|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:51 pm: | 
|
Due to you not knowing that I was being a bit sarcastic,Maria...you've taken my other post the wrong way entirely. My post was a little jab at a certain person...not at Mr.Birchwood.
I really was pointing out that your husband didn't get mentioned for his assistance in the search for RDS gravesite as he should have perhaps...
I'm sorry that you took my post the wrong way. |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Lars:
Can you speak in English please ? All that scientific jargon is completely boring and incomprehensible. The matter is simple.
The diary can be examined any day on other aspects apart from the ink. That hasn't been done for more than a decade now.
At least Melvin Harris did something at the time, where others over the years, have failed.
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Lars:
This example about the bike is tragic. That would be like comparing proper laboratory tests to planes crashing every single day !
As I understand it, Leeds didn't have the right equipment, the conditions were not what we could describe world-class analysis and their results were flawed and ambiguos.
--Maria |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:44 am: |
|
Maria
Indeed. We've gone through all this before many times.
What he described as his previous "analysis" was a rather transparent casting about for reasons to disbelieve the AFI results. Several of the suggested reasons - such as contamination and noise - had to be abandoned when it was pointed out that the report made it clear they were impossible. Finally he hit on the unanswerable "well maybe the ink contained a mystery substance that exactly mimics the behaviour of chloroacetamide".
And I do think you have a point about Lars leaning rather heavily on jargon.
The best he could do, apparently, in response to my post, was to quibble about whether these tests constituted "experiment". (They certainly fit the definition in my dictionary!)
Apparently he still seems to want to discount the careful, properly controlled and calibrated AFI experiments, and even to suggest that the Leeds test - I mean the second Leeds test, after they discarded their first botched results - is capable of proving a negative result. So I'll just repeat Voller's comments on the Leeds tests yet again:
"calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established."
Chris Phillips
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 59
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Chris
"Well, maybe the ink contained a mystery substance that exactly mimics the behaviour of chloroacetamide".
How ridiculous ! Maybe the substance has the exact behaviour of chloroacetamide because IT IS chrloroacetamide ! If a pig looks like a pig, the behaviour is like a pig's, we must conclude, IT IS A PIG !
I wouldn't think Lars statement above looks THAT scientific to me.
-Maria |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
So here we have the gospel according to Chris Phillips and Maria Birchwood, on the subject of testing for chloroacetamide.
Forgive me if I missed the bit about your scientific backgrounds and experience, which gives your opinions priority over Mr Poster's.
I have no idea who is more qualified and why. But I do know whose opinions are not without considerable bias. This makes me all the more wary of taking anyone's word for anything here, if it does not appear to have sufficient independent support.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Caz writes two sentences:
"I have no idea who is more qualified and why.
OK, that one's true.
But I do know whose opinions are not without considerable bias.
No one's, certainly not around here.
And so, to solve the discrepancies between existing results, it seems only one path makes any sense...
And it's so obvious I don't even have to write it down.
I love that.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hello my dears!!
no ones opinion is without bias and thats a fact
cheers
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Forgive me if I missed the bit about your scientific backgrounds and experience, which gives your opinions priority over Mr Poster's.
I did say what it was, and you did miss it.
You've said yourself that you don't understand the science involved, but why on earth you should assume that others are in the same boat is beyond me.
And I can't believe you wrote that bit about "Mr Poster's" scientific background and experience. If he wrote under his real name we might stand some chance of knowing what that was.
Chris Phillips
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Caroline
We have to assume that Lars has NOT seen or analysed the diary. Any reputable laboratory would need to see the artefact to examine it first before they draw a conclusion of ANY KIND.
Assuming Lars has never seen the dairy, it places him in the same category as anyone else.
Layman or not.
Chloro means green as in chlorophyll: The green colouring in plants. Which makes me think that the ink from the dairy if exposed to the sun, has faded. But then, an expert would have to see wouldn't he ? WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN ?
-Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Caroline:
Another thing, I don't have a vested interest in the dairy proving to be a fake since I have never attempted to make any money from it, neither by writting books, nor lucrative newspaper serialisations, nor films, nothing.
I think that you cannot boast the same lack of bias my dear.
--Maria |
Christopher Lowe
Sergeant
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Caroline and Maria,
I hate all this talk about lack of bias or people being biased as it makes the assumption of an abstract rational individual. That is the problem with using science to prove or disprove anything as it assumes that any individual can remove themselves from their emotions, instincts, preconceptions, etc.
Christopher Lowe |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
no ones opinion is without bias and thats a fact
Yes, and I wrote:
'This makes me all the more wary of taking anyone's word for anything here, if it does not appear to have sufficient independent support.'
Hi Maria,
Which makes me think that the ink from the dairy if exposed to the sun, has faded. But then, an expert would have to see wouldn't he ? WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN ?
The ink, as far as I am aware, has not faded or changed in colour one iota from April 1992 to this day. But you don't have to take my word for it.
All I was saying is that you have no more seen or analysed the diary than has Mr Poster. But you seem to be saying that no experts have seen or analysed it either, which is absolute piffle.
If science could easily have dated the ink, we would not be here now. As far as I know, it will be tested again and again in the future, but its owner does need independent help to make that happen each time.
We are all biased in one way or another, but at least I don't shove my subjective diary views down anyone's throat - I shove my admitted ignorance and agnosticism regarding the ink's age at them instead and ask for supporting evidence.
And can you just imagine what certain biased posters would say if the diary owner arranged and funded his own new tests - and they again were inconclusive or favoured the 'old document' view? They would be rejected - so what possible advantage would there be in doing it that way?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
You know, I don't believe anyone is still buying this whole "it's not Robert's job, someone else should do it" nonsense that Caroline is once again mouthing here.
It's Robert's book. He's the one who has made the claims in print concerning authenticity. He owns the damn thing. It's his responsibility finally to get it properly and thoroughly tested in the manner necessary to resolve the existing scientific conflicts and in order that we might learn as much as possible about the document. If he feels he needs an independent party to observe, then he should do whatever is necessary to make that happen.
It's thirteen years later, for God's sake.
This sad shirking of personal responsibility in the name of "let someone else do it" has been ringing hollow for too long, especially since new editions of the book with his diary in it have been published and sold in the meantime.
It's truly an embarrassment, and it allows this shoddy hoax to linger. And, with regard to the search for an accurate and responsible history of the Ripper case, it poisons this entire field.
I do hope the tests are being done now, will be done soon, will someday, finally, be done.
But there can be no question where the ultimate responsibility lies -- it lies squarely with the owner of the document.
Surely at least that much is obvious.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
If science could easily have dated the ink, we would not be here now.
What absolute drivel.
You know the question about chloroacetamide is a straightforward one for science to determine. Roberts explained how it could be done a decade ago, when he pointed out that the AFI test suggested thay chloroacetamide was present but did not definitely prove it.
(For what it's worth, the contributor calling himself Mr Poster, or Lars Nordman, or whatever, agrees, seeing that you seem to put more faith in anonymous bulletin board posters than people who use their real names.}
The reasons it hasn't happened are absolutely nothing to do with any scientific shortcomings. To suggest they are is about as dishonest as you can get.
And as someone's money has been poured into an "ongoing investigation" into the diary for - what? - 18 months now, when this question could be settled straightforwardly and quickly, the plea of poverty rings very hollowly indeed.
Chris Phillips
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Dear Chris Philips
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Print off the AFI report, take it to any chemist and get their opinion. Which will be the same as mine.
