|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:52 am: |       |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
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?
Hmm. I don't think I'm the one who isn't bothering to read posts.
I've explained in detail (several times) why I don't see any scientific justification for the conclusion that the scratches are several decades old.
So it's not a question of asking people to "take my word" for it. That's exactly what I'm asking people not to do. Read the reports, read what I've said about them, use a bit of logic and make up your own mind. You don't have to be a scientist, just a reasonably intelligent person capable of rational thought.
But if you really can't do it, please don't just throw insults about in the hope of distracting people from the substance of the matter ("someone whose bias oozes, self-proclaimed, out of every pore" is apparently your pleasant way of referring to someone who disagrees with you!).
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Caroline cites me:
"John O tells his readers that there is 'no serious thought or scholarship or critical practice of any sort going on here'."
And then proves me right.
That makes my job easy.
As for evidence of the dates of the scratches, if she is asking for scientific evidence, I refer her to my PS a few posts ago concerning why I refuse to speak about what the scientific evidence does and does not show until the proper thing is done, until the owners behave in a respectable fashion and conduct the full investigation the preliminary report calls for.
In fact, rather than being, "all over the place," I think even a quick reading of my posts here demonstrates that I am quite specifically located (almost to the point of absurdity via repetition) on a single point. Get this material thoroughly and properly tested. It's the ethical thing to do.
RJ,
I understand a certain perverse enjoyment in hoaxes (especially bad ones). But you do have to admit that this one has not been very healthy for this field. I came late to all this, but it only took me a moment years ago to see what it had done to several of the scholars in this discipline and to the relationships among the professionals and to the seriousness of this particular historical enterprise. It's been ugly.
Of course, there is nonsense and bad thinking and desire filled blindness in every field and I'm sure there was before the Maybrick hoaxes arrived here, too. But a great many professional people involved in this case have told me that it has gotten much worse with the arrival and maintenance of this particular bit of nonsense.
And it clearly has promoted more than its share of questionable scholarly behavior and bad writing.
Still, it is just a game, I agree. And I do not want to deprive anyone of any enjoyment, perverse or otherwise.
Keep smiling,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Read the reports, read what I've said about them, use a bit of logic and make up your own mind. You don't have to be a scientist, just a reasonably intelligent person capable of rational thought.
Done the first bit, done the second bit, used as much logic as possible, but will make up my own mind in my own time, and certainly not before I've heard a lot more opinions from people who are at least as qualified as Turgoose and Wild, and can demonstrate that they do not have any preconceived opinions that the watch must be a hoax, and a 1993 hoax at that, or a decades old artefact. Surely that's a perfectly reasonable position for anyone to take?
Hi John,
Sorry, when you give your orders to 'get this material tested', who are you addressing? Albert is the only one who can initiate more tests on his watch, and he appears to have neither the money nor the desire to go through all this again. Do you seriously think I have any more chance than you do of making him think again? Use a bit of Chris P's logic here.
Didn't you read the bit where Albert said that, in the end, people will believe what they want to believe? I think that tells you and I everything really. You have stated that you agree with O. N. S. Tee that there is 'no doubt' the scratches are modern, yet you admit that you have no evidence for such a claim by calling for more tests to supply that evidence for you.
And obviously, since you have 'no doubt' that the scratches are modern, you know that no one could persuade Albert to do the 'right' thing, since you also have no doubt that he has been lying and cheating his way through the last ten years.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
... will make up my own mind in my own time, and certainly not before I've heard a lot more opinions from people who are at least as qualified as Turgoose and Wild ...
I think you're still a bit on the wrong track with this need to hear "opinions" from "qualified" people, rather than reaching your own judgment about the evidence.
As that's your approach, though, could you tell us any more about how "qualified" Turgoose and Wild were?
All I know about them is that:
(1) Turgoose holds the degrees of MA and PhD (which probably makes him a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge) and worked at the Corrosion and Protection Centre, UMIST (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology).
(2) Wild worked at the Interface Analysis Centre, Bristol University, and has since retired.
Does anyone know any more information about the positions they held, their research specialities, and so on?
I suspect Mrs Morris doesn't necessarily believe everything she's told by someone with "MA PhD" after his name, who has worked in a leading university. (But I could be wrong.)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Caroline
You ask me,
"...when you give your orders to 'get this material tested', who are you addressing?"
I am addressing Albert and his co-owners in the case of the watch and Robert in the case of the diary. But surely you already knew that.
My call to do the right thing and get all of this material properly tested has nothing to do with you. (Some things written here don't, you know.)
And I don't particularly care what excuses they all have to offer. I have no idea what Albert does or does not "know." Or Robert. But these people can choose whether or not they want to be responsible, to act in an intellectually honest and forthright manner with respect to the truth and to history, or they can ignore such responsibilities and let the science and the latest technology and the contributions they can now make to the discovery of the truth be damned.
But their choice should tell us a good bit about them and about the material they own, it would seem to me.
