|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 2:56 pm: |       |
Caz--"Are you sure your 'evidence' isn't tainted by your belief that the diary is a modern fake"?
No; I admit as much. My belief that the diary is a recent fake (1990 +/- one year) definitely "taints" my opinions about the watch. One can't look at anything in isolation.
But I believe the following point has been made before:
The watch dates from the 1840s.
Dr. Wild states the "Maybrick" scratches are the lowest ones (and hence the earliest). Allegedly circa 1888-89.
All the other superficial scatches, including the alleged jeweler's marks are on top of the "Maybrick" ones.
Lots of activity...especially to a part of the watch that wouldn't normally be subjected to wear & tear. Pretty odd. The watch managed to stay relatively pristine for 40 years and then was bombarded with activity...but no one notices the Maybrick scratches until a few weeks after the Diary hits the newpapers?
To one way of thinking, Wild's report might actually suggest something very unnatural had been going on...no?
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 26, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 381
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
OK, for the record, at least in the explanation of the timing, I have to go with Caz's explanation.
"At least several tens of years" means bare minimum 20, probably more accurately 30-70, and the "at least" up front puts no sort of explicit restriction on how much older than that it could be. So I'd read that as at least older than 1970 or 1960 but of unknown age that could be older than 1920, with no determined references of how many additional years it could be older.
I'm not going to get into any of the rest of it because, honestly, I haven't looked into all that very much yet.
But the phrase at least several tens of years does not in any way indicate probable date of 1970 or maximum oldest date of 1920. That sentence (and again I am only dealing with that sentence) could fit any number of scenarios from genuine, old fake or fake in the earlier part of the last fifties years.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Dan,
you chose the best option there. I only wish i had done likewise my head hurts!!
Jenni |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi Dan
Yes the scientific reports are phrased ambiguously so that the Maybrickites can come away with the consolation that the scratches "appear" old, while the anti-Maybrick brigade have the consolation that the scientists aren't sure.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Chris or that several tens of years is less than 1888!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
I have been reading and re-reading Wild's report further, in the hope that something useful can be gleaned from his measurements of the corrosion of a copper particle, even though he did not undertake a quantitative interpretation of them himself.
I have some questions, which I hope those with access to the Figures may be able to answer:
(1) Do Figures 1 and 2 show which scratch the particle was in?
(2) Wild's experiment consisted of three stages:
(i) The surface was therefore ion etched for 3 minutes which would remove approximately 100nm of the surface
(ii) the surface was ion etched for a further 20 minutes, during which time approximately 600mm would be removed
and (iii) The area was then etched for a further 20 minutes, 43 minutes in total
The findings concerning the brass particle are as follows:
(A) [after stage (ii), presumably from Figure 5b] The profile for point 2, the particle, shows no indication that the metal has been reached by the completion of the profile. [But, presumably from Figure 6b] The particle shows the appearance of peaks from zinc around 1000eV.
(B) [after stage (iii)] The spectrum from point 2 still shows contamination although now the oxygen and zinc peaks have increased relative to the carbon.
(C) [from the Discussion section, concerning the particle] In this investigation the etching process, which was continued for some 45 minutes, only began to reveal zinc oxide.
It's a bit difficult to interpret these comments without seeing the figures (and judging from the text it seems, unfortunately, that there are no figures relating to the third stage of the experiment - though I hope I'm wrong about that).
But it sounds as though the corrosion layer had been removed in parts after stage (ii) (that is, after the removal of a thickness of 700nm), and that it had been removed over a wider area by stage (ii) (that is, presumably, after the removal of a thickness of about 1300nm).
If this interpretation is correct, the thickness of the corrosion layer on the brass particle was on the order of 1000nm, or in other words 1 micron.
Perhaps those who have access to the Figures can comment on whether this is a reasonable interpretation.
I am unsure why Wild did not try to relate this to data from the scientific literature, in order to try to establish a timescale for the corrosion. But if the estimate above is correct, it's open to anyone with access to a good library to estimate how long it would take for a 1-micron corrosion layer to develop on the surface of brass.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
I would just like to say. My head hurts i need to go lie in a darkend room
James Maybrick is innocent!
Jenni |
Dennis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
If the watch is genuine then there must have been only five murders - or Maybrick did not hear the names of other victims. Wasn't there a Manchester murder associated with the diary? I am not sure.
Dennis Bailey
Australia |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Dennis
indeed there is.
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Afternoon Campers,
(In my very best Victor Meldrew voice)
I do not beleeeeve it! How, in the name of numeracy, can anyone so completely fail to understand what is meant by at least?
No, Jenni, we don't 'agree after all...that the watch must have been forged between the yrs 1901 and 1973 according to these reports'
According to the reports there is no upper limit to the possible age of the scratches. Even the estimated lower limit appears to depend on one's preferred definition of 'several' decades, though how the devil Chris G makes it just two, or even limited to three decades (and then quotes a dictionary definition that disagrees with his 'two or three'!), I just don't know. If someone said they hadn't been to the message boards for several days, would anyone here seriously think they meant since Saturday, or even Friday?
Get a grip and at least be honest with yourselves - the upper limit is only set by the dates of the murders themselves. 'At least' several decades old allows for the scratches to have been made at any time from 1964 (ie 3 decades, or 30 years, before the date of the report) back to 1888 (ie 10 and a half decades, or 105 years). If I had not been to the message boards for 10 and a half days, does anyone here seriously think that 'several' wouldn't cover it nicely?
