Spalding's handwriting found in BoM manuscript?

[Pahoran]

I was corresponding with Howard when his car was shot at on an Orange County

freeway (if I recall correctly). The cops investigated the case. There are

probably records of the incident somewhere.

Let's stick to exposing the true fakes (like the handwriting "experts") and

leave documented facts to stand for themselves.

Yer Unk

And let's leave off drawing conclusions those facts will not support.

To shoot at a car on a freeway: among possible assassination methods, what could be more inefficient? If the alleged shooter actually knew it was Davis's car, then he would also have been able to find out where Davis lived, worked, hung out, etc. and would therefore have been a much more vulnerable (and stationary) target.

If indeed the shooting is a "documented fact" -- as opposed to being a lie that originated at the time instead of more recently -- then the most likely explanation is that it was a random event.

I never believed the old claim that the handwriting experts were scared off by visits from mysterious "gentlemen." The fact that Art Vanick is making this claim makes it even less likely to be true.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

...

a lie that originated at the time instead of more recently

...

If it was a lie concocted by Howard Davis, he went to fairly extensive

efforts to put the bullet into his own moving car, leave it on the freeway,

have the police come and investigate the shooting, and get his picture taken

with the shot-out car (and then published for thousands [millions?] to see).

I'm not saying that he didn't arrange the whole thing. But if he did,

then the lie would not be the fact of the bullet in the car -- the lie

would be the fact that Howard had somebody drive up alongside of him

and shoot the gun at him, while speeding down the freeway -- a felony.

I'm not sure that a lie detector test would be workable after all of these

years, but I'm willing to solicit the funds to have one conducted, if

you're willing to try and get Mr. Davis to agree to take it.

Fair enough?

Uncle Dale

[Pahoran]

If it was a lie concocted by Howard Davis, he went to fairly extensive

efforts to put the bullet into his own moving car, leave it on the freeway,

have the police come and investigate the shooting, and get his picture taken

with the shot-out car (and then published for thousands [millions?] to see).

I'm not saying that he didn't arrange the whole thing. But if he did,

then the lie would not be the fact of the bullet in the car -- the lie

would be the fact that Howard had somebody drive up alongside of him

and shoot the gun at him, while speeding down the freeway -- a felony.

I'm not sure that a lie detector test would be workable after all of these

years, but I'm willing to solicit the funds to have one conducted, if

you're willing to try and get Mr. Davis to agree to take it.

Fair enough?

Uncle Dale

Well Unk, it happens that I wouldn't trust Howard Davis with ten cents of his grandmother's money, with or without a lie detector test. However, if indeed the police did investigate this alleged felony and conclude that it did take place, and that can be shown to be documented, then I will accept that as evidence that someone did take a potshot at a car on a freeway, and that car happened to be Davis's.

Fair enough?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

I dunno, it might have been an LDS nutter, it might also have been a nutter from a splinter group, as UD suggested.

[Uncle Dale]

Well Unk, it happens that I wouldn't trust Howard Davis with ten cents of his grandmother's money, with or without a lie detector test. However, if indeed the police did investigate this alleged felony and conclude that it did take place, and that can be shown to be documented, then I will accept that as evidence that someone did take a potshot at a car on a freeway, and that car happened to be Davis's.

Fair enough?

Regards,

Pahoran

At this late stage in the scenario, I suppose all you need to believe is that there really

was a Howard Davis who really did a drive a car on California freeways back in 1977. Beyond that,

everybody can believe whatever suits them. I once lived in a country where people were presumed

guilty until proved innocent. It can be a tough task -- proving yourself honest and truthful,

when admissible evidence proving your truthfulness is demanded by accusers. I've seen that

in Nepal in 1983-84.

All I can say for myself is that I've corresponded with Mr. Davis, off and on, since 1976,

and know of no lies that he ever told me or anybody else. When he showed me the clipping of

himself standing by the shot-out car, I assumed that there had been a real shooting, just as

he told me. Of course photographs can be faked -- and, even police reports can be faked, with

lies to investigating officers.

Is there some particular reason for any of us to assume Mr. Davis guilty until proved innocent?

If so, then perhaps that reason should be publicized, so that people can know the truth.

