Kirk, thanks for your continued comments.
The historical record is not complete but it is much more complete now than recently. My analyses depends heavily on the factual record and I provide all the bases for my analysis. To characterize anything in my paper as a "guess" is inaccurate, to put it nicely.
Your critique is much more metaphysical than substantive. You want absolute proof in order for me to draw any conclusions at all. That is impossible, especially with historical research. Often we must go with the best inference the facts give us.
Ironically though, my essay is not nearly as inferential as most historical research. Whenever possible I rely on verifiable facts concerning the timing of events to establish many of my conclusions. Yet instead of taking my analysis for what it is, you ask for answers to tangential questions that are not a necessary part of my analysis.
For example, I state that the routing had been in place for months before Wilson was appointed. This is based upon Richard Francis' recollection of working on the routing plan and figuring out how to fit the last 5 holes into the routing by adjusting the dimensions of the property to be purchased. My point is simply one of timing, as I explained in the essay. Francis tells us when he managed to get the last 5 holes to fit. I determined that this had to have occurred before the purchase. That is it. That is how I know that Wilson was not appointed until month after the routing.
Yet you ask:
Which routing? Barker’s routing (of which no copy exists, yes?) had been superseded by another routing, which “may have” been created by MacDonald and Whigham. I understand that you have evidence of meetings between M&H and representatives of Merion. I also know that MacDonald had seen the site. But was there, without doubt, a routing created by MacDonald, et al? If that routing has not been found, is there a record of people writing that they saw this routing, or comments about it? While a statement that MacDonald and Whigham told the club “what could be done with the property” shows that they played a role, it doesn’t explicitly say that they produced a routing. Am I wrong?
I dont make claims about any of this in my paper. And none of this matters to any conclusions drawn. None of what you are asking even proves up the point I am making. Again
1.From the Francis description, I know that:
a. He was trying to fit layout plan(s) onto the property to be purchased.
b. Thirteen holes were already arranged, and changing the shape of the land allowed him to fit in the last five.
c. 5 +13+18.
2. Looking at his description along with details of the option and purchase, we can deduce that Francis and lloyd changed the shape of the property before the purchase.
3. This gives us the outside date that the Francis finished the routing.
That's it. That is the analysis that reached the conslusion you are questioning. It has nothing to do with who contributed what or when. I dont know the answer to any of that, so I dont want to speculate at this time.
Just because you'd like more answers does not mean that I guessed at the answers I gave. In fact, I tried to be careful not to guess, and this is a perfect example. My statement about the existence of a plan comes straight from Francis and a careful examination of the purchase.
I sense you would rather I just guess, which is what everyone else is doing. Otherwise I'd think you'd be concerned with some of these counter-theories floating around.
“…and given that experts (most likely Macdonald (sic) and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans…” - as I mentioned in my initial response, your surmise that MacDonald and Whigham are the experts in question seems solid, but it is still a surmise and not a “fact.”
The Macdonald and Whigham part is a logical inference supported by the facts. But set that aside. Merion's board reported that
experts were at work on the plans. Can I use this at least? Because if I can, then my point still holds. In the paper I even address the possibility that this may have been hyperbole, just to avoid coming to unfair concusions. In is ironic that you still think I did.
“…and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with MacDonald and Whigham learning how to build the course…” - Again, you do not have a specific date for this visit to NGLA, correct? You have evidence that indicates that it may have taken place in January, 1911, but the dates aren’t known. Again, am I wrong? If you are making even the most educated of guesses as to those dates, they are still guesses. Your guess may be correct, and I’m not saying that it isn’t. But until it is proven, it is still a guess, not a fact.
Once again, you dispute an inference (the exact date of the trip) that has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying logic the essay. The exact date of the trip is secondary at best. We know it was after the committee was formed, and we know that this happened at the time the land was purchased. Hugh Wilson told us he studied at NGLA and he told us what he studied. but other than than, it doesnt matter much. I explain this in the section detailing my analysis. In fact I even address the implications if my date was wrong-- Wilson would have had to have even more contact with M&W than we know about!
“…it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.”
- Another guess.
I strongly disagree with your characterization of this as a guess. But even it it was a bald guess, with no support whatsoever, it has nothing to do with the main analysis in my essay. I offered my analysis on a tangential issue, and gave what think very likely happened. If you dont agree, that is fine with me. But that doesnt make it a guess. Although you should know that no one else offered anything more reasonable or likely, not even close.
My essay does not hinge on whether I have proven to your satisfaction that the map sent to Piper had the routing on it--- NOT EVEN THAT My essay does not hinge on whether IT IS EXTREMELY LIKELY that it had the plan. It fact it matters not at all.
But what I guess bothers me as a reader is the way you write as if your hypothesis has been proven out based on the facts you’ve unearthed by all of your research, when what I’m seeing when I go through the essay is that you’re building one guess upon another and then saying that this constitutes proof. I don’t think that it does.
The reason I use phrases like IT IS EXTREMELY LIKELY is to point the reader toward places where I am drawing some sort of inference or conclusion that is even a little less sure than a necessary conclusion. So the reader can make up his or her own mind.
All you seem to have done is to identify these points, and mischaracterize all the inferences as guesses, and say I havent proven my points. This But even then you have not touched anything fundamental to my essay, which mostly elies on NECESSARY CONCLUSIONS from the timing of events. So yes, I do feel like I have largely proven big chunks of my basic hypotheses by facts I have unearthed, because they are necessary conclusions.
For example, Wilson couldn't have routed the course if he was not yet involved in the project when it was routed. That doesnt depend on anything other than the timing of events. Now if facts emerge disputing Wilson's version of events, then Hugh Wilson and I will stand corrected.
________________
Mike, I explained that there was a drawing in my essay. In fact almost everything you ask me is answered in my essay.
As for your pending question. I find it incredibly insulting and telling about your ability to have a reasonable discussion on these issues. As I may have said already, I've learned a lot about Merion, but more about you.
I've answerecd you question before, and I am not answering it again.
I have already answered it and will not do so again.
STILL WAITING ON HOW WE ALL KNOW THAT LLOYD WAS INVOLVED IN SUMMER 1909. Your not holding out on us are you Mike?