|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:14 am: | 
|
A long post.
A lot of talk.
And the usual dance.
But in the end the only thing that matters is what actually happens and what doesn't.
It's really quite simple. If the owner was serious about getting it done, even with an independent party participating, he could do the work necessary to get it done. The lab is there and has said three times that it's willing; an expert has come here and told us the tests would not be that difficult or expensive; and we've got nothing but time (we've waited for years already, after all).
It'll be interesting to see what comes first -- complete and thorough testing of the diary and the watch or the publication and sale of yet another edition of the book with the diary in it.
Priorities are usually an indication of personal desire.
--John
PS: Somewhere the late Freddie Prinze, Sr. is smiling down on the diary's owner. "Ees not my yob, man..." |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Caz,
"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."
I think that your thanks is misdirected. They rightfully belong to the owner of the wretched thing who is actually in a position to get the thing tested but apparently has not.
Best regards,
John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Hi ho John Hacker
You have to read the other posts to make sense of this one...
Becuase I am that sort of chap, I digitised the blank chromatogram, removed the chart lines and reproduced the chromatogram as numbers. Just so you can check that its a reasonable approximation, here is the comparison of original and digitised:
Now I know you have some technical background so I know that you understand the logic behind whats coming next:
I then used a second differential function to identify potential peaks assuming they were all Gaussian peaks (typical for chromatography) superimposed on a sloping background. A 10% uncertainty was superimposed on the data to allow for any uncertainty in the digitising process which was pretty generous really. I then used a least squares routine to fit the combination of Gaussian peaks to the chromatogram that best explain the data (using minimisation of the residuals as the criteria for best fit). Equal FWHM was assumed but thats probably playing against me as chromatography peaks get wider with time usually.
The result is below:
Now Im not saying that is what came out of that chromatograph. But I am saying that that blank trace is not flat. Its a mess and a mess that can be better described as series of peaks. The signal is not "blank", it is composed of peaks , the only reason we are not seeing them is that the resolution is so poor. Now if I had nothing better to do, and if I repeated the same process for the standard, I would find the same peaks. It doesnt matter if they are different sizes, they are indicative of a signal in the blank that shouldnt be there and which nullifies the entire result.
And theres no point in Maria Birchwood frosting my flakes about being over bearing and indulging in lingo. Some things can only be explained one way andthis one is addressed to John Hacker.
Mr P.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Say, isn't there a thread on these boards actually called "Ink"?
Not that this discussion should be moved there necessarily.
After all, the title of this thread is "A discrediting ploy."
And selling the diary as real in new editions without getting thorough and proper testing done on the thing in order to resolve these conflicts certainly fits the bill.
Why learn as much as possible when you can continue to claim "not to know" and still sell books?
Time marches on,
--John |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 76
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Lars:
Discussing about old tests is not solving anything. That's history!! All we would like to hear now is about NEW tests being done with the 21st century latest state of the art which science, has to offer.
In the meantime, the poles of our planet are melting...dooms day is dawning on us, and the holy diary remains untested !!! ...Oh but we won't be surprised if next year a film about the diary is released ! I won't be.
Watch this space.
-Maria
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Who is selling the diary as real, apart from Shirley Harrison (via her latest publisher), who can be reached via email - unless one has a peculiar penchant for pointless posting into the ether to distract the attention away from Mr Poster's fascinating critique?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
As you have (I think) acknowledged that the peak measured by AFI represented a real constitutent of the ink, what on earth is the purpose of all this continued discussion and analysis of the blank signal?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1781
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
"Who is selling the diary as real?"
Well, Shirley's book does. And the diary that Robert owns appears reproduced in it, if I remember correctly. And the arguments made by Robert in print have as well. And Shirley's book with Robert's diary in it has indeed come out in a new edition, hasn't it?
No thorough testing -- just always a new edition for sale. Very nice.
Or was this just a rhetorical question?
Again, here's what I wrote:
Say, isn't there a thread on these boards actually called "Ink"?
Not that this discussion should be moved there necessarily.
After all, the title of this thread is "A discrediting ploy."
And selling the diary as real in new editions without getting thorough and proper testing done on the thing in order to resolve these conflicts certainly fits the bill.
Why learn as much as possible when you can continue to claim "not to know" and still sell books?
Time marches on.
What was confusing about that?
--John
PS: Caroline, did you just actually respond to one of my posts? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Incidentally, Mr Poster's "fascinating critique" has now stated several times that determining once and for all whether there is chloroacetamide in the ink should be relatively easy and inexpensive.
And yet, many years later, this has still not been done.
In the end, there is no avoiding the simple question of responsibility, and it lies squarely with whoever owns the alleged historical document.
We can get the diary placed into a book that contains elaborate new nonsense about James killing people in America, but we can't get this cheap and easy test done.
That should tell us something.
--John
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 77
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Caroline:
Well, it goes to show that Steve IS intelligent and can see for himself what is really going on here.
As I'm sure, he is also watching and seing that new tests with excellent experts, and a new approach can examine it, instead of the endless twaddle of who is RIGHT or WRONG on the OLD tests. A new independent opinion is required.
.... Still investigating till doom's day eh? Caroline, How convenient, and in the meantime a little movie will come along about the "diary" and of course, a million excuses will arise for not doing any testing, like: " It's too expensive to be tested"
You just heard as well as every one else here, that the tests ARE NOT EXPENSIVE, and yes, I think that all can be arranged. Its just a matter of handing over the diary for analysis and see what the experts have to say, at last.
No buts, no more excuses and long discussions and recriminations as to why they never got done in the past. JUST ACTIONS.
So where is Robert Smith then? I'm sure if he is on holidays, he will soon return home before Christmas.
And you are wrong, Melvin Harris DID see the diary and turned the pages over and he said that there were blotches of ink in blank pages, I don't see why he would have to lie about that, there wouldn't be any point in lying about that, specially, if later, people checked that it was untrue. In any case, a thorough investigation on the WHOLE diary itself would be more helpful, than just the blotches of ink.