UD

[wenglund]

Here's my question to the forum and anyone else who might be interested - if it was so ridiculous that Spalding could have written those pages, then why such a big fuss over it?

The same inane question can be asked in reverse: If it is so ridiculous that the Book of Mormon is supernaturalistic, then why all the fuss over it? Why waste so much time promoting a naturalistic theory that most of the prominant critics think it far-fetched.

If indeed it was preposterous for Spalding to have written those pages, then why not just offer the evidence to show it?

Evidence has been offerred (see the two articles mentioned on this thread). In light of this, do you still affirm that Spalding is the unidentified scribe on the pages in question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

At this late stage in the scenario, I suppose all you need to believe is that there really

was a Howard Davis who really did a drive a car on California freeways back in 1977. Beyond that,

everybody can believe whatever suits them. I once lived in a country where people were presumed

guilty until proved innocent. It can be a tough task -- proving yourself honest and truthful,

when admissible evidence proving your truthfulness is demanded by accusers. I've seen that

in Nepal in 1983-84.

All I can say for myself is that I've corresponded with Mr. Davis, off and on, since 1976,

and know of no lies that he ever told me or anybody else. When he showed me the clipping of

himself standing by the shot-out car, I assumed that there had been a real shooting, just as

he told me. Of course photographs can be faked -- and, even police reports can be faked, with

lies to investigating officers.

Is there some particular reason for any of us to assume Mr. Davis guilty until proved innocent?

If so, then perhaps that reason should be publicized, so that people can know the truth.

It's one thing to establish that a car has been shot at. It's something quite different to establish that a particular person or a member of a particular group did the shooting.

LA's been famous for random freeway shootings for a long, long time now.

And we haven't even looked into personal or business contacts/acquaintances of Davis who may have had good cause to be peeved with him.

[Uncle Dale]

...If it is so ridiculous that the Book of Mormon is supernaturalistic, then why all the fuss

over it?

...

I think that the same question can be asked regarding the Koran. It is not so much a

problem that the Koran itself exists. The problem, as articulated by some anti-Islamic

voices, is that the book is used as initial device in forming millions of people into

a politically partisan group, and that some resulting activities are dangerous to society.

Perhaps the Koran is really what it says it is -- and perhaps its adherents have a

perfect right and responsibility to act upon the precepts developed within Islam. That

is not my argument. My argument is that such writings give rise to social movements

of considerable magnitude, in some cases, and the "fuss" generated will be over the

activities of members of such groups, more so than over the publication of the book itself.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

It's one thing to establish that a car has been shot at. It's something quite different to establish that a particular person or a member of a particular group did the shooting.

LA's been famous for random freeway shootings for a long, long time now.

And we haven't even looked into personal or business contacts/acquaintances of Davis who may have had good cause to be peeved with him.

I once heard that Walter Martin owned a gun and had a short temper.

If Howard was shot at by an evangelical Christian leader, THAT would

be a story worthy of some generous discussion here. But, if I recall

correctly, the threats Howard reportedly received were not from people

whose inclinations were against the Book of Mormon. Maybe Art can clarify.

Of course, if the moon were really made of green cheese, then that would

also be something we all could talk about for a dozen or so thread pages.

UD

[USU78]

I once heard that Walter Martin owned a gun and had a short temper. If Howard was shot at by an evangelical Christian leader, THAT would be a story worthy of some generous discussion here. But, if I recall correctly, the threats Howard reportedly received were not from people whose inclinations were against the Book of Mormon. Maybe Art can clarify.

Listen, Unk, you know I'm a Danite from way back, having learned from my grandfather's knee, as he had from his grandfather's knee . . . and no way was Martin involved. I was at all the meetings, and Martin's name never came up. Moreover, Howard's name never came up.

Of course, if the moon were really made of green cheese, then that would also be something we all could talk about for a dozen or so thread pages.

I heard once this was a misconception: it's really made of cream cheese, but somebody misheard.

USU "Mmmmmmm Lox" 78

[Uncle Dale]

...

Moreover, Howard's name never came up.

...

The Territorial D. A. who prosecuted John D. Lee?

