Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

I'd just add that Patrick Mucci is a HUGE fan and admirer of CB Macdonald, as am I.  Patrick is also not part of some Philly Mafia out to protect the reputation of one of our homeys, as has been alleged.

We have listened to David's evidence now for hundreds and hundreds of posts and we simply don't agree with his conclusions, or where he's trying to lead the discussion.  He says he just wants the facts to come out, so if he has more facts, he should just dispassionately present them without trying to lead us with his selective BOLDING, etc., and we can come to our own conclusions.    

It's that simple.   He can try to convince the jury, but at some point someone needs to swing the gavel and bring these proceedings to a halt.  

[TEPaul]

"We have listened to David's evidence now for hundreds and hundreds of posts and we simply don't agree with his conclusions, or where he's trying to lead the discussion.  He says he just wants the facts to come out, so if he has more facts, he should just dispassionately present them without trying to lead us with his selective BOLDING, etc., and we can come to our own conclusions.    

It's that simple.  He can try to convince the jury, but at some point someone needs to swing the gavel and bring these proceedings to a halt."

MikeC:

I'm with you 100% on what you said there. Unless something else really determining comes up from somewhere such as Macdonald drawings or some really good information from Macdonald or from Merion or from the Wilson's et al about what Macdonald specifically did during the layout, design and construction of Merion there's no reason pursuing any of this. I see David Moriarty just posted a whole bunch of new posts today. Is there anything in any of them that is in anyway new? If not I'm not even going to bother to read them. This goosechase has gone on too long in my opinion.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

During the period 1862 to 1927 there were 57 Steamship Companies operating 322 vessels, many, if not most made transatlantic voyages to New York.

Some of the better known lines were:

American Line
Anchor Line
Atlantic
Cunard Line
French Line
Glascow & New York Steamship Company
Great Eastern
Hamburg-American Line
Holland American Line
Inman Line
New York & Havre Steam
North German Lloyd
United States Line
White Star Line

Of the 57 Steamship companies and 322 vessels owned by those companies, how can you state, unequivically that HIW would only sail on American LInes vessels ?

If that's the foundation of your theory, I think it just got torpedoed. .

Kyle Harris,

I think you'll find that that's not true.

I think you'll find that many ships that departed from Southampton stopped in France.  and that most ships that departed from Liverpool didn't.

[TEPaul]

"Your minimalization of the significance of this is hilarious."

Then just continue to amuse yourself with this ongoing goosechase, David, that seems to be about the only point or purpose left with these Merion threads.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Thabnk you for taking the time to address my question. Your honest answer, "I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was our Hugh I. Wilson, and probably never will be able to..." is an important admission.

For me, what has been my problem with your hypotheses and proofs offered and conclusions drawn is not the content nor substance, but your methodology and acceptance as fact that which is not.

In your new discussion where you have posted your long-awaited and obviously hard-worked upon timeline, you once again state as FACT THAT HUGH WILSON MADE A TRIP IN 1912 BASED UPON THIS MANIFEST that you have just stated contains no proof that the Hugh Wilson mentioned is Merion's Wilson.

If you want your research to be examined under the microscope of scientific evidence as you stated on the other thread, then you have to adhere to the same methodology. State that a "Hugh I. Wilson" was a passenger on the SS Philadelphia on such & such dates and that from the little information given he APPEARS to match the Hugh I. Wilson of Merion... THAT I would never disagree with. Stating it as fact though, calls into question the veracity of your methodology and the facts that you present.

You stated that, "And so far no record of Wilson anywhere else during this time period..." That is like saying that since so far there has not been a single known contact with a flying saucer that landed in Washington that there are no flying saucers or men from Mars. One has nothing to do with the other. Either Wilson went overseas in 1911 or he didn't. Your inability to locate travel documents nearly 100 years later doesn't have any bearing on whether he actually went or not.  

