How many scholars care about what someone thinks about their findings? That is about as bassackwards a philosophy as I've ever seen. Mark, you should seriously consider revising your approach, it is astonishingly poor.
We know several things. Philmont thought/thinks the South a Park, Jr. course and the North a Flynn course. Further, we know that Park could not have designed the South course, the timing is too far off. We know that Park was in the area prior to the opening of the North course, having left for home before its completion. We know that J Wood Platt, a renown amateur player, wrote the president of the club about his appreciation for playing in the tournament on the new course and the fondness for the changes to the old. Park's changes to the old probalby started the notion that he designed the South. Platt clearly states that the new course is by Park and he even describes accurately some of the holes on the new course. It is clear that he refers to the current North course. There is a photo of William Gordon on opening day. This is what is known.
Now, Mark. Tell me in all of this how we should conclude that Flynn designed Philmont North? Tell me further that if Philmont thinks this way and presents this information to the public why we should allow them to continue doing so unchallenged? Because it makes them feel good? You have a lot of explaining to do.
As you know from Steve's comments, there is a lot of emotional investment by the club to be Flynn. The club's "historian" is deeply rooted in the Flynn Cup and it would be a personal issue to him if they followed a different attribution process. Therein lies the bias. We do things very differently in drawing up an historical record. I don't care if they are in the Flynn Cup or not nor whether their feelings are hurt or not. I care about the truth.
The truth is that there is no evidence save oral tradition that Flynn had anything to do with Philmont North. I would not consider this course a Flynn without evidence. Mark would have us consider it a Flynn until there is evidence. Clearly Mark has no concept of the scientific method and his approach is a a very poor one.
One reason we have this dilemma is that the membership clearly has no clue about Park, Jr. and they attach themselves to Flynn who is the best known in this area. If they knew how important an architect and how great an architect Park, Jr. was they might be more open-minded. They can think whatever they want, I just won't be part of making them feel good. Our mission with the book requires much higher standards.
I spoke with members of the Gimbel family and they are searching family records. So far, nothing. Like Steve, I go with Bob Labbance's consideration of Reid for the South and at this point give attribution to Park, Jr. for the North. I will speculate that Flynn got brought into this by either constructing the course (Toomey and Flynn division) and the membership confusing building for designing and/or Flynn made design changes later on and the club referred to the course as a Flynn. These are educated guesses, nothing more. If there was no oral tradition of Flynn at Philmont I wouldn't have bothered with the exercise.