[Phil Young]

Back in the fall of 2014 when the forgery committed by Ian Scott-Taylor came to light, despite what some said then and are already doing so now, I acted honorably. I apologized to Ran and all on the website. I stepped down from the Board of the Tillinghast Association and as its Historian.

I had direct contact with the lawyer of the person from whom Ian plagiarized and created the false authentication report that he provided me with and that the article was based on. I provided them with every email, document and correspondence from Ian that involved it and offered to help them in any way they felt necessary. The result of that was within 24 hours of their initial email to Ran alerting him of Ian’s forgery, I received one in which they fully agreed and accepted that I had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.

About 6 weeks later, I was still greatly bothered by the ending to the story of the drawings. The reason for this was because in the very beginning when their existence was first shared with me I personally had several tests done to authenticate them. These were done in my presence and I paid for them. The results convinced me that they were real. Now, I was having a difficult time balancing that certainty of belief against what Ian did. I came to the conclusion that I had one of two choices.

First, I could accept that the drawings were also forged, that the experts I approached in the original round of authentications were incorrect, do nothing and just move on. This very thing was suggested to me by a number of friends both in golf and without. It was the second thing that I could do that bothered my conscience the most. The question of what if the drawings were actually real? Why should Ian’s actions relegate these treasures to history’s refuse and be lost forever?

I spent several weeks mulling this over and finally decided that the history of the game deserved a proper answer. Either the drawings were real or they were fake; in either case I felt that it was extremely important that the truth about them be established once and for all time. If they were real then the history of golf course architecture demanded they be recognized as such. And if they were fakes, then the history of golf course architecture demanded that this story be told as a cautionary tale.

I then quietly approached about a dozen people to get their opinions on what I was considering doing. Several I knew were absolutely convinced that they could never be real. Others that they believed they might be. Others were confused. Almost all of them believed that I was making a mistake if I proceeded to do so.

In the beginning of December I contacted Ian by email. He was extremely surprised to hear from me and the proposal I made to him. It was a single time offer. That he should send me all the drawings and the letters and legal documents regarding them. That I would then have everything examined by experts and that whatever the results were, real or fake, I would reveal publicly.
 
I told him that he would have nothing to do with this, would not know who had examine them and would not be made aware of the results until it was finished. I told him that if he sent me them that he was agreeing that he was giving me complete autonomy to have whatever tests done that I deemed fit and that he would not hear back from me for quite a while.

I hadn’t heard back from him for several weeks and had become convinced that he wasn’t going to send them when, in the middle of January, 2015, the drawings arrived at my door. The letters purportedly written by MacKenzie and Tillinghast and the legal documents that dealt with the estates of his grandfather, grandmother and father, arrived several months later. The reason for this delay was due to their needing to be sent from Scotland.

I was quite surprised to have received them and also quite excited at the prospect of getting to the truth.

The next thing I did was inform those I had spoken with previously that I had them in hand and that I was going to move forward in getting them examined. Needless to say, most were surprised that they had been turned over to me. But I didn’t stop with that communication. I told them all that I would keep them “in the loop” every step of the way. With each examination they were informed what was done and the results. From the very beginning I told them that I was doing it this way because I believed that transparency was of extreme importance and I kept to that with them all.

This is what was done.

I asked several people in and out of golf who they thought might be best approached for the process of authentications. I approached Green Jacket Auctions because one of the first persons who’s opinion I trusted in the very beginning of this, and who, when he saw copies of the Tillinghast sketches and thought they were fake, said, “Have Green Jacket Auctions authenticate them. If they say they are real I’ll believe them.” If he is reading this, he may have to reconsider his belief.

Green Jacket Auctions was told from the very beginning about the forgery, as were every single person or agency who was asked to look at the drawings, documents & letters, before doing so. Several of those actually told me that they knew of cases where an owner forged a document(s) and yet when the item was examined it turned out to be authentic. That is why they were willing to examine them despite that.

This is what I had done by various experts at the direction of those I consulted with as to how to proceed. In addition to the age of the age of the paper being established, five different experts in handwriting/signatures specializing in sports and primarily golf were asked. These included several who are PSA authorized experts. Every one of them stated positively that the signatures were authentic.