And make no mistake, I'm not 'stretching' anything around here; I don't have to. Even if we accept Chris G's definition of 'several' as just two, it would take the scratches back to 'at least' 1973 - a fat lot of good, since you need evidence that they were in fact made in 1993, just weeks before the initial examination.
Hi John O,
Please re-read Albert's comments in the Daily Mail article and Robert's comments in the Postscript to Shirley's book.
Remind me - when was Shirley's book written?
Robert once wrote, "Here, from an independent source, was yet more strong corroboration that the diary is genuine."
If Robert has made any recent claims about authenticity, or decides to do so, I'm sure you will pull him up over them.
As for Albert's words, as quoted by The Daily Mail:
"in my own mind, I have absolutely no doubt about who the Ripper was",
how is this a 'claim', exactly? He's simply stating his own view. He couldn't possibly claim the scratches to be genuine in any case, could he?
This discussion about dating reminded hubby of an old joke:
Visitor to the Natural History Museum: How old is that dinosaur?
Security Guard: I can tell you exactly how old that dinosaur is, Sir. It is three million years, three months, two weeks and one day old.
Visitor: Blimey! That's precise - how can you possibly be so accurate?
Security Guard: That's easy, Sir. On my first day here, exactly three months, two weeks and one day ago, they told me that dinosaur was three million years old.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Classic.
Caroline says Robert and Albert have made no claims about the age or authenticity of these artefacts.
I cite Robert making just such a claim based on these very reports.
Her response?
Yes, well he said that years ago.
So then he has indeed made just such a claim, right?
As I have said.
And Albert's claim?
Caroline says that's just him "stating his own view?" (As opposed, somehow, to claiming something.)
Well, I wouldn't expect Albert to make a claim offering us someone else's view? Would you?
Sometimes I wonder how desperate someone has to be in order to continually and routinely play such sad and trivial games with language for unfathomable personal reasons.
But then I come here.
And I know.
Reminded why this isn't about the truth anymore, it's just about pathetic acts of self-defense,
--John
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
Hi Caroline
I never made the statement that the term "several" decades means "just two" decades as you claim that I said. As you recall, in my post of Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:30 am, I quoted the definition in Webster's dictionary, "Several -- Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many. . ." So clearly Wild was talking about two decades upward.
What I do contest is your statement in your post of Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:36 am in which you stretch the meaning of the word "several" when you said, ". . .'at least several tens', would then allow for going beyond 99 years." Meaning that this would conveniently stretch the period to approaching Maybrick's lifetime and possibly into the murder period.
How on earth do you come up with that? 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:52 am: | |
Oh dear John,
For someone who repeatedly calls both watch and diary forgeries, something they patently can't be, (unless someone out there knows where the originals are!), that's worse than the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think we need the language lesson thankyou!
Paul
P.S. I wonder if the handwriting is any better on the original?..... |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Paul,
They are both hoaxes.
Feel better?
Reminded once again that this is still not about the truth for some,
--John |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 385
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
I can't believe there is still any confusion over what "at least" means. At least means a minimum amount, with untapped potential for extra. So if we assume 20 or 30 at the several tens of years, at least means 20 or 30 or more. It does not mean 20 to 90 and no more.
If you need to be at least 21 to drink legally (as in many places in the US), does that mean when you turn 100 you are no longer allowed to drink? No.
I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone can claim that at least several tens of years old couldn't be more than 100, especially when the report adds a phrase like "and probably more" on top of the "at least."
There's plenty enough to argue about without trying to claim that something presented as at least a certain age (according to the opinion expressed in the report) couldn't be older than that.
(And because I had a problem with another message board when I tried to point the same thing out: That DOES NOT mean I believe that the opinions expressed in the report are necessarily true, it just means that the words don't mean what some people are trying to claim they mean.)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Hi Campers!!!
Caz,
yes you are right. i confess I was hasty, i agree it is impossible to put any limit on what the scientist meant. So why are we all here trying to interpret what he is saying by guesswork. Here's an idea (and stop me when you think i am talking complete sh**) why doesn't one of us ask the scientist what he meant?? surely that will solve that one?
lets be honest here. I was hasty to claim the watch reports were inconclusive too (I was probably so busy hugging my arm chair that I just assumed the watch reports were inconclusive and or invalid because of this fact) there is a conclusion but it is quite narrow and allows for the watch to be either fake (don't lets get arguing about the difference between these words means you know what I mean) or genuine (ditto).
And Caz, calm down, calm down i am sorry. unlike some people I have not had the pleasure of ten years to examine these reports. (the reports which are in fact half my age!)
Geez, give me a break!
Do let us clear up the following things,
1) which/what scratches were examined
and
2) is this correct? that is to say, that the scientists had to assume that no interference had occurred?
you know you are right, these reports seem to indicate an old forgery or authenticity. Seem here is the key word (yes i know you didn't say blah blah etc!!)
Dan,
can't you you obviously don't spend enough time around here where even the simplest things make absolutely no sense at all most of the time.
Sigh!
I wish I wasn't at uni I need my armchair (I call it Bob!)
Jenni
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Hi Jen
A rather belated reply to your question to me, which Caz has neatly answered since in any case.
It was the clear inference from several people on these boards a while ago, John Hacker in particular, that either Albert, or a close acquaintance of Albert’s was responsible for the appearance of the Maybrick scratches on the watch.
