The Hill Cumorah

[smac97]

Here's a link to the email exchange I had with Brent Hall regarding the 1993 letter.

While Bob "Don't call me disingenuous or dishonest" / "there's little freaking probability that I will continue to have dialogue with a person who calls me dishonest, disingenuous" Crockett will likely continue to falsely characterize me as an anonymous poster, and while he will likely continue to characterize anything I say or provide as "unsupported or unreliable," and while he will likely continue to characterize me personally as "not a reliable source" and "inherently unreliable," and while he has "{l}ess than zero interest" in contacting Brent Hall regarding his perspective on the 1993 letter (which conveniently allows him to continue to baselessly disparage Brent's name and reputation), we can nevertheless rest assured that his words are "not intended to insult any person."

Sure, Bob.  Sure.

Meanwhile, I think the emails from Brent are sufficient to authenticate the 1993 letter.  Good enough for an online discussion, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

because I postulate that the Ogden fax was fabricated does not mean that I accuse any particular person. 

No, because it is vague and unfocused it amounts to accusing everyone involved. 

[smac97]

On 1/14/2021 at 11:49 AM, Bob Crockett said:

I question the Watson letter.   

Well, not really.  You said:

Quote

I have written a paper on the second fax.  It lacks all the necessary indicia of authenticity and may or likely may be a fraud.  My published papers tend to emphasize the reliability of questionable evidence; I wrote a 60-page article about the Mountain Meadows Massacre assessing the reliability of various proofs relied upon by Juanita Brooks. 

I suggested ways to improve upon the authenticity of the fax but that has never been done. The fax was addressed to a Farms staffer and there was never any affidavit or statement from him about the fax after receipt.  It was certainly within FARMS's power to do so; failure to do so leads one to the conclusion that the fax is a fraud.

That leaves the first Watson letter.  The Hill is in New York.

"That leaves the first Watson letter."

Quote

I think it is inadequate.  We can discuss that.  But you're interested in the fax. 

I'm not particularly interested in either.  They aren't prophetic announcements.  They aren't binding on me or anyone else.  They are interesting.  Peripheral.  Secondary sources of information.  

I am more interested in objecting to your baseless disparagement of Brent Hall's good name.

Quote

I have never once questioned Mr. Hall's integrity.  

You have.  You absolutely have.

Quote

Yes, I have subzero interest in chasing Mr. Hall down.  He'll only say he received it and that is not enough.  The Carla Ogden fax speaks for itself and I'm going with that.  

Right.  The 1993 document bespeaks its own fraud.  But the 1990 letter doesn't.  

Arbitrary.  Ad hoc.

Quote

Yes, I know you are "appalled" at me. 

Yes, I think I am.  I take baseless attacks on the character and reputation of a good man seriously.  I'm kinda fickle that way.

Quote

But I do not think the evidentiary support is adequate. 

Which is nowhere near sufficient to justify you accusing Brent Hall (or anyone else, for that matter) of "fraud."

Quote

You've probably had conflicts with lawyers in the past; I'm just another one. 

I'm not interacting with you as a lawyer.  I'm interacting with you in your capacity as a fellow Latter-day Saint.  And I am protesting your baseless disparagement of Brent Hall's good name.

Quote

My personal record speaks for itself. 

I don't know your "personal record."  What you have said in this thread to disparage the reputation of Brent Hall (and/or others), however, is contemptible and baseless.

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2021 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

And it is this that makes no sense as a fraud.
 

A fraud that could have easily been found out if there was further communication (which there may have been) uses church approved language to do what exactly?  What is accomplished that is worth sinning for...and maybe even risking one’s job if found out?

Well, you make a good point.  Why go to all the effort to fraudulently create a fax that just quotes from the Encyclopedia?  I don't know the answer to that.  Remember, I don't know the answer to anything on this subject, I just point out major weaknesses in the two letters.  My particular "shtick" when I wrote my Mountain Meadows Massacre articles was to point out the absurd weaknesses of some of Balgley's evidence; never would I have thought to email him or call him to clear things up.  His book stood on its own two feet and I was out to demolish it for inadequate evidence.

With respect to the Ogden fax, there may be explanations as to why the fraud didn't come right out and say, well, this office retracts the Watson letter.  That suggests the letter is less than a fraud.  