As to the question of "evidence," lord knows there is plenty of it to suggest that the diary was composed in modern times. A string of impossible textual "coincidences" as long as your arm tells me that. The appearance of the diary and then the subsequent appearance of the watch, right on its heels, certainly suggests to me that this too is a modern hoax. But as I've said, I'm not about to get into any discussions of the scientific evidence on the watch until the proper action is taken and the further work called for in the Wild report, the full investigation that he called "impossible" at the time because of the limited access he was given to the material, is properly completed.
It's very simple really. Most of what we discuss here is pointless. Nearly all of the discussion here consists of irrelevant game playing and sadly trivial acts of pathological self-defense for no real or meaningful purpose.
Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes.
But the owners of these artefacts have a responsibility to the truth of the the matter and to history. They should raise the funds, organize comprehensive tests on these items and publish the results. It is the right thing to do. It is the honest thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do.
And if it's never done, conclusions might be drawn from that as well.
In the meantime, just as I wrote last July 14th, and a full year before that, and every month since then, regarding new tests on the diary and on the watch, there is still...
nothing new, nothing real.
And no one is surprised.
From the land of hoaxes, where Figment still reigns,
--John 
PS: In case anyone has forgotten, here are the founding words of DiTA day, written a full year and a half ago. You can now add the watch in with the diary as you read them:
"After all the talk, after all the discussions and arguments and pushing and resistance and all the rest, only one thing matters. Will this document, one that is clearly suspicious and whose origins remain an unsettled question, be re-examined by professionals in a laboratory setting in order to discover whatever is possible about it in an objective fashion?"
We're at seventeen months and counting since that was written and the answer remains the same.
And it's been more than TEN YEARS since these words were written:
"The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage."
and
"To give an accurate date to the watch from its surface composition and from the brass particles embedded in the base of the scratches it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions. This would involve a considerable amount of work."
and
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
Why not be "more accurate"? Why not have a "thorough investigation"? Why not follow the advice of the professionals and have both of these items thoroughly and properly re-tested?
I can think of several reasons why not. And none of them are good ones.
|
judyjjanes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
The casebook boards are facinating as are the people using same. I am and have always been hot to trot on Jack's trail so to speak. What still surprises me is that although James Maybrick is a great suspect, it is difficult to believe in the writings after the confessions of Barnett that the diary was forged by himself. Maybe I've spent too many years relying on todays method of criminology who profiles a suspect much below Mr. Maybrick's standard of life. If the diaary were able to be authenticated 100% then that's another story. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
By George, I think I’ve got it! I’ve finally found a way of commanding the respect and admiration of ‘everyone on these boards’. Here goes…
Tests! Tests! We must have more tests!
For truth and history’s sake!
Let’s have more tests!
Never mind that there is ‘no doubt’ that the watch scratches are modern. Never mind that ‘everyone on these boards knows’ this is a 1993 hoax, tests or no tests (or, more accurately, two tests, both of which resulted in a completely different conclusion, but that’s by the by).
The world knows it’s a hoax.
It goes without saying that Albert knows it’s a hoax. (That’s why he paid out over £1,000, egged on by his brother, to get the hoax tested - not once, but twice - a cunning plan to appear as white as the driven snow, which was evidently not cunning enough.)
Now where was I? Ah yes…
Tests! Tests! We must have more tests!
(You see, I have proved myself capable of making every bit as much sense as the brightest of the bunch here in merry Maywatch land.)
And now for a soothing interlude, brought to us by Little Caz (whose current studies include A level Critical Thinking and Philosophy & Ethics, and came top in her most recent tests with 94% and 93%. The words ‘floor’ and ‘wipe’ spring to mind):
Click on:
http://members.lycos.nl/diezijngek/magicgallery
then click on the fifth item down:
Bunny@pancake.jpg
Love,
Caz and Little Caz - keeping it real
X
PS I’m sending the full watch reports, complete with figures etc, to Stephen Ryder today, though goodness alone knows why I’m bothering (or why Stephen is agreeing to scan everything into the Casebook) if ‘everyone on these boards’, including Stephen, already knows the scratches are modern, regardless of anything a test result, past or future, could reveal.
(Message edited by caz on December 17, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:19 am: | |
Hi Caz and Little Caz,
I know, I know, I know, I know etc....
... I said I was bowing out of the watch reports thread (and hey to be fair to me i kept it up for three weeks) I said it and I meant it..but.....
.....that was too good!
Little Caz is on top form there! With gems like that you should get her signed up in her own right!!
Good luck to Little Caz in january (or did they do away with the jan modules I should know this stuff!!) and extra good luck in June not that it appears to be needed!
I really should be writing my dissertation!!!!you oput me off big time!!you so put me off!! I was doing so well I have written over 500 words!!!!!
but credit where credit is due,
And now i must once again leave this thread and leave merry [may]watch land!