It’s at least heartening to see that since the publication of the reports, the idea that the hoax was perpetrated some decades ago is gaining some credance at last. It has never needed scientific tests to exonerate Albert in any case, the order of the scratches proved that beyond any reasonable doubt long ago.
Hi Chris P
I don’t think you are going to be disappointed. From memory, (I’m at work so I can’t check), there is a spectrograph for the last stage of the ion etching experiment on the brass particle. Its quite interesting too, and I was as frustrated as you at the lack of comment within the text. There is a clear Oxygen peak at this stage of the etching process still. There is also a good photograph of the particle in situ. Lets hope a facsimile is posted here soon.
There are plenty of patent solutions for aging brass and other non ferrous metals. I use one made by Horological Solvents to age newly made clock parts when the new brass is needed to match an antique clock movement. The effects are instantaneous and very superficial. Even a thorough soaking, which will provide a very authentic “old” look can be wiped off with Brasso in seconds. I would also expect, although I don’t know, that any tampering with the use of chemicals would have shown up in the analysis.
It’s been suggested here before that salt or vinegar could have been used. I suggest that if anyone still believes that, then they try it. A bit of verdigris and that’s about it.
Can I just ask a general question? I don’t want to get involved in silly arguments over semantics, but can anyone explain to me why “………at least several tens of years old” can’t mean a hunded years or more? Surely all it means is a minimum of thirty, (not twenty) years, and a maximum of infinity?
Regards to all
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
It has never needed scientific tests to exonerate Albert in any case, the order of the scratches proved that beyond any reasonable doubt long ago.
I assume you are still basing this on the assumption - which can be no more than that - that one of the engravings is an old repairer's mark.
And that has to be coupled with the assumption that the scratch crossing it really is part of the "tail of the J". Possibly this will become clearer if the figures of Turgoose's paper are published.
Chris Phillips
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
“………at least several tens of years old” can’t mean a hunded years or more?
I personally believe that if the scientist who performed the test thought that the scratches were made at least 100 years ago than he would have used those words. The fact that he doesn't, in my opinion, suggests that he didn't believe they were that old.
As someone has mentioned somewhere in this thread, the only way we will ever know is to contact the 2 people who created the reports and ask them what they did and didn't mean.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Paul writes,
"It was the clear inference from several people on these boards a while ago, John Hacker in particular, that either Albert, or a close acquaintance of Albert’s was responsible for the appearance of the Maybrick scratches on the watch."
Cite.
Please.
--John (in favor of responsibility in such cases)
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
"And if you call, I will answer
And if you fall, I’ll pick you up
And if you court this disaster
I’ll point you home"
- Barenaked Ladies (Call and Answer)
Hmmm... I think someones taking my name in vain again. ;-)
Hello all, it's been a while.
To the old timers, (Caz, John, Paul, Jennifer, Chris, RJ, Dan) how've you been doing?
To the new folk, (Lee) good to meet ya!
Work and home life is taking up a large portion of my time of late, and I have had little time left over for Jack or the diary. Unfortunately I probably won't have a lot of time in the near future, but as I've been called, I will answer and post my general thoughts on the watch reports. Hopefully sometime in the next week or so. With my limited spare time, I will probably not get back on the the merry-go-round full time any time soon, but I will at least go through the various points that have occurred to me while researching the reports. People can then take or leave 'em as they see fit.
I hope y'all are doing well.
All the best,
John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Awww…Come on Chris. No assumptions needed here! The order of the scratches are quite unambiguously given by Dr. Turgoose. Either he can’t see straight and is wrong, or he can and he isn’t. It doesn’t need the numbers to be repair marks either. They could be Florrie’s mother’s dressmaker’s phone numbers for all I care, but they were seen by at least two jewelers, both on record, before Albert even caught sight of the watch in Murphy’s window.
Nice try though……….
Lee.
Surely the point is that the opinions of the two scientists are based solely on the results of their tests that suggest the scratches are several decades old and nothing more? The tests clearly don’t infer a nineteenth century date for the scratches so how could either scientist have an opinion either way beyond the ones they have given? I’m not being funny, but I just think we’ve got all we’re going to get from that particular direction for now.
John
I certainly don’t have time to trawl through a load of old posts right now, but I suggest you have a look at a few exchanges between me and John H around last March time I think. It’s all there. (That doesn’t count the other posts from certain quarters speculating around the idea that Albert popped into the physics lab at college and fired up the scanning electron microscope in order to create his masterpiece). Have fun. I’ve got a job to do.
Regards to all
Paul
P.S. Hi John H. Just saw your post. Good to see you are still around in spirit at least. I know we shall probably never agree about anything, but I shall look forward to your next.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
Paul
It doesn’t need the numbers to be repair marks either. They could be Florrie’s mother’s dressmaker’s phone numbers for all I care, but they were seen by at least two jewelers, both on record, before Albert even caught sight of the watch in Murphy’s window.
I'm sorry, but that is simply untrue.
Dundas - whose testimony about the Maybrick scratches you choose to disbelieve - made a general statement about repair marks, which can't be tied to any particular engraving on the watch.
Murphy was unable to identify some faint scratches he said he saw with the scratches on the watch now.