No need to mention his name -- he left Utah, went

back East and said nary a thing about Marmans fer

the rest of his life. Decent sort... fer a Gentile.

UD

[USU78]

The Territorial D. A. who prosecuted John D. Lee? No need to mention his name -- he left Utah, went back East and said nary a thing about Marmans fer the rest of his life. Decent sort... fer a Gentile.

"Tob Shebbe Goyim Harob" has always been my rule of thumb.

USU "Still doesn't like Bumppos" 78

[Calm]

If it was a lie concocted by Howard Davis, he went to fairly extensive

efforts to put the bullet into his own moving car

I admit to watching way too many cop shows over the years and am forced by said addiction to mention that a possibility is that someone shot the car while it wasn't moving prior to the freeway jaunt for whatever reason. (My speculation is based solely on my addiction and has nothing to do with the individual involved, I just need the story to always be more complicated than it first appears......)

[wenglund]

I think that the same question can be asked regarding the Koran. It is not so much a

problem that the Koran itself exists. The problem, as articulated by some anti-Islamic

voices, is that the book is used as initial device in forming millions of people into

a politically partisan group, and that some resulting activities are dangerous to society.

Perhaps the Koran is really what it says it is -- and perhaps its adherents have a

perfect right and responsibility to act upon the precepts developed within Islam. That

is not my argument. My argument is that such writings give rise to social movements

of considerable magnitude, in some cases, and the "fuss" generated will be over the

activities of members of such groups, more so than over the publication of the book itself. UD

I am not one to fuss over the Koran, and certainly not for the reasons you mention. So, I can't relate to the comparison, though I can accept the possibility that some of the fuss over the Book of Mormon may be engendered by similar irrational fears and false conclusions allegedly generated by the Koran. There are extremist on all sides, including those who think as described above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

I once heard that Walter Martin owned a gun and had a short temper.

If Howard was shot at by an evangelical Christian leader, THAT would

be a story worthy of some generous discussion here. But, if I recall

correctly, the threats Howard reportedly received were not from people

whose inclinations were against the Book of Mormon. Maybe Art can clarify.

Actually if Mr. Vanick vouches for it, that's even less reason to believe that it happened. He has negative credibility, you see.

For instance: all three of the handwriting experts were interviewed after the cabal's lies about "death threats" were aired. All of them -- including Henry Silver, who stuck to his original position -- flatly denied that they had been threatened by anyone to withdraw their opinions.

Please note also that one of those experts withdrew his initial opinion, which had been based upon not-very-good photocopies, and actually reversed it after he had had the opportunity to study the originals. A second one said that the cabal had misrepresented what he said and wanted nothing more to do with the project.

So much for the "death threats" story.

In the meantime, Davis drives down a road in LA, and someone takes a potshot at his car. Like I said, there is no evidence to link that to any Mormon anywhere; but as a professional rabble-rouser, it was just too good an opportunity to pass up.

And speaking of "Reverend" "Doctor" Martin: he aired the story of the "death threats" and immediately appealed for money (what else?) to help the "courageous" researchers stand up against the terrible Mormon Church.

Walter Martin was a professional liar, hate-monger and rabble-rouser. And I have no reason to believe that any of his proteges are any better than he was.

And "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to accusers such as Howard Davis; it applies to those whom they accuse, even if they are Mormons (ugh!)

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

It needs to be pointed out that Vanark and his co-conspirators...all of whom now appear to have had serious credibility issues...had ample motive- both monetary and ideological- to fake threats and incidents of intimidation.

"If it bleeds it leads" is axiomatic in the press, and controversy and conspiracy sell. The tin foil hat crowd loves intrigue and psuedo-Danite assassination attempts merely amp up the titillation.

The accusers in this instance had every reason to hype up the drama... and really....how hard is it to put a stray round into a car, drive to a particular stretch of highway and then claim you were shot at?

Was the car disabled? Did it crash as a result of the gunfire? Was the expended round ever found?

There are too many holes and too few facts to take the story at face value.

Was the round firef by a random nutter and the accuser- whether from foaming at the mouth paranoia or foaming at the mouth opportunism, simply taking advantage?