Several well-known golf course architects, others who aren’t and serious collectors, all who are recognized as experts in the style of MacKenzie and Tillinghast stated that the various drawings were real. One in particular, who saw the MacKenzie drawings of Augusta at the Golf Collector’s Society meeting last fall, was especially moved by them. After sitting there quietly studying them, he looked up and, with a smile on his face, said, “Even MacKenzie would have a hard time trying to convince someone that MacKenzie didn’t draw these.”

In addition, specific questions raised previously regarding details on the drawings were researched and all have been answered. For example, one of those that bothered many was the phrase “Scores Hotel” that was written on the Tillinghast Road hole sketch. It was stated that since no one could find that the Grand Hotel had ever been referred to as “The Scores” and so therefore the drawing must be fake. After a good deal of research it turns out that they were wrong. Just before and after the turn of the last century it was most definitely referred to as “The Scores” locally. Note below which was copied off a page linked to the Royal Commission’s website. It specifically states that “Alternative Names” for the Grand Hotel included “Golf Place” and “The Scores.” Why would it have been locally known at the turn of the last century by those? Because it sat on the corner of the two streets named, Golf Place and The Scores. To this day there is an annual event known as “The Scores Walk”:

Alternative Names Hamilton Hall; The Scores; Golf Place
Site Type HALL OF RESIDENCE (20TH CENTURY), HOTEL (19TH CENTURY)
Canmore ID 92222
Site Number NO51NW 136
NGR NO 50540 17031
Council FIFE
Parish ST ANDREWS AND ST LEONARDS
Former Region FIFE
Former District NORTH EAST FIFE
Former County FIFE
Datum OSGB36 - NGR     
 
Here is a link to the page: http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/92222/drawings/st+andrews+gillespie+terrace+grand+hotel/?&sort_typ=description&sort_ord=1&z=20
 
This page is for a collection of photographs in the RC's collection taken of the GRAND HOTEL taken in the 1890s.

In addition to this, photographs showing every other feature on the Road hole drawing from the time period 1890s to 1910 have been located, confirming the accuracy of the drawing to that time.

To be cont'd...

[Phil Young]

cont'd...

The total number of drawings examined is 23; 21 by MacKenzie and 2 by Tillinghast. Each and every one of them were deemed authentic.

Copies of the reports sent to me for each separate examination and authentication were given to Green Jacket Auctions and are part of the prospectus packages that are given to every seriously interested person.

But that was only part of the authentication process. There are a number of letters purportedly sent by MacKenzie and Tillinghast to Dr. David Scott-Taylor detailing the specific drawings that were sent. Each of these were examined, with special attention paid to the signatures of MacKenzie and Tillinghast and the handwriting of Tillinghast since his were hand-written whereas MacKenzie’s were typed. Each was pronounced authentic. 

Finally, the legal documents proved an unbroken chain of ownership from before the death in 1933 of Dr. David Scott-Taylor as they specifically made reference to the drawings, etc… One specifically mentioning that they had been left to Ian’s grandmother and were now the property of Ian’s father. This letter is dated September 7, 1965, and was sent to Ian’s father regarding items belonging to her estate. It specifically states, “I can also confirm the items in our office will remain here in our care under your instructions.”

The letter dated, December 15, 1998, refers to addendums to Ian’s father’s will. It states, “Also discussed is that until the will is read these items (drawings, etc…) will remain at our office for safe keeping as has been the case throughout since your grandmothers will decreed the items to your father. His father lived 5 more years.

Besides an unbroken chain of provenance, these documents prove that the family claim that they had been in the custody of their solicitors is true. Many can’t understand why that was, including me, but since none of us were there, then or now, that proves nothing.

So the drawings, letters and documents were all authenticated and accepted by experts in their fields. That is why Green Jacket auctions is putting their own considerable reputation on the line and handling the sale.

Speaking of the sale, its already being alleged that I’m promoting these as real because I’ll be “getting a cut of the money” paid for them. Let me make this abundantly clear… That accusation is undeniably false. In fact, Green jacket offered me a substantial “finder’s fee” that would total many tens of thousands of dollars if and when the drawings are sold for what they expect. I told them that “I’m not doing it for that reason. I don’t want the money. I only wanted to know the truth.”

I’m sure that there will be those who won’t believe that statement, but that doesn’t change it from being true. Anyone who thinks that this was done by me for money absolutely does not know me in the slightest.

