> Some will be asking the first cogent question
> suggested: “If he had ‘handwriting experts’
> on board, why did he need the other people?”
Why would anyone ask this? it's very simple for anyone to verify whether the "handwriting experts" are accuractly describing what we see there.
> Some will be thinking: “If we don’t even know
> the names of these ‘experts’, how can we
> verify their bona fides? How do we know they
> exist at all?”
Again, what difference does that make to the substance of Scott's hypothesis? If, instead, Scott said "a homeless bum living in a box in a back alley noticed the following about the brush strokes", how would that at all change the substance of the observations? The brush strokes either show those characteristics or they don't, regardless of the "expertise" of the person who made those observations.
> Some will be thinking that if these “experts”
> were unwilling to attach their names and
> professional reputations to what Creighton wrote,
> their “endorsement” isn’t worth much.
Anyone who thinks that and isn't alert enough to judge for themselves whether the brush descriptions are valid doesn't understand how to interpret such reports in the first place. It's as if you're suggesting people should simply accept what authorities say simply because they have a track record of "expertise" regardless of whether what they're saying has any corroborative basis in the evidence.
> As for me, I don’t need a graphologist,
> palaeographer or anyone else to tell me that
> Creighton and his army of helpers (“handwriting
> experts” included) failed to spot something
> which is actually quite hard to miss and makes
> nonsense of what he says.
And yet you don't give the reader the same respect to make their own interpretations as well.
If it's so obvious to you that Scott and his experts are wrong, why isn't that good enough for you to simply state that and then move on instead of persisting in vilifying the guy and engaging in professional assassination? Obviously, one answer is that you simply don't trust the reader to look at the cartouche and determine for themselves whether the observations of Scott's experts really do reflect those characteristics in the brush strokes.
What is it about Jon's description about the brush strokes that won't be immediately obvious to the casual reader such that it requires you (with what expertise?) to issue such personal ad hominimen insults against Scott in an effort to somehow persuade the readers to view it the way you see it instead? Why would anyone stoop to being a lemming just because the reported is called names. If Scott was an artist, a ballet dancer, or a mortician, how would that change the observations reported in his hypothesis?
This entire vilification of Scott makes no sense to me other than providing strong evidence that the orthodox view is so weak that the evidence is unable to stand on its own merit.
In my opinion.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-16 03:40 by Origyptian.