-Maria
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
I haven't had chemistry class since 1965, so, if there is anybody here who is as confused as me, type the following into your Search Engine and read a few chapters. It does tell about certain chemicals that can be used to determine what kind of ink is present. Different inks turn different colors using the chemicals.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
FORTY CENTURIES OF INK TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Dear Lars:
Thank you very much for your kind offer about what questions to ask for a probable test for the diary. I say probable because of course, it all depends whether the owner will release it to be examined.
And of course, what it would be valuable would be to find out if there are any modern components in the ink. Chloroacitamide or whatever. If there is a modern component, then really that is all we need to know.
And thank you as well for offering to do it free for me, if only you had the equipment you would need to run this test. But it was very illuminating to know, that all it would cost is less than a thousand dollars. This is GREAT news.
I know that you have misgivings about McCrone, but they did an excellent job on the Vineland Map which was displayed proudly at an American university library. In that instance, McCrone established correctly that the document was an original medieaval document, except that the bit where it describes the famous Vineland Map, was not. They found out that the genuine manuscript, had been drawn on a page that originally was half empty. So, all the forger had to do, was to add the Vinland Map on it, with the intriguing story on the page. 
Later on, the police discovered that the manuscript had been stolen from a Spanish library by an Italian who posed as a scholar, the thief tored up the page from a valuable book to carry out his con-trick by selling it for hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was an intriguing and fascinating affair.
Why is McCrone in disrepute now ? Maybe you can tell me where I can read about this.
Again, many thanks for your help.
--Maria
Can I ask you... how many years after having put the ink on the paper can chloroacitamide stay on ? Is it possible to still find traces of Chloroacitamide from the dates: 1997 to 2005 ?
|
Steve Swift
Police Constable
Username: Swift
Post Number: 9
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Well, it goes to show that Steve IS intelligent and can see for himself what is really going on here.
Indeed he can.Last words on this particular subject....
I've also read what the police had to say about this little work of fantasy and,to me anyway, this says more than any amount of graphs about why this document is not being tested.
'Behind Bars' would take on a whole new meaning for some folks.
As for the rest...well...I still find it hard to believe that people who know even the most rudimentary facts about these crimes even NEED ink tests.
See, it is too late, the damage is already done. No matter how many times this thing is proved to be a fake, as long as one person believes it then ... it is real.So I leave you to this pointless argument with the sincere hope that someday someone is made to pay for hoisting this on an uneducated public.
Be well 
Steve.
'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: 79
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:45 am: |
|
Dear Lars:
Walter McCrone has not retired. Sadly he died last year, I saw his Obituary and I thought it was a great shame he never got to see the diary. Melvin Harris coincidentally also died last year and the diary still remains untested....
Maybe his sons are not doing as good a job as Walter did.
Maybe we can find a very good Laboratory in Britain so that the diary doesn't have to travel so far... I'm sure that we also have equally good and competent chemists who could do the work here. After all, this is the place where they cracked the make up of DNA that is being used world wide in criminology. One of the scientists that was involved in this pivotal discovery, that has revolucionised the field of Medicine and Biology also died last year.
So, equally there has to be someone of just the same calibre in chemistry that would love to have a crack at this "mystery" and put the claim to rest once and for all.
I will start my enquiries today.
Thank you for everything.
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 80
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:04 am: |
|
Caroline:
Alright it is not 13 years, is 8. It just seems like 13 !!
And sorry when I said about the Ether on your head, it was a way of saying: Hot air like in a hot air baloon that has Ether in it.
I did find it offensive though that you should say that I'm talking into Ether here when Steve just above has answered what I just said. To say that he is only Ether is insulting to all the readers Caroline, they are people with feelings just like you.
And also I'm sorry when I said your book is lousy, because it is NOT, I found it a very entertaining yarn, a page turner, but we are talking about something that hasn't been tested properly in years and as you state, Shirley IS tauting it as if the diary is the REAL genuine article and that is dishonest.
An olive branch ?
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 81
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:32 am: |
|
Steve:
The trouble is that the present tests haven't convinced everyone that the dairy is a fake, that is why another independent test is necessary.
If you read Lars opinions who is actually a qualified chemist. He is disenchanted about the AFI findings of Chlorocitamide in the ink. Chlorocitamide of course, being a modern component, would render the diary as a modern fake. Lars opinion is that it could be something else other than chlorocitamide that behaves just like Chlorocitamide.
The only thing we haven't ask him is: If this other suspected component that according to his expert opinion is NOT chlorocitamide, is this also still another modern component ? or is he suggesting it is only contamination ? Maybe a third expert's opinion who can analyse the diary in the flesh, under the microscope could establish a more comprehensive answer to all of these questions. Besides that, there is the possibility that after 8 years, the chlorocitamide that was then found on the ink, might have faded away with time, since the diary first appeared.
-Maria |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Maria,
Well, it goes to show that Steve IS intelligent and can see for himself what is really going on here.
What, that the diary owner won’t allow the diary to be examined ‘in a million years’? That was an intelligent accusation to make, was it? Ye Gods.
…instead of the endless twaddle of who is RIGHT or WRONG on the OLD tests. A new independent opinion is required.
And what makes you think we won’t get the same endless twaddle the next time - especially as you write:
…there is the possibility that after 8 years, the chlorocitamide that was then found on the ink, might have faded away with time, since the diary first appeared.
If no chloroacetamide is found next time, I guarantee the twaddle will be deafening.
No buts, no more excuses and long discussions and recriminations as to why they never got done in the past. JUST ACTIONS.
Look Maria, you keep implying no tests ever got done in the past. Will you please stop giving this totally false impression?
So where is Robert Smith then?
I dunno - perhaps he is busy doing his day job, which is not remotely connected with the diary these days. That’s why I said you were just shouting (by shouting I mean using upper case) into the ether every time you write things like: JUST ACTIONS - if you mean Robert‘s actions; he isn‘t here.
