|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 6:36 am: | 
|
could you explain to us in detail exactly how the old hoax theory works?
I've been asking an easier question of people who seem to favour an "old hoax" theory:
Is there any evidence at all that the diary was written before the 1980s?
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Sorry if I've missed something here but surely all Mr Poster has argued since he arrived is that none of you can prove 100%, who wrote the diary, why it was writen or when it was writen.
Which leaves open a possibility, however unlikely or incredable, that Maybrick did write the diary or it is an old hoax.
Mr Poster's arguments have surely been how do we go about dating the diary accurately so we can finally put baby to bed.
Those suggestion have been very interesting. What does it matter whether people think the world is flat, it has been prove that it is round. You have not proved who wrote the Diary, why or when, it is therefore a completely differant thing, the Diary (if you'll excuse the pun) is an open book.
Mr Poster is therefore correct. We need to find tests that can date the diary, raise money to make this possible and finally do the deed that will put an end to the various tin box emptie arguements.
We all know the diary is probably a modern hoax, it means nothing if you can't prove that.
Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Jeff
Which leaves open a possibility, however unlikely or incredable, that Maybrick did write the diary or it is an old hoax.
How does it leave open the possibility open that Maybrick wrote it, when it's not in his handwriting?
Chris Pillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
But no one here is ever arguing that the diary is real or that Maybrick was the Ripper. That discussion died a long time ago on these boards.
Why?
Because there is no evidence of any sort that either of those things are true and all the evidence we do have tells us the diary is clearly a fake.
Heck, the handwriting alone proves that.
So to come here and argue, completely without real evidence, that the case in favor of Maybrick as the Ripper has not already fallen apart is just to be wrong.
The point of the flat earth example is that there are still people on the web saying the earth is flat, whether you think it's been proven to be round or not.
Well, I suppose there might be some people somewhere on the web still saying Maybrick was the Ripper, whether any of us think it's clear that the diary is a fake and was not written by him or not.
But that doesn't mean anything.
Because those people will ALWAYS be there -- just like the flat earth people will ALWAYS be there, no matter what evidence you offer them.
In the meantime, the case for James Maybrick as the Ripper has for all practical purposes died both on this site and in the professional field, thanks to the material evidence.
As for the old hoax theory -- it still doesn't exist. No one's ever bothered to create it. So it can't be properly or seriously discussed yet.
On the other hand, the modern hoax scenario explains every textual difficulty with a simple set of logical, perfectly clear, common sense explanations.
Nonetheless, when you write, "We need to find tests that can date the diary, raise money to make this possible and finally do the deed," all you are doing is saying the same thing I've been saying here for years and years and years. Even Figment has been saying it for nearly two years now. So you'll get no argument from us about that.
Not sure we even disagree,
--John
PS: I do sincerely hope you eventually make it happen.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
you might say
'We all know the diary is probably a modern hoax, '
but i wonder if everyone would agree that is the case.
As for not being able to prove it.
I don't know - i like to think i know where all the evidence points, is that enough proof? Not to satifactiorily end this fun diary world i dont suppose.
Which is mores the pity
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
I dont think we do disagree.
All I'm saying is that all the arguments against the diary are cracks in individual bricks.
The fact that the diary is not in Maybricks hand writing is compelling...but its not proof.
People can and will argue reasons for this...he was a psychopath on drugs for christ sake.
Just because most people on these boards (including myself) think that its a Hoax dosn't make it a Hoax.
Because more people are Catholical than Jewish dosnt make either beleif right or wrong. Because more people support Man United than Chelsea dosnt mean there going to win the league.
So lets turn the argument around. If anybody can prove that Maybrick, conclusively, 100%, NO arguments in defence DIDN'T write the Diary then present your evidence.
The comparison with the flat earth society dosnt hold water because we have proof that the earth is round. We do not have proof who, why or when the Diary was writen.
In court your arguments to a jury would be compeling...a few good men would probably give it to you....
But I think Mr Poster beleives that science would not. Alchemists deal in fact and the fact is you cant prove Maybrick didnt write the diary you can only sumise.
We are in agreement that testing needs doing and as far as I can see Mr Poster has been looking for solutions to that problem.
Saying couldnt we look for a ticket proving the where abouts of maybrick at the time of the murders is not Heracy, its looking for practical solutions like hey lets put Mike Barrett on a lie dettector mechine and help clear his name and finally know where the Diary came from.
The Modern Hoax theory is indeed the best logical deduction of the current evidence.
