Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[Mark Pearce]

This entire thread and the "essay" it is based on are ridiculously premature.  Until the final report and the identity of the "Agency" and experts are available it is entirely worthless and proves nothing.  It is not worth debating at this point.

Phil,

Do I understand you to be saying that the identity of the [Agency] and the experts will never be published?  If so, the report has no value.  I simply don't believe that a forensic agency would wish to remain anonymous because David Moriarty might contradict them.  These people regularly give evidence in law suits and are used to having their findings challenged far harder than they will be here.  I'm afraid that their apparent demand for anonymity damages the credibility of anything in your essay.  If I read wrong and they will be identified once the full report is available, then would it not have been better to wait?

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

If you never said David Scott-Taylor was from Holyhead in his youth, then that is my misrecollection.  Where was he from in his youth, after arriving from India?  The Medical Journal indicates Alyth.  I this accurate or not?

I represented that the signature was of "David Scott-Taylor" signed about ten years after the Road Hole drawing signature was supposedly signed, and it was.  I'd gladly tell you where I got it, but I am afraid that the information I provide you will be used by Ian to further massage the story.  You may not like this but it is again me being honest.  If you (as opposed to Ian) really do have then answers to my questions, then surely we can work this out though. How about an exchange of information?  You provide me with information I request, and I provide you with the information you request.  At the same time.  Or if you don't trust me in that wecould do it through a third party.

As for my ignoring the information in the "initial report" by unnamed institutions and experts, what else would you have me do?   It is a fools game to debate ghosts and snippets.

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. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

I am a bit concerned about the authenticators wishing to remain outside public scrutiny. This is certainly not the modus operandi I am familiar with in such cases. Experts always stand with their name for anything they evaluate, appraise or authenticate.

I have no problems with the family wishing to withhold this information, assuming they don't plan to sell the documents, but merely would like to make them available to trustworthy researchers. That is entirely their business for as long as they hold on to the documents.

But I have absolutely no idea why the authenticators wouldn't want their names to be publically known - after all, that is exactly the point of authentication.

Ulrich

[Neil_Crafter]

David
It seems fairly likely that the signature that you purport to be that of David Scott-Taylor comes from the 1911 English Census. Yes?

Taking a signature on this record at face value is rather risky I would say. As an example here is Dr Mackenzie's 1911 census form, with his 'signature' highlighted. Is this his signature? Clearly it is not. But it is his census form though, and very likely filled in and signed by his wife Edith. If you purported that this one example of his signature was authentic, and all the other known examples were some other person or were forgeries you'd be laughed at or worse taken away by the men in white coats.

Well that is exactly what you are doing with David Scott-Taylor. he did not sign that document, most likely his wife did on his behalf which seem quite a common practice.

[Neil_Crafter]

David I do need to offer an apology to you as when you stated that I had said the documents were 100% authentic I said that I hadn't. But checking back over my posts I now see that I did in fact say that. So I apologise for this.

In this case though I believe the documents were authenticated 100%. There were no reservations on the part of the authenticators in saying that they were genuine. There was no equivocation where you could say they were 50% or 75% genuine. They stated they were genuine, which to my mind = 100%. In a case like this either the documents are genuine or they are not. 0% or 100%. Nothing in between. Quite different I would say from attributing a painting to a particular artist where there is room for doubt and shades of grey. Either the David Scott-Taylor documents are genuine or they are not. They found them to be genuine.

[Mark Pearce]

Neil,

Again, until the identity of the authenticators is revealed the report is of no value.  Aren't you even slightly concerned at their very odd anonymity?

[DMoriarty]

Neil,
It is indeed from the 1901 census!  Good on you for figuring it out and resolving my standoff with Phil.

I disagree with your blanket conclusions about the value of the information.  I do wish you would refrain from making claims about what "exactly" I am trying to do.  Thanks.   

As for your second post, your apology is accepted.

