Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[Phil Young]

Mark Pierce:

“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.” 

No Mark that is not what I am saying. In the future the names of the authenticating agencies and individuals will be made public. The family itself recognizes that this is an eventuality that must happen. If it was up to them the names would have been made public now. But they understand and honor the requests made by the solicitors and agencies/individuals involved that it not happen at this time. See my further comments to Ulrich below.

Ulrich:

“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.”

In addition to what I wrote above you must appreciate that a number of those on here made life quite difficult for several people not directly involved with the drawings/diaries except in a peripheral way and others who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. It got to the point where the probate process for Ian’s mother was held up and for no good reason at all.

As they are well aware of this they’ve decided that this is not something that they wish to have any involvement with from a group “of rank amateurs” which is how they view all on here.

So when will the names become available? I can give no specific date at this time. I would refer those who haven’t gone through the new essay to read where, in the next to last paragraph, I wrote:

“Should the family decide to donate the collection, the [Agency] would be more than pleased to aid and assist in finding a home for this unique collection of historical items. This concludes the document forensic analysis of the drawings and diaries submitted to the [Agency].”

I can say that several of the major institutions involved have requested that the family loan the diaries to them for study and display. That is an example of a case where the names would be made known.
   
“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.”

Once the estate is finally probated the drawings and diaries will be made available to, as you said, “trustworthy researchers.” That said the family will be the ones who decide who qualify as “trustworthy” in this regard.

“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.”

Actually that isn’t the “point of authentication.” The point of it is to provide an authenticating service which proves or disproves a claim made about them to and for the person who hired them to do it. As this wasn’t an authentication made for a public client, but for a private one, the solicitors of the Mrs. Scott-Taylor estate, the revealing of identities are the sole province of the solicitors and they have limited this information at this time.

To clear up one other question, that of why did I publish this information now and before the final report comes out?

When I left the site I said that I would come back and provide information that dealt with the essay. As I was allowed to use this information for this very purpose I chose to do so because there were already comments coming back to me along the lines of "I guess Phil has conceded victory on this." I felt that attitude needed to be answered. In addition I've provided extremely detailed and highly professional information dealing with the specifics of each area of the drawings and diaries that can be examined by any person interested in doing so.

[DMoriarty]

Rich, 

Interesting that you would mention Foulepointe. I had nothing do with it, but it is my understanding that Foulepointe was just as much Ran's doing as it was Tom's.  Neither of them took kindly to those who freely "borrowed" from the hard work and research of those who post on this site without properly crediting those responsible for the work, so they planted false information to expose those people for what they are.

I've often thought of "Foulepointe" in the context of these discussions.  It is really not my style, but had I been more cunning, I would have included one Foulepointe-false-fact in the information I privately provided Phil when I was successfully proving to him that many of the key elements of Ian's original St. Andrew's story were false.  If I had, I don't think we'd still be having these discussions.  In my opinion the false fact would have very likely found its way into the alleged diaries.
 
But unfortuately, I am neither as smart nor as cunning as Tom was.  Like a fool I trusted Phil and went to him with the honest intention of helping him extricate himself from what I consider to be an ugly situation, and I freely shared all of my information with him.

 It never occurred to me me that he would go behind my back and provide all of my research to the person who I believe was responsible for the false information which has been passed off here as irrefutable fact. 

Live and learn, which is why I am not inclined to provide Ian with more of my research than I already have.
________________________________________________________

Mark Pearce, 

While I appreciate and share your concern with the tone of the discussion, I think that perhaps your admonition is directed at the wrong party, or at the very least ought to go both ways.   Review the posts, particularly Neil's.  In the past few days I have had more than a few insulting and nasty comments directed at me.  I have had my methodology questioned, my skills maligned, my motives challenged, and have been called a number of rude and childish names. 

For the most part, I have tried to ignore this juvenile nonsense and stick to the issues.  Admittedly I haven't been perfect in this regard, but I am only human, and when repeatedly attacked I occasionally hit back. 