But thats all it is a 'Deduction'.
If anybody has proof the diary is a fake then please offer it.
In the mean time looking for practical solutions to date the diary is what Mr Poster seems to be trying to do and I think that should be comended. even if noone thinks the Diary is real it makes no differance.
What does it matter what people think might be the case.......We need the proof.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Jeff,
yes I agree we need proof.
Its hard to come by thats the damn problem
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Jeff,
Here's the problem. You are acting as if there was something that could happen, something that could be said or done or read that would simply be 100% proof and convince everyone everywhere once and for all that Maybrick was not the Ripper and that the diary is not real.
But the case of the flat-earth people demonstrates vividly that such proof is NEVER finally offerable in the way you describe because there will always be some people who do not believe it.
You write: "The comparison with the flat earth society dosnt hold water because we have proof that the earth is round."
No. YOU have seen proof the earth is round. But some people on the net don't believe it. So, just as in the case of the diary -- your "we" is necessarily restricted to those who believe the proof. Those who don't still think the earth is flat.
So that makes everything you say about religions and football teams and all the rest exactly like the issue of the shape of the earth. The proof turns out to be proof only for those who believe it. For the rest, it remains a question of faith.
Here's the simple test.
Give me a single thing you think, if it were to be discovered or happen, would satisfy your requirements for "proof."
Now then, am I able to respond to this by saying, in your words, "people can and will argue reasons for this..."?
If I can, then it's no different from all the other proof already offered here. And all conclusions remain deductions.
I'll bet you that you can't come up with a single event, discovery, find, or possible result, such that I can't respond to it with the phrase, "people can and will argue reasons for this..."
Consequently, what you are calling for will always be insufficient for the faithful and the state of affairs as you describe it will always be more or less the state of affairs.
I hope this is a clearer explanation of what I am trying to get across to you.
All the best,
--John
PS: Incidentally, whatever happened to the presumption of innocence, anyway? Clearly the burden of proof should always be on those who are claiming Maybrick was guilty, no?
(Message edited by omlor on April 25, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Everyday we come here and we have the same argument (i use we in a loose sense).
At the moment this argument spans at least five threads and is basically about the crashaw quote, and the varying ways it does or does not show anything.
Also as here about if anyone anywhere in the world can actaully say what the old hoax theory is.
and sometimes about tin match box empty (thats my fault, but hey i only mention it because it oroves the diary is modern!)
Anyway, tommorrow we will have a variation on this discusion.
Things rarely change in diary world, because why would they? the evidence today is the same as yesterday, sometimes the evidence changes but unfortunatly not to any great degree.
if the person who faked the diary offered a full confession tommorrow, would i belive them, would anyone? what would we all do with ourselves?
Jenni
ps i lvoe diary world, the second happiest place on earth but sometimes, it does get on ones nerves, i'm sure you agree Jeff.
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Jeff
The fact that the diary is not in Maybricks hand writing is compelling...but its not proof.
It would be considered proof where any other suspected document was concerned.
The fact that some people try to find ways around it tells us a lot about those people, but nothing about the authenticity of the diary.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
"The fact that the diary is not in Maybricks hand writing is compelling...but its not proof."
It's not in Barrett's handwriting, either. Nor could he duplicate the script in the Diary.
Interesting, isn't it? Handwriting is considered - correctly IMHO - definitive proof against Maybrick but gets glossed over vis a vis Barrett. And if Mike Barrett did not write it, who did?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Wait, I must have missed it where someone said the diary was in Mike Barrett's handwriting.
Could you cite that for me, please?
Also, where is the report on the Barrett/Diary handwriting comparisons? I have seen the Maybrick samples myself, but I have never seen the Barrett samples.
Thanks,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Interesting, isn't it? Handwriting is considered - correctly IMHO - definitive proof against Maybrick but gets glossed over vis a vis Barrett.
This would be a difficulty only for someone who had claimed that Barrett wrote the diary.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
The difference is no one is saying Mike Barrett definately wrote it. in fact several times i have seen antis write they do not think there is sufficient proof to say that.
all us antis are really saying is that the diary must have been written after 1986, is that the same thing?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
yep, i see that, that one must be true!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
The earth is round. We have seen, experianced and sceintific evidence for this.
If people wish to dispute the proof, fine. They are nutters, cranks, devoid of a sencible argument. They are arguing against known facts.
People who beleive the Diary to be writen by James Maybrick or an old Hoax are NOT disputing FACT. There is no proof the diary is a hoax.