As has been demonstrated, the alleged victims of the "threats" flatly denied it. Was the "shooting" a desperate attempt to revive a dying scam? That way lies Hoffman...so there IS precedent.

There are too many unknown variables- not the least of which are the accuser's known penchant for stretching the truth.

[Uncle Dale]

...

And "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to accusers such as Howard Davis; it applies to those whom they accuse, even if they are Mormons (ugh!)

...

Actually, the "presumed innocent" standard only applies within the criminal justice

system in the United States. It has some genesis in English common law -- and a few

tender roots for the precept may even be found as far back as ancient Judaism.

But it is not a social norm, unless a significant majority of people in a group

decide to make it so. Perhaps your social group has its own ideas about such things.

A Black man, speaking in a friendly way to a young white woman, in the American South

of the 19th century certainly did not have the "innocent until proven guilty" standard

applied to him. My ancestors who homesteaded Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman certainly did

not have that standard applied to them by the mobbers gathered around their homes.

I'll give Howard the benefit of the doubt that he was shot at and that the shooting

was in some way related to contemporary threats he had received. I cannot be 100%

certain, --- but I'd say 99.999% certain --- that Reorganized Latter Day Saints were

not involved in either threats or drive-by shootings from that time and place.

If you wish to pursue this any further, I'm sure there are people more suited to

the task than I am. There doesn't seem to be anything more I can add. Is there?

UD

[Pahoran]

I'll give Howard the benefit of the doubt that he was shot at and that the shooting

was in some way related to contemporary threats he had received. I cannot be 100%

certain, --- but I'd say 99.999% certain --- that Reorganized Latter Day Saints were

not involved in either threats or drive-by shootings from that time and place.

If you wish to pursue this any further, I'm sure there are people more suited to

the task than I am. There doesn't seem to be anything more I can add. Is there?

UD

I don't know. Here's the rub: you want to take the presumption of innocence and apply it, not to the entire population being thus cavalierly accused, but to the accuser.

I don't think there's a lot of precedent for that kind of usage.

And unless Davis now claims to have actual information about who shot at his car as he was driving down the freeway, linking the alleged shooting to the alleged threats is a textbook instance of the post hoc fallacy. It certainly has nothing to do with any presumption of innocence. If anything, it's a presumption of guilt. And it's a little bit glib to claim that making that presumption is equivalent to giving Davis "the benefit of the doubt."

Because it's not.

IF Davis was actually shot at on the freeway -- and so far we have only his word to you that he was, so it's hearsay -- then that is not evidence in support of his hysterical rabble-rousing claims that there was a Mormon plot to murder him and his fellow-conspirators.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

...

The accusers in this instance had every reason to hype up the drama...

...

There was a similar controversy, over the assaults upon Jerome B. Stillson, in Salt Lake City

in May-June of 1877. Stillson claimed that he had been a victim of a gunshot, almost within

sight of the Lion House, in that city -- and that the failed shooting was followed up by a

more physical attack at the entrance of his own hotel room.

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Herald downplayed the assault charges,

essentially blaming Stillson for either hyping some unimportant incidents, or for perhaps

even having assaulted himself, in order to gain publicity.

At the time, Stillson was the on-the-scene New York Herald reporter, who was covering

the convening of a federal Grand Jury on charges being leveled at Brigham Young. Stillson had

earlier conducted an extensive interview with President Young, which was generally laudatory,

and which received favorable mention in the local Mormon press.

But then Stillson began interviewing dissidents in Salt Lake City, and the LDS press response

turned against him. After the alleged assaults he soon left Utah. The federal court ran out

of funds in the proceedings against Young, and he died that same year, before a new budget

provided a means to continue the Grand Jury action.

Did Stillson shoot at himself (or hire somebody to shoot at him)?

Perhaps so -- but his career was otherwise unmarked by any such claims of self-inflicted

injury. He gained some fame for daring to conduct interviews with famous figures such as

Chief Crazy Horse, during dangerous times.

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Herald certainly spread the word that

Stillson had hyped/faked his own assaults. In the eyes of those editors and their bosses

(The Brethren, at that time) Stillson was a lying malingerer.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

a Mormon plot to murder him and his fellow-conspirators.

...