Jenni
ps don't ask me about the watch reports i truly give up all hope!!
pps Albert Johnson - are you accusing him of something!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I wasn't seriously accusing Albert of anything - apart from being way too nice, and too much of a gentleman (in every sense) for his own good. If I were in his shoes I don't think I'd be as polite as he always is about his critics!
Thanks for wishing Little Caz good luck. I know she will appreciate it.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Well, I guess when you don't have a differing moral or ethical response to offer, all you can do is mock the position that makes sense.
Fair enough.
It tells us all we need to know about the logic here.
Once again, Caroline offers us no good reason why thorough tests on the diary and the full investigation on the watch called for in the Wild report should not be undertaken, or why those that own these two artefacts should not do the ethically responsible thing in the interests of historical truth and honesty and get this work done.
Once again, I will repeat for those who can't (or more often don't) read. I have no idea what Albert does or does not know. Robert either.
But I do know what I believe about the age of these hoaxes AND I certainly do know what the responsible and ethical thing to do is if you own them.
Of course, as Caroline has just so clearly and dramatically demonstrated, the trivial and pathetically defensive discussion here is not about doing the right thing or about taking whatever steps might be necessary to learn the truth or even about the origin of these hoaxes. It's just a game.
And to demonstrate how crassly and irresponsibly some people are playing it, let me offer just one little example.
The words in my earlier post:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
The words in Caroline's post above.
"Never mind that ‘everyone on these boards knows’ this is a 1993 hoax..."
I suspect little Caz can see what's happened.
I suspect little Caz can see the deliberate addition and thereby the manipulation of meaning and the purposefully irresponsible reading and writing that has just taken place.
I suspect little Caz can see the obvious dishonesty built into the rhetoric.
I'm sure everyone here can, too.
And that's only a tiny example, a single phrase in a single line, of what happens all the time every time Caroline returns to the boards to dredge all this up again.
It's what we've come to expect, sadly.
And it changes nothing.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Caz,
good good.
tell Little Caz, uni is much less stressful!!!!!!!
Jenni
ps must not post on this thread again!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi John,
Perhaps you could show the readers precisely when and where I have suggested that 'thorough tests on the diary and the full investigation on the watch called for in the Wild report should not be undertaken', or that the owners of the two artefacts should not get this work done.
All I've suggested to you is that I doubt very much that you, or I, or anyone else for that matter, would be able to prick the conscience of a conman, who knows his artefact is the hoax you insist it is. And you told me that your 'call to do the right thing and get all of this material properly tested has nothing to do with' me. Make your mind up.
We're going in the right direction, though, because I've just seen the magic words in your post:
'But I do know what I believe about the age of these hoaxes...'
Marvellous progress, John! An expression of belief at last, as opposed to a statement of fact. We can all cope with someone expressing their beliefs here. What really gets up people's noses is when someone spouts beliefs as if they are proven facts.
So then, since you maintained that when Albert expressed his belief it was the same as making a claim, which should be supported, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell the board exactly what you believe about the age of the watch scratches and what evidence you have to support your belief.
'Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes.'
This is what you wrote.
You also wrote, elsewhere, that you agreed with the anonymous Mr O N S Tee's statement about there being 'no doubt' that the scratches are 'modern'.
So please tell the boards what you meant by 'modern', if not 1993? I do apologise if you meant 'modern' but prior to 1993, but I would then appreciate some evidence from you that Mr. Murphy, who sold the watch to Albert in 1992, was in on this 'modern' hoax of yours.
Little Caz saw what happened a mile off. You can't fool her with your claim to a position that makes sense. It's ripe for mockery.
Little Caz can read perfectly well what you have written and will be dying to see how you twist your way out of this one.
But of course, the choice is all yours: you don't have to return to the boards to dredge all this up again if you'd prefer not to.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I can't keep away from this thread!
Guys! Guys! Guys!
Come on now its Christmas. Tis the season to be jolly!!!
remember the words of the great philosophers of our time
Last time that we had this conversation
I decided we should be friends
Yeah,
but now we're going round in circles,
tell me will this deja vu never end?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Jenni
I agree.
With Caz going to so much trouble to keep us entertained by providing the watch reports in all their details - warts and all - we should definitely be burying the seasonal hatchet.
Chris Phillips
If you, put two and two together
you will see what our friendship is for (Oh)
If you can't work this equation then
I guess I'll have to show you the door
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Caroline,
Please read more carefully. (I know, it's not really a lack of care in your case, it's deliberate manipulation, but I thought I'd be kind).
I did indeed write:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
You had me claiming:
"...'everyone on these boards knows’ this is a 1993 hoax..."
That is a very different claim and one that I did not make, and you know that.
Neither is a claim exclusively about what I know, by the way. They are both claims about what everyone here knows.
I would never claim that everyone on these boards knows that this diary is a 1993 hoax. That's what we're arguing about, after all.
I claimed that everyone on these boards knows the diary is a hoax.
And they do.
Why you chose to explicitly misrepresent my simple and directly written claim is not a mystery. You are, for inexplicable reasons, obviously more interested in some perverse and trivial rhetorical battle than you are in the truth.
