[Phil Young]

I apologize in advance for two things. First, that I will not be answering any questions today or maybe even tomorrow. The reason? That is because of what follows which might offend some and why I apologize to any it does in advance.

I've also asked Neil Crafter to post this same message on Max's Lounge and publicly ask Tommy not to give him any crap for posting something from a non-member.

One of the questions that keeps being asked over and over is “WHY won’t you release the names of the authenticators?” The following is an example of exactly why:

This is addressed to the cowardly piece of garbage of a person, whether they are a member of GCA or Max’s Lounge, who decided to call Ian’s sister yesterday. Before I tell you what occurred, ask yourself this: Is this how I would want my wife, daughter, sister or friend treated?

When his sister, who has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS, answered the phone the person on the other end told her he was a “Writer from a golf magazine and he’d like to ask her some questions about the authentications recently announced for the drawings the family has.”

She replied, “Please give me your name and the magazine you work for and I will pass the information along to the solicitors to contact you and the magazine.”

The next thing she heard was a CLICK of a hang-up.

This delightful lady is now terrified to answer her own phone because she doesn’t know whether there is some insane crackpot out there who has targeted her for whatever vile reason!

You cowardly piece of garbage to do that, and for what? You obviously LIED to her so your credibility as a human is called into question from that alone. You obviously didn’t have the courage to call Ian or myself; no you already knew the answer that would come your way, so you decided to be “clever.”

If you have any shred of humanity contact me either by phone or email because you owe a MASSIVE apology to Ian’s sister, Ian and his entire family. Do this because she needs reassurance that you aren’t some nut who is planning on personally attacking her.

No one on here could appreciate the NUTS who decide that they can prove themselves personally important by the simple act of annoying someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with questions. Here’s a concrete example of the damage it has done to a totally uninvolved innocent person.

From the very beginning people have asked “Why weren’t the drawings shown sooner?” Heck, I even asked that when Ian first shared them with me. He explained that the family had discussed doing so a number of years back but among their chief concerns was that someone would call or stop by his very elderly and ill mother’s home demanding to see them. I told him that I couldn’t imagine that happening but that I’d respect that decision. It took me nearly a year to convince his mother to trust me and allow them to be brought to the light of day. That she did put that trust in me I consider a great honor.

To see the family’s fears actually come true has me livid with anger.

As I had already posted the family had now decided to make the drawings, diaries authentications and more available to authenticated researchers and historians. The names would be made public.

Because of this beyond stupid stunt that may never happen now… And its your own fault.

I'd like to add one other thing the phone call came from the United States!

[Mark Pearce]

Phil,

I don't approve of the use of subterfuge.  But "terrified"?  Really?  By a call from the USA  that she seems to have handled with ease?  You aren't overstating things just a little?

[Ryan Coles]

Phil,

I don't approve of the use of subterfuge.  But "terrified"?  Really?  By a call from the USA  that she seems to have handled with ease?  You aren't overstating things just a little?

Stole my sentiments.

It was a misguided golf anorak who rang up. Not Jack the Ripper.

[DMoriarty]

I agree with Mark as well. The subterfuge is distasteful, and I am sorry to hear that the sister is so upset, but the reaction here seems over the top. While it may seem jarring or even rude, it is no crime to phone someone to see if they will answer questions. That is what reporters, writers, researchers, investigators, historians, etc. do.  It isn't my style and I haven't done so here, but given how hard it is to get straight answers out of Ian and Phil it doesn't surprise me that someone tried to contact a family member.

[John Kavanaugh]

Stalking is not reporting. The woman should file a police report.

[Ian Scott-Taylor]

I am so angry at present with this idiot, and there was more to the phone call that Phil politely described. The police where notified and a report has been filed.  I hope the piece of garbage is happy. A man of no honour and what a sly underhanded thing to do.

I will not post anything else but I would like an apology if nothing else if you have the guts.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I agree, there's no need to accept bullshit like that. The calling phone number can easily be identified by the police.

That being said, are we now to understand that it wasn't in fact the authenticators, who asked to remain anonymous, but that it was a decision by the family all along?

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Ulrich, As strange as it may seem, Phil has repeatedly said that the experts and institutions insisted on anonymity.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

Will you tell Phil who made the call?  When did you first learn that the call would or had been made?

