2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

I would have to wonder how hard would it be to create a Word document using Times New Roman, and then compare it to the Ogden Fax a la Charles Johnson's example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Killi ... imated.gif

I am deeply suspicious of this facsimile.

1) We do not know for sure who "sent" it.

2) We do not know who wrote the message.

3) The cover letter itself looks like a simple Word document.

4) Telephone and facsimile numbers were conveniently redacted, because, as I am sure you are all aware those numbers never change. Why it would be a down right miracle if the numbers the Office of the First Presidency used in 1993 were the same in 2009... 16 years of telecommunications continuity!

5) Are we to assume Carla Ogden can speak on behalf of the First Presidency, but Brother Watson may not? In other words, if a secretary's personal doctrines are in line with the Maxwell Institute then he or she may speak on behalf of the Mormon church? This would be an absolute stunner, my friends.

6) Why was the Ogden Fax mailed and then scanned when it could have simply been scanned? This process makes no sense whatsoever.

7) What, exactly, in an apologist's mind would make the Ogden Fax the 2nd Watson Letter? I see no corroborations, and in fact, Dr. Peterson himself stated the Ogden Fax does not look like the letter he purports seeing.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

Since I’m snowed in indefinitely, I decided to fritter away some time by catching up on the MAD thread. Brent appeared and made an interesting statement:

I'm FAIRly familiar with this fax—even before its alleged "recent" discovery among John Sorenson's files (which is unmitigated BS—and, no, I don't mean Bachelor of Science). I've had a typescript of Ms. Ogden's fax for years. Not until I saw Greg's scan did I conclude that this was Bill Hamblin's source.

In short: yes, there is sound evidence that Bill quoted the fax in his JBMS article and not some now lost missive; and, yes, the language of the fax is somewhat formulaic (or at least derivative).

Chris responded:

That certainly appears to be the case. And, yet, DCP has averred that such a conclusion would be false and would necessarily indicate duplicity on his part. That latter is a red herring, of course.

But, I am familiar enough at least with DCP's online persona to know that any ol' dirt pile on which he has uttered even the faintest peep is, for him, a hill worth dying on.

I bolded the statement that, to me, sums up this problem.

Brent later averred:

Greg, you're either a player, or you've been played. Ms. Ogden's fax wasn't "recently" discovered, it's been circulated for years—by the very source that you received it from.

So we have to add a new element to this mess. The Ogden fax has been known about and circulated for years – by Roper himself. And yet Greg states that Roper suddenly found the fax and kindly sent it to him. So either Roper lied, or Greg lied. Lied is a strong term, and I have no doubt that the MADdites will continue to profess complete confusion as to why any of us ‘inmates” would use such a strong word. This whole thing is, to use Sorenson’s words himself, a “tempest in a teapot” (for those who are not familiar with this particular history, Sorenson used these words to minimize the fact that he’d been caught using a false source to make a controversial claim in his publications). Apparently in the world of apologia, falsifying sources in a supposedly scholarly publication, and making up a story about a fax is inconsequential.

And yet they declare that our interest in this case only reveals problematic things about our natures, and it is otherwise irrelevant and uninteresting.

I actually don’t think this proves DCP is lying, although it proves that he is unable to admit what is starkly obvious – this is a problematic episode for apologia. Along with other examples – the Sorenson footnotes I discovered, and the Nibley footnotes others has unearthed – this does demonstrate a pattern. Individual apologists are willing to falsify sources to make their cases. This does not mean every apologist will do so, nor does it mean there is some sort of global apologetic agreement to do so, but it does mean that readers need to beware, and make every effort to validate claims by looking up source documents when possible. I do think it is likely that this fax is, actually, the remembered Watson document, despite DCP’s insistence that it is not. Human memory is extraordinarily fallible, and I think it is quite possible that DCP did see this fax, but his memory morphed the fax into what he now clearly remembers. Many experiments in research into memory shows that this phenomenon is so common that it really is part of human nature. Moreover, we are completely unaware that our memory is, indeed, flawed, and have a hard time believing it even when shown evidence. An interesting experiment including having grad students write down what they were doing the day after a traumatic event (I think it was 9/11), and then three years later, write down what they remember doing at the same traumatic event. Many of the students wrote down something completely different than what they had written down the day after the event. Since we can assume that what they recorded the day after the event was correct, that means that their memory altered the experience in the intervening years. Memory is fluid and fallible, and HIGHLY susceptible to suggestion. Yet when the students were shown what they had actually written the day after the event, if it contradicted their current memories, they couldn’t believe what they had written. One said something like “It’s my handwriting, but I don’t understand it. It’s not correct.” So given the fact that it’s been proven in such experiments that human memory is so fallible, I think it is likely that DCP really believes what he is saying but is, in fact, wrong. Why am I certain he is wrong, and his memory is playing tricks on him? Because as Chris stated on the MAD thread, the idea that there were actually two identical documents created on the exact same day, but one was a fax from Ogden and the other a letter from Watson, is FAR more unlikely than the proposition that DCP’s memory is playing tricks on him. It’s the power of suggestion. Over the intervening years, Watson’s name was associated with this event, so his memory altered the fax from Ogden into a letter from Watson, but the content was the same.

