Good evening Jeff.
Tom MacWood has no agenda of which I know. And his Barker theory, which is just a theory, has something else going for it besides the article. We know for sure that Barker did a routing. That is more than we can say for absolutely certain about anyone else. You used to be an advocate for the position that included Barker, arguing that it was likely a collaboration and a progression where the different parties built upon each others' ideas. You sure have moved away from that position. What happened?
MacWood's theory is just that. If you don't want to discuss it then don't. But I see no reason for you to insist that it doesn't even merit consideration because as far as I can tell, it is as good or better than many of the theories out there. At least we know Barker did a routing, at least we know he was in demand at the time, at least we know that he had some experience, and at least we know that one source reported that he was hired. That is a lot more than we know about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process around this same time. Barker is a possibility. Personally I think his involvement was earlier, but I have no strong evidence that he was NOT involved in December as well.
Sometimes that is the best we can do, look at various theories and see if we can eliminate them. So far, we certainly cannot eliminate Barker. Frankly there is much more reason to eliminate Wilson for whatever happened before NGLA, but I am not willing to eliminate him either
You wrote:
TEPaul does think he knows what happened, but then again, so do you, Tom MacWood and others. No one knows what we know for sure. Does he have an agenda? Perhaps, but its getting clearer that Tom M also has one. Maybe you do, too, although we are all guility of calling our opinions "calls for truth" and others opinions "agendas."
There is a fundamental difference between my and TomM's methodology on the one hand, and TEPaul's on the other. When Tom and I propose a theory or make a claim, we put it out there for everyone to see, and provide the support for vetting and verification. So you can look at what Tom says about Barker and disagree with him. TEPaul does not play by this most basic rule. Instead he demands that we believe him without vetting his claims and without verifying his facts. This cannot stand. He's got to back up his claims with facts for verification same as anyone else.
With transparency, our "agendas" if we have them are readily visible to everyone. While TEPaul obviously has an agenda, the real problem is the lack of transparency and verifiability with his claims.
I am not suspicious of TePaul as you and Tom Mac are. I understand the reasons why he won't share. IMHO, one of the prime methods of stirring up interest in any conspiracy theory is to try to discredit the official record or its keepers. (Think Warren Commission here) You have done that and TMac beats the drum.
No one is accusing Merion of anything. I just want to vet the claims against me and verify the facts.
What do you suppose your oft cited "historian" would say about a discussion where one side rips the other side and claims to have all the answers, but then refuses to support their claims with facts, and refuses to let their claims be vetted? Any "historian" who tried that would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever and would be shunned quicker than a cheat. Yet that is the situation we have here.
Let me put it this way, let's assume that TEPaul and Wayne were above board and had pure intentions in all of this. In other words let's set their motivations aside. I still would not take their word for anything nor should anyone else who is seriously interested in getting at the truth. That is why we have discussions. To vet arguments. That is why academia has extensive peer review. That is why facts are checked and reconsidered. And, again, without attacking or even considering their motivations, look at how many mistakes and misrepresentations they have made! If we had took their word for it without challenging them we would still think that all CBM did was help Wilson plan for his pre-design trip abroad.
For another example, unlike you I have faith in Tom MacWood's motivations, but I still don't accept his theories or interpretations without verifying the facts and vetting his claims. Blindly accepting what he writes as true would be harmful to our ultimate goal which is to figure out what really happened. So usually that means that we ought to question and question and question until we are absolutely sure we have it, and then we need to hold that up to the rest of the world so they can question some more. That is what I expect will be done with any and all of my claims, and it is what needs to be done with theirs.
Going back to the Barker theory, I keep asking Tom Mac why he thinks its a victory for Barker to have been hired in December and apparently fired by March, given the club doesn't mention him and obviously didn't take his advice because they again turned to CBM for advice. Are you really saying you believe in Tom Mac's theory, given that it contradicts your own considering CBM? I have trouble following three theories on this thread, especially if a major participant tells me that he believes in two of them!
A victory for him to get hired and then fired? What does this have to do with figuring out what really happened? If the facts indicate that this was the case, then so be it. That is a major difference in approach here. Many seem to be acting as advocates for certain men or positions, and it is really hard not to given all the hostility, but ultimately I don't really look at that way. I just want to figure out who did what. If someone looks better or worse in the process, then believe it or not, that is not really my concern. Let me put it this way, if the final result of all of this is that we find a Hugh Wilson plan, or a letter describing where he departed with CBM and how he went his own way, and it explains what happened, then I will come out of this the winner. All I want is to get all the facts on the table, and to hopefully figure out who did what, no matter where the chips fall. If this happens I will be satisfied.
Do I "believe" TomMacWood's theory? I believe it is possible that it happened the way that he has theorized. I don't think it is the most likely scenario, and I have a few possible alternate explanations regarding a few of his facts. But it is definitely possible that it happened the way he surmised, and I'd be a fool to throw out possible scenarios with some evidential backing without good reason.
By the way, I feel the same way about the possibility of Hugh Wilson and his Committee trying to lay out the course or at least fiddling with an inherited preliminary routing in early 1911. There have been a few representations that -- if they are ever verified as accurate -- would support this scenario. And while I see it as unlikely, it is not impossible that it could have happened this way, so I leave open the possibility. My objection is with those who insist that this is definitely the case, and those who insist I must accept others' representations as FACTS.
Or, are you just busting my theory up by comparing it to another unsupportable theory of TMacs? If so, that's okay by me. At least its civil discussion!
I really do think TomM's theory has more support. More importantly, TomM has not claimed his theory resolves the issue and is based on irrefutable facts! You have made these types of claims, and this is counterproductive. And, in short, even if you are correct about the borders being flexible, this does not address the question of how much was done before January 1, 1911, or even whether the francis swap took place during this time period. So I don't think your theory amounts to much factually or rhetorically.