I am aware that some people will never be satisfied with the evidence...but lets exclude the nutters.
Can you prove the diary is fake...I again challenge you to produce your evidence. I can prove the earth is round. I can supply pictures and scientists who can show this to be true.
Are you saying that you do not beleive that scientists can date the diary?
I have spoken to experts who beleive it is possible to date the diary given the right access and finance. They beleive that they can offer scientific evidence about the date of the diary.
If people then choose to dispute that evidence they will be as cranky as the flat earth society.
If the scientists date the Diary as 1889. Are you going to dispute scientific fact?
Ok its pretty unlikely but until Mr Poster and my self have proof we will not be satisfied.
Your flat earth arguement is a pradantic old colinder leaking as many problems as the Maybrick Diary itself.
No one seriously beleives the world is flat..they just like anoying people with their in flexable argument. they argue for the sake of it and the attension.
Until the scientist offer us the proof of the diaries date I will continue to have an open mind to possibilities.
People disputing known fact is totally differant to people questioning possibilities.
there are many things that would prove the Diary is Fake. records that prove Maybrick's where abouts, a substance found in the ink that shouldn't be there.
Science can not dispute the existance of God. Faith is therefore a matter of opinion that can not be disputed. Sceince proves that we all derrive from one african women thirty five thousand years ago...so the bibles time scale is simply wrong, (although the adam and eve story actually looks better). Faith and fact are differant things. Your aguments will lead us down philosophical paths about whether anything really exists...in terms of the diary it is pointless.
The proof I want is Scientific analisis that an expert scientist is willing to stand by.
Tin box emptie is not proof. Neither is the hand writing or any of the other cracks in the Maybrick diary.
Pradantic comparisons with the flat earth society gets us no nearer to the truth.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
what if,
instead of saying tin match box empty the diary said, i really really wanna zigazigah
or
quiditch
or
modem
would that not count as proof?
now clearly i know here i venture into a theoretical aside.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Jeff
No one seriously beleives the world is flat..they just like anoying people with their in flexable argument. they argue for the sake of it and the attension.
Hmmm. Are you arguing against the analogy here?
The proof I want is Scientific analisis that an expert scientist is willing to stand by.
Surely you've noticed what a large proportion of the Maybrick boards is devoted to discussion of the pronouncements of "expert scientists"?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
"I have spoken to experts who beleive it is possible to date the diary given the right access and finance. "
The good news, Jeff , is that it appears Robert Smith is willing to provide access for testing. (A sincere 'thank you' for your efforts, Jenni.)
I could be mistaken but it seems that Smith is open on testing, so long as he doesn't foot the bill himself. We can engage in endless debate about whether that's appropriate, but it is what it is, and I can see his point of view if I'm correct in my assertion.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
The big problem is that it dosn't. The test you ran at Leeds university were inconclusive the Diary is an intriguing enigma.
everything, as John say's, logically points to the fact that it is a modern Hoax. However for some reason it continues to difie the experts.
We are unble to crack it. If it said 'Tubby custard' I'd except that as proof, yes. But it doesn't, it say's 'tin match box emptie' and that dosn't make it La La.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Sir Robert, I am making pitch soon...trying to solve money problem...it is the only way to put this thing to bed.
However John is correct...we need tests that will finally prove once and for all, other wise we will have people still arguing what the results mean...
Its not easy look at the problem with anatise in the Vineland map..
We must get it right next time. The fact is chis that the test so far have been inconclussive.
We there fore require better tests.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
oh how i would love to say tubby custard,
or theres something waiting to be found
or fabaroni,
That would be good.
But anyhow point taken.
As for tests, I wish you luck
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Jeff,
You write: They are arguing against known facts.
And if I were to stop the citation at that -- not offer anymore of your words, it would not be at all clear whether you are arguing against the flat-earthers or against these mysterious "Maybrick did it" people.
Because in both cases, the sentence remains perfectly true.
And in both cases, some would say it is not.
And that is exactly how it will always be for some people. But we really need not care about them. If you are willing to, I am also willing to call them "nutters."
Around here, among us, there is no one left who ever writes that the diary is real or that James was the Ripper. So that seems to be that concerning the debate over authenticity within this community and within the serious, scholarly part of the field in general, as far as I can tell.
Now then, you have yet to pas my simple test. Give me the one event or discovery or result that will end all discussion forever. and to which no one could ever say ""people can and will argue reasons for this..." I'm still waiting.