So, the way I look at the Ogden fax:

      Outright fraud by somebody 25 %

      Altered by somebody to delete fax transmission information but otherwise legit 30 %

     Is what it purports to be but fails the equal dignities docctrine 45%

 

The way I look at the Watson letter:

     Outright fraud by somebody 20%

     Legit 80 %

The reason I think the Watson is more legit is that it doesn't suffer from a number of weaknesses the Ogden fax has.

[Bob Crockett]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know your "personal record."  What you have said in this thread to disparage the reputation of Brent Hall (and/or others), however, is contemptible and baseless.

-Smac

Well, you've relied upon needless righteous indignation in the past, but here it isn't necessary.  But you are entitled to think what you'd like.  Think away.

I'm pretty sure the pureness and legitimacy of the Book of Mormon does not need such puffed up support as the two letters; arm of flesh and all that.  

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

because I postulate that the Ogden fax was fabricated does not mean that I accuse any particular person. 

No, because it is vague and unfocused it amounts to accusing everyone involved. 

And because the Ogden fax has been publicly circulating for years, with Brent Hall's name on it, necessarily impugns Brent (who, if the document was fraudulent, would have an obligation to correct the record - particularly given the number of fellow church members who assume its authenticity).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are merely appropriating this thread to assert disbelief in the Book of Mormon, I guess I would understand.  Otherwise, though, I'm not sure I follow.  By this reasoning, the river connecting Utah Lake to Great Salt Lake doesn't exist, either.  Everyone knows that the real Jordan River is in the Middle East.  It is simply not possible for devout religionists to appropriate a place name from a sacred text and attach it to a separate place in their environs.

Or not.  

We have places in Utah like Bountiful, Lamoni, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Nephi, and place names in other states like Mormon (California), Mormon Island (California), Mormon Tavern (California), Mormon Bar (California), Mormon Flat (Arizona), Mormon Lake (Arizona), Mormon Mill (Texas), Mormon Mountains (Nevada), Mormon Well Spring (Nevada), Mormon Reservoir (Idaho), Mormon Row (Wyoming), Mormon Springs (Mississippi), and Ramah (New Mexico).

And in any event, the Hill Cumorah Pagent was cancelled as part of a broader policy of cancelling such Church-sponsored events.  There is no evidence that the Church cancelled it as a concession that "{t}here was no actual known 'Hill Cumorah.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

Huh? Oh brother, Relax, someone takes me way too seriously. I was #1 making a joke and #2 using humor to expose the ridiculousness of Bro. Smith's assertion.  Of course there is a Hill Cumorah in upstate New York and everyone except Robert knows that.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Remember, I don't know the answer to anything on this subject, I just point out major weaknesses in the two letters.

Weaknesses that don’t inherently require fraud and yet you take the leap of pushing it for the second letter/fax. 

[Bob Crockett]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And because the Ogden fax has been publicly circulating for years, with Brent Hall's name on it, necessarily impugns Brent (who, if the document was fraudulent, would have an obligation to correct the record - particularly given the number of fellow church members who assume its authenticity).

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see it that way.  I have argued that the receipt of the fax is not in issue, really, and so neither is Mr. Hall.  I don't challenge the integrity of anybody publicly associated with the fax but I do question Hamblin's and Roper's academic treatment of it after the fax.   I think their treatment is absurd.  I think they intentionally mispresented the fax ("Watson Second Letter") to make it what it was not.  Why?  I don't know but it looks dumb.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Weaknesses that don’t inherently require fraud and yet you take the leap of pushing it for the second letter/fax. 

Well, I have to confess I have relied upon my experience litigating altered faxes.  This one has the indicators of such.  But it could be legit as well.   I would really like to take a closer look at this fax when I have the time.  But I stand to my conclusion that there it is likely (but not more likely than not) that the fax is not legit.

It is an interesting question worthy of more inspection and thinking.  

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I have to confess I have relied upon my experience litigating altered faxes.  This one has the indicators of such.  But it could be legit as well.   I would really like to take a closer look at this fax when I have the time.  But I stand to my conclusion that there it is likely (but not more likely than not) that the fax is not legit.

And in your experience did anyone alter a fax for so trivial of a reason as to simply give standard language from other current church supported, if not produced materials?

[Bob Crockett]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And in your experience did anyone alter a fax for so trivial of a reason as to simply give standard language from other current church supported, if not produced materials?

That is a good lawyer question.  Reduce the question so there can be only one answer.  No. 

I don't think the fax is trivial.  I think it counter productive to the mission of the church. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And no, didnt hear the joke about the roof, please tell, I love a good joke.

