> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > 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.
No, it isn’t.
First of all, the readers do not have the text in front of them. Although Vyse’s manuscript is an a public archive, there are obvious practical difficulties in getting to see it, even for readers within the UK, never mind those outside. Just ask Creighton. He made a big enough deal of the circa 800 mile round trip he had to take to see it. Reproducing and publishing the material entails considerable copyright difficulties, which is why it is not reproduced in the book in question (Creighton’s last one, The Secret Chamber of Osiris).
Even if readers could see the manuscript, the writing is largely illegible: “a very difficult hand” said one of the staff at (what was then) the Bucks County Archives.
I’ve seen it. You haven’t.
So, again, readers without the material in front of them, asked to accept Creighton’s claims about it on no other basis than his “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” list of people who supposedly helped come up with the reading, would be entirely reasonable in asking why, if he has accredited “handwriting experts” on board, does he pad his list with people who are not “handwriting experts”—unless these “handwriting experts” were more equivocal in their support than we are led to believe?
> > 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.
Brush strokes? What are you talking about? This is about Vyse’s manuscript.
I know your comprehension is poor, but really. Try reading the post again. I made it perfectly clear what I was talking about.
This is a case where Creighton’s readers have nothing but his statements and the alleged endorsement of alleged “experts” to go on.
This is not about the substance of Scott’s hypothesis. What it’s about is what’s offered in support of that hypothesis and specifically the rhetoric used to persuade the reader in its favour.
> > 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.
This a complete inversion of the truth. (Failing to understand what the example is hasn’t helped.)
This is precisely a case of Creighton asking people to accept what authorities (allegedly) say, simply because they (allegedly) say it.
Looking further into Creighton’s use of the word “expert” has led to progress on the identity of his unnamed “handwriting experts”:
“The Archive Department staff at the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, also deserves recognition for its generous and expert assistance in transcribing parts of the Howard Vyse Journal.”
> > 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.
What are you blathering about? The readers don’t have the material to interpret, as explained above.
To borrow a Creightonism: patience, laddie.
> 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 [SNIP]
Blah, blah, blah. It’s not like he and his clique have vilified me, is it?
We have here in all of the above an excellent example of the extraordinary double standard applied by the clique: the far lesser standard they hold Creighton and themselves to.
Edited 2019-11-05 to replace a stale link.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05-Nov-19 15:04 by Martin Stower.