[DMoriarty]

I have no idea who made the call.  I first learned of it when I saw Phil's post today.

[Ryan Coles]

Surely the experts are paid to give their opinion in a professional capacity for interested party's consumption?

Peer review and scrutiny is what they are being paid for. Anonymous verification or authentication is a complete contradiction in terms. Defies all logic. Would you pay an institution to verify something if they insisted that their verification remain anonymous?

Unless of course the owner doubts the material and wanted it verified for personal reasons.

Why some are like a dog with a bone with this is there are so many immediate problems and the initial shooting down as described in the hubris thread.

Piss or get off the potty springs to mind. Put it all out there or put it back under the bed.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have no idea who made the call.  I first learned of it when I saw Phil's post today.

That's what I thought.

[John Kavanaugh]

Experts are not paid to have their wives, sisters or daughters stalked by internet nutcases. I've had people on this site call my home and threaten me and my family. It isn't pleasant.  Nothing like your wife asking who that was that called and having to explain that it was a  "golf writer" threatening to sue. There is no escaping these people until you stop feeding them ammunition, good or bad.

When they stop calling they start stalking you at work, on other sites and where you play golf. No expert in this field is paid enough.

[DMoriarty]

Another reservation I have about the "report" concerns the supposed control samples used for the "David Scott-Taylor" signature analysis. In the case of the other three parties, it seems that control samples would have been available.  For example, for Tillinghast's signature, Phil indicated that the report said: "'Copies of the signature where obtained from the United States and Collectors offered by the [major Scottish Institution].'"

But what is the source of the control samples for David Scott-Taylor's signature?  The quotes from the report don't say, but Phil and Neil have indicated that some of these came from the alleged David Scott-Taylor's diaries!   Given that the authenticity of both the drawings and the diaries are at issue, signatures from the diaries cannot be used to authenticate the signature on the drawing!  In short, even if they match, they both could be fake. Any experts would know this, unless they were not told that the authenticity of the diaries was at issue as well.

Phil and Neil also mentioned that a signature from David Scott-Taylor's Will was used.  Adam Lawrence asked if Phil would post it, but he has not, so it is impossible to fully consider. (I'd like to know more about this will, as I don't recall it being mentioned in these discussions until this round.)  If the Will was obtained from the National Registry, then it indeed may be a valuable control sample.  But if it is another document from underneath "Mum's bed," then we have the same control problem as with the signatures from the diary.  I've searched the National Probate Registry Index for David Scott-Taylor's will, and it is not there.  

So what are we left with?  So far, the signature from the ironically named "Score's Hotel" painting and signatures from the diary.  I've seen two of the latter thus far. The top is from the "Score's" painting the other two are from the diaries.  



Unlike some here, I won't pretend to be an expert on signatures or handwriting, but from this layman's perspective there are some interesting similarities, and interesting differences as well.  The number formations varies greatly, as do certain aspects of the signatures.  And the last signature doesn't really look much like the first two, even though it was supposedly between the two in time.

It becomes even more interesting when we add a few more signatures.



The next two are Ian Scott-Taylor's signatures from his artwork. It sure looks like aspects of his signature fit pretty well with the signatures that are being scrutinized.   The "Scott-Taylor" in the last of the DST signatures looks an awful lot like the "Taylor" in the first of the IST signatures, only with a different tilt, and there are plenty of other similarities as well.

The last signature is from the 1911 census form of "David Scott-Taylor."  At this point, it is only signature we have from a separate, independent source.  And the only one that didn't come from Ian Scott Taylor.  

Neil claims we need to dismiss this last signature, but to reach his conclusion he turns the authentication process on its head.  He proposes we throw out the independent control sample because it doesn't match the group of signatures being scrutinized.  Of course that is not how these things go.  If the signatures being scrutinized don't match the control, then the authentication fails.

Neil and Phil also argue that the last signature might either be 1) a different Ian Scott Taylor, or 2) his wife signing for him.  I am willing to consider both possibilities.  
   1) The easiest way to address the first issue is to compare the information on the rest of the form to the information from the diary.   As soon as Ian and Phil are ready to divulge the information about DST's family, we can make this comparison.
   2) The second is trickier, but no need to even address it until we have resolved the first.

