> Lonely Angel,
> I am not defending Vyse’s honour.
> That this is a question of Vyse’s honour is a fallacy promoted
> by proponents of the forgery fantasy, precisely because (in
> their fantasy) it’s an easy thing to attack.
> My critique is aimed at ludicrous misreadings of the relevant
> Those who misread and misrepresent the evidence currently
> available may reliably be expected to misread and misrepresent
> new evidence. True forensic testing (and I doubt we’ve seen
> much more here than CSI-inspired fantasy on the topic) would be
> wasted on them.
A most unscientific attitude I have to say... I fear your attachment to this issue has become, over the years, emotional rather than entirely rational.
I appreciate your frustation at people not simply accepting your version of events, but this issue is - and always was - too complex and convoluted to be simply decided and put to rest on your say-so. The genuine, enquiring mind requires that the evidence is tested, fully tested.
No one should fear the truth, but until the truth is established then I for one will not swallow a lie simply because it is expedient. There is a clear questionmark hanging over this issue - central to which, whether you like it or not, IS the very questionable character of Vyse - in that this was either his greatest achievement or his dirtiest trick. We have the modern means to establish a clearer picture and I would question the motives of anyone who was against further investigation.
People of good faith are entitled to interpret evidence as they see fit, and to be deeply suspicious of being told simply to accept the existing narrative because that's the way things are and always were.
The tragedy is that, on this vital, painfully crucial issue I know as well as you that there is likely to be no further scientific testing in the foreseeable future. This fact is as insufferable as it is true, and we jusat have to live with it.
That leaves you arguing endlessly with the likes of Scott Creighton, and every other person who comes across this story and finds something extremely fishy about it.
I know you are firm in your own convictions about the narrative you defend, and I know you argue in good faith, but until something comes up that truly lifts the evidence to a level that a reasonable person can examine and then go away convinced one way or another, I'm afraid that you are deluding yourself if you think that the ground beneath your case is any firmer than that beneath those you decry as ludicrous and fantasists.
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair