Gad wrote:...all I'll say about this is that, if you suspect this is 20 pages of the same thing over and over again as many of these conflicts go, then your suspicions are wrong. The rabbit hole gets deeper with every page. If you get to page 9 and think okay, you got the idea, the big revelation has come and that's that, no, the revelations keep coming. I wouldn't even know how to summarize this whole thing. It's so crazy that at the end of the day, the .5 watson letter was allegedly found, not the second.
WOW. you were not kidding. I vaguely knew the story, but reading through the live reveal, blow by blow, was just mind-boggling.
One final question, if anyone knows, was the Ogden fax verified as really coming from Carla Ogden, on the date in question?
I ask because Hamblin's final reveal that he quoted a pre-1985 "letter" makes me think that when he cited "correspondence" with Watson in his paper, he was playing a little fast and loose with the truth, morphing an encyclopedia entry "corespondence" on the grounds that they did sort of "correspond" with the Office of FP in writing that, if correspond means okayed it. He added the Watson source to cover the first letter fiasco, and a date.
I ask because it just seems too convenient that when people asked if there was a letter sent by Waton on that date, and the FP office told them no, why didn't they then ask if there was a fax that day? Or why didn't the office offer that, when they were checking for correspondence. To me, a fax is correspondence so maybe what the office said was there there was nothing on that day, no letter, no fax.
I know that's extreme, to assume the fax was totally fabricated, and maybe I missed a piece of the story where the fax date and source was verified, but it just seems too convenient that the transmission mark was missing,