You stated, "Plus, this is the only one during the relevant time period who who even closely fits the match.  If it is not him, then I'd be compelled to argue that maybe Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas at all..." Here you have stated your belief that Wilson never went overseas in 1911 despite much circumstantial proof that he did. Yet again, whether the Wilson mentioned on the manifest is Merion's or not has no bearing on his actions in 1911.

You appear to be have a clear-cut hypothesis in your mind but you also seem to be trying to frame the evidence to fit the idea rather than allowing the evidence to speak and tell its story.  

You state that, "I just cannot do that from sunny California.  I do not think that will be too difficult and I have a hard time believing that the this has not already been done!  Seems a pretty obvious way to procede for anyone who actually wants to get to the truth.  But therein lies the problem, I guess."

I can completely understand this. I currently have information about a set of working blueprints from the Bethpage State Park Project including margin notes in several different writing styles. I have been trying to travel from Atlanta to Long Island to examine these for several months now, yet each time I am about to go, something intervenes and I've had to call off my plans... It happens. Even though it does, unless you have someone you can trust to look it up, and even then they might miss something that you would see, you have to wait.

You also stated that, "Or if you’d like more circumstantial and speculative evidence, then notice that one or both of TEPaul and Wayne Morrison have readily accepted that this is the correct Hugh I. Wilson...  Why don’t you ask them why the change of heart?" Tom Paul or Wayne's or Mike's ACCEPTANCE AS FACT that this is Merion's Wilson is NO PROOF THAT IT IS! That they do or not is up to them; as to asking them why, I believe that Tom has already alluded to accepting it because to him it simply doesn't matter as he accepts as true that the trip that Wilson took to aid in the designof Merion occurred in 1911.

In another post you state:

1.  Hugh Wilson indicated that he went later, in 1911, after the Merion formed the committee and after the committee visited NGLA.
2.  Travis puts the trip in 1912.  
3.  Despite comprehensive records of all overseas arrivals, there is no record of a trip in 1909-1911.
4.  There is no evidence anywhere that Wilson took two trips to study architecture.  
5.  Hugh Wilson played in the Merion Club championship in October or November 1910.

Again, I take exception to your conclusions in #2 that Travis put THE trip in 1912. He didn't. He put A TRIP took place in1912. If you noticed my earlier comments after some took issue with assigning Merion's Wilson to the trip you mentioned because of the stop in Cherbourg, I quoted Travis from that same article wherein he states that when he played Merion, he though he saw turf that looked "suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet."

The last I knew, Le Touquet was in France.

This appears to be at least CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that the manifest actually does refer to Merion's Wilson, but it isn't proof.

Also, that the absence of proof is proof that something did or didn't happen is wrong and that is why I disagre with your characterizations in point #3.

Now after all of that, I would encourage you to keep digging and researching and developing (not proving) your hypotheses. There are good questions that come out of the information that you have shown... just not the proofs that you believe to state what you have as fact.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jes, you stated that, "About the timing of the US Amateur 4 years after the opening of Merion East...I can be pretty certain that scheduling was nothing like it is today. The US Open has been awarded out to 2013...7 years out. I would be surprised if these events were scheduled earlier than the preceeding fall during a "scheduling" meeting. So, the initial product would have had little bearing if there were substantial changes made in those first two or three years."

Back then it was usually about a 2-year or a bit longer process from when bids were accepted to course was awarded. There are a number of referencs in the old journals as to such & such a ciourse being interested in hosting Opens and Amateurs a full 2 or more years before the date discussed.

[TEPaul]

There were some changes made to Merion East before the 1916 US Amateur, some bunkers and such et al---Wayne ticked them all off for me the other night but they were in no way as comprehensive as the sequencing and hole changes made to the course beginning early in the decade of the 1920s.

[Phil_the_Author]

David, I realize that you probably hadn't seen my voluminous response to you when you just stated, "But here, we appear to have a rather complete record of everyone who came to the United States during those years.  So this is different.  If our database is comprehensive, then we can prove that he did not take an earlier trip, at least to an extremely high degree of certainty."