Fortunately, your rewriting of me, gratuitous though it may be, is blatant enough for readers (including the youngest among us) to easily recognize.
Also, at no point did I make the claim you ask me to demonstrate at the beginning of your post above. That's more sloppy (or deliberate and careful) misreading.
What I said was that in your response to my post calling for Albert and Robert to do the right thing, you did not offer any reasons why the tests should not be done. Because there are none. I wanted people to notice that. It is an important fact in our discussion.
And you are correct, my call to get these tests done has nothing whatsoever to do with you. So why you feel compelled to respond to it repeatedly remains a bit of a mystery (though not much of one really).
Now if you want to try and reading what I actually write instead of what you hope I've written, we can continue here. But if you are just going to respond to words that I haven't written, then of course this will continue to be pointless. Which is fine, by the way. I'm never above wasting a little time if it entertains others.
Meanwhile, still no sign of anything new or anything real, in case anyone was wondering,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
......deck the halls with boughs of holly...trol la la la la la la la la!!!!
Come on people it's Christmas!!
The watch reports are well the watch reports and that's that. We can't alter a scientific fact and there you have it! They might be old but i can see them, after all wasn't that the point of it all? Tis the spirit of Xmas
taking over me and I am feeling inspired to learn more about watches and understand watches and their reports. In general it is only a week until Xmas!! Tis the season to be jolly, jolly!!
You have your opinions and I have mine, sadly (for me) in some cases they are different - but as it's Christmas let's play nicely!
And Chris,
thanks for that - I see you spotted who the great philosophers of our time were!
Jenni
there will come a day when you will be able able to say nevermind the pain or the aggrivation you know there's a better way for you and me too be
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 18, 2004)
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I appreciate your seasonal good will. I'll try and explain this simply and without malice in order to restore peace.
Here's a sentence:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
Here's another sentence:
"Everyone on these boards knows this is a 1993 hoax."
I trust all readers can see that these are two different sentences which say two completely different things.
The first sentence is true.
The second one is not.
I wrote the first one.
I did not ever write or claim the second one. I'm not that stupid. I know it's false.
If anyone has problems or in any way disagrees with the first sentence, they should feel free to speak up -- indeed I urge them to do so.
If not, I'm done here concerning this.
Happy whatever,
--John
PS: I am writing this from Disney World, where yesterday at EPCOT I did indeed, in honor of these very boards, ride the Journey into Imagination, the home of Diary World's very own mascot Figment. It was wonderful, as always, and like all Disney rides, let me out in a giant gift shop, this one FILLED with all things Figment. Stuffed ones of all sizes, shirts, keychains, hats, everything you could imagine. Some day I hope our Diary World store is that big.
In a world where there is nothing new and nothing real but there is always daily nonsense, the holidays are indeed a magical time.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hey John,
you know i love watch world almost as much as i love diary world!!
#Santa claus is coming to town# come onnow sing it with me!!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
BTW, John,
I take your point. I have emailed you!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
Hi John,
You wrote:
I would never claim that everyone on these boards knows that this diary is a 1993 hoax. That's what we're arguing about, after all.
No it isn't. I never said a word about you claiming the diary to be a 1993 hoax. Read it all again if you don't believe me. Your pal O N S Tee stated that 'there is no doubt' that the scratches (in the watch) are 'modern', and you agreed with that statement. Here it is again: there is no doubt - not 'I have no doubt', or 'in my view there is no doubt', but simply there is no doubt that the scratches are modern.
We agree on one thing - there are no reasons why more tests should not be done on the watch. I think all I have ever done is point out one good reason why more tests wouldn't be done - if you are right about the scratches being 'modern'.
Obviously, a hoaxer and/or his co-conspirators, would hardly be up for fundraising that could ultimately lead to their own hoax being exposed.
Conversely, if the fact that Albert Johnson paid over a grand ten years ago, encouraged by his brother, to have the watch tested not once but twice isn't an indication of innocence, then nothing Albert could ever do in the future would be either.
What is quite amusing is the fact that you were horrified when you thought - wrongly - that I had misrepresented your position concerning what everyone knows. You didn't even see the irony of splitting hairs over details of what you claim everyone here knows about the origins of these artefacts. It wouldn't matter what you claimed everyone knew - you'd still be hopelessly wrong.
And now you know we were discussing the dating of the watch scratches, and not the creation of the diary, I'll ask you once again:
When you say 'there is no doubt' the scratches are 'modern', what do you mean by modern, if not 1993?
If you have no choice but to argue for a bandwagon watch hoax, because of your belief that the diary is a post-1988 creation, it kind of renders any discussion about the watch evidence itself pointless. But at least you could try to be honest about this, instead of arguing the toss over exactly what everyone knows, as if this is somehow a useful or illuminating exercise. If, according to you, we all know the diary and watch are hoaxes, we must pretty much know when they were hoaxed as well.