But a few points:
Contamination of a column can only be determined by a signal in theregion of interest on a blank run - which is what we have in the AFI result.
Voller commented on "procedures". As AFI do not routinely analyse the compound, the only procedure he could comment on were the general GC procedures. Which in this case have no bearing on the result produced as general procedures could not account for chloroacetamide analysis.
The ignorance exposed by Maria comment about a pig is frightening. GC is a separatory technique not an identification technique. The resolution on the AFI trace is so poor (as I have pointed out before) that it could be any of 100 compounds producing that signal.
But, and hands up John V. Omlor, I now have to apologise. I used to wonder about Johns frustration and tactics and crassness but now I have to indulge in it too. I apologise sincerely JVO for my adverse comments in the past but having read the above posts I see no other way and acknowledge my hypocrisy.
For Maria B. and Chris P. to pontificate about scienctific methods they obviously have no credentials in is a little rich. I have been a practising research chemist for 15 years, am well published in method development and analytical chemistry and hold a number of qualifications up to and including doctorate and am on the editorial board of the journals pertaining to my field. My credentials can be forwarded to Stephen P. Ryder for him to confirm them to anyone interested as I refuse to place them in the public domain. I assume he will treat them in confidence and use them to just confirm what I have said above.
How ridiculous ! Maybe the substance has the exact behaviour of chloroacetamide because IT IS chrloroacetamide ! If a pig looks like a pig, the behaviour is like a pig's, we must conclude, IT IS A PIG !
That statement is the most ridiculous statement regarding gas chromatography I have ever seen and displays a depth of ignorance re: the technique and its application not often seen. Arrogance too in commenting on something of which there is obviously no experience.
" wouldn't think Lars statement above looks THAT scientific to me.
You complained originally that the statement was too scientific : make up your mind.
Several of the suggested reasons - such as contamination and noise - had to be abandoned when it was pointed out that the report made it clear they were impossible.
I have abandoned nothing. The report makes nothing clear. The blank has a signal indicative of contamination maybe with the compound in question or maybe one with a similar retention time which is all the more likely given the poor resolution of the column. Read any textbook, ask any chemist, check out what good chromatograms look like.
Again, JVO, I can only apologise for my criticisms in the past. I appreciate now you impossible position and can only admire your fortitude and indeed restraint in continually fielding such ridiculous opinions (including my own) in topics related to your area of expertise.
Lord above....
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
Chloro means green as in chlorophyll: The green colouring in plants. Which makes me think that the ink from the dairy if exposed to the sun, has faded. But then, an expert would have to see wouldn't he ? WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN ?
"
I hope that was a joke. I really do. Because if its not then there is no hope for any of us.
And I do know Chris P's background. Which should make him question the following:
1)is the resolution good enough to identify anything?
2)why, when a complex mixture such as ink, was exctracted with acetone, it only extracted 3 components, the same three as present in the blank and one of those was apparently, a water soluble compound?
I give up. Hands up. I know we quibble with JVO about Logic and Analytical Thinking (me included) because we all like to think we possess some level of those even without training. But to assume greater knowledge of a specialist minority subject that does not obey the rules of the previous two and which nobody is born with an inate knowledge of is just one assumption to many.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
This post was posted after the one below I think:
In response to Maria Birchwoods post above and in the cause of enlightening her:
From (once again and still available to all):
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/gcms.html
"The amount of time that a compound is retained in the GC column is known as the retention time. The technician should measure retention time from the sample injection until the compound elutes from the column. The retention time can aid in differentiating between some compounds. However, retention time is not a reliable factor to determine the identity of a compound. If two samples do not have equal retention times, those samples are not the same substance. However, identical retention times for two samples only indicate a possibility that the samples are the same substance. Potentially thousands of chemicals may have the same retention time, peak shape, and detector response."
"Bluntly, GC is "one of the quickest ways of getting the wrong answer in qualitative analysis."
"Before analyzing a sample, the technician should tune and calibrate the instrument. A technician can process a spiked sample (containing a known concentration of a substance) to check calibration and tuning. If the instrument does not detect the substance or shows a greater or lesser concentration than the known concentration, the technician must recalibrate the instrument. Also, the technician can use a blank sample (containing no detectable compounds) to test the GC/MS instrument's data reporting accuracy. If the device indicates the presence of a substance in the blank sample, the device may contain residue from prior analysis. If this occurs, the technician must retune and recalibrate the GC/MS instrument."
"Less than ideal spectral peaks may indicate less than ideal analytical procedures or equipment. The technician can readily observe whether the output exhibits unsatisfactory results. Ideally, the spectral peaks should be symmetrical, narrow, separate (not overlapping), and made with smooth lines. GC evidence may be suspect if the peaks are broad, overlapping, or unevenly formed. If a poorly shaped peak contains a steep front and a long, drawn-out tail, this may indicate traces of water in the specimen."
So it is safe to say that, in GC, something that looks like a pig and behaves like a pig can safely be said to be an animal but cannot be said to a pig. Of course maybe Maria has reached new levels of analytical scientific knowledge without anyone noticing.
Reading the above and glancing back to the AFI report, I suggest you check and see if the peaks are resolved enough.
For two peaks (as is the case in the AFI example), sufficient resolution (separation) is where R > 1.2 (Braithwaite and Smith, 1994) with R being defined as:
R=(tRB-tRA)/0.5(tWA+tWB)=2delta tR/(tWA+tWB)
where A and B are the two peaks of interest,
R is resolution,
tRB is retention time of peak B,
tRA is retention time of peak A,
tWA is base width of peak A,
tWB is base width of peak B,
delta tR is the difference in the retention times
So you can calculate R yourself from the AFI trace. And see if it is generally acceptable. And if it isnt, you can tell me how you can be so certain when scientific rules of thumb are not satisifed. Or we can sit around and use farm yard animal analogies to convince people.
Shoot me now, I am turning into John V. Omlor.
Mr P.
Braithwaite, A, and Smith, F.J. Chromatographic Methofds, Fourth Edition, Chapman and Hall, London. 1994. pp. 139-140 |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi Lars,
Thanks for the empathy.
Now then, shouldn't tests be possible at least to resolve the current conflicts in the results we already have (regarding, for instance, what is and isn't in the ink)?
I know what the people at at least one well-known and respected lab told me (and told Shirley in a published letter and told Jeff Leahy as well). They'd like to get the book and have a crack at it.
But I'll let you answer for yourself.
Meanwhile, of course, the question of personal responsibility remains.
And the years roll by.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Mr Poster
I really don't have the time to go through all this again, but could you please just try to be clear about what exactly you are claiming?
Are you claiming that the peak observed by AFI was:
(1) contamination;
(2) noise;
(3) something in the ink consistent with chloroacetamide, but requiring further confirmation by another procedure.
After our previous discussion, you appeared to be claiming (3).
If you are claiming (1), can you explain how on earth it wouldn't have been detected by the AFI procedures?
Frankly I don't see how anyone in their right mind could look at the traces and claim (2).
Chris Phillips
PS And I'm sorry, but I'm really not going to post my cv here, at the behest of either you or Caroline Morris. If anyone is inclined to believe your "trust me, I'm an anonymous chemist" line, that's up to them. As I've said before, I've rather come round to the view that if people believe the claims of the Maybrickite camp, despite all the information that's available to them on this site, they deserve what they get.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Mr. Poster,
While I certainly congratulate you on doing your homework, there really is nothing in your posts that do anything to discredit the AFI tests or rehabilitate the Leeds tests.