If you "certainly don’t have time" to check your facts before posting, please don't post. A lot of other people had to spend time before correcting your misstatements, and it would be tedious in the extreme to have to repeat the whole process.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
As I suspected, Paul Butler is unable or unwilling to defend his accusation that "it was the clear inference from several people on these boards a while ago, John Hacker in particular, that either Albert, or a close acquaintance of Albert’s was responsible for the appearance of the Maybrick scratches on the watch."
I have read the exchanges he mentions and I cannot find John H. saying or even implying any such specific thing. Perhaps he has, somewhere.
But that's not even the point. The point here is about how these discussions take place. It's about how certain statements are made as if they were true but asserted completely unsupported by the appropriate citations or specific references. And how no one is surprised when, if they are pressed, those who make such statements can't or won't offer the specifics or the evidence to support their claims.
I keep saying that this whole Maybrick hoax affair is a question of intellectual ethics and personal responsibility across the board. This is just one example. There are plenty of others, from the sad game playing we've just seen about what Robert and Albert have claimed all the way to the simple abdication of responsibility on the part of the owners of these artefacts to do the right thing and raise the funds, organize the tests, provide the professionals with proper unlimited access to the materials being tested, and learn the truth. From the creators of these artefacts to the promoters of this hoax in publication to the apologists and excuse-makers on these boards, the habits I have seen here have been less than completely careful or responsible.
That's one of the reasons these two hoaxes have survived for as long as they have.
And one of the reasons why discussions around here can move only in endlessly repeated circles as one DiTA day after another passes by.
Thanks, Paul, for exactly the answer I suspected.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi John H.
nice to hear from you.
this watch is doing my head in!!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:19 am: | |
Hi John O,
You wrote:
Caroline says Robert and Albert have made no claims about the age or authenticity of these artefacts.
Cite please. I think I said 'are making no claims' (present tense), which is what I meant and what I stand by. Didn't you agree some time ago that we should all move on? Your recent point was that people should support whatever claims they might make, in whatever ways they can - and I agree. But if they don't, or can't, we can simply reject whatever claims we believe are being made. We all have choices here.
If Albert is claiming his watch is genuine (although I still dispute this is what he is doing, by simply stating his own beliefs, based on the evidence, and presumably what he knows about his own watch's history), and attempting to convince others, then it isn't working, is it? So there's no need for you to panic yet.
Sometimes I wonder how desperate someone has to be in order to continually and routinely play such sad and trivial games with language for unfathomable personal reasons.
Funny, I was wondering the same thing about you, John.  You of all people must know the difference between 'making' now, and 'have made' in the past.
You of all people must also know the difference between 'at least several tens of years old' (Wild)/'more than tens of years, and possibly much longer' (Turgoose); and the nonsense interpretations that try desperately to whittle these opinions down to 'not much more than two decades' (which would still make mincemeat of the modern hoax theory, if correct). Yet you chose to remain silent on the subject. A bit selective, isn't it, your criticism of the language usage around here?
Hi Chris G,
So clearly Wild was talking about two decades upward.
If you accept your dictionary definition, clearly both Wild and Turgoose were talking about upwards of three decades.
How on earth do I come up with 'possibly beyond 99 years'?
Simple. Wild wrote 'at least' several decades, which is the same as saying they 'could be more than' several. We don't know what Wild's definition of 'several' is, but it doesn't matter, since he didn't give a maximum age.
And how would you interpret Turgoose's, albeit qualified, opinion: 'more than tens of years, and possibly much longer'? What does 'more than tens' mean, if not 'more than a hundred'?
Hi Jenni,
unlike some people I have not had the pleasure of ten years to examine these reports.
Me neither - I only read them for the first time earlier this year. Chris P and John O, among others, may think I've been lazy, slow, incompetent, irresponsible, unethical or out of my depth with the science. But at least the result of my reading the reports in 2004 is that they have been brought to you and everyone else in 2004.
Hi John O again,
You crease me up, you do straight.
It's about how certain statements are made as if they were true but asserted completely unsupported by the appropriate citations or specific references. And how no one is surprised when, if they are pressed, those who make such statements can't or won't offer the specifics or the evidence to support their claims.
Thank you, I'd almost forgotten about your unsupported assertion that Maybrick would never have known any of Crashaw's poetry. But I assume this is an old claim you are no longer pushing, so I'm happy to move on if you are.
Now, are you claiming the watch scratches were hoaxed (on the back of a hoaxed diary)? If so, please cite your evidence. If not, why not? They surely must have been, for you to be right about your Caine-inspired late 1980s fake.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Good to see Dan, Paul and John H here, providing some much needed balance!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Caz,
I thought I had already said this once perhaps I haven't. sorry if so.
well done, well done to you, you got those watch reports out into public. It was down to you and your persistence that I know what they say. I am grateful. I am sorry if my gratitude doesn't always shine through but know that I am grateful.
sincerely
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
And one more thing.
i failed to mention that i think it is a good thing these reports are in the public domain. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Perfect.
Let's watch the silly and trivial self-defense in action.
I said that any claims Albert or Robert wish to make about dates or authenticity are worth little or nothing, since they have not done the proper and responsible thing and raise the funds, organize thorough tests, give the scientists complete access to the material to be tested and learn the truth.
Caroline said Robert and Albert aren't making any such claims.
I cite a claim Robert makes in print about these very reports and one Albert makes in the paper.
Caroline's response?