Not only is he not here, he has to wait for someone like Jenni to contact him to say “Right, we’re going to need the diary on such-and-such a date because new tests have been commissioned”.
And you are wrong, Melvin Harris DID see the diary and turned the pages over and he said that there were blotches of ink in blank pages, I don't see why he would have to lie about that, there wouldn't be any point in lying about that, specially, if later, people checked that it was untrue.
Well then it’s his word against Robert’s, and of course no one can prove Melvin didn't turn the real pages at some point, as opposed to his photocopies. The only time Melvin is known to have been in a position to see the actual diary (two pages of it) was when it was under glass at the book launch he attended. At no time did Melvin approach Robert to ask to see more - Robert is clear about that because he would have arranged for it to happen. But I can see why that might shock many people who knew Melvin in his role as hoax buster supreme.
You write to Mr Poster:
Thank you very much for your kind offer about what questions to ask for a probable test for the diary. I say probable because of course, it all depends whether the owner will release it to be examined.
Will you please stop this. Robert announced on these boards that he would release the diary with ‘no strings attached’. How do you think Jenni got it tested??
But it was very illuminating to know, that all it would cost is less than a thousand dollars. This is GREAT news.
Still more money than I could afford, and a hefty investment for anyone who can. It’ll have to be made by a person - or persons - who would consider such an investment worthwhile and beneficial.
…the thief tored up the page from a valuable book to carry out his con-trick by selling it for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And there you have a mighty big difference between this and the diary and watch. Mike Barrett sold the diary to Robert for £1, and Albert Johnson has turned down offers of thousands of dollars for the watch.
You ask Mr Poster:
Is it possible to still find traces of Chloroacitamide from the dates: 1997 to 2005 ?
AFI concluded that chloroacetamide was present back in 1994. If it was there, and if it was there because it was supposed to be preserving pre-1992 Diamine ink, it wouldn’t be doing a great job if it gave up the ghost after a few years.
Melvin Harris coincidentally also died last year and the diary still remains untested.…
Again, the inference is that Melvin was the first and last person to test it, and that if he hadn’t died last year he would still be gaily testing the thing. Please stop trying to twist the facts. If Melvin had commissioned a straight chemical comparison between pre-1992 Diamine and the diary ink in the first place, the ‘claim’, as you call it, could have been put ‘to rest once and for all’ in 1994! But of course you have betrayed your preconceptions here, because you are assuming that the ink is modern, and just needs a quick cash injection to prove it so.
Shirley IS tauting it as if the diary is the REAL genuine article and that is dishonest.
Again, Shirley is not here, so your accusation goes harmlessly into the ether. Well, not quite harmlessly, because Shirley genuinely believes in her theory and has written books putting her case to her readers. No one has to agree with her arguments, and as far as I can see, few do. To call her dishonest, you would have to prove she didn’t believe what she writes. On the face of it, she has done no worse than other ripper authors who claim that Jack was D’Onston, Tumblety, Sickert, Barnett etc, on the slightest evidence. If they believed they were right, when their books were published (and all but one at the most have to be wrong), what’s the difference?
Chlorocitamide of course, being a modern component, would render the diary as a modern fake.
Well actually, chloroacetamide, as a compound, was in use in various preparations as early as 1857. We just don’t know that it was ever experimented with in ink until more modern times. So fair’s fair. If none is found next time round, we know that the excuse will be ‘it must have degraded since 1994’. So if a trace is found (but not in the right proportion/quantity to be Diamine), we would be left not knowing with any certainty when the ink was manufactured, or when it wasn’t.
Diamine’s own research chemist Alec Voller said that Diamine Manuscript ink was the only one of its kind ‘for many a long year and this [the diary ink] is definitely not Diamine Manuscript ink’, putting the penmanship 'some considerable distance in the past’.
Hi Steve,
I've also read what the police had to say about this little work of fantasy and,to me anyway, this says more than any amount of graphs about why this document is not being tested.
'Behind Bars' would take on a whole new meaning for some folks.
The only person(s) who could have gone behind bars would have been the forger(s), if and when they had been discovered. The police found there wasn’t a case to answer with regard to any of the known players, and even when Mike Barrett ‘confessed’, and risked putting himself behind bars, nothing came of it, did it?
All the police did was to accept the say-so of the Rendell team, who curiously concluded that the diary was modern, despite their own expert’s given date of ‘1921 plus or minus 12 years’. The police didn’t conduct their own independent scientific investigation.
If a forger were to emerge now, and tell a verifiable story of how it was done and why, I shouldn't think the police would waste their time on it, and Robert could sign 'em up for a lucrative book deal.
Sorry about the long post, but there were a lot of points to address and correct here.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 21, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Well, that offer of an olive branch from Maria to Caroline went over well, didn't it?
All that talk from Ms. Morris and still no rational explanation for why the easy and inexpensive test Mr. Poster describes for determining what is or isn't in the ink has not taken place, even after more than a decade.
All that talk and all we get is the same old desperate, child-like owner-excuse of "I have to wait for someone to come to me."
Bull.
The owner decides what does and does not happen with the book. If he wanted it tested, if he wanted to solve the existing conflicts, if he wanted to get together with an independent and objective party and make all this happen, he would. In fact, it would have all been done years ago.
And this notion that we shouldn't be writing things about authors or their work because they're "not here" is just stupid. Look at the other threads on other books and other theories. It's what we do here. Everyone who writes here shouts into the ether, whether they know it or not. The hope is that at least other potential readers of nonsense like Shirley's and Robert's will realize that they're being suckered and that while simple tests aren't being done year after year, they're being sold new editions of the same patent lunacy.
And the question of personal responsibility and a respect for the truth does not go away, no matter what spin appears here.
The choice is action or inaction. The choice is learning or not learning what we can.
It's that simple.
And, as I said earlier, why learn as much as possible when you can continue to claim "not to know" and still sell books?
