Quote:

Which is why you started a thread with the moronic premise of assuming Manuscript Found never existed and it's also why you avoided my question. I guess you wish to suck up to Martin for some perverted reason. You are too stupid to realize he's very far from being "on his game". It is unfortunate, but I don't think I've ever seen martin think so poorly on an issue as he does on this one. It is sad actually. And knowing the old martin as I do, he would have wanted honesty. He was upfront with others and would have wanted it in return.

Let's look at the question I posed to you which you've once again failed to address and brushed it off as being "stupid" and told me to shut the hell up. I realize thinking is not your strong point.

***You (vicki) said : "Without the presence of MF, we lose:
1. The Conneaut Witnesses."

And I asked..."What do you mean you lose the conneaut witnesses? In what way do you lose them and by what justification?"***


So, you can't just willy nilly choose to "lose the Conneaut witnesses without justification. Their statements exist, they never denied what they said, that is a fact. So if you are going to lose them you need justification.

Brodie got away with it, because at the time there was no Jocker's findings and no one had done the work on parallel phrases which Tom Donofrio has done and I believe Dale as well, though Dale's I've not examined. Sorry Dale. So Brodie could get away with dismissing the witnesses by saying they had faulty memories over time and could dismiss Spalding entirely.

But the situation is different now, evidence has increased with Jocker's, with parallel phrases and we know with a high degree of certainty that a Spalding work was used for parts of the BoM. But we also know it wasn't likely to have been Manuscript Story because there is little in there that matches up with the BoM.

So what we are left with concluding with fairly high probability is that another Spalding manuscript was likely used. And that low and behold is consistent with what the Conneaut witnesses said. So we are not now in a position like Brodie was to dismiss the Conneaut witnesses in fact the opposite situation has developed. The added data, strengthens their statements.

So this whole exercise I suppose to humor Martin, of losing the Conneaut witnesses and theorizing that MF didn't exist is not only not justified but it is poor critical thinking. It is not consistent with evidence, and there is no good reason to even theorize it. It is a situation of instead of following the evidence , it is manipulating the evidence to fit in with a pre-determined conclusion. conclusion. It is working backwards instead of forwards in order to develop a best fit scenario using the data.