No? Well that's OK, it was probably over your head anyway . 🤣

But in Mike's case, that joke was totally beneath him.

[Bob Crockett]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But in Mike's case, that joke was totally beneath him.

I still think Mike is Bill Reel.  But I'm guessing like everything else.  

[AtlanticMike]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But in Mike's case, that joke was totally beneath him.

Not right now because I'm in my truck. But it will be beneath me in about 20 minutes.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Not right now because I'm in my truck. But it will be beneath me in about 20 minutes.

From German composer Max Reger, responding to a savage review in the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten, 7 February 1906:

"I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me."

 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still think Mike is Bill Reel.  But I'm guessing like everything else.  

I don't. My wordprint study has it as only a 2% likelihood.  

Seriously, I don't think the styles, syntax, etc. match at all, in my unscientific opinion. Just my impression. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

And because the Ogden fax has been publicly circulating for years, with Brent Hall's name on it, necessarily impugns Brent (who, if the document was fraudulent, would have an obligation to correct the record - particularly given the number of fellow church members who assume its authenticity).

I don't see it that way. 

When you throw around public accusations that the 1993 letter is fraudulent, and when that letter is addressed to Brent Hall, it's fairly foreseeable that others might take that as an accusation against . . . Brent Hall.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have argued that the receipt of the fax is not in issue, really, and so neither is Mr. Hall. 

Strange, then, that you publicly declared it to be fraudulent.

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't challenge the integrity of anybody publicly associated with the fax but I do question Hamblin's and Roper's academic treatment of it after the fax.   

That's fair, of course.  Pointing out an academic error is not an attack on the individual's character or reputation.

Publicly accusations of deliberate fraud, on the other hand...

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think their treatment is absurd.  I think they intentionally mispresented the fax ("Watson Second Letter") to make it what it was not.  Why?  I don't know but it looks dumb.

Well, now you are accusing them of misconduct.  That seems . . . unnecessary.  But no longer surprising.

You've repeatedly messed up Brent Hall's name, but nobody is using that as license to impugn your character.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm pretty sure the pureness and legitimacy of the Book of Mormon does not need such puffed up support as the two letters; arm of flesh and all that.  

All the more contemptible, then, to disparage a man's reputation over a triviality.

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All the more contemptible, then, to disparage a man's reputation over a triviality.

-Smac

Pretty funny!  I'll keep pitching my views. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Pretty funny!  I'll keep pitching my views. 

As you like.  I'm done.  

-Smac

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still think Mike is Bill Reel.  But I'm guessing like everything else.  

Reel works at a pawn shop, so you are now calling Mike an outright fraud since he has said he is a roofer.   I personally think Mike’s style is quite different than Reel’s and have no clue why you think they are the same. 
 

For example, Mike is much more inclined to admit when he has made an error imo.  Reel doesn’t correct even minor stuff like getting the name of Bathsheba Smith (spells it Bethsheba) wrong or even that she wasn’t the wife of Hyrum Smith and he is prone imo to label others as participating in fraud while refusing to do the extra work to figure out they are not, such as simply by watching a video that shows there is only one book unevenly worn rather than relying on stills that make it appear there are two or even calls someone a liar just because he gets an impression they are. 
 

Sounds more like another poster I know than Mike. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't. My wordprint study has it as only a 2% likelihood.  

Seriously, I don't think the styles, syntax, etc. match at all, in my unscientific opinion. Just my impression. 

Will somebody explain this Bill Reel thing to me please before I throw another tantrum, I just put my big boy pants this morning🤣. Seriously, I googled Bill Reel either yesterday or or the day before when somebody else said I write like him. And he lives in utah. Sometimes I post at like 6 or 7 in the morning eastern standard time. What's the story with you guys thinking I'm Bill Reel? 

[AtlanticMike]

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Will somebody explain this Bill Reel thing to me please before I throw another tantrum, I just put my big boy pants this morning🤣. Seriously, I googled Bill Reel either yesterday or or the day before when somebody else said I write like him. And he lives in utah. Sometimes I post at like 6 or 7 in the morning eastern standard time. What's the story with you guys thinking I'm Bill Reel? 

And I'm not upset, just wondering how someone else learned how to write like me. It took me years to perfect my writing skills🤣🤣. That was for you Scott.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, true, I have zero interest in chasing down Mr. Hall. Zero. Less than zero. 

I can understand why.  All the time and energy you have invested in your position and paper would be a waste.