As for the scientific tests and dating the diary, I'm very glad to hear that you have been told the same thing I was told by the scientists. I think a thorough and complete set of proper scientific tests is absolutely crucial, not to dispel all arguments forever among everyone (a pipe dream around here), but simply to learn all we can about the artefact.
I wish you all the best with your plans.
I'll wait to see what becomes of them.
To echo my friend, Jenni,
Best of luck,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Oh, but I can't let this pass.
It's just too good.
Jeff did TRY to pass the simple test. He offered the following two possibilities for something that would prove the diary to be fake and end the issue once and for all for everyone.
"records that prove Maybrick's where abouts, a substance found in the ink that shouldn't be there."
I have four words for him.
The Prince and chloroacetamide.
It was a nice try, though.
From the land where, as always, "people can and will argue reasons for this..."
--John (smiling like crazy) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
I am clearly arguing that you can only compare like with like.
Flat earthers are clearly a differant breed and logic to Maybrick advocists.
Until we prove the diary is a hoax. Poeple are logically going to dispute the evidence for and against.
I have made it clear that you can not produce proof that will satisfy everyone because some people in the would are nutters. besides certain schools of philosophy will argue that nothing is real. There will always be fringe nutters, I cant do anything about them.
However if a credible scientist comes to the conclusion that all DNA comes from one woman thirty five thousand years ago and this evidence is confirmed by other experts in the feild, I would say that is good evidence for this as fact.
However we all know that experts will come up with new theories and contradicting evidence. Even some of Einsteins work has been called into question. New experiments better equipment. The fact is that the Atomic bomb works, evidence a big bang proves that lots of energy is contained in small amounts of matter. Would you dispupt this by sitting on the nbomb while I push the button, I think not.
My point is that the diary has not been disproved by reliable factual evidance as yet. It is probably a fake that is all we can state.
I dont beleive that a comparisson with the Flat earthers is a good comparison, thats all.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You write: "Flat earthers are clearly a differant breed and logic to Maybrick advocists."
Well, I've only ever seen the work of a few actual Maybrick advocates -- Feldman, Harrison, the people on the Yahoo site, Tiddley someone, and maybe Peter Wood -- and I am not convinced of this at all.
Then you write:
"if a credible scientist comes to the conclusion that all DNA comes from one woman thirty five thousand years ago and this evidence is confirmed by other experts in the feild, I would say that is good evidence for this as fact."
And I would agree. But the problem in your sentence is the phrase "I would say...."
And that problem remains whether you are talking about the evidence that the earth is round or the evidence that the real James did not write this book. As you say, "people can and will argue reasons" for whatever you produce.
Of course, there is NO real evidence anywhere that says the earth is actually flat or that the real James did write this book.
Perhaps we should not forget that.
Incidentally, you did not respond to my PS about the logical burden of proof in the case -- surely it rests with those who think Maybrick was the Ripper, whoever they are.
Thanks and good luck with those tests,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Hello John
Interesting. Now you have changed from the Poll being rigged to it being valid. Its amazing what happens when you are asked to produce the evidence of it being rigged. So the poll was rigged first but now it will be genuine if the stats you are interested in confirm your hypothesis. Super. I guess you have covered all the bases there.
I am placing the sales figures in the same category. Unfortunately, sales figures would be a little trickier to deal with as you would have to factor in the lack of novelty factor with an nth book on the ripper, different editions etc. I think that analysis would be tricky.
But you could ask your 10 Ph.D.'s to take a quick look at the figures.
And I guess I am going to modify this again as I am defeated by word play:
By "old hoax/Maybrick wrote it" I mean anything (ie. belief or standpoint) other than the belief (or opinion) that it is a modern (ie. after the 1980's) hoax (ie written by someone who was....oh forget it).
Semantics. Most ofen employed to alleviate the symptoms of mental constipation accompanied by verbal diarrhoea !
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hello John
Contradictory posts it would seem are not just my forte:
how the old hoax theory works
Was it not you who explained that there is no old hoax theory?
But........
Did you ever lay your hands on the evidence to back up your assertion of the rigged poll and the strange sales figures?. Oh well. Nothing new, nothing real I suppose.
And we are not in the playground. Thats over there with the purple dragon thing.
And remember: You cant bore someone into listening to you! I dont know who said that. Crashaw maybe.
But cheers for the attention! I like it as much as the next.
Having a good day too!
Mr Poster |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Sigh.
Mr. Poster,
Actual reading here is important.