I am not going bother to argue with your strong opinions about the partial findings in an unseen report by unnamed experts.  How could I?  I haven't seen the report!  All I can go by is what I see, and what I see are too many problems with this material to count.
_________________________________________________

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?  Thanks. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark, that is your opinion which you are entitled to. Am I concerned by their anonymity? Of course it would be better if Phil could release the name of the institution, but that's not in my control. Or his.

David, you make no comment at all on the Mackenzie census form being signed by his wife and the likelihood that exactly that is the case with the DS-T census form? Your 'gotcha' moment is looking increasingly less so. Perhaps now you might like to post the whole form.

And thanks for accepting my apology.

I am also curious about what 'claims' I made about what you are trying to do? I have no idea what you are trying to do!

[Mark Pearce]

Neil,

Of course it is just opinion and I understand yours is different.  In your opinion would it have been better for this essay to have waited until the [Agency] could be identified?

[DMoriarty]

Neil,

Do you really believe that, if something odd might have happened on the MacKenzie census form, then there is "a likelihood that exactly" the same thing happened on the David Scott-Taylor census form?

Like many here you seem to be confusing mere possibility with absolute probability.

[Marty Bonnar]

I've just examined the Plan for Alwoodley in the Doak life and work (pages 12 and 13), drawn and annotated by MacK in 1907. The handwriting on that plan is entirely similar to the signature on the census. What is different is all the other handwriting on the census. Even the address line. I rather suspect that his wife or someone else did indeed fill in the form, but MacK signed it. I'd also suggest that his signature and handwriting style evolved over the years. I know mine certainly has!

PS as an example, look at the lower case r's in 'Alexander' and 'Harrogate'. Completely different!

F.

[Neil_Crafter]

Marty, sorry you are not going to beat me on Mackenzie signatures and handwriting I'm afraid

Here's one from the exact same year 1911.



and another a few years earlier from 1908.



and for comparison the one from the 1911 Census



Look at the 'M', the 'K' and the 'z' on the census signature, nothing like the ones on the exemplars. Mackenzie's 'M' consistently has a big first upstroke and a smaller rest of the letter, whereas the Census one is more even height across the letter. The 'z' is totally different and is not connected to the next letter whereas Mackenzie's is clearly linked to the next letter.

And finally, MacKenzie signing with his address of Moor Allerton Lodge, Leeds ca1926 on a copy of Hunter's book. I rest my case.

[Neil_Crafter]

Neil,

Do you really believe that, if something odd might have happened on the MacKenzie census form, then there is "a likelihood that exactly" the same thing happened on the David Scott-Taylor census form?

Like many here you seem to be confusing mere possibility with absolute probability.

David, of course it is only a likelihood, but a pretty high one I'd say. If you have a series of known signatures by a person that are all similar, and then you have one that is not the same, two things are likely. Either the person signing is a different David Scott-Taylor, or that someone else signed the document on the first person's behalf. I would have thought that was not difficult to comprehend.

I have asked you to post the whole form, but have not seen it as yet. If you are going to raise these things at least share them in full so we can see them not edited extracts. Thankyou.

Mark, perhaps it would have been better to wait, but I was not a party to that decision making.

[DMoriarty]

Neil,
I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Do you believe that the "likelihood" is "pretty high" that David Scott-Taylor's wife forged his signature on the 1911 census form?  If so, do you believe this because the signature on the 1911 census form does not match the alleged DST signatures as provided by Ian Scott-Taylor?

Does it matter at all to you that a substantial portion of the information thus far provided by Ian Scott-Taylor has has proven to be fictitious?  
_________________________________


You've asked me to post the whole census form.  I can''t stop you or anyone else from posting it, and whether it is posted or not, Phil has probably seen it by now. But still, I'd rather wait until Phil has the opportunity to answer my questions before I post the form.

Phil and Ian control the diaries which they claim will answer all of are questions. So isn't it about time they began answering some of our questions?  After all, they have all the facts, don't they?

What reason could they possibly have for refusing to identify David Scott-Taylor's first wife and children, if any?  

What reason could they possibly have for refusing to identify where David Scott-Taylor grew up as a kid?

