In any case, arguments like "if he is caught lying about the letterhead, then that proves the entire story is false" do not hold up to scientific standards of stringency. There may well be a few authentic pieces to the collection and a bunch of add-ons that aren't. The only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item seperately, but we do not even have a list of items.
Urlich, I'm not sure you whether or not you meant to suggest you were quoting me there, but I don't think I've written that. I don't mind you quoting me, but if you do I'd prefer you do it accurately, so as we are all on the same page. Thanks.
I am also not sure to what "scientific standards of stringency" you refer, but I don't agree that "the only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item separately." I'd suggest the opposite is true. One has to look at this material in the context in which it was presented, and the context in which it was allegedly created. If one part of the story doesn't check out, this necessarily impacts other parts of the story. If one item is fake then this in and of itself raises serious questions about the other items from the same source. If, in your words, these guys are "caught lying" about one aspect, it makes it very difficult to believe them regarding other related aspects. And given that they are insisting we take their word for the everything, that makes for a pretty weak presentation.
For example, they seem to have made up a story about a dinner at the Score's Hotel, a painting marked "Scores Hotel," a thank you letter written on Score's Hotel letterhead. If the Score's Hotel didn't even exist (it didn't) then they just can't try to move the whole thing to another Hotel and hope no one notices. And they can't convincingly claim that the Score's Hotel must have been a colloquialism, because they have already claimed they have Score's Hotel letterhead. And they can't convincingly just drop this inconvenient claim from their story, and hope no one notices. The story is intertwined and the parts related. If there was no Scores Hotel then their claims about these events become unbelievable. And the dominoes fall from there.
To publish artificially created excerpts of an inventory, as was done here, is a teaser or, if you will, advertising to create interest in a forthcoming sale. Why people here go out of their way to punch holes into a piece of advertising is beyond me. It's not very valuable work on both sides.
Artificially created excerpts of an inventory? Advertising? I have no idea to what you refer? What is the "teaser" here? The false information that they have tried to pass off as true? Can you clarify? In some industries it is a unlawful to post false information in "teaser advertisements, and for good reason.
________________________________________________
Probably one of those deals that as the years wore on, more and more folks who were there at the tourney amended the story a bit, kind of like the number who actually saw some famous game grows well above stadium capacity over the years.
Are you suggesting that Ian's grandfather might have been at the tournament or claimed to be there, and over the years the story just got exaggerated? If so, interesting theory, but there are a couple of potential problems.
- First, the information was supposed to have been written in a diary, so it ought to have been recorded the day he was there, or not.
- Second, the May 11 diary discusses events of the day before, which was the final day of that Amateur Championship, but it does not even mention the Championship! Same goes for the summary of topics discussed at dinner at the Scores Hotel. No mention of the Championship. And MacKenzie was supposedly there not for the Championship meeting, but to look at some courses.
It is almost as if whoever authored the diary was unaware that the Amateur Championship was still going on the day David Scott-Taylor allegedly arrived in St. Andrews. Their only concern was the supposed big "competition" the day after the actual Competition was over.