You just wrote: "Interesting. Now you have changed from the Poll being rigged to it being valid. Its amazing what happens when you are asked to produce the evidence of it being rigged. So the poll was rigged first but now it will be genuine if the stats you are interested in confirm your hypothesis. Super. I guess you have covered all the bases there."
But the problem is, you have not cited for me where I ever said the poll was either "rigged" or "genuine."
Until you show me a single line in anything I have ever written that says it was "rigged," I will assume you are just making this up because you simply refuse to read.
Likewise, until you show me a single line in anything I have written that says it is "genuine," I will assume that you are also just making this up because you simply refuse to read.
Show me the lines, show me these "accusations" of which you speak, or I will not take you seriously.
I know what I wrote and I wrote neither of these things.
You have already admitted that you do not know anything about the poll or how it operates and consequently, logically speaking, any claims about the Maybrick candidacy and its current state of scholarly life that are based on your reading of this poll are meaningless.
And once again, for some mysterious reason, you attempt to conflate the "old hoax" position with the "Maybrick was the Ripper and the diary is real" position, despite the fact that these are actually opposing viewpoints.
One of these positions is never even uttered around here. The other is barely uttered, in a vague and sketchy fashion, and always without evidence of any sort -- just the sad and desperate hope that there might be something somewhere we know nothing about.
Semantics -- paying attention to words and their meanings for the sake of clarity of distinction and rhetorical precision.
I understand why you might not be fond of it.
Then there's a second follow-up post where you again mention those "accusations" that I have never made and where you do not explain how an old hoax theory might work (perhaps because there is no such thing?) nor do you tell me how many posts to this site in 2005 have argued in favor of authenticity or the real James being the Ripper. I guess that house has fallen around here after all.
And if you don't think this is the playground right here, in exchanges like this one, then your lack of rhetorical self-awareness actually rivals your lack of reading.
I wouldn't have thought that possible.
Awaiting a similar reply,
--John
PS: See, Jeff -- this is the stuff I was talking about. It's not just new approaches and calls for testing. It's nonsense like this. He's right down here immersed in the pointless and repetitive ugliness with the rest of us, whether he knows it or not.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
All right, it occurs to me that Mr. Poster is never actually going to do the work or cite the language to which he is inaccurately referring, so I'll just do it for him, in the hopes that it will end this silliness.
On Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:47 am (that's right, it was almost a full week ago), he wrote:
"If we take the word 'framing' as meaning 'wrongly convicted' and if we take the word 'convicted' as meaning 'deemed guilty' presumably by a jury of people, then according to the poll on the front of this site, Maybrick has been framed (assuming the poll reflects the number of people who think him guilty)."
To which I responded, on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 5:34 pm:
"Mr. Poster, You might want to check the data on that Casebook survey you cite and see when the votes were cast and by how many different people and how often. I think you'd be surprised."
Nowhere did I ever say or even imply anything about the poll being deliberately "rigged" (or, on the other hand, about it being "genuine" or "valid" either) and I most certainly did NOT make any "accusation" that anyone had rigged anything, ever.
I suggested he check to see how the poll that he himself first cited works and when people cast their votes and how often, etc. And I suggested that the results might not indicate what he suspected.
Appropriately enough, he then responded that he could not find this information.
This, quite logically, allowed me to conclude that when he first mentioned it he knew little or nothing about it. So, as I had been intending to all along, I wrote,
"He admits he knows nothing about it. Consequently, any of his original claims based on it become meaningless.
And that remains my claim here, which I have just rewritten yet again this way:
"You have already admitted that you do not know anything about the poll or how it operates and consequently, logically speaking, any claims about the Maybrick candidacy and its current state of scholarly life that are based on your reading of this poll are meaningless."
Why this simple development of the discussion, why this basic logical point continues to elude him, and more importantly, why he chooses to read it in some fantastic and ugly way as my making "accusations" against someone for having the poll "rigged" would be a mystery if his intentions were not so otherwise obvious. For him, apparently, this is not about what he can and cannot logically and rightfully claim. For him this is about creative rather than accurate reading and replacing what I have actually written with what he thinks I have written (based on his own desires, obviously, rather than careful detailed reading).
Meanwhile, the larger point remains precisely the same. Practically no one comes here anymore and argues the case for authenticity or for James being the Ripper. It's a dead issue around here and apparently in nearly all of the serious scholarly parts of this field as well.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
Well, in any case, that's the exchange as it actually developed. Ignore the nasty implications, the creative rewriting of my words and the rhetorical attempt to have me accusing someone of "rigging" something. I've done nothing of the sort, ever.