The word "COMPLETE" is very different in meaning from the word "COMPREHENSIVE."

Yes, you might have a COMPREHENSIVE record, but without it being a COMPLETE record, you CANNOT state with ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY that Wilson "did not take an earlier trip."

The only degree of certainty when something is a fact is 100%.

[TEPaul]

Again, if these Ancestary.com ship's manifests are so "complete" or "comprehensive" then tell me when George Crump went over there and returned. Like Merion's Wilson, when Crump went, when he returned, how long he stayed over there with Joe Baker has always been something of a mystery. It would also be most interesting to me to know when Harry Colt left the USA in 1913.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The problem with David's theory, is that he's using the flawed logic that Tom MacWood often used.  That is, drawing a conclusion and stating that if you couldn't disprove the conclusion that it must be true.

I would agree with this usually.  It is what you were doing when you were concluding that the lack of evidence of Macdonald's specific tasks meant that he was not involved.  

That's not what I stated,  I stated that absent any specific, concrete evidence of his involvement, you couldn't claim that he was involved in the routing, design and construction of the golf course.

I think you've posited an interesting theory.
I just don't believe that you can draw definitive conclusions without substantiating evidence.[/color]

But here, we appear to have a rather complete record of everyone who came to the United States during those years.  So this is different. [size=8x] If [/size] our database is comprehensive, then we can prove that he did not take an earlier trip, at least to an extremely high degree of certainty.    

But, you haven't proved that.
The law appears to have required registration of re-entrants to the U.S.  The List you presented, which is not the Ship's Manifest, rather, a list of SEVEN (7) aliens whose destination was America.

One would have to review all of the Manifests, and even then, there can be no certainty that someone who sailed hadn't been omitted from the Manifest.[/color]

Why does a name, in a ship's manifest in May, 1912, departing from Cherbourg, France carry more weight than Alan Wilson's writings ?

One is a single snapshot, but one frame, while the other is a chronological summary of the project.

Because AW's account was written over a dozen years later, in a document where he was pleading his case for his brother to receive greater recognition, shortly after his brother's untimely death.  

But that shouldn't have a disqualifying impact on the time frame Alan Wilson provides.

And, it raises another issue.

On occassion, what has been written has been submited as unquestionable proof.  Yet, here you are contradciting the written word, the word of a party intimately familiar with the history of Merion.  

You may recall that I questioned the "involvement" of CBM at Merion because his involvement couldn't be specifically identified, qualified or quantified.

You reject Alan Wilson's words yet chided me for rejecting the word "involvement when it came to CBM and Merion.

You can't be selective, choosing to reject the written word based on your position.

In the 10th hole "Alps" thread I demonstrated that CMB had contradicted himself, in writing.  And, we all know that Ross's alleged description of Seminole as "Flat" was incorrect.  

So how can we determine with certainty, what is fact, what is fiction and what is half & half ?

It's difficult, and absent the proof, I don't think you, me or others can draw concrete conclusions with the rationale that because they can't be disproved, they must be correct.

I think we need to continue to research this issue.[/color]

Not only that, but it conflicts with Hugh Wilson's statements regarding the NGLA meeting, and with Travis' account of what happened.

Again, whose written word do we accept as accurate ?[/color]  

David Moriarty,

I've asked you three times.  Why did you state that HIW would only travel on vessels of the American Lines ?

How do you know that ?

I answered above.It was a mistake for me to suggest this at this time.   And it makes no difference.   They were required by law to keep records of everyone regardless of the shipping line.

Then, you have to review all of the manifests from 1910 to 1912 prior to concluding that he didn't sail prior to his voyage on the S.S. Philadelphia[/color]

During the period 1862 to 1927 there were 57 Steamship Companies operating 322 vessels, many, if not most made transatlantic voyages to New York.