So while this proves that DCP has a great deal of difficulty admitting he may be in error, it doesn’t prove that he’s a liar.

But either Roper or Greg is lying. I do not think that the fallibility of human memory could make Roper believe he suddenly found the letter, when he’d been sharing copies of it for years. I do not believe the fallibility of human memory could make Greg believe Roper made such a claim if he did not. Or, of course, Brent could be lying about the fact that Roper has shared the document for years. But someone is lying about that. I don’t think Brent is lying, but that could be my personal bias. I think both Chris and Brent summed up the situation aptly: it doesn’t prove DCP lied, but it does prove he’ll die on that mountain rather than admit his memory may have played tricks on him. It does prove that either Roper or Greg is a player.

And it does prove that readers need to go to any extent possible to verify the claims that certain apologists make. Not all apologists – just those with a problematic history of falsifying evidence, and I would make the same statement about critics if they’ve been discovered to do so as well.

by the way, has anyone explained just who Carla Ogden is? Does everyone just assume that she was Watson's secretary or something? I'm sure females are normally secretaries in the COB, but I'm still curious as to how we know who she is.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I believe this unmitigated disaster is without a doubt the #1 Mopologetic moment of 2009. Mormon apologists lying. False memories. Dubious claims foisted upon everyone concerned. I am, with out a doubt, horrified by the lengths to which these particular apologists will go to further their interests. It is an academic embarrassment.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_harmony]

Hello,

I believe this unmitigated disaster is without a doubt the #1 Mopologetic moment of 2009. Mormon apologists lying. False memories. Dubious claims foisted upon everyone concerned. I am, with out a doubt, horrified by the lengths to which these particular apologists will go to further their interests. It is an academic embarrassment.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Not necessarily false (which implies intent), but just incorrect.

I have several comments:

1. I wonder if this inability on Dan's part to correctly remember the original event might be attributed to advancing age? We all know Dan is going to live forever, but for right now, it's possible at least that his years are catching up... and that might be the biggest problem of all: for a brilliant man like Dan to forget details like this (and then feel pressed to supply details he's forgotten) would likely be very troubling to him personally, to his employer who depends on his brilliant mind, and to all of his friends and family. So blustering is the only way to try to keep the status quo. Just as Dan can never admit he's wrong, I suspect it's very difficult for him to admit he honestly doesn't remember.

2. Perhaps this is like the lost 116 pages, and the resultant scrambling to create something to fill in the blank?

3. Without the fax heading, and thus the provence, there is no way to verify the provence of the document except by the shrill "trust me!" of the players themselves. I agree with whoever put this incident on the same level as the Wench's Transcript debacle in the history of LDS apologetics.

4. I don't think Greg Smith is the duper. I think he's one of the dupees, with Dan and Hamblin. The vast majority of people won't fall on their sword like that, and someone is going to pay for this.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I hope that Brent elaborates on this. I'm definitely interested to see what tidbits he can add to the unfolding story.

[Guest]

beastie,

Good anaylsis and explanation on the likely explanation that DCP's memory not his integrity is compromised by his current insistence that he saw a 2d Watson Letter, separately from the Carla Ogden Fax. That is, unless he is covering for Bill Hamblin. If there is not a 2d Watson Letter separate from the Carla Ogden Fax, then there is a lot for which Bill Hamblin has to answer. If so, it was back in 1993 when Hamblin lifted a quote from the Carla Ogden Fax (to Brent Hall on 4/23/1993) and placed that quote in the article Hamblin authored, claiming the quote was from a letter from Watson to Hamblin of the exact same date and content as the Carla Ogden Fax. Unless there was a 2nd Watson Letter distinct from the Carla Ogden Fax, to get the quote right Hamblin was looking at the Carla Ogden Fax when he wrote that it was a letter from Watson. Sixteen years of memory decay may explain DCP's current insistence, but not what Bill Hamblin most likely did back in 1993 given that FARMS cannot produce a copy of the mythical '2nd Watson Letter'.