Nothing about the truth of the issue or about my argument concerning their responsibility or about what they are asserting in these citations. Rather, she insists that because the claim Robert makes in print was published years ago, it doesn't count, and because Albert was giving his own opinion it's somehow not a claim.
That's her response.
And now she says that they might be making such claims (well, Albert at least -- Robert just WAS making such claims), but that since they are not convincing anyone, we can just reject those claims.
And lo and behold, we have arrived exactly at my original point!
Somehow, through all this is silly self-defense and verbal dancing, Caroline has ended up precisely where my original paragraph ended days ago -- that these claims by these guys are worth little or nothing (because they have not done the proper and responsible thing and had their artefacts thoroughly retested using the latest science).
We've come full circle, to exactly where we started and it was all necessary so Carline could feel like she defended herself somehow or other.
The truth of the original assertion remained precisely the same.
An excellent example of the pathology that dominates Diary World.
Sad. But useful.
But not content with that, she offers another even more representative illustration in the same post.
I cite a clear and specific example of Paul Butler offering an assertion as if it were true and being completely unable or unwilling to support that assertion with any specific citations or evidence.
I claim that this is part of the way discussions too often take place around here.
Caroline's response? Not to disagree. Nor to admit that Paul should have supported his accusations against John H. Not even to address the problem.
No. Her response is to suggest I have done the same thing.
I trust that most readers will recognize the logical fallacy built into this schoolyard rhetorical maneuver. Putting aside for a moment the review I offered years ago here on the limited number of available Crashaw editions in 1888 and the history of Crashaw's place in the canon and the specific works in which he regains prominence (complete with appropriate citations), etc. -- Caroline's response, "yeah, well, you did it too," (offered in the same post where she chastises me for not "moving on" from the past) has nothing to do with the truth value of my original assertion. If anything it simply reinforces it.
So, in all, apart from wondering why I've been silent on the whole "ten years" debate and asking when I think the watch was scratched (at least I think that's what she's asking -- her parentheses leave the precise question ambiguous), she offers nothing in her entire response to me that addresses the truth of my two original assertions. 1. Because neither owner has done the decent and responsible thing and had their artefacts properly and thoroughly tested using the latest technology, any claims they wish to make about dates or authenticity are worth little or nothing. 2. Too often around here completely uncited and unsupported assertions are made around here as if they were true and this hoax is being kept alive by sloppy thinking, careless argumentation and simple desire being allowed to replace thoughtful, responsible critical practice.
Both of those claims remain accurate, as far as I can tell, and Caroline's playground rhetoric in response certainly does nothing to alter these conclusions.
It does, however, nicely illustrate them.
Thanks,
--John
PS: I have indeed stayed silent on the "ten years" debate and the date of the scratches, for an obvious reason offered by the scientists themselves. The reports are self-admittedly incomplete and preliminary and given the limited access to the material the scientists were given, we are told that a full investigation was impossible. Until such a full investigation takes place, I will happily leave speculation around here about what the science does or does not show to others. What I do know is that an obviously fake diary saying James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper shows up more than a hundred years after the murders and right on its heels, lo and behold, someone just happens to turn up with a watch that claims the very same thing. The rest of the story is pure desire.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Hi Caroline
All I am trying to get you to admit, which you won't, is that Turgoose and Wild never said the watch is a century or more old, which you imply they did.
From the perspective of trying to analyze a tiny area of metal and corrosion down in the bottom of those, we have to admit, suspicious grooves ... it's echoey down here, Caz, but much like the Grand Canyon... the best that they can say is "more than tens of years, and possibly much longer."
That is not the same thing as saying "possibly beyond 99 years" as you contend they meant.
These guys are scientists, and much like a scientist testifying in court who is not able to come out and say something is a century old, all they can say is they look old, but how old is old? Don't twist their words, Caroline.
Also despite what you say in regard to Albert Johnson never making a claim about the watch, it sounds to me that if Albert Johnson has expressed the belief that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper (as quoted in the Daily Mail, "in my own mind, I have absolutely no doubt about who the Ripper was"), and by inference that the watch was Maybrick's.
In fact, it appears, from the way Johnson is quoted and the fact that he has given permission to post the watch reports here, he is making the claim that he thinks the scientists have proved to his satisfaction that the scratches in the watch are old enough to have belonged to Maybrick, and that by extension (though they never said this) the scratches were made by Maybrick. A claim is a claim is a claim.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Listen guys,
tommorow is a week and let's face it we don't agree about simple things here in diary world so were are never going to agree about this.
I don't know what I think - well Ok I do I am not about to change my position because of these reports, but that is in fact MY problem.
So i am going to nbow out of this delightful watch reports thread now while the going is good.
Should I change my mind about this in the moring i reserve the right to look stupid and jump right back in
Until then
Bye!!
Jenni |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 393
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Chris and Lee,
I think both of you have been a little too extreme in what you expect other people to do versus how you are acting. It's understandable when things you believe strongly in are being discussed, but I think both of you need to step back and assess just what it is you are saying.
Both of you at first tried to claim that "at least several tens of years" old couldn't possibly be more than 100 years old. Now that that's been pointed out to you, you've both taken the position that the results should have clearly said more than 100 years if that were a possibility.
Scientific tests often can only determine broad age ranges and the reported results do fall well within expectations for something allegedly of that age.
Not to mention you expect the people in the report to be completely precise in language the way you want them to say it but don't seem to have had a problem with conveniently leaving the words "at least" off of the report's findings for the age when you were arguing about it. I'd think that you ought to act at least as precise and responsible as what you are expecting out of other people.