Such an explanation/accusation surpasses even my imaginative capabilities.

I'll just sit back to see what Art Vanick's reply might be.

UD

[Pahoran]

There was a similar controversy, over the assaults upon Jerome B. Stillson, in Salt Lake City

in May-June of 1877. Stillson claimed that he had been a victim of a gunshot, almost within

sight of the Lion House, in that city -- and that the failed shooting was followed up by a

more physical attack at the entrance of his own hotel room.

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Herald downplayed the assault charges,

essentially blaming Stillson for either hyping some unimportant incidents, or for perhaps

even having assaulted himself, in order to gain publicity.

At the time, Stillson was the on-the-scene New York Herald reporter, who was covering

the convening of a federal Grand Jury on charges being leveled at Brigham Young. Stillson had

earlier conducted an extensive interview with President Young, which was generally laudatory,

and which received favorable mention in the local Mormon press.

But then Stillson began interviewing dissidents in Salt Lake City, and the LDS press response

turned against him. After the alleged assaults he soon left Utah. The federal court ran out

of funds in the proceedings against Young, and he died that same year, before a new budget

provided a means to continue the Grand Jury action.

Did Stillson shoot at himself (or hire somebody to shoot at him)?

Perhaps so -- but his career was otherwise unmarked by any such claims of self-inflicted

injury. He gained some fame for daring to conduct interviews with famous figures such as

Chief Crazy Horse, during dangerous times.

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Herald certainly spread the word that

Stillson had hyped/faked his own assaults. In the eyes of those editors and their bosses

(The Brethren, at that time) Stillson was a lying malingerer.

UD

That's all very erudite, Unk, but how exactly is that relevant? The two events are a century apart. If you're not suggesting that whoever had a go at Stillson also took a potshot at Davis, what are you suggesting?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

...

what are you suggesting?

...

What I am suggesting, is that there was a discernible "knee-jerk" reaction

on the part of the two LDS newspapers' reporting, in June of 1877. One

possibility is that Stillson either faked the assaults upon him or conspired

with somebody, to assault him, in order to blame the activities upon Mormons.

But that was the ONLY possibility that the two Mormon newspapers considered.

They dismissed immediately the possibility that anybody would truly make an

assault upon Mr. Stillson. They did not spend a moment on that possibility.

The "Salt Lake Tribune" knee-jerked in the other direction, of course. And,

before long, dozens (hundreds?) of non-LDS newspapers were reporting that

Stillson had been set upon in Salt Lake City, in order to detract attention

away from the Grand Jury investigation of Brigham Young.

I do not know who was telling the truth, and who was not -- but there was

a flurry of accusations back and forth, over the Stillson case, and the

previous news about Brigham Young was quickly crowded out of the newspaper

columns. If Stillson faked being a victim, he also ruined his own reporting

assignment by such a strange set of seemingly self-defeating actions.

If Howard Davis faked being a victim, I do not see how it helped his own

case in any way. Attention was drawn away from his authorship theory, into

controversies over whether or not he was a liar.

That was all that I was pointing out -- a certain partisan propensity for

people to knee-jerk blame the "other side," rather than collect evidence and

make impartial examinations. Certainly the Salt Lake Tribune people didn't

bother to do that. It was far easier for them to just assume LDS involvement in the

Stillson assault reports. In fact, the Tribune's 1877 failure to conduct

investigative journalism made it appear likely that the Deseret News editors

had guessed right.

UD

[frankenstein]

found this reference about Davis counter....

q.v. Moody Monthly Magazine, Nov. 1977, pp.10-11 for the story plus a photo of the bullet hole

[rodheadlee]

found this reference about Davis counter....

q.v. Moody Monthly Magazine, Nov. 1977, pp.10-11 for the story plus a photo of the bullet hole

Where exactly did the shooting happen and what time of day? I'm just curious, I grew up in So Cal. Do you have a link to the article?

[frankenstein]

Where exactly did the shooting happen and what time of day? I'm just curious, I grew up in So Cal. Do you have a link to the article?

i only found the reference to the mag. Moody Mag. does not have archived volumes that I could find.

all in all though, i find it suprising that anyone would attribute the "unknown scribe" to Spaulding.