Dr. Smith posts on the Rah-Rah Board: "Matt [Roper of FARMS] e-mails me and says, 'I'm sticking those things in the mail for you. By the way, I was cleaning out Sorenson's stuff, and ran onto the fax about Cumorah.'" What Roper sent was the Carla Ogden Fax.

"[T]he fax about Cumorah" being the sum total of Roper's description to Dr. Smith triggered in Dr. Smith's mind that "the fax about Cumorah" was the elusive '2nd Watson Letter'. Whatever the past conversations between Dr. Smith and Roper, Roper thought the rather curt description, "the fax about Cumorah", was sufficient to let Dr. Smith know of which document Roper was writing. For Dr. Smith to understand what document was being referred to, Roper did not have to explain from whom the fax was sent, what it said about Cumorah, or what its significance was. Their previous discussions no doubt were such that when Roper wrote "the fax about Cumorah", Dr. Smith thought it was what has come to be known as a '2nd Watson Letter.' So upon receiving the e-mail from Roper that he would send "the fax about Cumorah", Dr. Smith posted on 12/2/2009 on the Rah-Rah Board that the 2nd Watson Letter was en route to him in Canada.

When the mailing arrived and it turned out to be the Carla Ogden Fax, Dr. Smith uploaded the Carla Ogden Fax to FAIRwiki where it was quickly pronounced to be the '2nd Watson Letter'.

Then the discussion boards (cksalmon on the Rah-Rah Board and this thread here) pointed out the glaring problems. It is a Carla Ogden Fax, not what Bill Hamblin had described its source to be back in 1993 as a '2nd Watson Letter'. DCP began back pedaling--he insists he saw with his own eyes the '2d Watson Letter', and what he saw was not the Carla Ogden Fax now on FAIRwiki. (Of course, DCP disses the Carla Ogden Fax, it isn't the 2nd Watson Letter that DCP saw with his own eyes.)

Roper has plausible deniability against any suggestion that he thought the Carla Ogden Fax was the '2nd Watson Letter'. Roper merely described it to Dr. Smith as 'the fax about Cumorah'. Nevertheless, Roper ought to shed light on whether he in fact thought the Carla Ogden Fax to be the 2nd Watson Letter when he mailed the Carla Ogden Fax to Dr. Smith circa 12/2/2009? and what was previously discussed between he (Roper) and Dr. Smith about a fax about Cumorah so that with such a cryptic reference Roper thought that Dr. Smith would understand it to be just the Carla Ogden Fax, despite Dr. Smith thinking it was in fact the '2nd Watson Letter.'

When Dr. Smith received the Carla Ogden Fax, Dr. Smith posted to the Rah-Rah Board, in response to cksalmon's inquiry ("Well, perhaps Greg can shut him down with an image of the WL2 originally provided to Professor Hamblin upon his inquiry. While I'm sure it will be a distinct let-down to all involved, I am curious about the time taken by the postal service. They must not be aware of the intense interest surrounding this particular package.

"Greg? Haven't received it yet?")

In cksalmon's inquiry post, he referred to "it" as the "WL2 originally provided to Professor Hamblin" (of course, there was no mention of a Carla Ogden Fax to Brent Hall).

Dr. Smith's reply (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208771720), beginning by quoting the same passage set forth above from cksalmon says (emphases added by Nimrod):

"I just received it in the mail today (16 December 2009).

"I have redacted the First Presidency Fax number and one of the secretarial numbers (they don't need the aggravation). They are otherwise unedited.

"Note that Hamblin had nothing to do with the letter at all. The discussion with F. Michael Watson was with Brent Hall, who circulated copies in an "FYI" sort of way. Matt Roper, who supplied me with the copy, said that to his knowledge there were about a half a dozen copies made to Hamblin, Sorenson, and a few others.

"Let the spin doctoring begin. :-)

"Greg"

From this--

1-"it" referenced cksalmon's "WL2 originally provided to Professor Hamblin", and thus Dr. Smith thought the Carla Ogden Fax he had just received and reviewed was yet what Hamblin described as a letter of 4/23/1993 from Watson to Hamblin (a '2nd Watson Letter').

2-Dr. Smith noticed that Hamblin had nothing to with the letter.

3-The discussion with Watson was had by Brent Hall, not Hamblin (despite what Hamblin wrote back in 1993).