And, to Caz and those others who feel the report proves that the watch couldn't be a modern forgery, I think you are also probably giving the results more strength than they've been demonstrated to have so far.
Disputes of this nature often have dueling contradictory scientific results... People have been going back and forth on the age of the Shroud of Turin, the Vinland Map and so forth for decades. Each of them have had a lot more tests and more intensive and costly ones at that.
If any of you (meaning all of us here, not just the ones I singled out above) are hoping that this will all suddenly go away with a quick attack on a specific turn of a phrase or a single point, I think you're just setting yourself up for a lot of grief.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Dan
Scientific tests often can only determine broad age ranges and the reported results do fall well within expectations for something allegedly of that age.
But the estimates given in the conclusions of these reports are not scientifically determined, because there are no data in the reports that allow a determination of when the scratches were made.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi Dan
I don't know which Chris you were addressing in your post of Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:43 pm but if you read my last post in your thread, I was saying that the scientists can not be precise because of the nature of the tests. In other words, you and I broadly agree.
I also did make the point previously that anti-Diarists can take solace in the thought that the scientists can't put a precise age on the Diary ink or paper or the watch etchings, and the pro-Diarists can comfort themselves with the notion that the Diary ink finding of 1920 (give or take) and the metallurgists' finding of "more than tens of years, and possibly much longer" give an idea of age making a genuinely old artifact (if not a genuine artifact of Jack the Ripper) seem feasible in their minds.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 398
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Chris (Phillips)-
I never disagreed with you on that point, I was simply pointing out that the precision of the wording is typical of scientific results and that expecting more than that is a little unrealistic.
As far as agreeing with you, well, I would need to read through the report again and really think about it before I made up my mind. But even if I decided it was scientifically-based, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's opinions were guaranteed. You never get the last word in science without extensive testing and confirmation, which it appears isn't going to happen.
Chris (George),
I was more commenting on your implication that Caz was ignoring the results to fit her own mindset when, on the face of it anyway, the results support her side. It seemed pretty jarring to me.
...
And I'm starting to remember why I always used to ignore the Diary threads.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
"...which it appears isn't going to happen."
The watch.
The diary.
Enough said.
--John (from Diary World -- where old news is the only news)
(Message edited by omlor on November 30, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Dan
As far as agreeing with you, well, I would need to read through the report again and really think about it before I made up my mind.
Fair enough. But it does seem odd to me that people are having these elaborate discussions about the wording without satisfying themselves that there is any hard science behind it.
If you do re-read the reports again with this in mind, I think you'll find that lack of any scientific reasoning leading up to the conclusions is glaring.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on November 30, 2004) |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 38
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Having read your post (November 30, 2004 - 12:43 pm) I think you make some very valid points. My posts that the "several 10's of years" couldn't mean at least 100 years were, in hindsight, were a bit daft.
I think we can all safly say that the fact that the reports have been interpreted in different ways proves that we are no-where near proving how old the emgravings really are.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Hi All,
Firstly, regarding this ‘claim’ to authenticity Albert is currently accused of making: he has had the last ten years in which to publish his reports, if he were actively trying to ‘claim’ anything on the back of them.
During that time, all kinds of suspicions were voiced about what those reports might contain, and whether Albert - among others - had reason to keep them under wraps.
Now that Albert, due to popular demand, has made the original reports available to all, and no one can whinge any more about their non-appearance, John O accuses him of using their publication to ‘claim’ authenticity all of a sudden.
Where’s the logic - especially if, having read and digested the reports for himself, John finds they don’t support such a claim anyway?
As far as I can see, Albert simply offered his opinion, when asked by the Mail. If he has been telling the truth, he knows the scratches were already there in 1992, which would give him far more right to express a personal opinion than all those who spout off here without being asked, and without a shred of evidence or any real awareness of Albert’s situation. If John has evidence that Albert is lying through his teeth, he must also have evidence that the scratches were made in 1993. So where is it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
This is certainly a novel approach to critical thinking, using inverse proportion: the more critical John becomes, the less thought he requires. Or maybe he puts so much effort into being critical, for its own sake, that he has no time or energy left to think things through calmly, logically or reasonably.
In fact, one wonders if John has even had time to read the reports properly yet, since he was up there posting a sarcastic response within minutes of my posting them: his sincerity and objectivity is remarkable for its complete absence; while his faith and patience are wonders to behold, considering he could not have known, when he first saw the Mail article, when or how the reports were going to appear on the Casebook, if at all. Yet there he was, for all the world as though he had nothing better to do with his time than sit and wait by his computer screen, anticipating their arrival.
Incidentally, if John had digested the reports thoroughly, he would have noticed that Dr Turgoose says nothing about his access to the watch, limited or otherwise. So perhaps he would cite his evidence that Albert put some restriction on Turgoose’s examinations? It’s no good bleating about the limited time Dr Wild had with the watch (he was only restricted, as far as I know, by the amount of time Albert and party had down in Bristol, owing to their return travel arrangements), if Dr Turgoose was given all the time and access in the world. John's whole argument falls down since he can have no idea if any restrictions were put on Turgoose.
And as for Chris P, he may know an unscientific report when he sees one. Yet his own thinking betrays a highly unscientific approach: he declares in one breath that the reports are ‘not science’, and contain ‘no scientific evidence’ concerning the age of the scratches; and in the next breath he gaily claims to have found scientific evidence therein, indicating a 1993 hoax.
