that report. Please read my recent letter to Dr. Fitzhugh (long) regarding what Wallace put forward.