In fact, when GJA was first contacted and had accepted the drawings a being authentic, they asked if Ian might be willing to sell them. At that time he said no, the same answer that he had given to everyone who asked it since an interested party had offered a 7-figure sum for a number of them. This was way before the forgery and before their existence was made known to more than just a handful. I am personally aware of this as the offer was sent to me in hopes that I could convince him to consider it. It always struck that if these were forgeries, his end game would have been the “big score” and here he was turning it down. He didn’t ask for more money, he flat out refused it.   

Another thing I want to address is the question of “Why is LINKS publishing this?”

I have known the author of the article going back to May of 2002. Jim Frank is a personal friend and edits the club history books that I do. He was among those who told me that I was “stupid” to have the drawings examined. Jim has been kept in the loop from the start going back more than three years. He was very aware of the forgery and the resulting nightmare for me.

Jim, though, didn’t write this article because he was “helping out a friend.” Anyone who knows him wouldn’t even conceive of his doing that. He saw a story that needed reporting. That alone, though, didn’t get it written or published. He received permission to work on it from those who manage LINKS. My only involvement in it was being the interviewee and fact checking on the specifics of what was done and when.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LINKS IS NOT stating that the drawings are authentic and that they accept them as such. Rather, they are simply reporting what they believe to be an incredibly important story.
 
There is another part of the saga that also needs mentioning. Up till now I haven’t mentioned the diaries. Originally I had planned on traveling to Scotland last fall to see them and arrange for their being authenticated. Unfortunately medical issues prevented this. I am hopeful that I will be able to make that trip this fall. I did, however, send photographs of several pages of the diaries, in specific, those from WW I to two major U.K. military museums. As I did with all of the drawings and documents, I explained in detail the forgery and controversy surrounding them and asked if they might possibly be able to authenticate the information found on these pages.

These pages were chosen because they have specific dates, names of specific members of the military, mention of their specific wounds and specifically one who died on the operating table under the care of Dr. David Scott-Taylor.

Both museums told me that they would look into them but that there were two major problems. First, that much, if not most of the armed forces records prior to WW II were destroyed during the bombing of London. They stated that doesn’t mean information can’t be found just that some never will be. The other was that they are swamped with requests of this type and that it might take six months to a year or more before they can do the search.

That is why, up till now, I didn’t mention anything about the diaries. As soon as I hear from them I will do as I told all the others I mentioned in the beginning, I will make the findings public.

Finally, those involved in providing reports, opinions, official documentations, etc… do not want to be put through the crap that is already happening on here before I even posted anything. I will respect their requests in this even though I don’t have to. I personally made the arrangements for every one of the authentications and paid every penny involved. This included my flying with the drawings and documents from one side of the country to the other to have them examined. In other words I own them.

That being said, Green Jacket Auctions also has everything, and just as one would find with every other major auction house, the information that establishes authenticity and provenance, everything upon which they place their considerable reputation, is available to those who they view as serious possible purchasers and only those.

So, and this is with the permission of Green Jacket Auctions, please feel free to email or call them. They are more than happy to answer your reasonable questions.

One last thing. Despite what I wrote above I haven’t a single problem with anyone who doesn’t agree with my belief that they are real. That is your right and I will respect it. I only ask that you give me the same respect.

The one thing I would say to those who don’t accept them as being authentic is this; that you personally have never seen them, held them or had an expert examine them. About a year ago I showed them to someone who was convinced that they were fake and told me that I was crazy to do what I proposed. He looked at them, held them and then said, “My goodness… I’m no expert, but they look so… real. Phil you have to get them examined.”

I would ask then, why you would believe that your non-expert opinion should be accepted over that of many true experts in their fields? That question is not meant derogatorily, but rather as a reasonable one.

For me, there are simply too many recognized experts who say they’re real for me to ignore them…

I will be more than happy to answer respectful questions. I will not answer anything from anyone who has already stated things such as “The Phil Young / Ian Scott Taylor Fraud continues” and “anyone interested in a more in-depth examination of this Fraud/Forgery scheme.”

I’m many things but I am NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN involved in any fraud or forgery or scheme to promote one. I consider that slander and will not answer anything asked by them or comment on anything they write.

The LINKS article was originally supposed to be released the first week of April. For a variety of reasons they decided to go ahead and publish it today. As a result, what I had been planning on writing regarding it and everything else above was going to be posted in its in thread the day before they released it. That is why this is my first post. In addition, I will only answer questions or comments posted on this thread. I’m not going to chase around and look through the numerous other threads that were restarted. Also, for those that will wonder, I won’t be back to the site until Thursday as I have far too many things that I must do tomorrow.