[Neil_Crafter]

David
I sense your tone is getting a bit strident. Please take a chill pill. All that underlining, hope you don't resort to the Muccian green text.

Who are you exactly to demand all these things from Ian and Phil?

At no stage have I seen a post from Phil where he refused to name DS-T's first wife and children, nor that he refused to identify where he grew up as a child. You truly think that the family doesn't know these facts?

Your demands will be ignored I expect while you carry on like a baby who has chucked his toys from the cot.

Don't play games with the census form. We have a saying in Australia, "put up or shut up". So either post it or not, your choice, but please spare us your demands.

Having a wife sign a census form on her husband's behalf is not what I call 'forgery' but I guess a trial lawyer and professional arguer like yourself sees these things in black or white. If the census form is of Ian's grandfather's family, then the signature is not his because it doesn't match the known examples including his will, where one can be quite certain that the right man signed it. Then the most obvious conclusion is that Ian's wife signed it on his behalf. So yes, I think the likelihood is fairly high. You obviously think it is next to impossible. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Adam Lawrence]

Ian's wife?

I don't believe we have seen the DST signature from the will. Perhaps someone could post that for comparison? The only one we have is from the purported 'Scores Hotel' dinner. It should be noted that, as previously discussed, there is a remarkable similarity between that signature and the way Ian signs his name.

[DMoriarty]

David
I sense your tone is getting a bit strident.

Your "sense" is misleading you.  Im not the one making demands, calling names and dropping insults.  That'd be you.

I've asked what ought to be a few very simple questions.  If Phil answers then great.  If he won't answer, all the better.  

I've explained my position on the census form and your demands, insults, and brow beating aren't going to change it.  As I said, I can't stop you or anyone from posting jt yourself if you'd like.

[Neil_Crafter]

Typo Adam. Thanks for your editing.
Go back towards the start of the thread and you'll see another example of DS-Ts signature on the bottom right of one of the diary pages. As for the will signature I haven't seen it and I very much doubt it would be posted here in any event. My understanding is that the authenticators used it in verifying signatures. Any more requests Adam?

David, its not just the questions it's the way you've asked them. Would you blame Phil for not answering them? As for your position on the census form you haven't explained your position on it from what I have read. As it happens I haven't seen the census form so I can't say anything about its contents apart from the probability I summarised in my last post. Don't be precious David. Just post it and stop playing games.

[Mark Pearce]

My understanding is that the authenticators used it in verifying signatures.

Neil,

Sorry to ask more of you but you appear more dispassionate than Phil and more willing to answer questions objectively.  Is this understanding based on a statement in the report?  Have you seen the report and do you know who the [Agency] is?

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks Mark, I'm doing my best to be under somewhat trying conditions!
No I don't believe it is. I believe Phil mentioned it.
And the answer to your last two questions are yes and yes.

[Mark Pearce]

Thanks, Neil.

[DMoriarty]

Trying conditions, Neil?  So sorry that all your name calling, insults, and demands are getting you down.

At least four times now you have demanded I post my research, yet at the same time you ridicule me for asking a few basic questions.  Go figure?

I've confirmed the source of the signature I posted.  Surely between you and Phil you can find it and post it yourself, if you see fit. 

Thanks.

[Mark Pearce]

David,

Can I add my voice to Tony's and ask you to tone it down.  Your aggressive adversarial approach isn't helping anyone get to the truth here.  I also have my doubts as to the provenance of these documents and regret that Phil and Ran saw fit to go public with this essay whilst the identity of the expert [Agency] was embargoed.  Let's not turn this into another Merion thread but, by asking pertinent questions, let's get to the bottom of this story.  Your analytical approach has already benefited the discussion, let's not let that incision get lost in point scoring nastiness.

Phil,

Please answer David's questions.  Evasion does't look good.

[Rich Goodale]

I always find it sweetly ironic when Tom MacWood (RIP) is continuouslty cited by a (seemingly) living person as a champion of "the truth," given that Foulepointe comes immediately to mind.....

[Phil Young]

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.