Some of the better known lines were:

American Line
Anchor Line
Atlantic
Cunard Line
French Line
Glascow & New York Steamship Company
Great Eastern
Hamburg-American Line
Holland American Line
Inman Line
New York & Havre Steam
North German Lloyd
United States Line
White Star Line

Of the 57 Steamship companies and 322 vessels owned by those companies, how can you state, unequivically that HIW would only sail on American LInes vessels ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

On occassion, what has been written has been submited as unquestionable proof.  Yet, here you are contradciting the written word, the word of a party intimately familiar with the history of Merion.  

You may recall that I questioned the "involvement" of CBM at Merion because his involvement couldn't be specifically identified, qualified or quantified.

You reject Alan Wilson's words yet chided me for rejecting the word "involvement when it came to CBM and Merion.

You can't be selective, choosing to reject the written word based on your position.

In the 10th hole "Alps" thread I demonstrated that CMB had contradicted himself, in writing.  And, we all know that Ross's alleged description of Seminole as "Flat" was incorrect.  

So how can we determine with certainty, what is fact, what is fiction and what is half & half ?

It's difficult, and absent the proof, I don't think you, me or others can draw concrete conclusions with the rationale that because they can't be disproved, they must be correct.

I think we need to continue to research this issue.

Can you find my name listed in the Manifest of HMS Queen Mary and/or HMS Queen Elizabeth in 1952 ?

[TEPaul]

Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 06:35:27pm
Again, if these Ancestary.com ship's manifests are so "complete" or "comprehensive"  then tell me when George Crump went over there and returned. Like Merion's Wilson, when Crump went, when he returned, how long he stayed over there with Joe Baker has always been something of a mystery. It would also be most interesting to me to know when Harry Colt left the USA in 1913.
 
 

"Sure Tom, I'd be glad to tell you exactly what I have found out about Crump's trip.  Just like I did your research for you regarding the Colt trip.  But first, as a show of good faith, why dont you tell me the postmarks (date and Wilson's location) of all of the agronomy letters from the first letter in February 1911 through May of 1912.  

On second thought, I am doing okay on my own.  Ever since you stopped "helping me" it seems that almost everything is falling into place.  With friends like you . . . .

I do find it entertaining that you havent been able to figure this out, though, even without the manifests.  What, with your comprehnsive research and all."

Gracious.

Forget about looking up Crump's or Colt's trips on Ancestary then. I'll do it myself when I get back to the Pine Valley project. I thought I'd just try to help you make it look like you're doing something on here, but I'll forget about that.  

Everything is falling into place??

You mean everything is falling into place with your plan to look like the ultimate laughingstock on here?

The postmarks dates and locations of Wilson's agronomy letters from February 1911 through May 1912?? You're kidding, right? I already mentioned on here that I'll go back and check to see where Wilson was throughout various time periods though his agronomy letters. We don't have copies of all the agronomy letters but I'm going to get them. When we copied them we weren't looking to write another history book on Merion and its creation as you apparently suspect. We were researching them for a book on William Flynn.  

But seeing as how ungrateful you are for all the Wilson report material I've given you, and all the material from the agronomy letters I've already given you, you can find whatever else your looking for in the "agronomy letters" yourself.

"With friends like you...."

Good Lord, that surely is a contradiction in terms. I might be many things but a friend of yours is not one of them and is definitely not going to be one of them.  

[JESII]

You guys are exhausting...

[Andy Hughes]

What went on later with the course has never been an issue with me.  I have always focused squarely on the initial design.  What happened later is a seperate issue in my book.  

DaveM, I am fine with that, but it seems to be a constant undercurrent to this thread and the basis for much of the rancor towards you--what credit is due CBM and Whigham.  I have no dog in that fight and to be honest, I haven't seen you making the claim anyway.

We have listened to David's evidence now for hundreds and hundreds of posts and we simply don't agree with his conclusions, or where he's trying to lead the discussion.