The passage that you cite above regarding calibration validates the AFI procedure and does nothing to discredit the results. The procedure is NOT foolproof. The possibility of error exists, but that's a long was from establishing that an error is probable.
AFI's procedure was proper. The results are documented. And it's unfortunately the only documented one we have. We know that Leeds bunged up their tests, and no documentation has ever been provided to examine their rather interesting claim. If we're generous the score is 2-1. If we're realistic, it's 1-0.
Unless you can come up with a specific reason to believe that there is an actual probability of error, this is no different than the Miracle of the Liverpool Library. There's a common sense, probable explination... and a vague possibility that it's something else.
In most cases if it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, it is a pig. Sure, it might not be, but if you want other people to believe it, some evidence would really help.
Best regards,
John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
i'm retreating
sorry!!
I'm a wuss
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Lars:
As an example:
If I have a diamond ring that an expert has certified as rare and valuable for its purity and the certification comes from De Veers, I DON'T NEED TO BE AN EXPERT IN DIAMONDS MYSELF to prove that it is valuable.
I have a guarantee from an expert which means that if I wish to sell it tomorrow, this certificate will indicate to the buyer that the gem is not a worthless bauble !!
It's the same thing with the diary, if its genuine, a unique artefact like this one, surely deserves to have a proper authentification by an expert.
Re-knowned world experts are not daring to give an opinion until they have analyzed the piece in their lab.
So how come, you show yourself on these boards pontificating and wanting to intimidate anyone who dares to doubt the authenticity of the diary ?
Any real scientist needs proof before speculating, that is the responsible thing to do, as I said before, the people we contacted, wouldn't venture an opinion without seeing the diary. I don't see why you have to be so pedantic to dare to come up with all this conjecture if you HAVE NOT SEEN IT EITHER.
IF YOU WANT ME TO RESPECT YOU as a scientist, then you should have a cautious scientific approach to it by at LEAST examining what has been debated over 13 years whether it is a fake or not. It's that simple and you know it.
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Lars:
And yes, the chloro WAS a joke, since no one including you has seen the diary.
I think you are very opinionated without a basis.
--Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Caroline:
Why twist my words ? when you state: " You seem to be saying that no one has analysed the diary" I NEVER SAID THAT.
I said that Mr. Poster hasn't seen it either so he cannot form a real opinion anymore than the world-reknown experts that said they couldn't until they had it under their laboratory. That is not hard to understand you know.
Actually, the onus is on the owner of the diary.
He wouldn't be able to sell that diary tomorrow. No respectable auction establishment would touch it with a large barge pole, if he cannot prove is genuine.
--Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Caroline:
And yes you do, shove the diary on everyone's throats OFTEN - EVERY DAY - AND FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS.You even wrote a book about it.
Luckily, I didn't have to buy it, your co-author sent it free to my husband.
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Lars:
So which one is it?
Chlorophyll or chloroacetamide ?
You will continue to be my laughing stock !
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 70
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Lars:
You were claiming it wasn't chloroacetamide, but a substance that behaves like chloroacetamide.
The easiest thing is to have another professional opinion. When my doctor cannot find the cure for my illness, I go to another one that does find it and more importantly cures it.
You didn't do it for me, speculating wildly on something you HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN and been bias about it, discredits you entirely.
-Maria |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Is there any chance someone could get the ink tested at the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms)? Read the article about how many types of ink they can examine.
Modern ink can be one of four basic types: Iron salts in a suspension of gallic acid, carbon particles suspended in gum Arabic, synthetic dyes with a range of polymers and acids, and synthetic dyes or pigments in a range of solvents and additives.
Questioned ink is tested with microspectrophotometry to determine the absorption spectrum or with thin-layer chromatography to reveal the exact elemental composition, and is then compared to the database of more than 3,000 ink profiles at the U. S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Howdy John Hacker
Look, no offence, John but this:
In most cases if it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, it is a pig. Sure, it might not be, but if you want other people to believe it, some evidence would really help
is just rubbish. How many times do I have to say it?
Gas Chromatography cannot identify anything as applied in this study.
Their blank has the same set of signals as the sample.
Their quantitation could not be reliable as described as there was no integrator, no baseline and crappy peaks.
The resolution is too bad to say anything.
They had a balance that could apparently measure down to a millionth of a gram.
They didnt even wait to effect full separation of the compounds.
Acetone may not be an appropriate solvent.
Where did all the other components of the ink go? Why did "just" chloroacetamide get extracted?
Samples were taken with paperclips.
Its not a matter of my opinion, possibilities, probabilities, procedures:
GC AS APPLIED CANNOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING.
I have shown you references to that in texts, on easily available websites but no one bothers to check those.
Its like saying a speedometer cannot measure head size, demonstrating the science behind why not and still someone at the back of the class keeps saying "but mine can"?|
30 years of mass spectrometric development are due to the fact that GC ALONE CANNOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING! Its a blind techniques.
But tell you what: if you are ever arrested for drugs, murder, whatever, and the prosecutor says "We identified X on his hands using GC alone" you will be the first one hopping up and crowing "GC alone cannot identify anything and heres why". And you will walk free, as you should, because, all together now and one last time:
GC ALONE CANNOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING!!!
Hoarse but happy
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Hi ho Maria Birchwood
The butt of your "joke" and the bit I was referring to was:
"chloro means green as in chlorophyll"
I dont care if the diray is faded or not. The ridiculous bit is the line above but which is useful in indicating the level we are apparently operating on.
Chlorophyll or "leaf green" is a non IUPAC name for a range of compounds. The chloro in this case has no real chemical meaning.
Chloro referring to chloroacetamide implies a component of the chemical structure of the molecule, in this case the chlorine atom tagged onto the end.
So the way you linked the two is as ridiculous as it is ignorant.
But you can rack it up with the rest of your statements about pigs and diamonds.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Sorry for all th eposts but I appear to be under attack from allsides today.
In one last attempt to show that arguing against the point that "GC alone cannot identify anything" is ridiculous as it is a standard concept that all chemists are taught, I have tracked down a chapter in a standard reputable text book that you can all look at on the web without even going to th elibrary.
www.prenhall.com/settle/chapters/ch31.pdf
In here you will find the clearest statement, taught to all chemists, that GC cannot identify anything. And why an MS has to be attached to the end to identify compounds.
Its not my opinion. Its a scientific law. It cannot be argued against. Except here in Diary World.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Howdy JVO
All I have commented on is chloroacetamide.
get some ink dots out of that book, some pieces of blank paper from the book and go to a lab.
Give them a picture of the compound, tell them its important they pick an appropriate extracant.
Tell them you want them to run a GC/Mass Spec of the extracts to determine the presence or not of chloroacetamide and a semi-quantitative result would be nice if at all possible.
It just isnt that difficult nor can it be that expensive. Repeat once or twice with different labs. GC/MS is common as a pig in muck these days.
Notice I havent mentioned dating anything....just analysing for chloroacetamide to put the demon Melvin invoked to bed once and for all.
But Im beginning to see the light....and Im off to DiTA thread.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
Howdy
One thing for Maria: I have ONLY ever commented on the results I have seen which I have studied and which are here on this board. So twittering on as you do about not seeing the diary is irrelevant. Im blue in the face telling people that I have only commented on the results to hand.
But twitter away. I dont need to see the diary. I have never commented on it. Only on the results to hand.