Breathtaking!
Chris P says we must discount the work of these two scientists as ‘unscientific’, and therefore flawed and unreliable (along with their joint opinion that the scratches are not recent). Yet he quotes selectively from that very work, where he thinks it indicates what he wants to hear (that they could be recent despite the conclusions).
Priceless!
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Hi Chris G and Dan, and All,
I must apologise if I have unintentionally misled anyone. Let me clarify that I was simply trying to explain the estimates made by Drs Wild and Turgoose to Jenni and Monty, who asked what ‘at least several tens of years’ meant. I never thought things would get this complicated!
For the record, I am happy to repeat that my own understanding is that, in Wild’s opinion, the scratches were a minimum of 30 years old, but possibly more than ‘several’ decades old. (Turgoose’s words are, IMHO, even less open to any misinterpretation, no matter what one thinks of his expertise in forming such an opinion: ‘more than tens, and possibly much longer’ seems pretty self-explanatory.)
I emphasise the possibly because I included this in my own: ‘possibly beyond 99 years’, which I thought showed that I wasn’t trying to overstate anything. I wasn’t even making a case here. But if, for argument’s sake, Wild was right, then the scratches could date back to 1963 - but equally they could date back much further. Why would 1963 be any more likely - strictly scientifically speaking - than, say, 1943, 1913, 1893 or even 1888?
I don’t understand why some of those who believe the scratches were hoaxed in 1993 find the latest estimated date - 1963 - the least offending to their ears. It’s no less fatal to their beliefs than accepting 1888 as a possibility, according to the two scientists.
I am not favouring a date any further back than 1963: if science can’t yet tell us whether it’s 1993, 1963 or 1888, I sure as hell don’t know what to believe and I wouldn‘t claim otherwise! Scientists rarely, if ever, reach unqualified conclusions, for obvious reasons, and Drs Turgoose and Wild are no exceptions. They made it abundantly clear that they weren’t claiming to have proven anything about the age of the scratches, so why would I believe they had offered any ‘proof ’?
What I do find intriguing, however, is Dr Turgoose’s observation that ‘I am Jack’ was crudely scratched before the H 9 3 and 1275 were neatly engraved. The 1993 hoax arguments vary from Turgoose mistaking some other scratch for the ‘J’, to the H 9 3 and 1275 being added as afterthoughts by an unaccountably cryptic brother Johnson: “hoaxed in ’93” perhaps? Any suggestions for the 1275? Albert’s favourite hymn number, no doubt.
Have a great weekend all. I need to fluff up my Victorian fancy dress costume for tomorrow night’s Smoke & Stagger Christmas Spectacular if I want to make a perfect spectacle of myself.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
And as for Chris P, he may know an unscientific report when he sees one. Yet his own thinking betrays a highly unscientific approach: he declares in one breath that the reports are ‘not science’, and contain ‘no scientific evidence’ concerning the age of the scratches; and in the next breath he gaily claims to have found scientific evidence therein, indicating a 1993 hoax.
Oh well. I suppose it should always have been obvious that there was no point trying to have a sensible discussion about the reports with Mrs Morris.
Just in case anyone is deceived by this nonsense, what I actually said was this:
Though the reports don't present any scientific argument that the scratches are old, some of the observations described - if properly interpreted - may well indicate the scratches were made in the 1990s.
If Mrs Morris really can't grasp the difference between this and "he gaily claims to have found scientific evidence therein, indicating a 1993 hoax", it explains an awful lot.
I wonder how many more thousand words she is going to post before she tells us what she thinks is the scientific evidence that the scratches are old. But in fact, I suspect she doesn't really believe there's any such evidence, any more than I do.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
My my,
Obviously, Caroline Morris's family motto is a lot closer to Montressor's than Maybrick's.
I suppose I should be glad she's not a mason.
In pace requiescat... Not bloody likely.
Anyway, the only "all of a sudden" that relates to Albert's claim that the watch is authentic is the fact that he turned up in the newspaper, giving an interview to the Daily Mail and saying Maybrick was the Ripper. The reports themselves are ten years old. There's certainly nothing "all of a sudden" about them.
My point, which Caroline continues to ignore of course, is that because ALbert has not done the proper and responsible and intellectually ethical thing and given the scientists and the latest technologies complete access to the material any claims he might wish to make are worth little or nothing.
That's still true (in case anyone has forgotten amidst all Caroline's irrelevant jibes and pique).
Until the full investigation called for in the Wild report is conducted, any claim made by any owner of this watch (or desperate Casebook poster) is based solely on the desire driven interpretation of partial and preliminary results.
Also, there was nothing at all "sarcastic" about my "Excellent." It was my first honest thought upon seeing that the reports had been posted.
As for the Turgoose examination, Caroline already knows that it was not the sort of full scientific analysis that Dr. Wild is calling for and says was impossible for him to conduct.
That investigation has yet to take place.
We'll all be dead before it does, I suspect.
The same is true for the diary.
And the fact that Caroline doesn't find this disturbing tells me all I need to know about who is really interested in discovering the truth about these artefacts.
It's a sad and pathetic discussion that is now taking place around here and it has nothing to do with the truth.