Mike, I hear ya.  I have seen the anger directed at DaveM, but I missed the first Merion thread.  Beyond all that though, in this thread it appears he has presented potentially (and I suspect he would agree it is just 'potentially' at this time though maybe far more likely that not) something very new.  TEPaul has dismissed it out of hand of little importance; I am of course willing to admit that TEP has forgotten more this year about Merion than I have ever known but I must disagree with his position.
 
Also, I have not been privy to the credit due or not due CBM and Whigham that seems to have gotten everyone hot and bothered---from where I sit in this thread it is not an issue and does not seem to be the thrust of Dave's interest.  Anway, if the big overseas trip came later as Dave suggests and the course initially was a 'rough draft' as Dave has also shown Travis writing, and CBM's efforts all came early on, then Dave himself would seem to have made short work of the line of thought that CBM and Whigham were deserving of credit.

[TEPaul]

Phil Young and David Moriarty:

You accept that I think it's fact that Hugh Wilson went to GB in 1911??

What's wrong with you guys? Can't you read? I never said that. I mentioned I had a letter from Hugh Wilson from Philadelphia to Piper in DC on Feb. 1, 1911. I simply said that put Wilson in Philadelphia then. Since I didn't have anymore letters from Wilson in that file until much later I simply said from my file he still could've had time to go to GB between Feb 1, 1911 and the start of the construction of Merion East. That doesn't mean I know he did that or think he did that. Wayne has some letters from Wilson later in the spring of 1911 that put him in Philadelphia too so he probably didn't have the time to go to GB after that and before the start of construction of Merion East.

What I have said I believe is that it really doesn't matter when he went to GB because the fact is not going to change due to all the other available evidence and written material from all kinds of people that Hugh Wilson and his Committee laid out, designed and constructed Merion.

You guys ought to learn to read a bit more carefully what people write, particularly the people who are supplying you with material from the Merion record and archives.

Furthermore, as I've said many times on here I just can't imagine what David Moriarty thinks he's doing or what he thinks he's trying to prove with these "hypotheses" of his and now this timeline. There's nothing in that timeline that we haven't known for years with the exception of his trip to GB in 1912.

Again, as I said on my first post on this thread we've never known when Wilson went to GB and we have never been sure how long he went to GB. I've also said Wayne and I have always felt that this report that he went for seven months just seem long to us.

And we've always assumed he went to GB before the spring of 1911 because the Merion history books have always said that and his brother Alan very strongly implies that.

But, again, if that turns out to not be the case it doesn't change a thing about what Wilson and his committee did with laying out, designing and building the course between the spring of 1911 and Sept 1911.

David Moriarty may've been trying to suggest previously that the fact that Wilson may not have gone to GB before the spring of 1911 and before starting the course implies that he was not capable of laying out, designing and constructing the course and therefore did not do it or only did it with far more help from Macdonald but I doubt he is trying to imply that any longer for all the obvious reasons that we have put forth on these threads.

I doubt he is even trying to claim any longer that this indicates that Macdonald and Whigam did more than most already thought. He was probably attempting to claim that if Wilson did not go to GB before the start of the construction of the course then that must mean he was too much of a novice to have done the course.

Hugh Wilson himself four years later admitted when he and his committee began Merion East they didn't realize one half of what they didn't know.

But the fact is they did the golf course despite that and I see absolutely nothing that David Moriarty has come up with on forty pages of these threads that can prove anything to the contrary.

These forty pages of threads comes down to the same old thing---eg what does the mention from various people, most importantly the Wilsons, that M&W "advised" them mean? I think both Hugh and Alan Wilson, particularly, made it quite clear what that meant. Others, particularly all the members of the committee said who it was that in the main was the architect of Merion East and West.

That's the Merion story and that's the way I believe it happened David Moriarty, and there has been nothing at all from you that would indicate otherwise.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul has dismissed it out of hand of little importance; I am of course willing to admit that TEP has forgotten more this year about Merion than I have ever known but I must disagree with his position."