And I have never intimidated anyone. For the past year, in thousands of word, I have shown in a fairly normal way, what techniques will analyse chloroacetamide, what procedures to use, what pitfalls to watch for. I have on a scientific basis shown why the results to date are doubtful (the ones I have seen). I have been polite, non-over bearing, only biased towards the side of correct chemistry and explained all in common or garden terms. YOu obviously havent been to the Ink thread lately. But you just waffle on about diamonds, pigs, or whatever. I dont have the energy to deal with your piffle.
I dont have to find a professional opinion. The literature, text books, classrooms, labs and lecture halls bear testament to the fact (yet again) GC as described in that report cannot identify things. Its a fact. get over it.Its better than a professional opinion. Its a cumulative consensual fundamental of physics and chemistry.
John Hacker: fair point about Leeds, I havent seen those and without knowledge of them nothing can be said eally. Except: if they used GC alone (which I dont know that they did), that technique CAN verify abscence but not presence. But its possible they didnt use it at all as I can find no info about what they did or didnt do.And they may be as doubtful as the ones here. But the fact remains: GC as described here cannot identify that compound.
BUt I ask the same question to Chris P. : On what basis can you go against 40 years of scientific fact and say that, just once, in this case, GC as applied and described here could identify anything at all? Seeing as the global chemistry community says it cant why do you say it can? What do you know that others dont? Enlighten me please. They dont even say that its risky, or that its sometimes possible: they say it CANT be done.
Chris Philips
I am not claiming 2). Never have.
I am claiming that GC cant identify things. You keep saying that they had procedures to detect contamination. The only procedure to detect contamination is running a blank...there is no other. There are procedures for preventing contamination but so what? The procedure they had for detecting contamination (the blank) has a signals the same as the sample. By definition there is contamination in there somewhere (contamination either being analyte not from the sample or a species from any source that cannot be resolved from the analyte signal). So what does that say about th eprocedures?
The criteria they have used to "identify" chloracetamide is based on retention time. The signal in the blank has as I have demonstrated months ago has the same Rt as the peak that is said to be the sample.....hence it MUST, using the criteria they use to identfify chloroacetamide, be chloroacetamide in the blank.They cannot say its not. According to them it has to be. It cant be anything else. If they say its some other compound in the blank then they must say that the sample was that compound and not chloroacetamide. There is no way around, out of or of avoiding that conclusion.
But of course it may not be. Just a compound with similar Rt. WHICH IS WHY GC CANT IDENTIFY ANYTHING.
But of course now you are saying despite me pointing you to texts that confirm this: "well what are the chances of that?". They are bloody big. IF two compounds elute with two retention times Rx and Ry, with the difference between them being less than the resolving power of the instrument, they will appear as one peak with a retention time of Rxfy, the time being some function of the sizes of the underlying peaks relative to each other.. The chance of that happening increases as the resolution goes lower. If I now inject another compund, chloroacetamide for example, that has its own retention time Rz that is separated from the others by a time less than the resolving power of the instrument, the first peak will grow with an appearent constant retention time leading to misidentification of TWO compounds as chloroacetamide.
And the resolution on the chromatograms to hand is bad enough to beggar belief. They didnt even wait for the solvent front to dissappear. Look up what good chromatograms look like. Then the ones here. You are dreaming if you say they are comparable.
No Offence Chris P. but I dont want to see your CV. IF your still doubt my credentials and this goes for all of you as its all getting a bit tedious, Stephen P. Ryder can email me an agreement of confidentiality at larsposter@gmail.com and I will email my CV to him. It then is a simple matter for him to say whether my credentials are correct or not.
I appreciate some of you are having trouble believing the fact that GC alone can identify nothing and most of you dont have access to a scientific library. So here is a very nice website explaining the fundamentals of GC to the lay person and why it CANNOT identify things.It also very nicely shows what is necessary for good quantitative results - all of which are lacking in the results we have to date.You can argue all you want but the facts are clear from this website and presented in non-technical terms for Maria Birchwood (minus the piffle).
http://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/analytical/Chromatography/
Or this page:
http://apps3.fao.org/jecfa/additive_specs/docs/t0368e/t0368e03.htm
Or the opinion of this professor at: http://www.cssconline.org/Meetings/May_2003_Meeting.asp
"Other major advantages include speed of analysis, high resolution and simplicity of operation. On the other hand, GC is limited to volatile compounds, and chromatographic data alone cannot confirm the identity of unknown peaks, GC/MS is required in most cases."
To ratchet it up another level go here: http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/entries/2003/hull_pearson/pearson/lit%20review.htm
Read the page and find somewhere on it that says that acetone is a suitable for solvent for ink analysis or that GC is a suitable method for ink analysis.You'll be doing well if you can conclude that acetone is a good solvent for ink components.
Or we can go to a text book if you prefer before you accuse me of just Googling :Welch, C.J. "The Determination of Trace Amounts of Organic Compounds" in Fifield and Haines (Eds.) Environmental Analytical Chemistry,Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2000. pp 442 - 443.
"An aletrnative method still used to identify multiresidue samples is that of dual column GC. The method uses tha the comparison of analyte retention times with those of known standards to identify unknown residues. Using a single column is almost impossible as the retention time of individual components will change with small variations in chromatographic conditions"
You can read all about it, why normal GC cant identify anything, what is needed in a chromatogram to tentatively suggest the presence of something (which we dont have in the ones we all know and love) and what is needed for quantitative analysis (more stuff we dont have). Indeed the quantitative bit is most worrying given that 1) there is no evidence of the use of an integrator, 2)without that we must rely on "peak"heights and to do that we need a flat baseline which we dont happen to have either. Not to mention well resolved, symmetrical, well formed peaks.
I can go on and on but the more you read about GC the more you will realise how ridiculous it was for Melvin H. to go and use the results he got for the money he paid to try and say there was chloroacetamide in the ink without a full understanding of what he was talking about.
The opinion that GC alone could not positively identify the compound even under the best possible conditions, let alone the ones employed here is not mine....its a fundamental rule regarding the technique. As is the rule that the technique can confirm the abscence of (or at least "it is less than x") a compound. How someone can say that "OK,, science must be wrong as we identified chloroacetamide positivly without doubt in this case" is beyond me. There is no wiggle room. The concensus is absolute from the scientific side.
So someone please tell me.....how is it in this case, that against consensual and overwhelming scientific opinion that GC cannot identify anything, in view of all the doubts regarding solvent suitability etc, in the face of all the problems that can be demonstrated with the chromatograms to hand, in view of the fact that the blank displays signals it shouldnt, in view of the fact that someone was able to weigh samples down to 1 millionth of a gram, in view of the fact that the amount of chloroacetamide reported bears no resemblance to the amount that should have been there, in view of the fact that the normal precautions that should be taken in quantitative analysis were not apparently taken (no evidence of internal standards or anything. And dont say "chloroacetamide standard" as thats not the same thing)...........people can still say "Yup, chloroacetamide was definitely present in this concentration and that proves modernity".
Bizarre.
Mr P. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi Maria,
I have a guarantee from an expert which means that if I wish to sell it tomorrow, this certificate will indicate to the buyer that the gem is not a worthless bauble !!
I'm very pleased for you. But how are you hoping to compare this with the diary situation? Has its owner expressed any wish - ever - to sell it at all? And is he claiming that it has been authenticated by document experts or is worth a lot of money?
I don't think so.