People know what has and hasn't happened over the past decade.
They're not stupid.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on October 21, 2005) |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
Remember George Armstrong Custer? Your position looks about as good as his did & I may not be able to formulate and intelligent answer but at least I'm not going to die with my boots on either.
Look out for that last arrow - it's a killer
Steve.
'A good plan violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week' - George S. Patton
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 26
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
I think the only way to date the Diary is by testing how long the ink was on the paper. Here is an EBAY Item number where you can buy Victorian Ink that is still useable.
Item # 6218127768 Derby "All British" ink bottle, triangular, with reinforcing ridge halfway up, indicating era as early Victorian, Circa 1840's to 1850's.
Has seal intact, and some ink in bottle.
Blue colour, probably aqua,some bumps/marks to glass, stamped underside with a number, but unable to make it out. 2 1/4" high
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
Not sure I'm with you there.
My 'position' is what, exactly?
If you mean my thoughts on what would happen to a diary forger, I'm not that bothered. If they catch one they can lock him/her up and throw away the key if they like.
They have to find him/her first.
And that's the rub; they won't - to borrow your own phrase - not in a million years.
Don't let anyone fool you about testing - I have no influence over the tests that have already been done and those yet to come. On the other hand, John Omlor had a perfect opportunity to oversee some further testing a while back. He had agreed to negotiate with McCrone and to guarantee adequate funds, and was about to sign on the dotted line, which would have committed himself and Robert to going ahead (first off would have been to let the lab have all the existing reports to scrutinise, so they could work out what to try next) when he suddenly pulled out for personal reasons.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's a bit rich for him then to criticise me over tests not yet commissioned.
Love,
Caz
X |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 82
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Caroline:
Why are you so scared of the NEW tests Caroline?
It can only help resolve the controversy of the old tests.
Science HAS advanced since they were done 10 years ago.
Why be afraid ? Oh yes, I think I know... it is not a good idea to strangle the goose with the golden eggs, specially when there are more projects on the pipeline. A film perhaps ?
Watch this space
-Maria
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
"I don't see why he would have to lie about that, there wouldn't be any point in lying about that, specially, if later, people checked that it was untrue. "
It would be a foolish thing to lie about, but it appears with respect to this incident, the truth was not told. I will be charitable and say that Harris was so certain the Diary was a fake, that he engaged in a bit of hyperbole.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Caroline:
How out of context you have situated my words:
I said: That Walter Mc Crone died last year and coincidentally Melvin Harris also died last year.
-Maria |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi ho
Just scanning quickly around the web for costs of GC/MS or LC/MS tests:
University of Georgia: approx. 100 dollars per sample (http://www.uga.edu/mass-spec/frames/cost.html)
national centre for Upgrading Technology, canada: 230 dollars per sample (http://www.ncut.com/acrobats/6%20-%20Analytical%20Capabilities%20prices.pdf)
Institute of Technology,Tallagt, Dublin: 150 Euros (http://www.it-tallaght.ie/applied_science/services/gc-msservice/)
Analytical resources Incorp., Seattle: ca. 200 dollars per sample (http://arilabs.com/portal/)
SRC Analtical Laboratories, Saskatchewan: < 300 dollars per sample
So I wasnt far off with the grand estimate....and as you can see, there are many labs offering GC/MS services.
But saying that, when you start specifiying to them that you want a sample of the diary analysed, a sample of new Diamine ink analysed, a piece of the diary with no ink analysed....it wont be long reaching 1000 (dollars, Euros, pounds, toe nail clippings)
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Howdy
W.McCrone was a clever scientist. The problem was, once it came to the Vinland map and the Shroud he ran into a sticky wicket. First and foremost he would not submit his work for peer review for publishing in the scientific journals...in fact the first anyone heard of most of it was when it appeared on TV or in the papers. So that is a worry.
His Vinland Map work has taken a hammering in the peer reviewed scientific literature. IF you are interested, view the McCrone anatase findings with respect to:
Weaver, Charles E. "The Nature of TiO2 in Kaolinite," Clays and Clay Minerals 24 (1976): 215-8.
Murad, Enver. "Identification of minor amounts of anatase in kaolins by Raman spectroscopy," American Mineralogist 82 (1997): 203-6.
Olin, Jacqueline S. "Without Comparative Studies of Inks, What do We Know about the Vinland Map?" Pre-Columbiana 2 no. 1 (June 2000): 1-10.
But, as far as I know, Yale University accepted the findings of peer reviewed scientific work and declared the map genuine in 1995 and reappraised its worth to 25 million. Read all about it here:
Skelton, R.A., Thomas E. Marston, and George D. Painter, with Introduction by Alexander O. Vietor. The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation Yale University Press, 1965 (VMTR). Reprinted in 1995 with new prefatory essays by Painter, Wilcomb E. Washburn, Thomas A Cahill and Bruce H. Kusko, and Laurence C. Witten II (VMTR95), but original pagination retained in body.
But of course you could just read the back of a cereal box or something (joking, joking, joking)
If you read this article (below and Im trying to attach it but the pdf is too big. I have attached a word version, the original pdf can be got at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-ZZ-MsSWYVW-UUA-U-AABWVDDAZB-AABUUCDEZB-VAEDDUWAY-ZZ-U&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_cdi=5292&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000056667&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2475563&md5=641476c0f081fd0089b0d88d2a32ff5d or I can email it to anybody)
by a very reputable scientist, it pretty much conclusively proved that the sample used by McCrone for C14 dating was not representative of the Shroud cloth and was taken from a patch piece of more recent vintage (and this work was peer reviewed and well recieved by the scientific community:
Rogers, Raymond N.2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin. Thermochimica Acta 425: 189–194.
I suggest you read this article. It will enlighten you to what real science looks like as it rarely appears on "Good Morning America" or "The Sunday Times"
Indeed there was some very undignified announcements from Joe Nickell afterwards (a la Harris) which were also throroughly refuted and initiated more science which confirmed Rogers analysis.