Andy:

I'm not too sure why you're constantly missing the obvious point here. For David Moriarty to even remotely prove that the fact that Wilson may not have gone to GB before Merion East went into layout, design and construction he would pretty much have to prove that means that Wilson and his committee were just not capable or able to layout, design and construct the course, or couldn't have done it without far more help from Macdonald.

Do you actually believe that Moriarty has done that? What is it that makes you think Wilson and his committee could not have created Merion East if he hadn't first been to GB?

This is really no more complex than that.

Eventually, I will go back and look through more of those agronomy files or whatever else there is and if I happen to find something where Wilson mentions he had been to GB before he began to create the course and that doesn't put an end to this nonsense, well, then I'm going to give up without the slightest thought for what you all believe or don't believe.

The thing both of you seem to be missing here is the question of whether Wilson laid out, designed and constructed the golf course does not rest on whether or not he went to GB first. The fact is there are numerous people all over the place back then who said in no uncertain terms that he and his committe created the golf course. Those are the facts regardless of what you think about him being a novice or whatever. Do you really mean to suggest that scores and scores of people who obviously were there and watched him and his committee create the course are all collectively lying??  

[TEPaul]

"That has been the source of rancor for both threads.  Yet I have never claimed that Wilson did not deserve design credit or that Wilson did.  My concern was that in my opinion some here were downplaying and diminishing M&W's role despite uncontradicted evidence to the contrary."  


David Moriarty and Andy Hughes:

If that has been your issue I hardly see why these threads are continuing.

None of us have ever downplayed or diminished the attribution given to M&W. We've always recognized and endorsed the role news reports and particularly the Wilsons' reports have given to M&W. The Wilsons particularly mention M&W's advice during the trip to NGLA as a significant help. We recognize that M&W made two other visits, in late 1910 to look at the site and the spring of 1911 to look at the plans.

We've never downplayed that and you, on the other hand, have never suggested what more you think that means. If you think that means Macdonald routed Merion East we would probably disagree with that as there just is no evidence to logically assume that. If he had done something like that I have little doubt Merion and the Wilsons surely would have given him credit for that too. The same with designing holes or overseeing construction.

I doubt you have suggested that Wilson did not deserve design credit for Merion East. That would be patently foolish as it seems to be patently foolish that you just said above that you never claimed that Wilson DID deserve design credit for Merion East. To say such a think despite overwhelming evidence from numerous people at Merion at that time pretty much shows what your implications are or probably would've been if we had not proven those potential implications or claims wrong.

[TEPaul]

" Or, if I was chiding you, it wasn't about what you think it was.  The reason that I rejected your argument about CBM was that you were drawing conclusion based on the absence of evidence (of what CBM specifically contributed) even though there was no available evidence about what anyone contributed."

This is precisely what I find so fascinating about David Moriarty, and frankly so maddening about these threads. How on earth can he claim at this point that there is no available evidence about what anyone contributed to the creation of Merion in 1911? How in the world can anyone not see what a foolish remark this really is?

One the one hand you have a report written by Hugh Wilson himself four years after the creation of Merion East in 1911 that says; "Our problem was to layout and build 18 greens and 15 fairways." Then you have his brother reporting that the entire committee told him that while they helped in various ways it was in the main Hugh Wilson who was the architect of the East and West course.

Is it really possible that David Moriarty doesn't understand what that means or doesn't appreciate what it means?

Then you have literally scores of others from back in that day saying the same thing about Hugh Wilson.

How in the world can anyone, even David Moriarty, not understand what that means? To say there is no avaibable evidence of what anyone contributed is just complete madness. Does he actually entertain the idea that all these people were collectively lying? And if he does actually think that I suggest this discussion group itself should put a stop to his threads that may be suggesting that.