[Jon Cavalier]

Phil:

Respectfully, I was wondering whether you could tell us whether the omission from the Links article of any reference to the prior controversy (specifically IST's actions) was Jim Frank's decision, a collective decision, or a condition of writing the article. It seems to me that whatever one's thoughts on that controversy might be, most would consider it an important and relevant detail (as did you when presenting the materials to authenticators).

Thanks for your post, and in advance for any info you might provide on the above.

Thanks,
Jon

[Tommy Naccarato]

Excuse me from typing erratically, I'm laughing my ass off!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The Phil Young / Ian Scott Taylor Fraud continues...

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The Ides of March must be in play, so that something really interesting will happen on April 1st!

[Tony_Muldoon]

 The truth here is that “the mark” will always, always come back for more.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
 
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Con-Story-Confidence/dp/0385495382

[Niall C]

Phil

Let me say I was surprised that the whole Scott-Taylor thing is still being taken seriously. I’m also surprised that you are still involved given your previous experience of dealing with IST.

Nevertheless I note and accept your reasons for wanting to look further into the Scott-Taylor material however you won’t be surprised if I ask some questions/make comment relating to the validity of this material.

1 – I note you made the proposal to IST and that he responded by sending the drawings “several weeks” later and then the material from Scotland arrived “several months after that”. Do those timescales not give you cause for concern particularly as in previous dealings IST seemed to be “producing” material as required after some delay ?

2 – Did the material come from IST or in the case of the material from Scotland, directly from the solicitors or some other source (and what was that source) ?

3 – You refer above to the unbroken chain of ownership. Surely the issue is where these documents have been since 1933 or whenever DST passed them to the solicitor for safe keeping. In that respect the reference to Scotland confuses me as I recall the family solicitor being in Wales. The previous case for the authenticity of the material was that they had been in the hands of the solicitors all this time. Can you elaborate on that ?

As an aside, I do wonder why some drawings that had no intrinsic value at that time, would have been given to a solicitor for safe keeping in the first place.

4 – Regarding the Scores Hotel reference on the Road Hole plan, you refer to the entry on the Canmore website. Canmore is an online catalogue relating to Scotland’s archaeology, buildings, industrial and maritime heritage and is compiled and managed by Historic Environment Scotland. The catalogue contains information and collections from all its survey and recording work, as well as from a wide range of other organisations, communities and individuals.

When I followed the link, I got the following which differs in some respects from what you posted above;

St Andrews, Gillespie Terrace, Grand Hotel

Site Name St Andrews, Gillespie Terrace, Grand Hotel
ClassificationHall Of Residence (20th Century)Hotel (19th Century)
Alternative Name(s) Hamilton Hall; The Scores; Golf Place
Canmore ID 92222
Site Number NO51NW 136
NGR NO 50540 17031
Datum OSGB36 - NGR
Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/site/92222



You will note that “Site Name” comes first followed by “Alternative Names”, in other words the names are a reference to what the place was historically referred to. It doesn’t mean that the names were what the building was referred as. In that context “the Scores” would likely have been a reference to either the street name or the rocks below the cliffs. Would you not agree ?

I’ve emailed Canmore querying this point but it is likely to be a couple of weeks before they respond. In the meantime I have seen no contemporary references to the Grand Hotel as being called the Scores Hotel and indeed note the building was heavily advertised as the Grand Hotel and that and other references to it were as the Grand Hotel. Do you have any other references to it being called the Scores Hotel ?

5 – Road Hole plan – I admit that when I first saw this plan I thought it was a fake. It just did not feel correct in any way. One of the reasons I originally thought that the plan was wrong was because it was inaccurate but in actual fact when I examined it what was surprising was how accurate the dimensions were given it was supposed to be a sketch. While there is no scale on the plan the relative lengths of wall are almost exactly proportionate and the angles where the walls meet is spot on. As a practising chartered surveyor, albeit mainly a desk jockey these days, I’d suggest that the chances of being able to gauge it that well purely by eye is negligible.

So the questions I have are that assuming Tilly carried out a proper survey and plotted all the relevant points, why is there no scale on the plan and why is drawn so roughly and on the wrong side of the paper ?

