Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi DJA,

    And here is PC Long's rendition from his 6th November report.

    Spot the difference.
    I would read the key word here as "Juwes".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      To have left his concern until the eleventh hour does seem a little tardy.
      Why? No-one was going to ask him about it until the first day of Parliament in the autumn session so he didn't need the information until then. He requested it on the 5 November and got it the next day.

      Previously you said you were interested as to why Warren et al prepared their reports on 6 November. Now you know.

      Comment


      • Hi All,

        ERRATUM

        Henry Matthews' incident with "Jack," the retriever who failed to retrieve, was in October 1889.

        My apologies.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi All,

          ERRATUM

          Henry Matthews' incident with "Jack," the retriever who failed to retrieve, was in October 1889.

          My apologies.
          No problem Simon. Everyone makes mistakes. The police officers who tried to record the writing on the wall evidence made mistakes, just like you have made a mistake here. There's nothing more to it than that and no need to attribute any meaning to it.

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=David Orsam;384450]

            The police officers who tried to record the writing on the wall evidence made mistakes,
            Yes, indeed.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              Yes, indeed.
              Yes, it's obvious: the second word in the sentence was spelt differently by different officers and they can't all have been right.

              One thing they did all see and record, however, was a "w" in the second word.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=David Orsam;384472]
                Yes, it's obvious: the second word in the sentence was spelt differently by different officers and they can't all have been right.
                With several persons not being able to write down the correct word everybody might have been wrong.

                One thing they did all see and record, however, was a "w" in the second word.
                A common error. They did "see" and "record" and that does not mean they were right.

                But in your world you look and see (understand).

                Read any Plato, by the way?

                Regards, Pierre

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  With several persons not being able to write down the correct word everybody might have been wrong.
                  This is certainly possible but everyone who saw it believed it to be a variation of the word "Jews", the only point of difference being the exact spelling.

                  That's the evidence we are faced with Pierre. To claim it was another word entirely is to make a claim without any supporting evidence.

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=Pierre;384477]
                    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post

                    With several persons not being able to write down the correct word everybody might have been wrong.

                    All versions, at least phonetically, spelled Jews, all recorded versions were of a word that was pronounced Jews.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Sorry if this a question with an obvious answer.

                      out of interest how long after the message was erased did its contents become public?
                      Was it many years after when investigators and authors were allowed access to files, or at a time closer to the murders?
                      Last edited by Yabs; 06-13-2016, 01:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        This is certainly possible but everyone who saw it believed it to be a variation of the word "Jews", the only point of difference being the exact spelling.

                        That's the evidence we are faced with Pierre. To claim it was another word entirely is to make a claim without any supporting evidence.
                        But there is supporting evidence to suggest another word !

                        Seek and ye shall find !

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                          Sorry if this a question with an obvious answer.

                          out of interest how long after the message was erased did its contents become public?
                          Was it many years after when investigators and authors were allowed access to files, or at a time closer to the murders?
                          Pretty much became official on day two of the Inquest,Thursday, October 11 1888,
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            But there is supporting evidence to suggest another word !

                            Seek and ye shall find !
                            When people say things like this on the forum, Trevor, but don't reveal any information, I tend to find that they are either bluffing or mistaken.

                            Comment


                            • Wow. 86 pages.

                              Pierre's latest gullibility experiment has proved to be a tremendous success. Well done everyone who took part!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                                Wow. 86 pages.

                                Pierre's latest gullibility experiment has proved to be a tremendous success. Well done everyone who took part!
                                Yep he's good at hooking 'em.

                                Anyone else notice when he arrived he was a scientist focusing on data, but has morphed into a historian (who doesn't even know what a primary source is it seems) focusing on "Sourcses".
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X