Edited sentence: At best, he makes a reasonable case for the work being and adaptation for organ, by Bach, from another work, which might or might not have been by Bach and which might have been for solo violin.Baroque violinist Andrew Manze recorded the "reconstructed" solo violin version of BWV 565.It should, however, be kept in mind that musicology is not an exact science.One of his arguments can be summarized as "if one plays it in a different key, on a violin, it sounds especially beautiful".This can be countered by saying that "if one plays it in the original key, and as written, it sounds especially beautiful on the organ".To go as far as Manze and to say that "[authenticity of] BWV 565 is positively fallacious" is a severe distortion of the truth and a regrettable sign of seeing "absolute truth" in shaky argumentation.To quote Dutch author Maarten 't Hart on this subject : "The big question now is : who wrote it, if not Bach.Was there in those days another such genius, of whom we know nothing at all.While being an interesting experiment, it is immediately clear that most of the counterpoint in the fugue is completely missing in the solo violin version.William's paper, while interesting in itself, does not prove his points and his arguments would not hold up to even the lowest level of scrutiny that is usual in the natural sciences.Williams' arguments are shaky at best