And, knowing that the 'discovery' of the scratches, made towards the end of May 1993, could hardly have been orchestrated remotely by a hoaxer working alone (unless he was an accomplished hypnotist), we must all know who had a hand in it.
I know it makes you cross to be put on the spot like this. But if you don't know Albert was directly involved in a hoax, then how can you say everyone knows it is a hoax?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
I suppose there's no prospect of anyone actually discussing the reports that this thread is meant to be about? (Rather than discussing whether A said B, or whether if in fact what he said was C, whether C amounts to the same thing as B, provided that it's safe to assume that D wouldn't accuse E of doing F ...)
I'd still be very interested to know if anyone - Mrs Morris or anyone else - can answer the question I posed nearly a fortnight ago:
Is anything known about Turgoose's and Wild's experience and expertise, beyond the names of the institutions they worked at?*
Only if anyone wants to discuss the reports, mind!
Chris Phillips
*It's to be hoped Albert Johnson at least made some enquiries about this, if he really paid £1000 for these two reports.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Caroline (everyone else please stop reading now as I know you all understand this),
Let's try moron explanation mode...
Here is exactly what I wrote:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
"These things" refers to both the diary and the watch. In this sentence I am saying that everyone here knows they are both hoaxes. Can you understand that much?
Good.
Let's go on.
You had me saying:
"'everyone on these boards' knows this is a 1993 hoax..."
The "this" in this sentence of yours refers to the watch. Which, in my sentence, I said everyone here knows is a hoax.
However (and I can't believe I have to explain this again -- you are really trying very hard not to get this), I was NOT, certainly NOT saying everyone on these boards knows the watch is a 1993 hoax.
That would be a stupid thing to claim.
That would also be simply false.
Of course I know that not everyone on these boards knows that the watch is a 1993 hoax. That's why we've been arguing about it's likely date of origin, for god's sake.
All I was saying is that everyone on the boards knows that the watch is a hoax (and the diary, too).
You deliberately refuse to read what the words actually said and I know why.
You can't argue with this sentence:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
Because you know it is true.
So you have to change what I wrote into something I did NOT write:
"Everyone on these boards knows this is a 1993 hoax."
Because you know that claim is false and you can argue against it (which apparently is all you are interested in doing, at whatever cost, even the cost of your own ethics as a reader).
However, even I know that the second sentence (the one you had me claiming) can't possibly be true. So you won't get me to argue in favor of it. I'm not that stupid.
By the way, from now on, you can feel free to read everything I ever write on these boards as beginning with the phrase "I believe" or whatever -- since I would never assert something I didn't believe. Of course, that doesn't change the truth value of the assertion in any way, but if for some reason it makes you feel better, fine. I'm certainly not going to write it in front of every assertion (you don't either, by the way). That would be absurd.
Finally, you ask a question at the end of your post that begins to get at the actual issue here.
"I know it makes you cross to be put on the spot like this. But if you don't know Albert was directly involved in a hoax, then how can you say everyone knows it is a hoax?"
What makes me "cross" is how completely you are unable to read my specific words. I'd swear you are doing it on purpose, but I can't believe anyone would be so deliberately manipulative.
Again, what I wrote (for the millionth time) was:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
Now, I haven't seen Albert posting around here lately, or anyone else that doesn't know that both of these artefacts are hoaxes.
If you want to disagree with my claim AS IT IS WRITTEN, please feel free. If you want to cite a recent post around here where the poster is claiming these things might not be hoaxes or if you want to assert that yourself, feel free. But stop changing what I have written into something I would never write just so you can disagree with it and please try and pay attention to what the actual words on the screen are when they are accompanied by my name, and not what you'd like them to be.
Or is that too much to ask?
Wishing he could have this discussion with someone who is able (or willing) to actually read,
--John
PS: Sorry, Chris, just saw your post after I posted mine. I had to take at least one more shot at explaining the painfully obvious to the deliberately deceptive.
(Message edited by omlor on December 20, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on December 20, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
Listen, everyone, I am only going to say this once so before I go on take some time to make sure you read this post and understand it's contents. If necessary I can always spell i-t out for you!!
Good, I have your attention,
lets not get into who said what. Anyone with even two brain cells to rub together can scroll up and see exactly what John said and exactly what Caroline said. They can see Caroline and John arguing about what they said and what they meant when they said it. They can wonder if the world will stop because Caroline probably added 1993 to the end of a sentence? They can ponder the meaning of life whilst wondering, simultaneously, what did John mean when he agreed with a post stating the diary is a modern fake? What is modern? Who am I? Where do I come from? What is the meaning of life? Is it only me who has lost the meaning of the watch reports? Should I read Paul Feldman's excellent book? What is the answer to the question - how did the world begin?
Now I am not one to venture out and stick my neck on the line too often, but here is an occasion when I might be doing just that. I'll risk it!
Here's a point,
I think the diary and the watch are both hoaxes? a hoax of some description, age unknown. Does anyone reading this board seriously challenge this? Is that not what you Caz, you John O. and you Chris P. all think?