It would really advance the conversation if Phil and Ian would come forward with the names of David Scott-Taylor's first wife and children, and his hometown (after he came back from India.)   I am starting to wonder if they even know this information . . .

[Wayne_Kozun]

I am not implying anything about the authenticity of the articles but this whole debate reminds me of a wonderful documentary ( or is it mockumentary) made by Orson Welles called F for Fake.  I would highly recommend it!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wayne,

The documentary I have pondered during this is from just a little while ago:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/mystery-masterpiece.html

The takeaway of that documentary is that given today's tools (and money) available to forgers, unless an item's provenance is iron-clad and locked-down nobody can be sure one way or the other.

[DMoriarty]

By the way, did anyone else notice that on the third alleged David Scott Taylor signature, the date is written in the American Date Format of Month, Day, Year?

"April 14th, 1914"

In England, Wales, Scotland, India and most of the world, the Format is Date, Month, Year.

Looking back at the few journal pages which have been posted, it seems that David Scott-Taylor was a bit schizophrenic when it came to which which format to follow.  Sometimes he followed the American Format, sometimes that of the rest of the World.

Anyone have any explanation as to why this might have been?  

It seems unlikely that someone with his background would fall in and out of the American Format.   It seems much more likely that a ex pat Welshman who has been living in the Unites States for some years might.  

[Neil_Crafter]

Surely the experts are paid to give their opinion in a professional capacity for interested party's consumption?

Peer review and scrutiny is what they are being paid for. Anonymous verification or authentication is a complete contradiction in terms. Defies all logic. Would you pay an institution to verify something if they insisted that their verification remain anonymous?

Unless of course the owner doubts the material and wanted it verified for personal reasons.

Why some are like a dog with a bone with this is there are so many immediate problems and the initial shooting down as described in the hubris thread.

Piss or get off the potty springs to mind. Put it all out there or put it back under the bed.

Ryan, that is exactly what has happened, the authenticators were paid by the estate's solicitors to prepare an authentication of which they have delivered a preliminary report. They have not done so anonymously. They and the solicitors have asked Ian and Phil that their names be not disclosed at present to this group, and in light of the harassment of Ian's sister, it might be suggested that they have made the correct call.

Why would the owner doubt the material? It has been in the family since DS-Ts death in 1933. It was the property of Ian's mother when she died and now belongs to her estate. The solicitors wanted the material authenticated as part of the estate process.

As for your last comment, why, do you need to use it? 

David, your last comment has you barking up the wrong tree. Here in Australia, modelled on the British system, we would say April 14th 1965, or whatever, just as frequently as we would say 14th April 1965. There is no accepted pattern for that when the month is used by name. Personally I would and have used both. Peeople understand which is the day and which is the month, so the order is not important. Where the difference lies is when the dates are abbreviated into just numbers. In Australia and England it would always be 14/5/1965 and in America 5/14/65. And never the other way around. Confusion would reign otherwise especially when the day number is 12 and below.

Another comment about your signature analysis. if the signatures are all forged as you imply:
1. Wouldn't a forger try to make the forged signatures as similar as possible? Some of the DST signatures were signed during WW1 in the trenches and field hospitals of France, most likely sprawled off quickly at the end of a difficult day, the sort of day that would be difficult for us to imagine from our modern comforts. And 100 years later you are wondering why their might be some differences?
2. If Ian was the forger as is the general implication of your post would he make the signatures somewhat similar to his?
3. My signature is somewhat similar to that of my late father. Essentially I learned my signature by watching my father write his. I do not believe it is that far fetched that Ian's signature and his grandfather's have some similarities.

Your position now implies that his will signature is also a forgery. Think you are getting a little desperate there.

Can't see a census form yet either.

[DMoriarty]

Neil, while I appreciate your comments on the signatures, I wonder if perhaps you might have missed the main point?

Whatever you or I might think about the signatures from the diaries, they have not been authenticated and are themselves at question.  Experts cannot use questionable, unauthenticated documents as the control group.  Yet that is exactly what you and Phil have said the unnamed experts have done here.

Surely you understand the inherent problem with using unauthenticated, challenged documents as the control group, don't you? 

