CBC News48%

How a Hamilton man helped discover a lost Rembrandt, thought to be fake, but worth millions 20%

By Jeffery Tram0%

6/20/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 588 faulty-reasoning hits from 461 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,073 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.60% of the article peer group.

After 60 years, a painting thought to be fake has been discovered, by a team led by a Hamilton curator, to be the authentic work of the 17th-century Dutch master Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, worth millions. 
Jonathan Bikker, a curator at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, led the effort to authenticate Vision of Zacharias in the Temple, a painting that had been dismissed by scholars in the 1960s and largely disappeared from public view. 
"Since 1961, no one had seen it, and no scholar had seen it either," Bikker told CBC Hamilton. 
Rembrandt is widely regarded as one of the greatest painters of the Dutch Golden Age. 
While hundreds of his works survive, new authentications are exceptionally rare. 
The discovery, announced earlier this year, adds another work to the catalogue of the famed Dutch master and turns a painting once worth thousands into one valued in the millions. 
WATCH | Hamilton man helps discover lost Rembrandt painting thought to be fake: 
From Hamilton to Amsterdam 
Bikker grew up in Hamilton and studied art history at McMaster University before pursuing graduate studies at Queen's University. 
Research for his PhD brought him to the Netherlands, where a temporary contract at the Rijksmuseum eventually became a permanent job 
Twenty-five years later, he is the museum's curator, and he's uncovered a painting that disappeared for decades. 
"The most exciting part of the research is discovering new paintings," Bikker said. 
"This doesn't happen every day." 
Many people reach out to him, claiming they own a masterpiece worth millions of dollars. 
"Almost always, it's not," Bikker said. 
But one email in late 2023 felt different, he said. 
The image in the email shows a picture of a painting that did resemble a Rembrandt. 
"The owner wasn't actually asking, 'Is this by Rembrandt?'" 
Bikker said. 
"His question was who painted it?" 
Painting now sits on loan in the Rijksmuseum 
Bikker and his team spent two years examining the painting, studying everything from the wood panel and pigments to the brushwork and composition. 
"We discovered that Rembrandt had made changes to the painting," Bikker said. 
"So this painting had to be the first version." 
That helped establish the work as the original, rather than a later copy. 
The findings also overturned assumptions about a similar version of the painting held in a German museum, which some experts had previously considered superior, Bikker says. 
When the Rijksmuseum shared its conclusion with the owner, the reaction was shock. 
"They had been told so long that it wasn't by Rembrandt," he said. 
"So, when we told them that it was, they were very pleasantly surprised." 
The painting is now on display at the Rijksmuseum on long-term loan. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Jeffery Tram: 5.2%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 4.1%Jeffery Tram: 3.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 7.4%Jeffery Tram: 2.7%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 3.5%Jeffery Tram: 1.7%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 3.7%Jeffery Tram: 1.5%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.5%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Jeffery Tram: 5.2%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 6.5%Jeffery Tram: 1.6%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.5%This article: 7.2%Jeffery Tram: 1.8%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jeffery Tram: 1.4%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeffery Tram: 0.8%CBC: 5.6%Negativity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeffery Tram: 3.0%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jeffery Tram: 1.4%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Jeffery Tram: 2.9%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeffery Tram: 2.0%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.5%Jeffery Tram: 3.5%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 2.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.5%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Jeffery Tram: 0.9%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Jeffery Tram: 1.4%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.9%Jeffery Tram: 1.0%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote3.9%This article: 2.8%Jeffery Tram: 1.2%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 21.5%Jeffery Tram: 6.5%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice21.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffery Tram: 0.0%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

461 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech381writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Bikker • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonathan Bikker

79%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Jonathan Bikker: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+22.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jonathan Bikker: 22.5%22.5%Quote-first Misdirection-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Jonathan Bikker: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.