You also make the statement in your first post above, that “photographs showing every other feature on the Road hole drawing from the time period 1890s to 1910 have been located, confirming the accuracy of the drawing to that time”. I don’t have the sketch to hand but seem to recall that it showed the wall turning the corner behind the 17^th tee and running down the side of the railway/16^th fairway when as far as I know there has never been a wall there. Perhaps an error of drafting but if I’m correct and your experts have authenticated that everything shown on the plan was there then it raises questions regarding your experts.

There are other issues regarding the Road Hole sketch such as the fairway lines, indeed contour mowing, and the two drives/approaches which belie the pre-Haskell period, and I look forward to your comments on that also.

6 – Redan sketch – you haven’t referred to the above specifically in either of your posts but the suggestion is that the Redan sketch has been authenticated also is that the case ? If so, who authenticated it, was it a golf course historian with specific knowledge of North Berwick ?

Phil, my final comment is this, can I suggest that what you should be doing is looking for reasons why this material can’t be authentic rather than why it is/might be. That I think would be a more honest approach to judging it’s value.

Niall

[Paul Jones]

Phil,

Did you ever talk to the Club Historian at ANGC?  I wonder what his thoughts are?

[Niall C]

Phil

With reference to point 4 in my post above, I have now received the following response a good bit earlier than expected. I suppose it was a simple question. The response as follows;

Dear Niall Carlton,

Thank you for your enquiry to Historic Environment Scotland (HES) I can confirm that The Scores is the name of the street, and that this building is located on The Scores. In terms of the way categorise information and records, this would mean that someone researching 'TheScores' could also find information on the buildings located on this street. I hope that this answers your question, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.

Yours Sincerely,

Joe Waterfield
HES John Sinclair House


Phil


Given the response above, do you have any other references to the Grand Hotel being referred to as the Scores Hotel ?


Niall

[PCCraig]

Sketch-ball city... 

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:


Did it ever occur to you to suggest handing over the matter of authenticating to someone else besides the auction house?  Perhaps someone in the golf business who would be seen as properly skeptical of the whole situation, and who had no reputation at stake from the previous debacle?


For a natural doubter [I am named Thomas], that's the only way I would have been able to take these reported "results" as real.


By coincidence, just yesterday I read a great piece in The New Yorker titled "After The Fact," which observes that the Internet is destroying the very idea of "facts" and making it almost impossible for anyone to report "the truth" with certainty, as we have done for the past few hundred years.  It seems like every fact is now up for grabs. 


While the article made me yearn for the days of reason, this whole affair going back two years has done the opposite -- it makes me wonder why anyone CARES about a bunch of old drawings, knowing that there is no way to know for certain whether they are real.  It's too bad Dr. MacKenzie did not save more of these documents for his own book, so he might have gotten some of it published before his death, and we would know for certain that they were really his.

[Sven Nilsen]

Phil:

Regarding the map of the 13th hole copied below, do you have any idea as to why the style and exact placement of features are nearly identical to those on the post construction course map dated as of June of 1932?





In November of 1931, Mackenzie was drawing images of the 13th hole that looked like this, images that were not done to scale and did not show property lines and other details found on the post-construction maps:

[Sven Nilsen]

Phil:


The following question still lingers from the original discussion.  How does one explain the similarities between the 1901 Tillinghast sketch of the Redan and the 1912 surveyed map of the hole as portrayed in the overlay below?

[MCirba]

I know I'm going to regret involving myself in this but does anyone know if there's a record of Mackenzie ever sketching hole drawings of all eighteen at Riviera for any purpose, pre or post construction?

[John Sabino]

Phil - I give you credit for posting this back on here rather than avoiding the subject and staying away. Given the prior issues raised, I remain a skeptic. Not sure an auction house (not just green jacket, but any auction house) is best positioned to do authentication since the profit motive creates an inherent conflict.


Totally agree with Paul Jones, the best source to legitimize it would be the historian(s) at Augusta.


John

[Niall C]

Sven


Re the Redan, that was one of the points in my earlier post. My concern isn't so much that it looks so much like the 1912 plan but that the right hand bunker(s) appears to have been a single bunker back in 1901.


As an aside, Phil has talked about putting the material to the scrutiny of experts. Now I don't know how many on here are handwriting or paper experts but I do wonder whether some of these "golf" experts that Phil refers to know as much about the history golf generally or in particular in Scotland in the early 1900's as the collective or even individuals on here. I very much doubt it.