I'll try harder to ignore it in the future.    But if you want a better tone, then perhaps someone ought to have a private word with Neil.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

Thanks for post 49.  Most of the post seems to revisit our prior exchange, so let me save time and just refer you back to my prior responses.  No use beating a dead horse. As for your references near the end to our offline discussions, I'll just state that I agree with some and disagree with some, but I don't think that this is the time of the place to get into it.

I'd like to move on and try to make this conversation more productive, but honestly I have no idea what you want from me.  

Here is what I said when I introduced the signature in post No. 3:  "The bottom signature was written by 'David Scott-Taylor' about a decade later."

Since then I have confirmed that the signature came from the 1911 census form of David Scott-Taylor.  

So far as I am concerned my claim (highlighted above) is true on its face. David Scott-Taylor's 1911 census form contains a signature reading "David Scott-Taylor."  So far as I am concerned this speaks for itself.  That is my proof.

You don't have to believe me.  You don't have to accept that this was the same David Scott-Taylor.  You can even go with the theory that it must have been someone else who signed the form.   But for me it is much more straight forward.  I have a copy of David Scott-Taylor's census form, and the signature reads "David Scott-Taylor."  I am aware of no other.  

I've explained to you the source of the signature and explained my reasoning.  So what else you want?  

[Mark Pearce]

Phil,

Just a small point but your eye for detail isn't what it might be.  My name is correctly spelt on this site, it probably isn't too much to expect that it be spelt correctly in a response to one of my posts!

As I have said before, I am really puzzled that the demand for anonymity comes, apparently, from the solicitors and experts.  That is very, very odd.  As, frankly, is the suggestion that the experts were disparaging about people on this board.  In fact that throw away line casts more doubt in my mind as to the truth of this tale.  It really would be in everyone's best interests for the identity of the experts and the full report to be published now. Someone has paid a lot of money for that report, they have the right to publish it.

[DMoriarty]

Again Phil, I would like to move the discussion forward.

Do you have answers to my questions about David Scott Taylor's first wife and children (if any) and where he lived after he came from Scotland as a boy? If so, then let's work this out.  

I'll give you a copy of the census form at the same time you give me the answers to my questions. We can do it through a third person who will not forward on the information until he has both sets.

Deal?

[DMoriarty]

Well that was quick.  I just reached out to Phil on the telephone and had a very brief conversation that did not end amicably.  His answer was an unequivocal No.

He will not provide any information about David Scott-Taylor's family or upbringing until I not only post the census form, but also provide him with all my facts and reasoning backing up my opinion that the person on the census form is Ian's grandfather.

It is unreasonable for him to demand that I turn over my research to him, especially given the nature of my past dealings with Phil and Ian, so we had nothing further to discuss.

So much for moving the conversation forward.

[John Kavanaugh]

Well that was quick.  I just reached out to Phil on the telephone and had a very brief conversation that did not end amicably.  His answer was an unequivocal No.

He will not provide any information about David Scott-Taylor's family or upbringing until I not only post the census form, but also provide him with all my facts and reasoning backing up my opinion that the person on the census form is Ian's grandfather.

It is unreasonable for him to demand that I turn over my research to him, especially given the nature of my past dealings with Phil and Ian, so we had nothing further to discuss.

So much for moving the conversation forward.

It was anything but quick and it wasn't a conversation.

[DMoriarty]

It was anything but quick and it wasn't a conversation.

It lasted less than a few minutes. That seems quick to me.  You are correct it wasn't much of a conversation though. I proposed my deal, and then it was mostly Phil yelling at me about how I had done this and that and needed to do this and that.  I told him "nice talking to you" and hung up.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Good one. Like you have ever actually hung up.

[DMoriarty]

**deleted**  Darn it.   I went after the bait so soon after I said I wouldn't.  I'll try harder next time.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Phil,

an authentication is never a mathematical proof in the sense that it cannot be wrong. Many attributions and authentications have been wrong in the past. Forgeries have gone undetected for decades, despite an armada of experts being on the task. There is always an ounce of trust required. Hence, no self-respecting expert would ask for his name to be withheld from an evaluation he made for a client - because the name of the expert and his reputation are a large part of the service.

Again: an expert has no problem remaining anonymous if the client wishes so. But he would never himself hesitate to put his name under his work.