Lars opinion is that it could be something else other than chlorocitamide that behaves just like Chlorocitamide
NO Im not. Whatever it is (or whatever group of things it is) do not "behave just like chloroacetamide". They may have completely different retention times (as I demonstrate above" but once again, the resolution of the chromataogram is so bad there could be 50 compounds under that peak but you cannot tell if they are chloroacetamide or not because the resolution is so bad. Yawwwwnnnnnn.....
Just out of interest, how in the name of God are you going to find chloroacetamide with a microscope?
As you have (I think) acknowledged that the peak measured by AFI represented a real constitutent of the ink, what on earth is the purpose of all this continued discussion and analysis of the blank signal?
Ummmm.....the conversation started by mea assigning equal or greater weighting to the Leeds test which was disputed by some here as being problematic due to contamination.
Now I have gone to some lengths to show that contamination, as evidenced by a signal (from whatever) in th eblank near or at where chloroacetamide should appear, also seems to exist in the other test.
Leeds....saw contamination, cleaned it up, got accused of "botching"
AFI....contamination in blank, did nothing, get lauded as cutting edge.
Weird....
And I dont know if chloroacetamide stays on the page. Although I dont see why not as its not exactly very volatile and I doubt the diary has been left lying around under the midday sun, open on every page.
Mr P
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Caroline,
No one is criticizing you specifically over the simple tests not being done.
Not everything written here is about you personally, although I know sometimes that seems hard for you to remember.
I am however criticizing the ridiculous and irresponsible position of avoidance you are mouthing for Robert -- the whole silly "I'm just going to do nothing and someone has to come to me because getting all of this going, being active and doing the work necessary to find the objective participant and getting these simple tests done is somehow not really my job even though I'm the one who owns the book" nonsense.
It's been over a decade. New editions of the diary have come out and been sold to the public, and yet these simple and inexpensive tests have still not been done and I don't think there's any doubt in the end who should be responsible for this artefact and for seeing to it that we learn all we can about it, especially if it is going to be sold commercially in current and subsequent editions of a commercially available book as authentic.
But obviously the priority is not learning as much as we can as soon as we can; the priority is getting those new editions of nonsense on the shelf and selling them to readers (who deserve to be warned about what's happening and what has still not happened).
The past thirteen years have dramatically demonstrated those priorities to everyone.
And nothing you write can change what we have all seen happen and not happen with this book for such a long time.
--John
PS: If anyone wants to hear exactly what took place three years ago and exactly why I pulled out and what happened (and didn't happen) afterwards, feel free to send me e-mail. I can send you all sorts of good stuff. I'm not going back over it here as it serves no purpose and it changes nothing concerning where the final and ultimate responsibility lies. In fact, it eventually came to demonstrate precisely the problem.
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 84
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Lars:
WOW !!! I'm very impressed.
Thank you very much.
And you were RIGHT about the costs.
and I can see how they can escalate, BUT if we know precisely what to ask, in terms of what could constitute a modern component in the ink, that shouldn't be there.
We could have 3 separete tests run on several things, what would be worth checking for ? Is it true the claim that Chlorocitamide is NOT a modern component like Caroline is claiming.
The nearest place of all of the ones you mention is the Institute of Technology, Tallagt, Dublin
How reputable are they ?
About the Vineland Map all I know is the Horizon documentary programme by the BBC.
In 1957 in a secret deal, an American book dealer clinches the bargain of a lifetime, his price: A curious map that threatens to turn the history of wxploration on its head.
The map, apparently shows the known world in around 1440. Nearly half a century before Christopher Columbus famous voyage. Where modern maps place America, it depicts a mysterious Island called " Vinland " and a few lines of text make the extraordinary claim that earlier Viking adventurers, had reached American shores as early as 1,000 A.D.
Had the Vikings really discovered America 500 years before Colombus ?
From the moment it surfaced, the world's most famous map caused bitter controversy. Some historians denounced it as a fake, others, insisted it had to be genuine.
Scientists have subjected the map to an exhaustive series of forensic tests but even they, were sharply divided. The critics were worried that if it was not genuine, it would have been the biggest con-trick that has ever been pulled on the Cartographic Society in a very long time.
The Vinland map is now owned by Yale University one of the U.S. grandest Universities, it was once proudly displayed in the show piece in their library, as the most valuable map in the world. But now is an embarrasement locked away in the vaults from behind the wrinkled parchment and faded ink.
The story, lays a tale of murky deals incredible coincidences and vast sums of money. All because the map seemed to re-write the history of exploration.
It all started in 1957. In the middle of that year, 2 book dealers arrived at the British Museum in London. One of them was a smooth Italian called Enzo Ferioli. He was very well dressed and he was a very attractive man. He then lived in Spain.
Ferioli was helping the museums experts with authenticating an intriguing volume he was offering for sale, the bulk of the book was a medieval manuscript called: The Tartar Relation
The Tartar Relation was an obscure account of a people's mission to the Far East by 2 Franciscan Monks who copied down the manuscript in the 15th Century.
Their story was bound together with a remarkable world map that appeared to illustrate an Island.
To the west of Europe, it revealed a New World, one that until now had never been seen on a map. Most startling of all was the island in the Atlantic, labelled " Vinland " Here it was in black and white, and it showed AMERICA in relation to recognizable parts of the world such as Africa and the Scandinavian countries, Asia, and Great Britain. The 15th century map appeared to incorporate lost knowledge from earlier centuries. Above VINLAND a short inscription described the items discovered by the Vikings.
At a stroke, it appeared to confirm the 'Vikings Sagas' and cast out Christopher Colombus achievements. And this was revolutionary in that sense. History books would have to be re-writen, the fact that the Vineland map was bound together with the Tartan Revelation, gave it credibility. Two of the British Museum experts were convinced that it was genuine, but the head of the Manuscript Department Mr. Bertrand Scoldfield disagreed.
