My ‘evaluation’ of them is based upon the testimony of Westcott’s son . . . My dad was a “spiritualist” and founded the “ghost Society.”
Sounds like an open affinity with Satan to me?
Do you reject the notion that the manuscripts recovered from St. Catherine’s monastery were full of scribal errors and thus rejections?
Well, then, let's just evaluate your "evaluation," shall we?
Here is what Arthur Westcott writes about his father's involvement in the "Ghostlie Guild":
[Westcott] devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the "Ghostlie Guild" and the other the "Choral Society." The "Ghostlie Guild" . . . was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effect. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response. Outsiders, failing to appreciate the fact that these investigators were in earnest and only seeking the truth, called them the "Cock and Bull Club." (Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1 [London: Macmillan, 1901], 117, emphasis added)
Contrary to the KJV-only claim, the purpose of the Ghostlie Guild was not to engage in occultism, but to investigate supernatural claims with the intent of determining whether they were true. Even if they turned out to be bunk, Westcott believed there might be some scientific value to the investigation (Ibid., 118).
Does this make Westcott an occultist? Obviously not. There is obviously a major categorical difference between investigating ghost stories, and calling the ghosts up oneself.
Second, Arthur Westcott does not in fact call his father a "spiritualist." Remarking on his father's waning interest in the subject, he says it was "not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism" (Ibid., 119). He is using the term in a non-standard way: not the religious craze that gave rise to "psychics" and seances, but clearly a broader belief in supernatural events. Moreover, he says the real reason B. F. Westcott gave up his involvement was simply that "he was seriously convinved that such investigations led to no good."
The elder Westcott himself said, some years later:
Many years ago I had occasion to investigate "spiritualistic" phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion. . . . It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. (B. F. Westcott, "The Response to The Appeal," Borderland, Vol. 1 no. 1 [July 1893], 11 [source]).
In other words, far from being some sort of committed occultist, Westcott makes two key Christian affirmations: of the sufficiency of Scripture for all spiritual questions, and the sufficiency of Christ for hope beyond the grave.
Additionally, that same Web page notes that Westcott was invited by his friend Edward Benson to join the Ghostlie Guild, so the claim that Westcott "founded" the club is also inaccurate.
So now we know how well you've done your homework. Obviously you have spent no time reading primary sources, and have merely regurgitated false quote-mined claims from Ruckmanites. Amazingly, this is the most substantive claim made against Westcott and Hort, and yet it is easily shown to be a complete fiction.