David Moriarty,
While this thread has been interesting, I think the flaw in your theory is as follows.
First, if you present a theory, the burden of proof rests with you. You have to prove your theory in order to validate it.
The INABILITY to DISPROVE a theory DOESN"T validate it.
If your theory was that CBM deserved more credit for the work you allege he did, you have to specifically quantify and qualify the work so that a judgement can be made relative to the credit he should or shouldn't get.
Absent specific supporting evidence, your theory fails.
While the production of a manifest dated May 12,1912 is interesting, one can't conclude that HIW never set foot in the UK prior to that date.
If HIW was never in the UK prior to 05-12-12 it doesn't disqualify him and the committee as the designers of Merion.
And, it doesn't mean that they had to have the direct assistance of CBM for routing, design and construction.
I've enjoyed the exercise, the discussion and debate, but, just because questions remain unanswered, doesn't mean that your theory is valid.
If someone produced hard evidence of CBM's specific involvement in routing, designing and constructing Merion that would be powerful support for your theory, but, absent that supporting documentation, your theory is merely a dubious hypothesis.
It's unfortunate that you and others have come to swords point through 14 pages of debate.
I'm willing to listen to your theories, but, rather than disprove them, the burden of proof rests with you.
But, I've enjoyed the exercise.
Will your next theory claim that # 6 green at NGLA was originally a misaligned Biarritz ?