David,
Like it or not, as I originally stated, I will not answer any of your questions until you provide the proof that the signature that you publicly claimed to be written by Ian’s grandfather actually was. That is what I said and what I stick to. You presented it as an actual signature of Ian's grandfather and then didn't provide any information at all. You still haven't. To quote your response to me in reply to me, "Phil, now that Neil has been good enough to figure out the source of the signature, I trust you will be good enough to answer my questions?"
It is not up to Neil to do your work for you. Once again, just to be clear, I DID NOT state that I would answer your questions if you posted the document. In reply #12 I stated this (with underlines and bold now added):
"I'm sorry, but I simply won't accept the "signature" that you produced as being by Ian's grandfather. You demanded proof from me and now I am demanding it from you. I have no problem accepting it if it is, but at this point can't I say that you forged it to prove your point? After all, that is what you claimed that Ian did. Unlike you I'm not making that claim and I have no doubt that what you found is a signature by a David Scott-Taylor who was alive during that time period. Unless you can provide proof otherwise I simply can't accept it as being Ian's grandfather's signature."
Also, in post #22 I stated:
“You’ve made the public claim that the signature you publicly posted is that of Ian’s grandfather. I’m now calling you to out prove it. I’ll respect your decision to not do so, but unless you do you’re doing nothing other than what you have highly criticized others from having done in the past.
“You’ve made the public claim that the signature you publicly posted is that of Ian’s grandfather. I’m now calling you to out prove it. I’ll respect your decision to not do so, but unless you do you’re doing nothing other than what you have highly criticized others from having done in the past.
“You give yourself away when you stated to Neil, stated to “I am less concerned with burdens of proof and more concerned with the truth. If the story as told were true, then there would be plenty of information corroborating it. There would be evidence outside the supposed diaries, and there is little or no such evidence.”
“For someone who is “less concerned with “burdens of proof” you certainly keep demanding that from everyone else. And to say that you are “more concerned with the truth” is self-serving when you previously state a lesser need for the “burdens of proof” that will prove the truth. Once again David, YOU can’t have it both ways.”
You followed that up in post #26 where you stated:
“You've got a lot of nerve demanding that I provide you with my all information when your supposed experts won't even put their name on their own report.”
Really, I’ve got a lot of nerve demanding information from you? Iisn’t that EXACTLY what you did in our private emails before you began commenting on the 1st essay? Didn’t I do EXACTLY that and answer every one of your questions and further providing you with much more information not contained in the original essay including the diary pages which proved that your were correct in challenging the May date for the trip and to do so well before I published the revised essay? I’ve done nothing but cooperate with you and yet you say that I “have a lot of nerve.” By the way, I still have those emails in case your memory needs some reminding.
Also I’m not asking you to provide me with “all your information” which is what you had no problem doing to me in a private setting. No, I’m demanding that you back up your claim that the signature that you PUBLICLY posted on here is as you claim, that of Ian’s grandfather. I’ve had no problem answering any and all questions, including acceptance of where I’ve been wrong while also providing proofs to show where I spoke correctly.
So once again, you made the claim publicly and all here should be asking you to back it up since that is exactly what YOU demand of others.
As you’ve said on gca far too often, YOU can’t have it both ways.