I find it especially hard to believe that a bunch of "rank amateurs" on this board would be so scary to a real expert that he thinks they could damage his reputation by anything they post. Again: if the family decides they want no business with a bunch of online crackheads, that would be understandable. But you stated that it wasn't the family, but the experts!

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

an authentication is never a mathematical proof in the sense that it cannot be wrong. Many attributions and authentications have been wrong in the past. Forgeries have gone undetected for decades, despite an armada of experts being on the task.

I think this a key point, and would add that competent experts understand these limitations. Yet here we are being told that these experts are making statements of absolute certainty, and that this material has been "proven 100%."  This isn't consistent with my experience of how competent experts approach such issues.  They can offer their opinion and explain its basis, but to claim that they have proven that a signature is not a forgery with absolute certainty?  I've never heard of such a thing.

[David_Elvins]

Disappointed this thread has turned into a predictable shitfight because it is a fascinating topic.  

Phil,
an authentication is never a mathematical proof in the sense that it cannot be wrong. Many attributions and authentications have been wrong in the past. Forgeries have gone undetected for decades, despite an armada of experts being on the task.

Ulrich,  

I agree with you on this.  I found the following comments quoted from the authentication report particularly jarring in their certainty.  Perhaps I do not understand British culture, and others are more qualified to comment, but such certainty in an expert report seems strange to me.

“...there is no question that all of the drawings submitted by the Scott-Taylor family are genuine and was authored by Mr. A. W. Tillinghast.”

"...This concludes that all the gentlemen’s signatures on this document are genuine and are written at the time dated. This proves that the documents are genuine.”  It does? Seriously?

In my open mind it raises the possibility that the authentication report is fake or compiled by people who are not experts.  The failure to name the authors of the report, even for legitimate reasons, only adds to this train of thought. 

They know that absolute certainty just isn't possible.

David,

Even though I haven enjoyed the fascinating information you have brought forward, with the greatest respect can I say that I think the discussion would have gone better if you had not given the impression that you were absolutely certain that the drawings were a forgery.

[Neil_Crafter]

David
If I truly have insulted you by the use of phrases such as "professional arguer", "childish" and "like a baby throwing his toys out of the cot" then I apologise. At the time I didn't realise just how egregious those insults were and I will keep such insults to myself in future.

I haven't seen the full census form, despite you somehow thinking that I have. Should you decide to post it then there will likely be a basis for ongoing discussion and perhaps some resolution. If you don't post it, which is of course you're prerogative, then I personally can see nothing further to discuss with you. That is not any sort of ultimatum, just my position. You do what you think best.

Also David, the report doesn't contain the phrase "100% certainty" as you well recall I used the phrase "proven 100%" or something similar, which you pulled me up on at the time. Either this material is genuine or it is not. No middle ground.

I see now you have happily divulged the details of a personal phone call you had with Phil, over which you sounded quite triumphant. I'm sure its likely that Phil may have a different take on how the conversation went.

David E
Interesting to hear that you think the authentication report may be a fake. So a fake authentication report to 'authenticate' a fake set of documents (comprising many plans and thousands of hand written diary pages mind you) brought onto this website for discussion. Yeah, well that seems likely.....

I can assure you that the report is not a fake, and was contributed to by a host of different specialists in their fields from across Britain's top institutions. But don't take my word on that.

[John Kavanaugh]

We have had experts come and go on this site because because of people like me and even David. The internet is full of those stories. Experts deserve better than chat room interrogations.

Ask yourself given the history of the Merion threads, this thread and hundreds of rating threads, would you waste your time with this site for free if it was how you got paid?  Add historical documents to the long list of forbidden subjects.

Please name one internet site with public access where experts subject themselves to the type of questioning Moriarty will come out with guns a blazing. That ship has passed.

The large majority of us can't even discuss courses we love without being persecuted. God forbid it be a course you own.

[DMoriarty]

David Elvins,
While that is a fair comment and I understand why you would get this impression, I nonetheless don't think it is quite accurate.  I don't think I've ever posted that I am absolutely certain that the drawings were forgeries.  In fact, I don't think I have ever posted that any of the material was a "forgery" or "forged."  I believe the language I used when I first brought the issue public was that I had "serious reservations" about the authenticity of the documents.   I still have serious reservations, and the more I learn, the more reservations I have.
________________________________________________

Neil, I don't think the conversation will suffer much if you refrain from discussing anything further with me.  As for your supposed apology, nice to see you are still keeping classy.