I like you all but for God's sake!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Here's something to lighten the mood and bring a smile to everyone's lips!
Until a few weeks ago we thought the tests on the watch had been done more than a decade ago ... then the national press told us they were "new" ... now we learn that apparently they haven't even been done yet!
AN OLD scratched pocket-watch that was handed to University of Manchester scientists last week for tests has renewed speculation over who notorious murderer Jack the Ripper really was. ...
The 18ct gold pocket-watch, dated 1846, was given to Manchester University scientists to conduct tests on it in an effort to prove that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
http://www.student-direct.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1760
(By the way, don't try to make any sense of the rest of this drivel!)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Thanks, Jenni.
I agree that the diary and the watch are both hoaxes.
Thanks, Chris.
That was a riot. It's too bad Albert doesn't post here. Then my original sentence might actually have been wrong.
Loving a Monday with nothing to do after a long weekend at the happiest place on Earth,
--John
PS: Jenni -- Figment says, "hi!"
(Message edited by omlor on December 20, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Chris,
is it time to dispair?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Jenni,
This is a Ripper site. Shouldn't there be at least four "Ho"s in your signature line?
--John (who couldn't resist)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Jenni
By the way, as you asked, I agree they're obviously both hoaxes.
The evidence we all know about strongly suggests the diary was faked in 1988 or later.
As an unimpeachable authority has said, "it’s one helluva coincidence that the watch ‘came on the market’ at exactly the same time as Mike was trying to find someone to publish the diary". This strongly suggests that the watch was faked after the diary was publicised.
And yes, my opinion is that all the regular posters here realise that the watch and the diary are both hoaxes. But some of them definitely won't admit it, because it would spoil the fun!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Chris -
we wouldn't want to be party poopers and spoilthe fun.
John -
no three is fine with me thanks!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Another article about recent tests made me dust off my Hair soundtrack this morning.
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions. . .
Cheers,
Dave
PS Chris, one more coincidence to add to our collection. 
(Message edited by oberlin on December 20, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
David,
he was very definatly thinking of time reveals all!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Oh all right then, as we're in party mood.
Engraving on Watch Reveals Identity of Jack the Ripper!
Evidence points to Patricia Cornwall!
Scientific analysis of a 150 year old a scratched, 18ct gold pocket-watch has lead investigators to some surprising conclusions. Crime novelist Patricia Cornwall, who wrote a book last year blaming painter Walter Sickert for the crimes of Jack the Ripper, is now the prime suspect in the case. ...
Read on:
http://www.zombiehunter.com/letters.html
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
you are right Chris we are in a party mood!!
Personally I think a hyperactive duck is responsible for both hoaxes - disagree? I'd like to see you prove otherwise!!!!
Bye for now!!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
An excellent thesis. That would explain all the quackery in the diary.
David,
If I remember right, there's a whole song about "Manchester, England, England -- across the Atlantic sea..." "The American Connection" indeed... It's all starting to make perfect sense now. The moon MUST have been in the 7th house...
Enjoying this festive spirit and hoping it lasts through the New Year,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Jenni
I think it all comes from people hugging their armchairs too tightly, and cutting off the supply of oxygen to the brain!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Of course.
That explains my recent complexion problems...
--John (wishing everyone a happy Festivus) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
Your pal O N S Tee stated that 'there is no doubt' that the scratches (in the watch) are 'modern', and you agreed with that statement. Here it is again: there is no doubt - not 'I have no doubt', or 'in my view there is no doubt', but simply there is no doubt that the scratches are modern.
In the light of that, it's worth pointing out the rich irony of Mrs Morris's repeated claim on another Maybrick thread, that "there is absolutely no doubt that the gold watch owned by Albert Johnson is a gentleman's dress pocket watch".
Not "I have absolutely no doubt" or "in my view there is absolutely no doubt" but simply there is absolutely no doubt that the watch is a man's!
The irony becomes even richer when we remember that her laywoman's certainty that "experts" like Stanley Dangars were wrong is based, apparently, on looking at a book that she happened to have in the house, containing some illustrations of watches.
The irony becomes richest of all when this is contrasted with her insistence that she won't listen to even the most detailed and circumstantial criticisms of the opinions of her favoured "experts", Turgoose and Wild, unless their authors can demonstrate that they are "at least as qualified" as those "experts". (Even though she seems to have no idea how qualified they are.)
But perhaps I'm being unfair - perhaps Mrs Morris has been secretly studying horology with the Open University, and is modestly hiding her light under a bushel!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
You see you can't prove me wrong!!
The duck did it (the hyperactive duck).
Chris,
I hugged my armchair once or twice but i think I got away with it!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
Why don’t you email Manchester and Bristol Universities yourself, if you are interested in knowing more about Turgoose and Wild’s experience and expertise? Why did you expect anyone else to do this research for you and answer your question within two weeks? You’ve hardly shown yourself willing to reconsider your views one iota as a result of others doing the legwork and providing you with answers.