[Andy Hughes]

I'm not too sure why you're constantly missing the obvious point here. For David Moriarty to even remotely prove that the fact that Wilson may not have gone to GB before Merion East went into layout, design and construction he would pretty much have to prove that means that Wilson and his committee were just not capable or able to layout, design and construct the course, or couldn't have done it without far more help from Macdonald.

Tom, for me to miss an obvious point is nothing new. I do it all the time  
But I disagree with your comment above.  If it turns out (and again, I am sure we all agree it has not been proven) that Wilson's trip to GB did not happen until after Merion was built, it would not mean that Wilson and his gang were 'incapable'. It would only mean that Wilson went on his trip after Merion was built. But it does raise some questions, for me anyway:
1. How good was Merion when built?  Somewhere between Travis' 'rough draft' and Open-worthy?  Closer to one extreme or the other? The fact the Open came so soon implies something anyway.
2. If the trip came after the course was built and the course was good initially, how the heck did they do it?
3. If DaveM is right, how much can we trust the writings of Alan Wilson, or others at the time?  Is there actually anything to show that Hugh made his trip before the course was built other than Alan's writings? (sincere question, not a loaded one)
4. An aside--MikeC makes a good point--what was CBM talking about when he lauded the site for Merion as ideal??  

[Mike_Cirba]

1. How good was Merion when built?  Somewhere between Travis' 'rough draft' and Open-worthy?  Closer to one extreme or the other? The fact the Open came so soon implies something anyway.
2. If the trip came after the course was built and the course was good initially, how the heck did they do it?
3. If DaveM is right, how much can we trust the writings of Alan Wilson, or others at the time?  Is there actually anything to show that Hugh made his trip before the course was built other than Alan's writings? (sincere question, not a loaded one)
4. An aside--MikeC makes a good point--what was CBM talking about when he lauded the site for Merion as ideal??  

Andy,

I do have to wonder as well about Macdonald's comments during a 1911 visit that a full SEVEN of the holes were as good as anything else in the country.

If the course at the time was a "rough draft", then why the hyperbole from a man stingy with praise?

How much time exactly did he spend onsite and how involved was he when he called the awkward, L-shaped, clay-based, narrow property intersected by a road splendid for golf, and then called seven roughed out, unbunkered, ungrassed holes as good as anything in the country???  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

What makes you so lovable is how quickly arrogant you can become. Whereas a more 'relaxed' person might ask, "Phil, did you actually mean that I thought Wilson went to GB in 1911? I have consistently said it was 1910. Can you show me where I said that?"

Phil would then have responded with, "Tom, how could you possibly say that? I have always stated that you have said 1910, why in my last comment I... Well would you look at that... 1911 I wrote! THAT is most definitely a typo. I thought I had written 1910. I humbly apologize for the mistake."

But since you aren't that 'relaxed' person, Tom, cut the crap with the arrogance and allow for people to make an honest mistake.

There is NO CALL for you to write phrases such as , "What's wrong with you guys? Can't you read?" The very nature of this discussion board brings out the bad typist in all of us. I believe that if you take a look at some of your own posts you might find the occasional error or two.

Tom, I know you take the importance of the great golf courses histories to heart and that your initiatives to create, preserve and protect them is most important, but you have become just a tad bit too tightly wrapped when you so quickly vent as you did.

Remember, all I was trying to state to David was that what anyone states or believes happened today doesn't change in the tiniest the actuality of what occurred and when. I was, and am, challenging him to state things as fact ONLY what is actually fact, and nothing more.

Don't worry Tom, I accept your apology!  

[TEPaul]

Phi;

See my IM

[TEPaul]

With a legitimate request, I think we'd be more than happy to supply whatever info we may possess, that we haven't already, that would make the creation of Merion East more understandable to more people but the dialogue on this thread recently isn't really worth it to us. In my opinion, and in Wayne's, and hopefully in the opinion of other reasonable minds, David Moriarty has pretty much run his string on this subject.