4-Referring to the Brent Hall Cover (which from its text was obviously written in the time frame of the Carla Ogden Fax, i.e. circa 4/23/1993), Hall made about 6 copies of the Carla Ogden Fax and gave them to Hamblin, Sorenson, and a few others. There is the evidence that Hamblin did have a copy of the Carla Ogden Fax at the time he described the quote as having come from a 2nd Watson Letter. (Verifying this is that the recently located copy of the Carla Ogden Fax was located, according to Roper, among Sorenson's files.)

It seems much more likely than not that in the conversations between Dr. Smith and Roper that preceded Roper e-mailing Dr. Smith about "the fax about Cumorah", Roper equated the Carla Ogden Fax to be the '2nd Watson Letter', but that Roper did not spell that out to Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith only learned that the '2nd Watson Letter' was in fact just the Carla Ogden Fax after he (Dr. Smith) received and reviewed the copy sent to him by Roper.

Bill Hamblin has a lot to answer for. And it is not adequate for DCP to shield Hamblin as being in Israel until next summer, as if this secludes Hamblin incommunicado until then. They have computers, internet and e-mail in Israel.

Bill Hamblin--come out and defend yourself; DCP's been covering for you, but the cracks in his defense indicate it is soon to fall. The extent of his defense has been: I've seen the 2nd Watson Letter, and the Carla Ogden Fax is not it. With 16 years of memory fade and degradation, FARMS' inability to produce a copy of the 2nd Watson Letter leaves DCP's defense of you in imminent shambles.

Dr. Smith--I don't know if you were played by Roper/FARMS in the outing of the Carla Ogden Fax. But it seems obvious you are not a player in this scenario. You were quite prescient in heralding the spin doctoring to begin. DCP has done just as you suggested. Bill Hamblin's integrity and reputation being on the rocks, I suppose he too will be spinning in short order. But please do rescan the copy of the Carla Ogden Fax that you received from Roper, putting the light/dark setting much darker so that the fax provenance appears on the new scan, and then upload that new scan to FAIRwiki for all to see.

Brent Hall--Your role, like that of Dr. Smith's, seems at this point to be without guile, but you too could shed considerable light on the course of events back in April 1993 to the extent your memory can be refreshed by looking at the documents recently posted on FAIRwiki.

DCP--While you have claimed to have seen an actual 2nd Watson Letter, despite your denials on the Rah-Rah Board about not having seen the Carla Ogden Fax, will you now correct so much of your memory that you were one of the ~6 that Matt Roper told Dr. Smith were provided a copy of the Carla Ogden Fax back in 1993?

Scott Lloyd--If the two identical letters on the same topic on the same day from the Office of FP to FARMS is to be answered that it was form verbiage given numerous requests on the topic to the Office of the FP, why hasn't FARMS been able to locate one of the many other such letters that emanated from the Office of the FP with that form verbiage despite all the discussion these 16 ensuing years?

[_DaniteDan]

is there a link to the Hamblin article ?

[_cksalmon]

Bill Hamblin--come out and defend yourself; DCP's been covering for you, but the cracks in his defense indicate it is soon to fall. The extent of his defense has been: I've seen the 2nd Watson Letter, and the Carla Ogden Fax is not it. With 16 years of memory fade and degradation, FARMS' inability to produce a copy of the 2nd Watson Letter leaves DCP's defense of you in imminent shambles.

Dr. Hamblin is in Israel, hasn't posted on MADB in months, and is likely not aware of anything being posted to either one of the fora.

cks

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP just posted this:

P.S. For the residents of the Compound, who are hyperventilating with conspiracy theories and demanding of Brent Hall why he hasn't responded, and of Bill Hamblin why he's remaining silent, and of FARMS (better, nowadays, the Maxwell Institute) why it hasn't been able to track down other versions of the Watson letter, etc. --

Brent Hall no longer works for FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, and has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever appeared in one of our publications, posted on a message board, or paid any attention to any of this. He was our office manager.

Given that the quality of his memory is under suspicion as of late, I would think that he'd try to be a bit more careful. Or, at the very least, that he'd take the two seconds to double check. Unless this is some *other* Brent Hall, it seems that The Good Professor's memory has failed him (again?):

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... um=1&id=90

Gadiantons and the Silver Sword: A Novel
Chris Heimerdinger

Salt Lake City: Covenant, 1991. 268 pp. $11.95
Reviewed by Brent Hall

Finally, if Hall was the "office manager," why would it have been left up to him to contact Michael Watson, as per the cover sheet to the Ogden Fax?

[_cksalmon]

is there a link to the Hamblin article ?

Here.