I believe Albert relied on others for advice, including that of his solicitor, on where to get his watch examined, and also concerning the costs involved, verified in writing by his solicitor. And no, he didn’t really pay £1,000 for a first and second professional opinion; he really paid more like £1,200 - ie over five times the price he paid for the watch itself. If you really don’t think this is an odd thing for a hoaxer to do, or for a hoaxer to encourage one’s brother to do, why did you try to play down this aspect with your …if he really paid £1,000 comment?
You employ this tactic again when you write: …her laywoman's certainty that "experts" like Stanley Dangars were wrong is based, apparently, on looking at a book that she happened to have in the house, containing some illustrations of watches.
You know very well what I posted on that other thread - that I actively encouraged everyone to find out for themselves whether Dangar was right and my reference works on the subject wrong. One of the books I have contains page after page of photographic evidence - not illustrations - of gents’ pocket watches of the same period, size and character as Albert’s. Not one photo of a lady’s watch came even close - not one. One is all you need, or all Dangar needed, to support a claim that Albert’s watch could be a lady’s watch, not is, just could be, at a stretch. Without it, I shall continue to assume that the authors of my books were not all so completely inept, or crooked, that all the photos I have seen are either mis-described or bogus. You can assume whatever you like. Others can do the same.
…she won't listen to even the most detailed and circumstantial criticisms of the opinions of her favoured "experts", Turgoose and Wild, unless their authors can demonstrate that they are "at least as qualified" as those "experts".
You’re joking, right? So any Joe Bloggs can come here and pontificate about a report, claiming to know as much as the professional who produced it, and I have to accept this or prove they don’t? I know that Drs Turgoose and Wild are PhDs, and I assume John will have emailed you to explain that MAs and PhDs here in the UK are not ‘probably’ a sign of an Oxbridge graduate at all, as you seemed to think. But I see that letters after one’s name don’t impress you much in any case, so I guess it wouldn‘t matter either way.
All John was saying is that everyone on the boards knows that the watch is a hoax (and the diary, too).
And John is of course still wrong to think he can speak for himself, never mind ‘everyone’ else. While this may literally be all he is saying - all he has ever really said - using a million words in the process, only a moron would not ‘know’ from what John has written exactly what he must also ‘know’ about the age of the ‘hoaxes’. We could go the long route, via the empty tin match box again, but surely we don’t have to. Suffice to say that, since I certainly don’t know that the watch scratches were hoaxed in May 1993 (as a result of the breaking news about the diary) I can’t know they were hoaxed at all. And I don’t see how anyone else can either, unless they can answer the same question I am about to ask John.
If John is seriously saying that he doesn’t know the watch was hoaxed in 1993, or who must therefore be responsible, or involved, while simultaneously claiming ‘there is no doubt’ the scratches are ‘modern’, and that ‘everyone on the boards knows that the watch is a hoax’, then I really don’t know where he can be coming from. He doesn’t seem to have grasped a brass farthing about the reality of the situation.
I realise there is very little point in me asking again, because he clearly can’t or won’t give anything resembling a straight answer, even if I were to adopt his ‘moron explanation mode’ and try to make the question clearer for him. But here goes nothing:
John, how can the watch be the hoax you ‘know’ it to be (and claim that ‘everyone’ here knows it to be) if the scratches weren’t made in 1993, and by one of the Johnsons, or someone known to either of them as the hoaxer?
Come up with a scenario - any scenario - for consideration by everyone here, so we can see how a pre-1993 watch hoax in theory is remotely viable in practice. Otherwise, your self-righteous indignation concerning my understanding of your position makes no sense.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2449
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
John V. Omlor,
As you may have noticed, I never indulge in these Diary/watch threads, but I do sometimes read them.
And I must say that you're just brilliant. Your splendid and very often amusing posts sometimes makes my day. I enjoy them tremendously, although I fail to understand how you can stand being stuck here in the wonderland of circular arguments.
Hats off and have a good Christmas holiday.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
You know, I could have sat down last night and written the second half of Caroline's post (the part concerning me) almost word for word.
It's truly amazing how utterly and mindlessly repetitive we all have become. I do hope no one is actually reading all this nonsense (at least not for anything more that trivial entertainment value).
How is it I conclude that "everyone on these boards knows that the watch is a hoax (and the diary, too)?"
Simple.
No one on these boards says otherwise.
No one on these boards argues the contrary.
No one one these boards even says that it's possible, that perhaps the real James Maybrick really did write this diary and engrave this watch and was Jack the Ripper.
No one.
Not Caroline. Not me. Not Chris. Not Jenni. Not anyone that has posted a single word here in recent weeks and months.
My conclusion?
Everyone one these boards must know that both these items are hoaxes.
Or else they're just really shy.
And nothing Caroline says in the paragraphs above offers even a single bit of evidence that this general assessment of the situation is false.
Because it's not.
Yes. I am saying I don't know for certain who wrote the diary or engraved the watch or precisely when.
But I am saying that I know they are both hoaxes.