Let me know if anything interesting comes up that is even worth reading.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

You'll probably find this hard to believe but I surely am prepared to agree with you or side with you on one thing, and that is that the Hugh I. Wilson that is listed on that manifest who departed from Cherbourg in May of 1912 is the very same Hugh I. Wilson from Merion.

In a court of law as your opposing attorney I would be more than willing to agree to the stipulation of that fact.

Are either of us able to PROVE that beyond any question whatsover?

Of course not, but is that the point of this discussion? I don't think so. First of all, how many Hugh I. Wilsons from Philadelphia could there have been on that ship other than the one we are talking about?

That this fellow Phil Young could fixate on trying to make you prove beyond any question at all that the Hugh I. Wilson on that manifest is the same one from Merion is perhaps a greater waste of time then some of you hypotheses on here.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I do believe it, and noted it long ago.  At first, though, at least Wayne had some questions about the entry.  My question is whether there was anything specific in your information which convinced you that this was Merion's guy, or was it based on the fact that the manifest appears to be a perfect match?  

My other question for both you and Wayne is what would it take to convince you guys that this was Wilson's only oversea's trip during the years in question?  If it can be demonstrated that the databases of manifests are comprehensive and complete for the time period, will you be convinced that Alan Wilson was mistaken, or is being misinterpreted?"

David:

Finally a post we can have a decent and sane converstion on!

No, we have nothing, no information at all that confirms or convinces us that it was Merion's Wilson who sailed from Cherbourg in May of 1912. Obviously if we'd had anything at all to indicate that he was over there then it never would've been such a surprise to us that he was there in 1912 instead of 1910.

When you ask me if the manifest is a perfect match, it's hard to answer that. What's a perfect match? We have no photograph of the man sailing from Cherbourg under the name High I. Wilson of Philadelphia. If we had and it was identical to him that would be a perfect match, wouldn't it?We have no fingerprints or that would indicate a perfect match if it were Merion's Wilson, wouldn't it?

The only reason I said I would agree to stipulate that the man in the manifest from Cherbourg was Merion's Wilson, is just that in my mind what are the chances a man listed as  Hugh I. Wilson from Philadelphia sailing from Cherbourg in May 1912 was anyone other than Merion's Hugh Wilson? Is that proof positive? Of course not.

I probably wouldn't be so willing to say this if he was listed
as Hugh Wilson of Philadelphia, but Hugh I. Wllson of Philadelphia???---come on, what are the odds that a Hugh I. Wilson of Philadelpha would be someone other than Merion's Hugh Irving Wilson of Philadelphia? Prettty razor slim, I'd say! I don't know that I would convict someone and sentence them to death on that information but I sure would agree to stipulate with you it was the same guy for the purposes of this discussion about the creation of Merion.

What would it take to convince me that the Ancestary.com database was so comprehensive that if Wilson was not listed on that website and it's manifest database that there would be virtually no way that he could've gone to Europe before Merion was constructed? I don't know at this point. I suppose I'd have to test it in various ways.

I'd probably have to satisfy myself with it. Finding out exactly when Crump left for Europe, when Colt returned to England would be some of the things I'd start with and I probably will. Testing it with other questions of people traveling over there I'm certain of would help to.

This is all a separate issue to me, however, because although we never knew when Wilson went to GB in 1910 or even if he did go to GB in 1910 or 1911, it was never a factor in whether or not he layed out, designed and constructed that golf course as the record from many sources say he did.

As a number of people have said to you on here, determining that one fact in the history of Merion's creation was not completely accurate does not mean to us that all of the facts in Merion's creation are not accurate.

Courtroom lawyers may try various techniques to shake the veracity to a jury of a witness's testimony by bringing into question a single thing they said that may be less than the truth but I do not believe that is something that is necessary to do with the history of Merion or with the reports on the history of Merion of the Wilsons, and numerous others that confirm their accounts.
   
If someone chooses to try to prove all of them wrong, given all the evidence extant, the burden of proof is not on us to prove them right, the burden of proof is on the one who is trying to prove all of them wrong.