Niall

[Tommy Naccarato]

Asking questions only fuels this piss ant!  When are you people going to learn this?!?!  There is nothing to say or proven that hasn't already been said or proven.  If someone spends ten cents if ten minutes on this crap, it a complete waste of time!

[Jonathan Mallard]

About 6 weeks later, I was still greatly bothered by the ending to the story of the drawings. The reason for this was because in the very beginning when their existence was first shared with me I personally had several tests done to authenticate them. These were done in my presence and I paid for them. The results convinced me that they were real. Now, I was having a difficult time balancing that certainty of belief against what Ian did. I came to the conclusion that I had one of two choices.

First, I could accept that the drawings were also forged, that the experts I approached in the original round of authentications were incorrect, do nothing and just move on. This very thing was suggested to me by a number of friends both in golf and without. It was the second thing that I could do that bothered my conscience the most. The question of what if the drawings were actually real? Why should Ian’s actions relegate these treasures to history’s refuse and be lost forever?

So, as others have noted, and as I have commented before, it seems that GJA and others have an inherent conflict of interest with their wallet.


As such, if the two paragraphs above are to be believed, why not give them to the USGA or R and A golf museums for display, instead of two unnamed institutions cited elsewhere above?


Both of those institutions would most assuredly do the required research and vouchsafe for their authenticity. Again, all of the supposed experts have not been identified. This makes me quite suspicious given the stated fraud that occurred.

[Niall C]

Asking questions only fuels this piss ant!  When are you people going to learn this?!?!  There is nothing to say or proven that hasn't already been said or proven.  If someone spends ten cents if ten minutes on this crap, it a complete waste of time!

Here's the thing though Tommy, it's not a waste of time if you can stop fake material taken and accepted as genuine. The fact that a reputable magazine printed a story that omitted any mention of dubiety about this material and that the material is supposedly to be sold for a six figure sum gives me cause for concern. No matter how much the buyer can afford to be duped, the sale would still represent some sort of validation of the material and hence a distortion of history assuming the material is fake, which at this time I'm fairly certain it is (I haven't seen all the material referred to but the material I've seen on here is certainly bogus IMO).


I take Bogeys points on his thread that there are more important things going on in the world and that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously, and I agree, however even the best of us take time out from saving the whale/freeing Tibet/fighting climate change to have other interests. Golf history happens to be one of mine.


Niall

[Bart Bradley]

So Niall and everyone else,


Has anyone contacted the auction house with these concerns?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bart,

Phil Young did.

Green Jacket Auctions was told from the very beginning about the forgery, as were every single person or agency who was asked to look at the drawings, documents & letters, before doing so. Several of those actually told me that they knew of cases where an owner forged a document(s) and yet when the item was examined it turned out to be authentic. That is why they were willing to examine them despite that.

[Jeff Taylor]

"GJA and others have an inherent conflict of interest with their wallet.As such, if the two paragraphs above are to be believed, why not give them to the USGA or R and A golf museums for display,"


Does this mean that the USGA and the R and A would get no economic benefit for their display?

[Charlie_Bell]

Surely many readers remember the brouhaha surrounding Clifford Irving's forged "autobiography" of Howard Hughes. For those who don't, I offer this Wikipedia account of how even the experts were fooled.

Representatives of Hughes' companies expressed doubts about the forthcoming work's authenticity. Frank McCulloch, known for years as the last journalist to interview Hughes, received an angry call from someone claiming to be Hughes himself. But when McCulloch read the Irving manuscript, he became convinced that it was genuine.

McGraw-Hill and Life magazine, which had paid to publish excerpts of the book, continued to support Irving. Osborn Associates, a firm of handwriting experts, declared that the writing samples were authentic. Irving had to submit to a lie-detector test, the results of which indicated consistencies but no lies.

On January 7, 1972, Hughes arranged a telephone conference with seven journalists, whose end of the conversation was televised. Hughes claimed he had never even met Irving. The journalists in turn claimed the voice on the phone was probably a fake.

And before you scoff at the gullibility of 20th century journalists or the fallibility of experts, be sure to google "William Henry Ireland."

[Carl Rogers]

Why is this thread and the various re-actions and the other re-actions to the re-actions such a big deal?
Some of you are making out like a Tillie or Mac sketch real or fake is the equivalent to a Monet, Rembrandt or Michelangelo.  They are not.  They are just a step in the process that were reviewed, modified and probably discarded at some point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()