He was able to date ancient manuscripts within 30 or 40 years and he couldn't see the circumstances under which these two manuscripts could become joined together that made him suspicious. Scoldfield was also troubled that Ferioli wouldn't reveal anything concrete about the map's previous history.
He had the last word as keeper of manuscripts and said: Don't touch it with a barge pole essencially, without authentication. Ferioli wouldn't be able to ask a high price for the map.
It was time to try another tack, so Ferioli took it to Geneva which was one of the hubs of the European rare book trade. Enzo Ferioli had a close relationship with the leading auctioneers in the late 50's the firm of Nicholas Rash...
Anyway, the story is long and fascinating but in the end, it was discovered that the ink from the original manuscript and the map, were different, in the map, they found the type of ink used in yellow modern markers and that was the great give away, not only because of the chemical components but the colour itself: Yellow of that sort was not available in Medieval times... So the map was withdrawn from the Library at Yale University in New Haven. That's what I know happened.
--Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 85
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Caroline and Sir Robert:
V E R Y I M P O R T A N T
THEREIS NO DOUBT THAT Melvin had additional access to the pages of the diary. Anyone accusing him of lying would have to consider what I'm demonstrating below. THERE IS NO DOUBT that there are many places in the diary where small samples could be taken without damaging the words. Looking at my Hyperion Press (US Edition) which has the best reproduction of the diary, you can see blotches on pages 265, 264, a nice long "tail" on page 260, another blotch on 259 etc. etc. Surely no need to interfere with the words themselves.
This is just another excuse by Caroline Morris to make Melvin look like a liar. So... Its just another excuse isn't it ? FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING. It is blatantly clear that there is abundant material where there are long squiggles that can be taken for forensic examination.
IF ANYONE IS IN DOUBT ABOUT THIS: I can post the samples of the diary here or sent them by e-mail. At the moment, there seems to be problems with the setting margins of this thread.
-Maria |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 193
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
I have a photo of a house called'Poste House'.It is not the one in Liverpool,nor the one in Swansea,but it is in the British Isles.
It is still today called 'Poste House',though the photo I have dates from 1925,when the house served as a shop.
I believe the premises was still the 'Poste House'way before 1925,and I am confident the present owners will supply ,in the next few days,more history of the premises. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Maria,
calm down.
Lets not worry about it. Its only a silly diary!!
ok, ok, I was joking, but seriously,
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
ps i wish i had been following this better
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Great stuff - looking forward to more history of your Poste House find. Where is it, exactly?
Hi Maria,
Please see my response on the 'Ink' thread, where you posted a similar accusation against me.
Look, the photocopied pages of the diary sent to Melvin by Paul Feldman back in 1993 would have shown exactly the same blotches as we can all see for ourselves in any of the books which reproduce the diary. That was then and this is now, and I stand by my statement that all the original ink blotches have been harvested for testing purposes over the years and future samples will have to be taken from the text itself.
You wrote:
Why be afraid ? Oh yes, I think I know... it is not a good idea to strangle the goose with the golden eggs, specially when there are more projects on the pipeline. A film perhaps ?
This is as offensive as it is false. You know nothing of the kind.
I am not the least bit 'afraid' of new tests. I would love to see some more done if they could help us date the wretched document once and for all.
No test result could ever harm the only kind of project I'd like to see in action - the one that finally tells the whole story, whatever the truth turns out to be.
Hi Mr Poster,
...when you start specifiying to them that you want a sample of the diary analysed, a sample of new Diamine ink analysed...
It's not new Diamine ink we need, it's the pre-1992 formula of Diamine that was suspected by some of being used because of Mike's claim about the shop it allegedly came from.
Robert Smith posted a request for this particular ink, but no one here seems to know whether it can be obtained, or if it can be usefully compared with the diary ink.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Caroline writes:
I would love to see some more [tests] done if they could help us date the wretched document once and for all."
Well, since finally determining whether or not the diary contained specific ingredients could well "help us date the wretched document," I assume this means that Caroline would love to see the simple and inexpensive tests Mr. Poster describes done on this wretched document.
Me, too.
And so, apparently, would everyone else here.
Makes you kind of wonder then why over a full decade has passed and they still haven't been done, doesn't it?
OK, maybe not.
Maybe it's too obvious to wonder about.
Still, it's nice to know she agrees with the rest of us about what we'd love to see done.
Unfortunately, until the owner of the book decides that actively getting thorough tests done on the book takes priority over getting new editions of it on the shelves, nothing much is likely to happen.
In any case, it's been a lark of a discussion, even if it is an ancient one by now.
Waiting, as always,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2989
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
you know, i'm sure i've missed something here.
my brain hurts.
ugh
I love diary world i do honest but, boo hoo!
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 87
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Caroline:
Well, if they have to take the samples from the text, SO BE IT !
Well, you were saying that they were expensive and... THAT PROVED TO BE UNTRUE !
It is clear now that the best thing to settle the arguments is to conduct the new tests, and this way, everyone including you will be happy.
Isn't that nice ?
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 88
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Dear Jenny:
Yes, it is only a book.
-Maria |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 194
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
Caz,
You should have an email from myself giving details of the 'Poste House' I have mentioned. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Howdy Maria
As far as I know the Vinland Map (or at least the parchment) was vindicated by the Smithsonian Institute (reputable) using some C14 measurements and there was some ink work done as well that provided enough evidence (as far as I know) for Yale to come out and say they were accepting it as genuine (whatever that means). But its back on Yales "most valued list" the last time I checked.
very nice explanation here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031128083243.htm
less readable discussion by the Smithsonian here:
http://www.si.edu/scmre/learning/vinland_map_ink.htm
But no doubt someone else will say something else in a year or two although I do think that the saga is coming to a close.
You dont have to go to Tallaght in Dublin. Those four were literally the first ones that popped up in Google. Any lab in the western world teaching analytical or organic chemistry to post graduate level will have the instruments/skill base you need.