And if Mr. Poster cannot produce a line of my prose where I have actually accused someone of "rigging" that poll, it will be interesting to see if he owns up to this and bothers to correct this misimpression or if he tries to dance away from what he has written via some more creative reading using words I have never typed.
Thanks all,
--John
PS: Sorry for the tedious rehash, but I don't like being charged with accusing someone of "rigging" something on this site when I would certainly never do such a thing. I have too much respect for Stephen and for this place where I practice my daily silliness.
To be perfectly clear: the question of whether or not the poll accurately reflects in any meaningful way the state of any serious Maybrick candidacy at this point in time and whether or not it is intellectually responsible to cite it if you know nothing about the data in it is not in any way related to anyone "rigging" anything or any other such nonsense.
(Message edited by omlor on April 25, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Stop it stop it stop it.
This is all irrelivant. Were not working for a democracy...we'll end up with George Bush or Tony Blair...
We all want the same thing..to know who created the diary, when and why.
Can you please put your heads together and start suggesting ideas for new tests on the diary...which would be a vaugly useful exercise and stop arguing how many people voted for Maybrick or didn't.
What Jenni and I want is to get to the truth, will you please help and stop bickering about samantics.
The reason why Maybrick is conected and gets votes is because his name is on the Diary and the diary perports to be writen by Jack the Ripper. Most people out there in the public no very little about the Diary or about Mike Barrett....infact most people dont care which is why its a very difficult story to sell..
Who ever beleives what is not helping. We all know the arguments, have been over them a thousand times and agreed that we need conclusive tests. Because tests so far have not been...not 100%, John, not without some floor or other..and as Jenni has pointed out it is very difficult to come up with tests that will do this....and as Mr Poster has pointed out, find scientists willing to stake their reputation on tests.....
Can we just take Johns position, that most experts now take the veiw that the Diary is a Hoax.
The real disagreement is when this Hoax was created and this can only be settled by new, better tests...
WHAT ARE THESE TO BE????????????
That is what this thread is about...new propossels.
If a scientist can be found who can prove Maybrick wrote the diary fine....CASE CLOSED.
We finally know the answer....which is why Maybrick is a unique suspect...none of the others offer this..thats why he's up there, no other reason.
The fact that we all know this is never going to happen, is irrelivant...
Now please get on with it...the chase is afoot.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
OK. Fair enough. Good luck with the tests.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I've got news for you we already ended up with both George Bush and Tony Blair!!
your post made me smile.
seriously, i don't think finding scientists will be hard. just knowing what we want them ti test that is the hard part.thats why i feel perhaps ask a scientist.
my name was mentioned in the same breath as sensibleness whats going on?
Seriously Jeff, feel free to drop me an email.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Jenni, Hopefully you received my email
and having both looked into this we both realize that what test to carry out...looking for what..what they will prove and what conclusions we will be able to draw is the big problem.
OK they can tell us they beleive that they can date the diary..but they want time to study it and look into what can possibly be done.
Most experts I have spoken to beleive that dating is possible...but are very cagey about saying what this is, how long it will take and how much its going to cost.
I think it is now generally except that the person who owns the Diary would like the answer to this question as much as us and will cooperate.
They, quite rightly, also want assurances that it can be done this time properly. No *^*k ups.
What would be useful is starting to make a diffinative list of all the test options available, who could carry them out, what they might demonstrate.
I realize that there are a number of suggestions already on this site from ion migration to chemical analisis but most have been tried and failed.
If your listening Mr Poster, a list of possible tests things that have been tried and could be tried would be very useful to me at present.
Yours Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:19 am: |
|
Hi Jenni and Jeff,
I just want you both to know that there are plenty of us out here who support your efforts to get the diary thoroughly and properly tested in a comprehensive way using the latest methods and technologies in order that we might learn as much as possible about the document.
I, for one, will be watching with interest,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Jeff,
actually, no, but hold that thought i think i may have your email address kicking around
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hello Jeff
I have written some ideas on the Ink thread.
When it comes to testing the ink (and the paper its on): Gas Chromatography with a Mass Spectrometer detector and the analysis brief to the lab should be writen very carefully indeed.
Arsenic anywhere on and in the journal.
Try and find out what the flourescent marks on the paper are (they could be washing powder residues from a jumper sleeve or anything). And if they are and the ink goes over them, then I'd settle for that and bid adieu to these threads.