And I am saying that everyone else here does too.
I am, as I've repeatedly said, not going to accuse anyone of hoaxing either item or create "scenarios" that pin the blame on anyone -- since I don't know exactly who created these two hoaxes.
But I do know that the real James Maybrick had nothing to do with either this watch or this diary.
And so does Caroline.
And so does everyone else here.
I thought about saying, "there is absolutely no doubt," now that Caroline as decided to use that phrase herself. But instead I'll just leave the sentence simple.
We all know that James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper and that both of these items are hoaxes.
Don't we?
--John
PS: People who think James might have been Jack or these things might be real -- now's your chance. Step right up and make your case. Don't all crowd together though -- form a line. We don't want the rush to be overwhelming.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
Hey John,
well do you know what..?
you know what...
oh sorry i thought it was April the first for a minute!!
Caz,
Like I said I don't really care what your exact opinion on the date of the hoax or the identity of said hoaxers but rather the points you have to make. And that leads me merrily to ask this question of your point in relation to what you say to John. I don't want to sound abrupt but, if people disagreed with John's assertain surely they would say so? Are you disagreeing?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
hang on, Caz, i read your post again, you are disagreeing with John. You don't know the watch and diary are hoaxes. Thereofre you still think James May[brick] be respnsible?
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't advise you don't stay down here in the ethical and intellectual basement too long. You could become infected. Diary World has long been a shady and shameful place where obvious hoaxes are allowed to sell books but are never properly or thoroughly retested using the latest technologies by experts who are given full and unlimited access to the material.
Yes, we all love each other, the way all people suffering from the same incurable disease love each other. But we know that what we do down here is largely a joke to the rest of the world, as well it should be.
There's little or no hope for us regulars, who are already beyond help and so spend our time writing exactly the same things in different ways day after day for no good reason (other than some of us are bored and some of us seem to think it is important somehow).
It's all empty and mindless repetition, and many of us know that and just play to stay busy when we have nothing else to do (between terms, for instance, or when our right hand has nerve and soft tissue damage and we can't hit a golf ball for at least another few weeks).
So while it's OK to read our silliness now and again just for a laugh, the way one would watch a wrestling match despite knowing that the outcome is never in doubt, please don't dally or get involved in going round and round in the traditional endless and pointless circles with any of us here or on other boards where someone makes the mistake of mentioning Maybrick's name and must suffer the inevitable consequences.
The evidence is the evidence and that hasn't changed for more than a decade. And there is not a single bit of it anywhere on the planet that even remotely suggests that either of these artefacts ever came anywhere near the real James Maybrick or that he had anything whatsoever to do with the Ripper murders. That much we all do know.
The rest is just sport and exercise for our sad and pathetic egos during times of boredom.
That's why Diary World is the second happiest place on earth. Because no one is ever happier than when they are stroking themselves in public.
Just take a look at any one of these threads.
Diary World -- where Onan is still king.
Have a great holiday and an exciting New Year. There'll still be "nothing real, nothing new" when the big ball drops and we hit 2005.
And now back to our regularly scheduled repetitions,
--John
PS: Hi, Jenni.
(Message edited by omlor on December 23, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2450
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
John,
Don't worry.
I have no intention whatsoever to become involved in this farce. I'd rather slit my own throat.
Still, its an entertaining read on occasion when I want to get cheered up.
Besides, I'm occupied with circular arguments elsewhere...
Be a good sport now, and Santa will knock on your door this year as well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Hey John,
you are so right i'm still laughing.
its sure infectious around here too.
Maybe we should just go full hog and get Feldmanical, well it is Christmas!!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Actually, nothing worth responding to at all this time - if only because I'm sure only about 3 people will have bothered to pick their way through this big carpet of words with which she's trying to cover up her silliness.
Happy Christmas, everyone!
Chris Phillips
PS OK OK I can't resist just asking her whether she's ever wondered what the "A" of MA might stand for, and how many centuries of tradition might be necessary for this to be thought an appropriate qualification for a scientist.
Just a helpful hint for her - and I hope now she'll stop saying I never lend her a hand with her research!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Though John, just to clarify
you might stroke yourself in public I certainly do not!!
been on the festive wine or something?
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
O N S Tee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
I repeat "There is no doubt that the scratches in the watch are modern" (i.e. early 1990's), how's that for being specific? And, of course, (to anyone with an ounce of common sense) they are. Taken in the timing and context of their appearance and their crass naive nature they can be nothing else. This is underlined by the fact that the only people promoting the nonsense are those with a vested interest. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
250 pounds to buy a watch,and one thousand pounds to authenticate some markings on the inside back cover.Albert,you've had your leg pulled.(Or you are pulling our's").
What should have been asked of the experts,is this.Could the markings on the inside of the watch,have been made in recent times,say around 1993.
A question for all.Is the back cover of the watch the original cover.
If all fails,Albert can give the watch to the man with the red coat and white beard,and ask him to drop it in my letter box,and I'll give an opinion of the markings. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
