Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference of opinion. There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion.
I think all we have discussed ad nauseum are my affirmative theories. The other side's affirmative theories have been treated as some sort of default position, and these guys seeem think that if the scream and holler enough about how it was obviously Wilson and Co., then that ought to be good enough. It isn't. They haven't even begun to make the case that Wilson and Co. were responsible, or even primarily responsible. Because
they cannot make their case. Brauer's repeated misstatements of the record are proof of this. They have to make stuff up to even begin to try and make their case.
And Jeff continues to misrepresent the record.
1. These conversations would go much smoother if Brauer and Co. would actually bother to read and try to understand the source material. Instead, he just replaces one misstatement about the record with another, going from having been being wrong about Pickering to being wrong about Johnson Contractors. The April 19th
resolution had nothing to do with hiring Johnson Contractors, it dealt with acquiring the land necessary to lay out the golf course according to CBM and HJW's plan. The April 19 Lesley Report indicated that by that date, Merion already had an "agreement" with Johnson Contractors.
2. He states as fact that the Lesley Report was "read and copied" rather than a written report, but there is no evidence to support this claim. And if it was "READ and copied" then it was written in advance. It would have been an easy matter to copy it verbatim into the minutes from the WRITTEN report, just like Sayres did with the CBM letter, the other Lesley report, and the various letters that were copied into the record. It should be treated as "if someone was sitting at a desk and writing something," because even in Jeff's baseless assumption this is exactly what would have happened. Given Lesley's skill and experience as a writer there is no reason to just ignore and dismiss key phrases like, "
Upon our return we rearranged the course . . . " as filler or a repetitious and nonsensical connector phrase.
3. Brauer admits the phrase "routing" wasn't even in use, which again raises the question of why he is inserting such words into the Minutes.
4. His treatment of "lay out" is incoherent. "To me, lay out is the same . . ." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Anyone?
5. Brauer continues to insist that Lesley's report is addressing the activities of the Construction Committee. He admits that this is not what the record indicates, but nonetheless speculates that the Minutes might clarify the Committee to which the Lesley report is referring.
a. Jeff knows damn well that if there was anything remotely supporting his claim that it was the CONSTRUCTION Committee, the Fakers would have been all over it and we'd have known about it long ago.
b. The Fakers have admitted that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ANYWHERE IN THE MINUTES DURING THIS PERIOD.
c. The version of the report brought forward by the Fakers does explicitly clarify which committee. "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows . . .."
d. The Resolution of the same date confirms this, "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing . . . "
e. Lesley was NOT A MEMBER OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, yet much of his report, for the GOLF COMMITTEE, is written in first person.
So WHAT EXACTLY SUPPORTS BRAUER'S NOTION THAT IT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE? Aside from wishful thinking on his part?
Brauer's approach here typifies their approach to all these issues. The facts as we know them all point to the Golf Committee. But he wants it to be the Construction Committee, and wishes it was the construction committee. So he just pretends maybe it was the construction committee despite the facts, and without offering anything remotely resembling factual support.Granted, Wilson was apparently at NGLA. But the fakers let slip that he was put on a committee other than the Construction Committee and they have hinted it was either the golf committee or the site committee. So putting him there doesn't help us with the "construction committee."
6. Likewise he broad brushes the Alan Wilson letter and claims that the Alan Wilson letter, written a dozen years after the fact by someone who wasn't even there, is a "Primary Source." It is not even close. Plus it is not even c lear from the Alan Wilson letter who A. Wilson thought went to NGLA!
7. As for his irrelevant tangents into the swap, that is covered plenty elsewhere.
8. He asks what is more likely? What is more likely is that Lesley meant what he wrote. It is also more likely that . . .
-
Upon their return from NGLA, the Golf Committee rearranged the course based on what CBM had instructed and laid out (marked off) five different plans (variations) on that course, as instructed by CBM. - Then CBM and HJW returned to go over it all again and reviewed the various plans on the layout they had suggested, and came up with the final layout plan.
- Then Wilson's Construction Committee was formed and Wilson and his Committee attempted to lay out the course according to CBM/HJW's plan.
9. I his comments to me, again Jeff disingenuously claims that Lesley indicated that "the committee went" to NGLA. If he means THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (which he obviously does) then HE KNOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I mean really, how many times is he going to try and misrpresent this?
10. He asks why the site committee would carry on with the design. That is how convoluted this discussion has become.
- Lesley's Committee was involved with question of the design from the beginning, which is why they brought in CBM and HJW in the first place - to figure out whether a first class course was possible - and why CBM and HJW were advising them on the design beginning in June 1910.
- It is also why Barker did his routing and why that routing was provided to Merion.
- It was Lesley's Committee that was dealing with the design
because Merion did not want to purchase property unless until they were certain they could build a first class course, and this meant that could not commit to the purchase until the had figured out a design. And even then they hedged, leaving open the possibility of tweaking the borders even after they agreed to the purchase.
- That is why Lesley's report repeatedly discuss the golf course, Barker's routing, CBM/HJW's input, etc. and why CBM was dealing with Lesley's committee.
- It is also why everything from Wilson focuses on agronomy and construction. The construction committee wasn't there to plan the course, he was there to lay it out according to CBM/HJW's plan, and build it.
- Even the fakers admit that the actual land transfer hadn't even yet taken place as of April 1911. Why would Lesley's committee have disengaged if the final transfer of land had not yet even occurred?
Jeff argues that they did not begin laying out the course until after April 19, 1911. Yet we know that the plan for the golf course had been in the works, one way or another, since the previous summer. This raises the real question:
WHY WOULD THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE HAVE EVEN BEEN INVOLVED BEFORE IT WAS TIME TO LAY OUT AND CONSTRUCT THE COURSE?