You wrote to Mr Poster:
IF YOU WANT ME TO RESPECT YOU as a scientist, then you should have a cautious scientific approach to it by at LEAST examining what has been debated over 13 years whether it is a fake or not. It's that simple and you know it.
Does that apply to every other poster here who makes scientific pronouncements?
I do hope so.
Why twist my words ? when you state: " You seem to be saying that no one has analysed the diary" I NEVER SAID THAT.
Well, what other inference do you think newcomers would take away with them, from your words:
But then, an expert would have to see wouldn't he ? WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN ?
Perhaps you could refrain from twisting my words in future, and misrepresenting my diary position. You wrote:
And yes you do, shove the diary on everyone's throats OFTEN - EVERY DAY - AND FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS.You even wrote a book about it.
This is what I actually wrote:
...at least I don't shove my subjective diary views down anyone's throat - I shove my admitted ignorance and agnosticism regarding the ink's age at them instead and ask for supporting evidence.
Firstly I am not forcing anyone to read a single word I write regarding the diary. I don't strap you to your chair and make you click your mouse on the diary threads, nor do I prod people towards bookshops or libraries. You've been taking your husband too seriously, haven't you? 
And secondly, if you had read our book, you'd know that no personal views on the diary's origins were expressed.
So nothing is being shoved at anyone except questions and challenges, where evidence is inconclusive or unsatisfactory, and where certain strong but subjective opinions to the contrary are often posted as if they are definitely ascertained fact.
I mean, it's a nonsense to shout and scream into the ether for new tests if one also claims that AFI's test proved the ink modern more than 10 years ago!
Hi Chris P,
I can assure you that no one's money is being poured my way, and I have no influence over anyone regarding the testing process. I just do what I can to help, such as summarising information as I receive it and including it in a time-line of events. I do that out of curiosity, for free.
The indignation from a certain quarter regarding 'personal responsibility' is priceless, considering that it was once acknowledged in writing by John himself that the diary owner could not arrange and fund tests himself because of the very real danger that if the results favoured an old document there would be accusations of undue influence. John even promised to be personally responsible for raising the necessary funds, presumably for no other reason than the 'interested party' issue. And the fact that John dropped out at the last moment was not because he got cold feet about the costs or because he changed his mind about who should be responsible for what - it was purely for personal reasons.
Does anyone seriously think the diary owner is going to fall straight into an obvious trap like that one? He's got two choices - do nothing and wait for independent people like Jenni to help organise further tests - preferably free university ones - and invite insults from a few message board inhabitants, or invest serious money in new tests that will be rejected at best by those same people.
Love,
Caz
X |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
You can say it as many times as you like, but it's not going to change the facts of the matter. The blanks do *not* exhibit the same characteristics as the actual samples.
You can dispute the effectiveness of Gas Chromatography, but the fact remains that it is still widely used for a reason. I've read your texts and they simply do not support disregarding the results of AFIs tests.
Is the technique definitive? No.
Could it be wrong? Sure.
But have you offered any serious reason to the doubt the specific tests run by AFI? Not in the slightest.
If this were a case of testing a completely unknown substance, I would agree that Gas Chromatography is not the way to go. But in this case, the ink was being tested for a specific, known chemical. The ink showed the same characteristics as chloracetamaide.
If it just happens to be something else entirely, it's one whopping heck of a coincidence.
I'm sorry, I do appreciate that you know what you're talking about but barring any actual evidence to the contrary, it's still looks a lot like a pig from where I'm sitting. It's a long haul from establishing the possibility of error to the probability of error.
Best regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
Blimey. You don't get penalised on these boards for saying a simple "Yes" or "No", you know! (Though I can see how you could have got that idea from some contributors...)
From all that, I think you are not suggesting contamination, and you say you have never suggested the signal was just noise. (Although I remember very well that you did previously try to suggest it was "hovering just above the detection limit" or something like that.)
So we can agree that the peak observed by AFI really represents a constituent of the ink, and that its position is indistinguishable from that in the chloracetamide control experiment.
So we are back to precisely what I said before your last few bit torrents.
In other words, the result is entirely consistent with the presence of chloroacetamide, but you are keeping open the possibility that it was some other unknown constituent of the ink that behaved indistinguishably from chloroacetamide.
And if anyone is inclined to think that what AFI observed isn't chloroacetamide, then confirming that is a straightforward procedure that can be carried out at any time. (Unless, as John Hacker cautioned, the chloroacetamide has all degraded in the last decade.)
Crikey, though, didn't anyone ever teach you that brevity is a virtue ... ?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Mr Poster writes this regarding tests to determine finally what's in the ink and to help solve the conflicts that currently exist:
"It just isn't that difficult nor can it be that expensive."
Once again, let me repeat that expert opinion:
"It just isn't that difficult nor can it be that expensive."
Yet here we are, over a full decade later, still arguing about all this nonsense, while the bogus claims made by the diary's owner and by others remain not only in print but released in new editions no less.
It's a scandal.
And it has everything to do with personal responsibility and who owns the artefact and what has and has not taken place for years now.
The cry of "someone else should do it" is a joke. Of course, if anyone is genuinely worried about prejudice in the operations an independent objective party can certainly be sought out and allowed to watch or to participate in the organization process. If the diary owner is truly worried that the results won't believed, then HE should be out there actively doing the necessary work and recruiting the necessary people to make sure that's not a problem.
But the lab is the lab, and one of them has already said repeatedly that it wants to see the book, and yet still nothing happens, no results are produced. Years go by, and still nothing happens. And all we hear from "certain quarters" is "someone else should do it."
No, it won't wash anymore. We know who owns the book. We know who still allows the book to be published and republished within a full-length work that argues explicitly in favor of its authenticity. We know what at least one lab has already said about its willingness to examine it. We know what even our latest expert here has said about tests which could resolve the current conflicts and help us learn more about the document.
And we all know where the responsibility lies -- where, finally, ultimately, the buck stops. We know who in the end is responsible for what happens to this book, don't we?
And we know what's happened regarding thorough and complete testing year after year after year.
Nothing.
Make all the excuses you want, Caroline. It's all dancing in avoidance of what everyone here has seen now for over a decade.
Either this thing is being properly and thoroughly tested to learn everything possible or it's not. Either this thing will be properly and thoroughly tested or it won't.
But people should be sure and take what does and what does not actually happen into consideration when they are making judgments not only about the authenticity of this ridiculous hoax but about the shameless and irresponsible way it's been sold and resold to the public for the last decade.
At some point, one would like to think that a simple responsibility to the truth, to learning everything possible, to simple advancement of honest knowledge, a simple respect for the readers out there would kick in and the owner of this book would do whatever is necessary to make damn sure the thorough scientific investigation takes place, convincing some independent party to participate if he feels it necessary. You'd like to think that would have happened years ago.
You'd like to think it still will.
But Caroline's performing Robert's dance of the "it's not my job" fairies in the meantime leaves us only with the sad song of the child avoiding personal responsibility for not doing the right thing.
We've all heard it before.
--John |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Lars:
You couldn't recognized a joke if it hit you in the head.
You haven't seen the diary ! This would be like a doctor daring to give a diagnosis without seing the patient !!! 
You were the one who was comparing errors in the lab as common as falling off the bike. Maybe in your own rickety-rackety laboratory that is a common occurrence.
A bycicle in the hands of Circus acrobat who can cycle it on a rope is another kind
of especial expertice. And that is the one we should be looking at, for this gem of a diary. If the diary is SO SPECIAL... as some claim, then, the very best would be fitting.
