The guy interviewed in the buzz-feed article also said there was probably a photographer there, though apparently they never used the picture. And they really gave the students who stayed $10. Again, a lot of the weird details in Carson’s story seem to hold up. And not all of them were in the news-story, so Carson obviously didn’t just get them from there. I think its pretty clear this really happened to Carson.
As for what they told Carson when they gave him the 10, we only have Carson’s account of it. But given the rest of the story is true, I don’t really see the point in second guessing him on that point (and even Carson says they told him it was a hoax, though its not really clear from the blurb if he realized “the most honest student” thing was meant as a joke or not).
I’m not sure of your point. I’m an atheist, so I don’t think God is coming up with convoluted schemes to give Carson $10, but I don’t see any reason to doubt that Carson believes that, so again, I don’t think he’s lying.
But I agree that for Carson that that, rather then the “most honest student” thing, is the point of the story. A bunch of weird events conspired to hand him $10 just when he needed it, because God was watching out for him.
You’re avoiding the main discrepancy between Carson’s version of this story and everyone else’s: Carson places himself at the very center of the story. According to him, he was literally the only person in the room at one point. He was the individual who the professor spoke to and singled out. He was the guy who got his picture in the paper. Carson isn’t just saying he was there when this event happened. He says it happened specifically to him. This isn’t a minor detail.
So one of three things seems to have happened:
Carson made the story up entirely.
Carson heard about the incident. He may have even been involved in some fashion. But he made up his role in it.
Carson honestly believes what he says is true. Even though it didn’t happen.
If it’s one of the first two, my assessment remains: Carson is knowingly lying about a story he’s using to establish his honesty. If it’s the third one, Carson isn’t lying. But he is delusional and can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what isn’t.
Personal anecdotes tend to focus on the persons telling them’s role in the story. Presumably people reading Carson’s autobiography are looking for stories about how events touched on Carson, not a wider history of Yale’s student newspapers and their pranks or whatever. (plus, as already noted, God is at the centre of the story).
I don’t see any reason to doubt this. Carson today is a pretty weird character, I can’t say I’m really surprised he would’ve been the only one to not realize it was a joke and stick around till the end. In anycase, given that the rest of the story is true, and there isn’t anything contradicting Carson’s account of the rest, I don’t really see any reason to doubt him here.
He said they took his picture, not that it was published. But he might well have had his pic in the satirical paper that ran the hoax, since that issue apparently has been lost. He confused the two papers in his retelling of the story, but since the whole point of the hoax was to fool people into thinking the satirical paper was actually an issue of the “real” Yale paper, that’s hardly surprising.
Again, the weird fixation people have that this story must be a lie, even after most of the stranger aspects of it have been show to be true, is bizarre. You don’t even consider the option that the story happened more or less as Carson said, even though at this point that’s clearly the simplest explanation.
Everything about the story is true except for the absolutely most fundamental elements. Those are all not only false, but obviously false even in Carson’s telling of it, so obviously that they could only be recounted by either a liar or a moron. Into which of those two categories does Carson fall? I can’t tell, and I can’t see that it much matters.
It’s a parable people, sheeeesh. It’s a well known literary ploy. Going on for 1000’s of years. You borrow a little from this [del]religion[/del] story and that story; add a few personal details, some lively dialogue perhaps, include the god/prophet of your choice and the history is made. After a few decades when recollections are hazy and you can sell the story as the truth/literal word of [del]Ben[/del] god.
There is that pesky internet of things though. But that can change too. The Jerusalem Post thought they were adequately backed up with papyrus, stone tablets, back copies, microfiche, etc… but that all disappeared during the great unpleasantness.