The most egregious misrepresentation has to do with his handling of the more than 900 cases reported by Alice Hanson Jones. When critics pointed out that Jones� data disagreed with his, Bellesiles responded by explaining that he did NOT include Jones�s data in his computations because her inventories, taken during the build-up to the American revolution, showed a disproportionately high number of guns! Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation, since the label on column one in Table One clearly says “1765-1790.” If Professor Bellesiles silently excluded data from the years 1774-1776, as he asserts, precisely because they failed to show low numbers of guns, he has willingly misrepresented the evidence. This, compounded with all the other inconsistencies in his description of his method and sources and the fact that neither he nor anyone else has been able to replicate any part of his data, suggest that there is a real discrepancy between the research Professor Bellesiles did and his presentation of that research in Table One.

Question 5. Did professor Bellesiles engage in “other serious deviations ‘from accepted practices in carrying out or reporting results from research’” with respect to probate records or militia census records by:
(a) Failing to carefully document his findings;
(b) Failing to make available to others his sources, evidence, and data; or
(c) Misrepresenting evidence or the sources of evidence.”

We have reached the conclusion with reference to clauses �a� through �c,� that Professor Bellesiles contravened these professional norms, both as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association�s definition of scholarly �integrity,� which includes �an awareness of one�s own bias and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead,� �disclosure of all significant qualifications of one�s arguments,� careful documentation of findings and the responsibility to �thereafter be prepared to make available to others their sources, evidence, and data,� and the injunction that �historians must not misrepresent evidence or the sources of evidence.