What you are doing, is simply trying to discredit the IFA results without having the vital evidence. THE DIARY. And simply going over and over jaded material, recycling it endlessly, is no longer an option.
We need NEW results, science has advanced a great deal in these 13 years, there are more tests that can be conducted now, that was not possible 13 years ago.
Eddy :
I think your idea sounds absolutely brilliant !! if I were the owner, that would be a very good avenue to go for. But you know what ?
That is never going to happen, because there are long clauses and buts and don'ts that they impose, before they can hand over this diary, they also stipulate on what it should or shouldn't be tested for. That's how it was 3 years ago, I don't know if there has been a change of heart about this. I should hope so.
That really is a great idea.
--Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Lars:
You know something ?
You need a big dose of chloral hydrate to steady your nerves. Instead of spewing pungent chlorine.
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 73
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Lars:
Lastly, you say... " Chlorophyll or "leaf green"
In this case, (it) has no real chemical meaning "
Thank you... You have answered your own question.
Smile please. You need that dose of chloral hydrate, it will work for you 
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Caroline:
Supporting evidence... MY FOOT where? how? did we all blinked and missed it? 
13 long years and all you have done is write a lousy " book " pretending that the diary MIGHT be real? Where is the proof to this fiasco ?
Well... I THINK you DO shove your opinion on every naive newcomer that comes to this thread.
And you didn't give any personal views on the 'Origins' of the diary because it has a shaky provenance, there isn't any credible origen all you have is an unsubstantiated prevenance told by an unreliable person.
What I'm saying is NOT shouting into Ether. That statement IS insulting to the people reading these threads. I'm sure they do not think of themselves as ETHER. Poor Jenni doesn't seem like ether to me, nor the two Johns, nor Lars, nor Chris. You certainly have a dismissive way for your readers Caz. Shame on you !
ETHER IS what ITS mostly in your head !
--Maria |
Steve Swift
Police Constable
Username: Swift
Post Number: 7
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
*hands out the chill pills*
I've read through this with maudlin interest only on the basis that the people posting are my 'peers' so to speak.
I'm not a scientist,nor do I have a trail of letters after my name but I did conduct a test of my own on this so called diary. After many weeks of analysis my test lead me to the conclusion that this document was indeed a fake.
I'm going to post the things I used so any of you can conduct the same experiment.
Eyes - two(please note: defective instruments can be used but the use of eyeglasses is recommended)
Common Sense - use in large amounts.
A little research - only needed in small doses due to the fact that the writer had access to all the same documents.
In short - all you need to do is read the thing. I'm sorry but it staggers the imagination that learned people who have spent years researching these crimes even NEED tests to prove the diary is a forgery.
Is it not just common sense that tells us that IF the diary were ever shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a forgery then someone somewhere is going to be in a world of trouble? All the more reason,I would think,that the owner is never going to allow this to happen in a million years.
Now please - relax eh 
'A good plan violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week' - George S. Patton
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:44 am: |
|
Lars:
The pronouncement you just made, is absolutely earth shattering in Diary World. This is VERY interesting indeed. Nothing so important as this has been said before.
You see... We have been told by Caroline over and over again, that to have the ink tested was so expensive; We would have to have our homes re-morgaged to pay for the ink tests !
You have just told us is cheap and affordable, WELL, WELL, WELL. That is a REVOLUTIONARY concept around here.
Believe me Lars, we are all ears, I for one, have pulled my chair from the pub and am attentively listening... And so are all the other guys, They are listening too as well.
I often wonder about the tests being cripplingly expensive, because Melvin managed to do them, not to your liking but the fact that he had them done at all and not only that one, but he also had the Vineland Map tested by McCrone in Chicago too. This were the same people who tested the Turin Shroud. It just goes to show that when there is a will there is a way.
So you have made everyone hopeful here that things ARE possible, and not so far fetched like reaching the moon at all. So there IS a way forward after all. I'm still all ears and if there is something I can help with like fund-raising etc. I'm all game.
I feel that you are the right person to talk to McCrone about this, since you know your science and would be able to discuss at length what tests are available and so on.... and as they are cheap, how much it would be... with a ball pen figure. Anyone interested CAN contribute.
There are big blotches of ink on blank pages of that diary that can be used. I know that, because Melvin told me that. He took two to be analised and he assured me that there were more that can be used.
-Maria
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I liked your desperate little get-out clause:
(Unless, as John Hacker cautioned, the chloroacetamide has all degraded in the last decade.)
Well done - you've just scuppered any chance of getting a reliable and acceptable new result regarding the presence of chloroacetamide, in the event that none is found. Oh well, it must have all degraded in the last decade.
Do you think your readers are retarded?
Hi Maria (this is going to be fun),
That is never going to happen, because there are long clauses and buts and don'ts that they impose, before they can hand over this diary, they also stipulate on what it should or shouldn't be tested for. That's how it was 3 years ago, I don't know if there has been a change of heart about this. I should hope so.
First of all, who are they?
Second of all, Robert Smith announced on these boards a long time ago that he will release the diary for further testing with no strings attached, as long as independent parties are seen to have done the organising and funding without his influence. If he were in charge of who did what, we know for a fact (just from reading these boards) this would give certain people yet another desperate get-out clause if the results were not to their liking.
Supporting evidence... MY FOOT where? how? did we all blinked and missed it?
Precisely so - I'm glad you agree with me on this one. As I said:
...I shove my admitted ignorance and agnosticism regarding the ink's age at them instead and [I] ask for supporting evidence.
And it fails to come - unless we all blinked and missed it.
Now you get really personal for some reason, and get it all wrong too:
13 long years and all you have done is write a lousy " book " pretending that the diary MIGHT be real? Where is the proof to this fiasco ?
Firstly, I only started reading about the diary at the end of 1998, so while my own involvement may seem like 13 long years to everyone else, it's been around half that time. The 'lousy' book, published in 2003, was commissioned in 2001, to tell the story so far. We didn't 'pretend' the diary might be anything - we told the story about its emergence and investigation, and about the personalities involved - not about its origins, which would have been guesswork, as you yourself point out:
And you didn't give any personal views on the 'Origins' of the diary because it has a shaky provenance, there isn't any credible origen all you have is an unsubstantiated prevenance told by an unreliable person.
Exactly. We could not rely on any of the stories originating with the Barretts to form a single conclusion to put in the book.
But if you already have impeccable documented evidence of what the origins are, you are one step ahead of those of us still investigating.
Well... I THINK you DO shove your opinion on every naive newcomer that comes to this thread.
Could you give me just one opinion I have shoved on anyone about the diary here? I don't think 'I don't know yet' counts as an opinion.
What I'm saying is NOT shouting into Ether.
Well it is, if you are joining the TEST THE DIARY call here, because the only person who can and will release the diary for the next test isn't here, is he?
But I hope I'm wrong, and that the call will be heard by someone who will take the next step (as Jenni did) and investigate what can be done and how much it will cost, and then get in touch with Robert Smith.
ETHER IS what ITS mostly in your head !
Gee thanks Maria. Was that really necessary?
You wrote to Mr Poster:
I feel that you are the right person to talk to McCrone about this, since you know your science and would be able to discuss at length what tests are available and so on.... and as they are cheap, how much it would be... with a ball pen figure. Anyone interested CAN contribute.
That's a great idea and would take it a few steps further than anyone got with McCrone before, as far as I am aware. They may even have updated their former position regarding reliable methods of dating the ink. It would be terrific if Mr Poster could get some hard facts.