So if a realistic quantity of chloroacetamide was found (not 6.5 ppm but something approaching what should be in modern ink), no arsenic and any residues of any compound of modern origin (washing powder, fabric softener, hand cream etc) UNDER the ink, I'd be satisified.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Hello John
Cant be bothered. Have a haiku to tide yourself over until I can be:
One smart man reasons
Devious system spreads
The Laugh, bigger for me
Mr Poster |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 895
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Uh... That's not a haiku.
Poet Laureate,
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
...and sometimes about tin match box empty (thats my fault, but hey i only mention it because it oroves the diary is modern!)
In your opinion it might orove the diary modern, but Keith Skinner would have given up the investigation if he considered that it proved the diary modern. And Alec Voller was certain that the ink went on paper long before Fido published his book that he doesn't believe was used for the diary's ripper info.
So it's hard for me to just accept your word for it - sorry.
Hi Jeff,
If people then choose to dispute that evidence they will be as cranky as the flat earth society.
If the scientists date the Diary as 1889. Are you going to dispute scientific fact?
I think (and I stand to be corrected by Mr Poster) that the most the scientists could probably do, if the diary really were that old, would be to give a 'not inconsistent with 1889' verdict. And of course, this would give rise to the call for further tests. The only way the modern hoax theorists would finally be satisfied with the scientists, is if they can achieve a repeatable and resounding 'modern' verdict - only possible of course if the diary is modern.
I predict that the words 'not inconsistent' will continue to haunt us, no matter what fresh examinations are on the agenda.
Jenni wrote:
what if,
instead of saying tin match box empty the diary said, i really really wanna zigazigah
or
quiditch
or
modem
would that not count as proof?
Well yes, exactly so, and here's the rub. If Mike Barrett had been involved in any capacity in the creation of this document (although I realise there's no evidence that can prove he even knew whether the diary was old or recent when he brought it to London) I would have expected there to be several instances in the diary of fatal screw-ups, and I find it quite astonishing that not even one of the many textual problems put forward over the years as evidence of a modern fake can finally be nailed into the diary's coffin - either by Melvin Harris, who relentlessly pursued the suspected hoaxers (and who stated that neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary, which shows that plenty of modern hoax theorists are as unconvinced as I am about Melvin's inside knowledge and ability to crack the case), or by more recent commentators who keep trying with the same old material and the same old arguments.
By the way, it may be more difficult than you think to prove a document modern simply by the words used.
How old would you think a document could be, if it mentioned 'artificial lungs', for instance?
Well, Crashaw wrote these words in a poem back in the 17th century. I found them in the 1858 Turnbull edition of Crashaw's Complete Works (which I borrowed from Rob Clack).
I don't expect to find Dicky Crashaw waxing lyrical about running off with a spice girl, but you never know your luck 'til you tread in it. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
yeah sorry i stopped spell checking my diary world posts.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Jenni,
You'll notice that for all her doubts, she does not ever address the issue directly.
She drops Keith Skinner's name (because she thinks it matters to us) and mentions Voller (but has already mentioned other directly contradictory science to support herself elsewhere) and finally invokes Martin without ever offering any explanation for why he thinks that or how he would know. Why all these names being mentioned?
Simple.
Because she has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates in any way that the police list used in the diary's composition was available to the public before 1987.
No evidence at all. Just vague dreams and hopes and wishes. She knows that the obvious, simple common sense explanation for how the list got in the diary is that someone saw it after it was published and put it there.
She has no other rational or evidenced explanation.
So she mentions names and hopes that, among readers here, the names will do for her what no evidence can.
It's argument via personality -- and it's designed to cover over a huge and embarrassing hole.
Fortunately, there's no need to fall into this evidence gap, because we have a single scenario that simply and easily accounts not only for the use of the list in the text but for ALL the other many textual difficulties that an old hoax scenario can't even begin to explain.
Then she tries to find a reason to avoid further testing, by predicting what the tests will say even before they are run. Of course, Mr. Poster has just written on another thread that a decent lab could in fact solve certain issues once and for all and Caroline has no real idea what else one could do and won't until one gets a look at the book and the old results and tells us what they can do.
Perhaps she's finally willing to post the complete text of the letter from the McCrone labs, so we can see, in its entirety, exactly what they have said. She mentioned it here a while ago, and then ran from posting it like a scared rabbit.