I have no idea about modern constituents of ink. The discussion here was based on the fact that one side of the argument said if the ink contained chloroacetamide, it was modern. By that logic, if it doesnt, the ink is old or the forger was extremely clever/lucky. But quite frankly, just as I find the concept that a small ink producer in the late 1800's was using chloroacetamide unlikely, I find the one that the forger found/made Victorian ink without chloroacetamide just as unlikely.
Most third level institutes are reputable. Then again reputable does not mean competent. If the technical specification of what you want them to do is written correctly, then its reasonable to assume that if the analyst knows what theyre doing, the result should be OK. Whether that satisfies everyone is another matter entirely.
Of course if they find out the diary is involved, you might find it very hard to get anyone involved as the insane way the whole thing blew up the last time round could easily put people off if they know the story.
Was there not some talk about iron? ie. old ink contains lots, modern ink doesnt? Luckily for everyone iron is dirt cheap to analyse for and the methods are robust (but destructive).
Regarding quantitative measures, This is always going to be an issue but I reckon there could be a way round this. No one can tell how much ink was applied to the page but we do know the composition of modern diamaine ink. Therefore, if someone has some of that ink and an appropriate paper of the type used in the diary it should be possible to come up with, using different nibs, a range of figures with respect to the mass of ink per unit area on the page. Then if the area of the analytical sample can be known it should theoretically be possible to come up with a range of figures regarding how much liquid ink corresponds to unit area dry ink. This range of course would account for nib type, pressure, etc etc. Not accurate but perhaps enough to check the 0.26% concept using an educated guesstimate.
And in defence of Caroline Anne Morris, I dont think she was being tricky by saying previously that the ink tests would be expensive. There was little differentiation made earlier about chloroacetmaide and dating when the ink was put on the diary, the latter being undoubtedly expensive as the methods to do it dont seem to exist yet at all.
Regarding all this stuff about chloroacetamide being degraded or whatever, a quick email to Dow chemicals regarding the stability of the compound would probably put that one to rest.
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Thanks, Lars.
It won't be long now, I'm sure.
Happy about everything,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Mr Poster
The discussion here was based on the fact that one side of the argument said if the ink contained chloroacetamide, it was modern. By that logic, if it doesnt, the ink is old or the forger was extremely clever/lucky.
Thanks for the humour.
Elementary logic obviously not compulsory in academic chemistry departments these days ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
You wrote your post before seeing mine.
Just to remind those still not paying attention, no one has yet responded to Robert Smith's request for some pre-1992 Diamine ink. He has stated on the boards that he is very happy for a direct chemical comparison to be made with the diary ink (assuming this is feasible - and if it requires a sample of years-old dried-on-the-page pre-1992 Diamine it might be a long process) just as soon as some of this ink can be delivered.
And I predict we'll need that email to Dow when Chris P claims that the chloroacetamide must have given up the day job of preserving the ink and taken up early retirement - as he will surely have to if none is found.
Love,
Caz
X |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 92
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Caroline:
The labs only took micro-dots of the diary.
Dwelling in the past about why these tests were not done 3 years ago is pointless and unhelpful.
Blaming Mr. Omlor as the culprit for not doing so is irrelevant if the tests can be done today.
Truthfully, when I sell my diamond, the buyer expects me to provide proof of authenticity, so it is the owner who has to provide that proof.
The diary doesn't have this guarantee does it ? But it doesn't matter does it, because so long as some of the best books can be 'best sellers' -Not yours, of course-- who cares ?
So long as all of those who feed off the diary as it is, who cares about whether the diary is genuine or not.
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 93
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Lars:
But the parchmets WERE stolen from this Spanish Library which name I cannot remember at the moment, and the experts who have read those texts do not recall seing the Vinland map there.
So how come it appeared later, when it was sold to the Yale University by the thief for millions of dollars?
By logic, it the map wasn't there before and now miraculously IS there... Well..That is more miraculous than the Miracle in the Library !!!
--Maria |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Personally, I'm still filled with renewed optimism.
The tests are simple, we have been told, and not that expensive, so I'm sure the diary's owner will make sure that they'll be done in no time and we'll know once and for all what is or is not in the ink.
No doubt the results will precede the release of any new edition of the diary in book form and will be included in any such edition, in the name of full disclosure.
Why not learn all there is to learn about the document, right?
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Maria, could you please not post identical opinions/questions on different threads. I do eventually catch up with each thread, but I don't intend to type my responses twice to correct your various misapprehensions. Thank you.
Hi All,
If someone - anyone - would contact Robert Smith directly, as Jenni did, with specific details of the new testing they can recommend, arrange and commission, we will all be very happy bunnies - at least until the results come out. 
Then it will be the same as it was after Jenni's efforts, with Maria suggesting no tests have 'ever' been done and with others shouting about personal responsibilities being lacking, while still making public claims they can't be arsed to lift a finger to prove.
Remind me which way round it is, because I'm no longer sure.
If someone were to come here and claim the diary is old, and then say they can't be 'bothered' to help with tests to prove it and besides, they are 'already convinced' it's old so others can do the donkey work so there - can you just imagine the uproar?
And yet that is precisely what Chris Phillips has done, except that for him the claim is that the diary is a post-1987 creation.
What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites!
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Caroline,
I really don't believe that anyone is buying the whole "someone else should do it because even though Robert owns the book and allows it to be published in a commercial project that claims it's authentic, he doesn't have the responsibility for making sure the book is thoroughly tested" nonsense you are spouting.
He's had the book for ten years and he still hasn't done even the simple and inexpensive tests Lars has described to see what is and isn't in the ink.
He's been able to make sure new editions of the diary book are on the shelves for sale, but he hasn't even taken the time and done whatever might be necessary to make sure his document is thoroughly and properly tested and that the current conflicts are resolved.
No one should need to contact him directly. He's a grown man who owns this thing and who lets it appear in a published form in new editions all the while without getting it properly tested.