There are big blotches of ink on blank pages of that diary that can be used. I know that, because Melvin told me that. He took two to be analised and he assured me that there were more that can be used.
Actually, the ink dots sent to AFI for the test Melvin commissioned didn't come straight from the diary, but were transported in gelatine from the US, left over from previous testing there.
Melvin never asked for access to the actual diary. He was sent photocopies by Paul Feldman, very early on, and he attended Shirley's book launch, where two pages of the diary were on display under glass.
Also, sadly, there are no 'big blotches' of ink left in the diary, because of all the testing. Further samples will probably need to be taken from the words themselves.
And now Steve writes:
Is it not just common sense that tells us that IF the diary were ever shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a forgery then someone somewhere is going to be in a world of trouble? All the more reason,I would think,that the owner is never going to allow this to happen in a million years.
So you tell me if my words are adversely influencing newcomers! Steve seems to be under the distinct impression that the diary owner has never let the thing out of his sight, and won't 'in a million years', in case poor old Mike Barrett might get into more trouble than he has already made for himself.
I wonder where Steve could have got an impression like that.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 20, 2005) |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
I have to poke at this a bit:
You can say it as many times as you like, but it's not going to change the facts of the matter. The blanks do *not* exhibit the same characteristics as the actual samples.
Ehh...yes it does. Look at it. Its got the same pattern of peaks, with the same retention times as bothe sample and standard. It should be flat, as a pancake, with not a trace of a peak or bumps or waves or anything.
You can dispute the effectiveness of Gas Chromatography, but the fact remains that it is still widely used for a reason. I've read your texts and they simply do not support disregarding the results of AFIs tests.
Ha ha, very good. Its widely used for a reason..indeed it is. But its not used to identify things. Its used as a separatory method. GC/MS is used to identify things. I dont have to disregard the tests....the are null and void due to using a technique that cannot do what it is reported as having done.
Im not disputing GC. Its a great separatory technique. Im disputing its application to this problem, how it was applied, and the conclusions drawn from that unsuiatable application.
But have you offered any serious reason to the doubt the specific tests run by AFI? Not in the slightest.
Ehhhh...(scratching head)..
1) blank that isnt a blank as it has signals,
2)crappy resolution,
3)potentially unsuitable solvent,
4)quantitation that couldnt be achieved as reported,
5)no uncertainty in any value reported,
6)no internal standards used for quantitation,
7)incorrect recording technique used (no information provided as to column, temperatures or anything to aid reproducibility),
8) a balance that weighs millionths of a gram with absolute certainty (the Holy Grail of metrology!),
9)no integrator used,
10)samples taken with paperclips,
11)no evidence of attempts having being made to achieve optimal resolution of peaks,
12)no attention paid to the major problem of injection variation (just out of interest, why do think GC syringes come with only rudimentary volume graduations?. When you find the answer you will know why the quantitation is flawed)
Whats bothersome is why no effort went into explaining why the blank was not flat. Leeds went to the trouble of making sure the column was clean and (this is the funny bit) get crucified by non-chemists for having adopted good chromatographic practice! Excellent!
But in this case, the ink was being tested for a specific, known chemical. The ink showed the same characteristics as chloracetamaide.
Indeed. It was being tested for the presence of a chemical which in itself was present with at least 6 others and the usual bits and bobs that are extracted out of paper. Yet only chloroacetamide showed up! Remarkable. Grab some acetone off the shelf and its magically selective for chloroacetamide! Not only that, its extraction efficiency is 100% despite that fact is disobeying all the laws of chemistry. And of course the resolution is so bad any one of the peaks in that spectrum could be a combination of any other compound (or just combinations of the other compounds on the page that, in this case, were magically left behind by our super selective nail varnish removing solvent). But we wont wonder where all the other compounds went. Not at all. Nor why the supposedly uncontaminated column (and by definition I mean uncontaminated with anything) clearly displays evidence of at least 3 compounds (or groups of compounds), some of them occurring right in the area where we expect to see the analyte species. But of course, now that acetone is perfectly selective for chloroacetamide, its also perfectly able to leave every other compound behind on the paper. God above. If it wasnt so strange it would be funny.
But when Leeds worked to make sure the column was clean, as they should, you lot started shrieking blue bloody murder.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:08 am: |
|
To all people like Steve Swift
Im not discussing dating, if the diary is a fake, whatever. Only how to analyse for chloroacetamide.
Howdy John Hacker
But have you offered any serious reason to the doubt the specific tests run by AFI? Not in the slightest
No 1. I dont have to. The technique cannot be used in the way it was used.
No 2. But I did. Find me, if you can, a balance that measures down to 1 millionth of a gram with no uncertainty and that was likely to have been in Clacton on Sea in the 1990's. Im trying to attach a comparison of three chromatograms.Just look at the blank (top)...its a disaster and it shows (and it aint paradelia or whatever) the same pattern as the sample (bottom). Its a train wreck. And my firm conclusion is that the sample displays carry over from the standard run. Its such a mess its funny. But only people who have never analysed anything on a GC could think its useful. As I said, look up what they should look like. Seriously.....its beyond belief. The Rt's arent even written in which they should be. Quantitation can only be achieved using peak area. For gaussian peaks the area is proportional to the height. Without an integrator you have to use peak height. BUt you cant do quantitation by that method unless the peaks are gaussian and they arent! Look at the tailing! Wheres the base line! Its unbelievable.
Look John, you can bang on about this all you want, the signals in the blank are in the same places as those in the sample with respect to time. As Rt is the only thing that can be used to suggest one peak is one compound, the fact that the blanks signals have the same Rt as the samples mean they are the same compunds. I know that sounds crazy and it is. Its complete nonsense. BUt thats the nonsense that has to be used to identify things by GC alone. Thats why people dont do it and its not recognised as a good technique for that purpose. The same number or peaks are present in blank sample and standard. Mad.
I read Feldman last night and it turns out that Leeds did use GC. The converstaion between Feldman and the rep from Leeds pointed out all the correct things and once again, I dont give a damn what Voller thinks, the Leeds test is, based on the evidence, more reliable as an indicator of abscence than the other is of presence.
I think Voller thought their calibration procedures were cursory because I get no impression that Leeds were getting ready to try and quantitatively determine anything. Which is not what they were asked to do. So all they had to do is run a standard once or twice. Nothing more. And a few blanks. Which, when they showed peaks, were an indication to them that th ecolumn was dirty so they cleaned it until the blank had no peaks. Which is what the other lab should have done.
Now I havent even started on the quantitative results presented so far. But trust me....they are as weak as the qualitative for reasons so simple they dont even need a text book.
And by the way, I dont need to do my homework. I did it all as an undergrad which relieves me of the need to do it today.
Regarding melvins tests. It was 1994/5. He paid a small amount of money (was 50 quid mentioned) to get a small lab to analyse a sample on antiquated equipment (chart recorders for Gods sake). Thats what you can expect for that sort of money. He got a job commesurate with what he paid for it.
Regarding current costs. The problem here is the publicity. If this was just a sample of something unimportant I would imagine most universities would take a look for free. But today, they wont, as they dont want to end up in th eppaers answering dumb questions. So they ask for lots of money to do a great job and cover their behinds.
