Phil,
I think the fundamental conflict in this thread is that you expect us to take your word for everything. To name just a few things . . .
- You expect us to take your word that the unnamed experts are qualified.
- You expect us to take your word that you have accurately and completely represented their findings.
- You expect us to take your word that the information and materials you provided them was complete and accurate.
- You expect us to take your word that the control samples were authentic.
- You expect us to take your word that various unidentified british medical societies have records of not one, not two, but three David Scott-Taylor's practicing medicine in England and Wales at the same time, and that two of them were the same age and both acted as ship doctors!
I could go on, but really what it comes down to is that you expect us to take your word for EVERYTHING.
First, and most obviously, that is just not how critical analysis works. Information needs to be verified. Facts need to be vetted.
Second, you and Ian have repeatedly proven that, in your case in particular, we most definitely should not take your word for anything, because you two have repeatedly mislead us regarding the source material. Just a few of many examples:
1. The St. Andrews Dinner. Your amazingly detailed story of the supposed dinner between Tillinghast and the other three turned out to be a work of fiction. But most importantly in this context you repeatedly misrepresented the source of the information in that story. You told us again and again that you had relied on the diaries, and that all the information all came straight out of the diaries, and the diaries would back everything up.
This was simply not true. And your representation that you and relied on the diaries was a flat out misrepresentation on your part. You hadn't even seen the relevant diary pages.
2. The "Scores Hotel" MacKenzie Note. You also repeated claimed that the alleged May 12, 1901 MacKenzie note was written on Scores Hotel Letterhead. This was a key fact in your first Story. But it turns out that this wasn't true at all. Yet, again and again you had indicated that the letter was on Score's letterhead. Didn't you even say that only reason the letterhead wasn't included in your first Story was because Ian's relative had mistakenly forgotten to copy it? That wasn't true at all, was it?
You and Ian repeatedly mislead us about this key fact, and then you just dropped it from your narrative with no explanation whatsoever.
3. MacKenzie's Presence in St. Andrews. Here is one not yet discussed . . . Back when you were trying to convince me offline that the St. Andrews dinner had most definitely taken place exactly as you had described (this of course was false), you claimed that your MacKenzie "expert" could verify that Alistair MacKenzie was definitely in St. Andrews on the date of the dinner. Here is exactly what you wrote:
"In addition, Neil Crafter, probably the foremost MacKenzie expert, has been able to prove that MacKenzie was at St. Andrews at this time as part of the authentication process."
This is simply false. Neil has confirmed it is false. Neil has done no such thing. You knew or should have known it was false.
There is plenty more, but hopefully you and others get the point here. You and Ian cannot be trusted when it comes to accurately presenting facts in this case. Everything must be verified. Everything should be verified regardless of your past record, but given your past record it becomes all that much more important.
I'll address the rest of your post later.