[David_Elvins]

David E
Interesting to hear that you think the authentication report may be a fake.

I think the report, diaries and drawings are most likely authentic.  But I would be silly not to be open minded to the possibility that parts of the diaries, drawings and reports may be faked.

I can assure you that the report is not a fake, and was contributed to by a host of different specialists in their fields from across Britain's top institutions. But don't take my word on that.

Whilst I am not familiar with the authentication industry, in the current global environment where ratings agencies are paid by companies to give  them glowing reports and Britain's most prominent science 'expert' - Lord Monckton - is neither a Lord or a Scientist, it would be completely unwise of me to accept that an anonymous report is infallible based on you and Phil describing the authors as 'experts', 'from top institutions' etc.   The idea that any industry is not corrupted by dodgy 'experts' and people having their opinion influenced by potential income is difficult to believe.  Until the bona fides of the experts in question are tested, I will keep an open mind as to the quality of the report. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Neil, I don't think the conversation will suffer much if you refrain from discussing anything further with me.  As for your supposed apology, nice to see you are still keeping classy.

David, I take it that's a no to posting your census form then? I'm actually quite pleased you think that way, as my life will be immeasurably enriched by not engaging you in this discussion, and you will eventually end up discussing your suspicions on here with yourself.

David E, just a question re your last comment -  I wonder how would you propose to test the bona fides of the experts? Experts to vet the experts? Who is to say then that the experts you engage to vet the experts are actually experts? Quickly a vicious circle. In this case the authenticating agency outsourced various parts of the authentication to people and organisations whom they believed to be experts in their field, while undertaking some of the assessments and investigations in house. There are at least 7 or 8 outside agencies involved apart from the main authenticating agency. This was not done by some private lab down a backstreet somewhere near Heathrow. These are major UK public institutions. I just wish I could tell you who they are.

[David_Elvins]

David E, just a question re your last comment -  I wonder how would you propose to test the bona fides of the experts?

IMO, It's not about testing, its about transparency. 

IMO, there is no point having historical facts (or contemporary facts) without context.  At the moment we are high on facts but low on context, although your role in the authentication process no doubt gives you more context than the rest of us. 

[Neil_Crafter]

David E I thought you had said about testing their bona fides?
And for clarification I have had no role in this authentication. I have just seen the prelim report mate.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It's quite easy: if someone commissioned Tom Doak as an expert to testify on the quality of some detail of course construction or course design, then I'd say: yes, here we have a reputable expert. And while he still may be wrong, I'd have no reservations about his bona fide. However, if someone commissioned Joe Blow, then I'd have more reservations - even though Joe Blow may turn out to have been right all along (and thus add to his bona fide for next time).

In other words: people interested in or professionally involved with a certain field will KNOW who the experts are.

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

Neil,

Interesting that there are a number of institutions involved here.  That in itself seems slightly unusual.  As David, Ulrich and I have all said, it is the absolute certainty of the conclusion that jars most.  It seems to jump to a conclusion that the scientific tests cannot justify with certainty and British institutions tend to be more, rather than less, reserved about these things than Australian or German ones.  Did the report you saw contain details concerning sample integrity and preservation when transferred between institutions?

[David_Elvins]

David E I thought you had said about testing their bona fides?

Apologies, poorly worded.

[Neil_Crafter]

Not really Mark, considering there were the practical type physical testing of paper, ink, watercolour pigments etc, and then you have the handwriting/signature verification as well as the assessment of the diaries involving both general historical, military and medical history specialists. These people are not all at one institution, hence it was spread out. It doesn't sound that unusual to me. I believe Phil's essay contains extracts from the report concerning document integrity etc.

David, no problems.

[Jim Nugent]

Britain's most prominent science 'expert' - Lord Monckton - is neither a Lord or a Scientist

As Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton is a Lord.  Due to the House of Lords Act 1999, he did not inherit his fathers position in the House of Lords.