Someone out there must have a friend or son or daughter in Uni. Who knows some chemistry post graduate who could spend an hour or two working out a good extractant and run a few extracts through a GCMS. I mean chloroacetamide is a pesticide.....hundreds of labs analyse pesticides with GC/MS. It cant be that hard. Even allowing for the research necessary to figure out the extractant it cant amount to more than 6 hours work in total.
And Im not talking about dating the diary. Im talking about measuring chloroacetamide in ink. Caroline is probably right. To DATE the ink would probably break anyone financially. To work out if its got representative levels of chloroacetamide cannot be expensive. In fact if you meet the right chemist he might do it as a favour. Ball park figure....post-doc single chemist in a university with no social life: a few pints.
Commercial lab: less than a grand.
Regarding McCrone. No offence to him (is he not retired...or something?) or his lab but I dont trust scientists with one eye on the TV or the "big statement". That lab has already been embroiled in major controversy regarding other controversial things so it may not be the best to use them and inherit all the bad things that flew around after the other debacles. HIs methods, right or wrong, have really been questioned of late and I dont know if hes the best way to go.
And no offense Maria Birchwood, but I designed and run a very good lab indeed as evidenced by our outstanding performance in international intercomparisons. And if I had a GC/MS, I would analyse the samples for you, for free. BUt unfortunately I dont and therefore cannot. But if you need help writing up the questions you need to pose to anyone who does offer to analyse for chloroacetamide, just ask. So we can remove some of the ambiguity from the (hopefully) fabled next round.
In other words, the result is entirely consistent with the presence of chloroacetamide, but you are keeping open the possibility that it was some other unknown constituent of the ink that behaved indistinguishably from chloroacetamide.
And if anyone is inclined to think that what AFI observed isn't chloroacetamide, then confirming that is a straightforward procedure that can be carried out at any time. (Unless, as John Hacker cautioned, the chloroacetamide has all degraded in the last decade.)
Ho hum. It doesnt matter what you think, it doesnt matter what you suppose, GC cannot difentify anything. My personal feeling is that, most likely, chloroacetamide was retained on the column from a standard run and not got rid of. The traces are then obvious in the blank and so on. This is cosistent with th erushed appearance of the chromatograms. Then again, everyone is avoiding my question of whether or not acetone is even capable of extracting chloroacetamide when its a water soluble compound. get some salt which is less water soluble than chloroacetamide in water. Stick it in nail varnish remover (acetone). See how much dissolves.
You guys, you crack me up.
And sorry for the longs posts but everyone deserves and answer, otherwise I will be accused of avoiding questions.
But heres a cracker:
Questioned ink is tested with microspectrophotometry to determine the absorption spectrum or with thin-layer chromatography to reveal the exact elemental composition, and is then compared to the database of more than 3,000 ink profiles at the U. S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
TLC for measuring elemental compositions. Good one. And somehow I doubt that ATF have the necessary ink on th enecessary paper stored for th enecessary length of time which is why this method was not used in the first days of analysing the diary.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Just out of interest folks.
Heres something to think about.
If you had to get something analysed which meant something to you personally and about which you were neither biased one way or the other, which of these would you trust more to do the test:
1) a small commercial lab in Clacton on Sea with an expert staff of two (husband and wife) whose speciality is polymers and plastic analysis for industry, and who appear to hav ebeen using out dated equipment:
2) a large well established research lab specialising in the field you are interested in, with a large staff comprising professors, doctorates and post docs, who get excellent grades in all research evaluations, who have a long and distinguished publication record, excellent sources of funding, who train a large proportion of the graduates who end up in the relevant industry and who have access to some instrumentation that is pretty much at the bleeding edge.
Just wondering.....
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
I have to poke at this a bit:
You can say it as many times as you like, but it's not going to change the facts of the matter. The blanks do *not* exhibit the same characteristics as the actual samples.
Ehh...yes it does. Look at it. Its got the same pattern of peaks, with the same retention times as bothe sample and standard. It should be flat, as a pancake, with not a trace of a peak or bumps or waves or anything.
You can dispute the effectiveness of Gas Chromatography, but the fact remains that it is still widely used for a reason. I've read your texts and they simply do not support disregarding the results of AFIs tests.
Ha ha, very good. Its widely used for a reason..indeed it is. But its not used to identify things. Its used as a separatory method. GC/MS is used to identify things. I dont have to disregard the tests....the are null and void due to using a technique that cannot do what it is reported as having done.
Im not disputing GC. Its a great separatory technique. Im disputing its application to this problem, how it was applied, and the conclusions drawn from that unsuiatable application.
But have you offered any serious reason to the doubt the specific tests run by AFI? Not in the slightest.
Ehhhh...(scratching head)..
1) blank that isnt a blank as it has signals,
2)crappy resolution,
3)potentially unsuitable solvent,
4)quantitation that couldnt be achieved as reported,
5)no uncertainty in any value reported,
6)no internal standards used for quantitation,
7)incorrect recording technique used (no information provided as to column, temperatures or anything to aid reproducibility),
8) a balance that weighs millionths of a gram with absolute certainty (the Holy Grail of metrology!),
9)no integrator used,
10)samples taken with paperclips,
11)no evidence of attempts having being made to achieve optimal resolution of peaks,
12)no attention paid to the major problem of injection variation (just out of interest, why do think GC syringes come with only rudimentary volume graduations?. When you find the answer you will know why the quantitation is flawed)
Whats bothersome is why no effort went into explaining why the blank was not flat. Leeds went to the trouble of making sure the column was clean and (this is the funny bit) get crucified by non-chemists for having adopted good chromatographic practice! Excellent!
But in this case, the ink was being tested for a specific, known chemical. The ink showed the same characteristics as chloracetamaide.
Indeed. It was being tested for the presence of a chemical which in itself was present with at least 6 others and the usual bits and bobs that are extracted out of paper. Yet only chloroacetamide showed up! Remarkable. Grab some acetone off the shelf and its magically selective for chloroacetamide! Not only that, its extraction efficiency is 100% despite that fact is disobeying all the laws of chemistry. And of course the resolution is so bad any one of the peaks in that spectrum could be a combination of any other compound (or just combinations of the other compounds on the page that, in this case, were magically left behind by our super selective nail varnish removing solvent). But we wont wonder where all the other compounds went. Not at all. Nor why the supposedly uncontaminated column (and by definition I mean uncontaminated with anything) clearly displays evidence of at least 3 compounds (or groups of compounds), some of them occurring right in the area where we expect to see the analyte species. But of course, now that acetone is perfectly selective for chloroacetamide, its also perfectly able to leave every other compound behind on the paper. God above. If it wasnt so strange it would be funny.
But when Leeds worked to make sure the column was clean, as they should, you lot started shrieking blue bloody murder.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Howdy John Hacker
There should be a pic down below. The blank chromatogram has been superimposed over the standard chromatogram using the solvent front as the refernece point.
And even you must admit that the qualittaive information in the two is the same. There is no point saying "but the peaks are different sizes". Thats irrelevant. The blank has as many peaks as the standard.
And before you say thats "not a peak", dont make me digitise the blank chromatogram and run it through an integrator. Using any normal peak search routine will find five peaks in the blank.
So tell me.....the blank should display no trace of any organic compounds. So what the hell are those peaks that have the same retention times as the standard peaks?
If the blank was from an uncontaminated column what the hell are the two big peaks that are not chloroacetamide in the standard given that a standard should be definition only contain one compound?
Its all very mysterious really. Maybe that first peak is the internal standard ? The use of which is not mentioned in the report.
Still not saying anything about dating ink
Mr P |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