He should do whatever is necessary, including finding an objective party if he feels he needs to, and get the tests done. Either that, or he should stop placing his document on bookstore shelves in a volume claiming it's real and that the real James murdered people on two continents.
It's a simple question of responsibility and honesty and ethics. Get the tests done and learn as much as you can before you publish the thing in new editions.
When commercial interests precede learning as much as possible, the truth suffers.
My sadness is for the poor suckers who buy the diary book and don't know what still has not happened after all these years.
This whole "someone else contact me please, I can't do it myself" excuse is a childish act of simple avoidance.
Fortunately, my e-mail suggests more and more people are seeing this.
Thanks for the chance to discuss it again,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Hey all,
Anyone know how to re-size this thread?
Just wondering,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
John,
yeah resizing the thread thats the most important thing!
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
After a blissful year of rarely reading and never posting on the Diary boards, I took a look at them yesterday. What I saw were John Omlor’s ludicrous attempts to hold me morally responsible for organising and funding new tests on the diary.
John Omlor likes to admit he is “in the gutter” (how true), but this time, he seems to have disappeared through the drain cover. Without a hint of irony, he is preaching “ethical responsibility” to me, while hypocritically making allegations which he knows to be untruthful and just plain wrong.
Deception 1
John writes: “Unfortunately, until the owner of the book decides that actively getting thorough tests done on the book takes priority over getting new editions of it on the shelves, nothing much is likely to happen”.
…The Reality
I have no involvement whatsoever in publishing the diary or Shirley Harrison’s book, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, or any new editions of it. John is well aware that the publishing rights in Shirley’s book were bought by Blake Publishing in 1997, and I have had no financial connection with it since then.
Deception 2
John writes: “We know who still allows the book to be published and republished”.
…The Reality
Shirley and her publishers were granted the rights, first by Mike Barrett, then by me, to publish the diary as an integral part of her book and all editions of it, for the full term of copyright. I have no legal grounds whatsoever to rescind any part of the author agreement between Shirley, Mike and Blake Publishing.
Deception 3
John refers to my “selling” the diary with “arguments made by Robert in print”.
…The Reality
The only time I went “into print” on the subject of the diary, was the five-page rebuttal of the Rendell report at the end of the American hardback edition of Shirley’s book, which was published by Hyperion in 1993 and remaindered.
Goodness knows how many times I have said on these boards, that I have revised my views on whether James Maybrick wrote the diary. I haven’t used the “arguments” in the rebuttal for perhaps ten years or more.
Deception 4
John writes: “If anyone wants to hear exactly what took place three years ago and exactly why I pulled out and what happened (and didn’t happen) afterwards, feel free to send me an email”.
I would love to hear from you, John. In the meantime, Maria has given us a taster of what she received, regarding the agreement on testing the diary at the McCrone labs, which John (and his lawyer) had fully accepted:
“This 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”.
…The Reality
The agreement was only intended to set out the operational guidelines. In the context of the good working relationship John and I enjoyed at that time, we would both have amended the “rules” in the light of day-to-day developments at the lab. Just imagine the consequences, were I to have obstructed reasonable requests from John and McCrone. John claims that I would have stuck rigidly to the letter of the agreement, but that is not borne out by Jenni Pegg’s experience of working happily and flexibly with me. I am sure she will concur, that the scientists simply made their proposals, had unlimited access to the diary to carry out the tests and reported the results, without any interference from me.
Whatever are the reasons John currently gives to explain that dramatic and bizarre turnaround from full acceptance of our agreement to his resignation, all on the very same day of 15th July 2002, he bears a heavy responsibility for screwing up the McCrone tests. John set the whole thing up, then, at the worst moment, abandoned it, leaving Paul Begg manfully but ultimately unsuccessfully trying to pick up the pieces.
The question is: if John took responsibility for organising and funding the tests in 2002, why have they become mine in 2005? And back in 2002, he told everyone that he had “pulled out” because he felt technically and professionally inadequate for the job. It sounds like he is spinning a very different explanation now.
Stop the Charade Now
How can John be justified in making the absurd suggestion, that I have “ethical” and “personal” responsibilities to test of the diary? I am not claiming that the diary is written by James Maybrick or Jack the Ripper. As I have made clear, since 1997 I have not been involved in any way with the publishing of the diary, and all income from sales goes to Shirley, Mike and Blake Publishing. Nor do I have the slightest intention of ever selling the diary.
Personally, I don’t believe all the ink tests in the world will ever resolve the issue of authenticity, but I am happy to let others who think differently, have the diary retested (there have been six previous reports on the ink!). You would think, that those, who are so keen to prove the diary a modern hoax, would be highly motivated to organise and fund the tests, So why the reticence?
The time has come to stop passing the buck, the posturing and the deceptions, and for those, who want to prove the diary “a shabby hoax” to club together to raise the $1000 or whatever the “inexpensive” costs of the tests are. However, I thought John was insisting on “thorough” and “comprehensive” tests. Can you get those for $1000?
Once again, I offer unlimited access to the diary for testing by an accredited and appropriately experienced lab. If the diary-sceptics truly believe that “thorough” testing of the diary is the way to reveal its modern origins, what on earth is stopping them? They might even make a fortune from the articles and the book they would write on how they finally proved the diary to be a hoax. What is more, I promise to be a really nice guy throughout.
“For Whatsoever A Man Soweth, that shall he also reap”.
As he has chosen to rake up some old grievances, a final note to John: Stop your whining about how horrible I’ve been to you. Libelling me on the boards by calling me a “conman” was an unexpected and unfriendly act, whence all your woes followed. Get over it.
By the way, I was making a very definite point, about hypocrisy. I am sorry you missed it. If you want us to admire your high standards of ethics, you shouldn’t have called yourself Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Florida on your Casebook profile, when you are definitely not one.
It certainly is “scandalous”. At least you felt enough shame to remove it from your profile.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
shroud