As for your questions about what a "forger" might do, you'd be better off asking a "forger" but I'll do my best to answer.  (By the way, "forger" is your word here, not mine.)

1.  I imagine one would try to make signatures as similar as possible, but I also imagine that this is no easy task. It would be extremely difficult to create one convincing fake signature, and even more difficult to repeat the process multiple times.  With an unaccomplished and inexperienced "forger" I'd expect quite a lot of variance, especially early on, and especially if the signatures were in a form where erasing or starting over wasn't an easy option. Like in a long and detailed diary, for example.

2.  I imagine anyone trying to falsify a signature would not want the signature to lead back to his or hers, but again, it seems this would be a very difficult thing to do. Try to sign your own name in a completely different style and have it still look like a real signature.  It isn't easy. If you read the boilerplate language in the "report" it talks about how certain writing characteristics are reproduced "unconsciously," so it seems that some of the "unconscious" characteristics might show through despite the efforts of the signer to make the signature different.  In the case of Ian Scott-Taylor, it seems it would be very difficult to avoid, given that he shares two names with David Scott-Taylor.   

3.  I am glad we at least agree that there are similarities between Ian's signature and that of his grandfather.  But while you may have learned from your father, Ian Scott-Taylor did not learn from his grandfather.  His grandfather passed away a generation before he was born.  In fact, Ian's father did not learn from Ian's grandfather either, because, sadly, Ian's grandfather passed away less than 6 months after Ian's father was born. 

The legend of Ian's grandfather obviously plays a large role in Ian's life, but the reality is that Ian's grandfather was only married to Ian's grandmother for about a year before he passed away. (This is part of the reason why I am so curious whether Ian really knows about the personal details of his grandfather's life before this brief marriage with the heartbreaking ending.)

You ask about the Will.  How could I come to any conclusion about the Will when I have not even seen it and do not know anything about it?   For that matter, how can you have already decided that the Will authenticates all of the signatures when you haven't even seen it and don't know anything about it? There is nothing magical about calling a document a Will which makes it beyond scrutiny.  While I am withholding judgment on the alleged "Will," it certainly doesn't bode well that it is not even indexed in the National Registry.

[John Kavanaugh]

Neil, while I appreciate your comments on the signatures, I wonder if perhaps you might have missed the main point?

Whatever you or I might think about the signatures from the diaries, they have not been authenticated and are themselves at question.  Experts cannot use questionable, unauthenticated documents as the control group.  Yet that is exactly what you and Phil have said the unnamed experts have done here.

Surely you understand the inherent problem with using unauthenticated, challenged documents as the control group, don't you? 

As for your questions about what a "forger" might do, you'd be better off asking a "forger" but I'll do my best to answer.  (By the way, "forger" is your word here, not mine.)

1.  I imagine one would try to make signatures as similar as possible, but I also imagine that this is no easy task. It would be extremely difficult to create one convincing fake signature, and even more difficult to repeat the process multiple times.  With an unaccomplished and inexperienced "forger" I'd expect quite a lot of variance, especially early on, and especially if the signatures were in a form where erasing or starting over wasn't an easy option. Like in a long and detailed diary, for example.

2.  I imagine anyone trying to falsify a signature would not want the signature to lead back to his or hers, but again, it seems this would be a very difficult thing to do. Try to sign your own name in a completely different style and have it still look like a real signature.  It isn't easy. If you read the boilerplate language in the "report" it talks about how certain writing characteristics are reproduced "unconsciously," so it seems that some of the "unconscious" characteristics might show through despite the efforts of the signer to make the signature different.  In the case of Ian Scott-Taylor, it seems it would be very difficult to avoid, given that he shares two names with David Scott-Taylor.   

3.  I am glad we at least agree that there are similarities between Ian's signature and that of his grandfather.  But while you may have learned from your father, Ian Scott-Taylor did not learn from his grandfather.  His grandfather passed away a generation before he was born.  In fact, Ian's father did not learn from Ian's grandfather either, because, sadly, Ian's grandfather passed away less than 6 months after Ian's father was born. 

The legend of Ian's grandfather obviously plays a large role in Ian's life, but the reality is that Ian's grandfather was only married to Ian's grandmother for about a year before he passed away. (This is part of the reason why I am so curious whether Ian really knows about the personal details of his grandfather's life before this brief marriage with the heartbreaking ending.)

