Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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?
>
> If readers don't accept Creighton's word, asking
> for credentials of the handwriting expert misses
> the mark completely. Getting their hands on a
> copy of the original handwriting
> will get the readers their answer far more clearly
> and quickly than mere cited credentials of alleged
> handwriting experts. Why go through all the
> trouble of researching such so-called experts when
> you can simply look at the handwriting and assess
> for yourself whether what's before your eyes
> actually corroborates with such "expert" analysis,
> regardless of the actual expertise behind such
> analysis?
>
> It's curious that you decry and belittle a
> source's credentials in some cases and yet seem to
> place so much importance on credentials in other
> cases.

Go back and read it again. I’ve explained why getting “a copy of the original handwriting” is problematic. Ask Creighton why he doesn’t reproduce it for his readers. Again, why aren’t you faulting him over this?

M.