Remember, people, these things are hoaxes. Feel free to ignore all this poison and ugliness and go elsewhere, spend your time doing healthier things. All hope is lost for us who live here, but if you are a visitor be warned. Run away. This is not worth your time. There is no serious thought or scholarship or critical practice of any sort going on here. There is nothing new and nothing real.
There is only ugliness, faux-drama, and irrelevancy.
You have been warned,
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
John
Until the full investigation called for in the Wild report is conducted, any claim made by any owner of this watch (or desperate Casebook poster) is based solely on the desire driven interpretation of partial and preliminary results.
What is partial and preliminary about Turgoose's findings concerning the order of the scratches?
Are they likely to have moved by next time then?
Remember, people, these things are hoaxes. Feel free to ignore all this poison and ugliness and go elsewhere, spend your time doing healthier things. All hope is lost for us who live here, but if you are a visitor be warned. Run away. This is not worth your time. There is no serious thought or scholarship or critical practice of any sort going on here. There is nothing new and nothing real.
I look forward to your heeding of this excellent piece of advice yourself. I shan't hold my breath though!
Bye for now
Paul
|
O. N. S. Tee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris is a 'Johnny-come-lately' on the diary scene and doesn't even understand the subjects she claims to be so well versed on. The tests on the watch were not done comprehensively and those doing the tests themselves admitted that they were inconclusive and they could be modern scratches. Well, there's no doubt they are modern and it's difficult to believe that anyone can be suckered in by such crude scratches and such a naff idea of the five obvious victims and "I'm Jack" and "J. Maybrick" the whole thing would be a hoot if it wasn't so deceitful. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Paul,
As you already know, Turgoose's was not a full scientific investigation of the material using the latest technology. Not even close.
That has yet to be done. On either artefact.
I'll bet you that you die before it is.
--John
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
I cannot discover a reason for Mr. Omlor's interest in the Diary. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Whatho all,
All I can say is O N S Tee is an absolute buffoon who is hiding behind an alias. Come on old chap, be brave and give your name.
But you won't, will you. Pah!
Cheers, Mark (who doesn't like ignorant people who hide) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 6:31 pm: | |
Mark,
I must say that I too have never liked anonymous posting. There seems to me to be something less than honest about it. So even though I agree completely with the last two sentences in that post, I too would urge whoever wrote it to go ahead and join our little world, name and all.
David,
A hoax, any hoax, is bad for the discipline -- it tears people apart, it promotes deceit and dishonesty and generally unethical behavior (not to mention the contamination of careful historical thought with self-interested desire), and its maintenance makes the field look stupid and gullible in general.
So I hang around here and every now and then try to offer a play by play of the silliness and the bad logic and the generally irrelevant gamesmanship and of course to call regularly for the owners of these artefacts to do the responsible thing, to do the ethical thing out of simple respect for history and the truth, and to raise the funds, make the arrangements, and submit both of these items to a thorough and complete scientific analysis using the latest technologies and giving the professionals unlimited access to the materials to be tested.
It's the proper thing for them to do.
I know none of that is likely to make much of a difference -- that the stupidity and the expressions of simple personal desire will continue to take the place of solid critical practice and careful analysis of the reading, the textual details, and the handwriting (all of which spell "hoax" over and over) and that the tests that should be done on these object will probably never take place -- but that's OK. It's a simple enough task I engage in here and it keeps me off the streets for a few minutes every day and sometimes it even makes me smile.
Thanks for asking,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 1:06 am: | |
Personally, I've always kind of liked hoaxes. In a certain mood, there's something comforting about the notion that much of what we call 'history' is actually bunk. I own a couple of amusing books about Shakespeare actually being Kit Marlowe and/or the Earl of Oxford. They're good reads on cold winter nights. What I end up with is the vague notion of history being for people with noggins. You gotta be able to think it all through and see what's nonsense and what isn't. One's nose is often a lot of help.
Of course, in another mood, the whole notion about false history can be very disturbing. George Orwell's memory hole from 1984 and those 'editted' snapshots in Joe Stalin's scrap album. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Maybrick Diary is disurbing. It really contains it's own anti-dote and its own case solution. But notice how many bogus bits of journalism have been exposed in the past few years. Not a good trend. With technology moving in the direction it's moving, we might get to a point where even the experts won't be able to tell what's a bogus document and what isn't. It's part of our human condition to wonder and muse and peep and pry into our collective past and we should guard history with vigilance. RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
Do you bother to read my posts at all?
I wonder how many more thousand words she is going to post before she tells us what she thinks is the scientific evidence that the scratches are old.
For the last time, I am not qualified to know enough, and therefore to comment on the quality or nature of the work done by Turgoose and Wild. You are the one expressing all the opinions around here.
How am I supposed to know whether you are right or wrong? Why must I just take your word? I see you as someone who discounts the reports as unscientific, because of the conclusions reached, yet uses those parts of them - and only those parts - that could support his own beliefs. So I'll ask you again - why should I accept the word of someone who does this, and whose bias oozes, self-proclaimed, out of every pore?
John O tells his readers that there is 'no serious thought or scholarship or critical practice of any sort going on here'.
I guess he saves all that for the day job then. He seconds Mr Tee's claim regarding the scratches - Well, there's no doubt they are modern - and then gets all uppety when I ask for some evidence, and very cross indeed whenever I dare to suggest that no amount of testing could ever satisfy him unless it confirmed his 'no doubt' opinion.
He's all over the place.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