You ask about the Will.  How could I come to any conclusion about the Will when I have not even seen it and do not know anything about it?   For that matter, how can you have already decided that the Will authenticates all of the signatures when you haven't even seen it and don't know anything about it? There is nothing magical about calling a document a Will which makes it beyond scrutiny.  While I am withholding judgment on the alleged "Will," it certainly doesn't bode well that it is not even indexed in the National Registry.

Just catching Moriaty's post before he can edit away his "opinions"   He is obviously delusional.

[Duncan Cheslett]

By the way, did anyone else notice that on the third alleged David Scott Taylor signature, the date is written in the American Date Format of Month, Day, Year?

"April 14th, 1914"

In England, Wales, Scotland, India and most of the world, the Format is Date, Month, Year.

Looking back at the few journal pages which have been posted, it seems that David Scott-Taylor was a bit schizophrenic when it came to which which format to follow.  Sometimes he followed the American Format, sometimes that of the rest of the World.

Anyone have any explanation as to why this might have been?  

It seems unlikely that someone with his background would fall in and out of the American Format.   It seems much more likely that a ex pat Welshman who has been living in the Unites States for some years might.  

I have to agree with Neil here, David.

In the UK the use of 9th October 2014  and October 9th 2014 are completely interchangeable and most people will use both formats depending upon their inclination at that time.

Only when the date is digitised do we have a set format. We use the entirely logical day/month/year format - 9/10/14

Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.

[DMoriarty]

Just trying to politely answer Neil's questions as best I can, Kavanaugh, but thanks for your productive input.
___________________________________________________________________


Duncan,  I don't doubt that it is as you and Neil say it is today, but compared to 100+ years ago the world is much smaller today regarding language and cultural norms, and especially American cultural norms.  I was under the impression that the DMY format used to be the norm in most places (other than the US) whether or not the month was written out.  I haven't looked into it too much though, so perhaps I am mistaken. 

[Neil_Crafter]

David
Your date idea crashed and burned  

Now as to the will. As a lawyer yourself, would you not think that the family solicitors have a copy of his will in their files? And probably some other documents as well that he signed. I suspect between the solictors and the authenticators searching other documents in medical and military archives - very likely ones not accessible to the internet user - they were able to rustle up enough signatures to act as control group to compare the diary and Tilly drawing signatures to.

Your idea that they would take the diary signatures as a control group to compare with the drawing signature - or vice versa - is laughable, but then I think you knew that already. I haven't seen the will signature myself, and have had no need to ask to see it.

So now an unaccomplished and inexperienced forger has forged all these documents? The ones that have fooled the experts? Really???

And just remember the documents contain over 20 Mackenzie drawings too. Tough going for the inexperienced forger who had to learn on the job. But then again he had thousands of diary pages to practice on.....

[Duncan Cheslett]

David,

I have refrained from commenting on the recent developments as I can't really see the point until the full report into the authentication is released. Hopefully we shall then also see some of the other documents, such as the MacKenzie drawings.

I still have serious doubts, but I for one would prefer to keep my powder dry for now.

I would respectfully suggest that you consider following suit. You are starting to look a little hysterical. I think you have fallen into a trap.

Rgds
Duncan

[DMoriarty]

Your idea that they would take the diary signatures as a control group to compare with the drawing signature - or vice versa - is laughable, but then I think you knew that already. I haven't seen the will signature myself, and have had no need to ask to see it.

You are correct.  It is laughable.  But it was Phil who suggested it, not me.  Back on page one claimed comparisons had been done, and the two examples he gave were the will and the a diary page showing David Scott-Taylor's signature.  Maybe you need to explain to Phil and his experts the error of this methodology.

As far as your questions about the will, and assumptions about the wealth of documents the "family solicitors" might have, as I said I am reserving judgment until I find out more about it.  I am certainly not going to take Ian's and Phil's word for anything.  You seem to forget that these two published an largely fictional account of the meeting in St. Andrews and were repeatedly dishonest with us by telling us everything in the account was directly based on the diaries.

If the will is legit, then how come it is not Indexed in the Probate Registry?

____________________________________

Duncan, I appreciate the advice but am probably not smart enough to follow it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()