She also writes, "I find it quite astonishing that not even one of the many textual problems put forward over the years as evidence of a modern fake can finally be nailed into the diary's coffin."
But of course, the use of the police list in the document and the handwriting have already nailed the coffin closed concerning authenticity, haven't they?
And as for the date of composition, what with that same use of the police list and Poste House and the modern letter formations and Mike's ability to give us all the source for the Crashaw quote and the complete lack of any verifiable provenance of any sort and the fact that the people who gave us the diary in modern times have done nothing but lie about where it came from, the only reason we still discuss it around here has nothing to do with what the textual evidence obviously and repeatedly shows (that the text was created in modern times), but rather has everything to do with the desire of the faithful, who, without any evidence of any sort that explains any of these things in any rational way, relying only on the desperate gasp of "maybe there's something out there we don't know about yet" for each and every one of the problems all at the same time, continue to believe, just like the flat-earthers, for whatever inexplicable reason.
The "nail" will never go in the coffin for the sort of people who look at the evidence and still say the earth is flat or the moon landings were fake. And that's the same, obviously, for some people here too.
But what they don't have is any evidence of any sort anywhere in the text that indicates an old document or any evidence of any sort that explains all the indications we do have of a modern one.
And the rest of the day will pass here, and there'll be post after post, and at the end of the day, they will not have offered even one piece of evidence that explains any of these textual problems.
Watch. Not one.
Meanwhile, if the diary is a modern hoax they are all explained, simply, easily, and using simple common sense.
Check at the end of the day and see if anything at all has changed.
--John
PS: Caroline also writes: "...or by more recent commentators who keep trying with the same old material and the same old arguments."
I think it's very cute, in a school-yard crush sort of way, not only that Caroline has taken to ignoring the specifics in my posts, but that she can't even bring herself to write my name. It makes me feel special.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
You know John
I think it's very cute, in a school-yard crush sort of way, not only that Caroline has taken to ignoring the specifics in my posts, but that she can't even bring herself to write my name. It makes me feel special.
Caroline has taken to laughing at my typing skills (or lack of therefore) so you should count yourself lucky that shes simple ignoring you.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Caroline,
heres something to consider, since you seem so keen to keep pointing the finger at him, maybe Mike didnt fake the diary. Got it?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, I noticed the typo remark. On another board, she just called Chris Phillips by some weird baby name.
There's a whiff of sad desperation in this morning's flurry it seems to me. I can't explain it, unless it's simply the result of having no explanations for the problems in the text and so finally just giving up and opting for this sort of thing.
Anyway, the list of moments in the text that indicate a modern date of composition remains intact -- the old hoax theory can't seem to offer an evidenced or rational explanation for even one of them, let alone all of them. And a modern hoax scenario explains them all using simple common sense. Clearly, for some, that produces a frustration that leads to the tone we see this morning. But in the end, the evidence is the evidence and it won't go away.
Enjoy the day, Jenni,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Hi John,
perhaps Caroline, likes to rely on the opinions of other people, such as Keith Skinner, to inform her opinIons?
i'm just fine using my own brain. but each to there own.
Anyway hope the weather is nice in sunny Florida!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 897
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Oy! I know John is not commenting on Caroline's typo mocking seeing as how he used to have such hijinks doing that exact same thing with her when it was aimed at Melvin Harris.
Tsk tsk tsk. I shake my head in dismay. Tskie, tskie, tskie.
I am feeling a need to dust out my old copy of the soap in progress "As the Forum Burns" and start updating it!
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Ally,
Huh? I wrote something about typos in Melvin's posts?
I know I satirized his tone and style often. And I am proud to have done so. But I don't recall cracking about typos, and I thought he didn't type his posts anyway -- that they came via someone else.
But perhaps you have a message I have long forgotten.
In any case, this morning brought out a raft of such niceties from Caroline all of a sudden (none directed at me, of course, since she's trying very hard to ignore my posts). I was commenting on the sudden change in tone.
Anyway, if you can find such a crack from me, then I too will have been guilty in olden times and will happily admit to that.
Thanks,
--John |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
A praiseworthy attitude jenni.
I think my brain has got something to do with being used. I think so, anyway. Couldn't swear to it. I seem to recall hearing about it somewhere- some scientist seems to think that it's got some sort of a mind of its own, and I can tap into it whatever.
beats me ! |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Uh.......and Im not Japanese! But is this one...
slowly flagging cold
blow dragonfly accuses
accuses, flew
:-)
Mr Poster |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
