Unfortunately Voller did not write a report but in the transcript of his meeting which we have finally been told today (and no, we were not told before today) occurred on 20th October 1995, he said the fading in the diary was "characteristic of some considerable age" but he also said that the bronzing that he saw "tells me it is genuinely old".
Although we are told (yes, told!) by the Chief Diary Defender that "Voller was talking about the fading in the diary, in connection with the sunlamp" this is not something that Voller himself says in his letter to Nick Warren of 8 February 1996, which I have already quoted from at length. In that letter he says that his opinion that the Diary was written 80-90 years earlier was "on the basis of appearances" (i.e. not specifically fading). He said he was asked if "such an appearance" could be simulated by a forger and he said that it could be done by an accelerated fading apparatus. He says that such an apparatus will "simulate the effects of five years exposure to sunlight in a matter of weeks". The only specific mention of fading is in respect of uneven fading when he says that used by an amateur it could produce "exactly the sort of uneven fading that is characteristic of old documents".
Does Voller explain whether he means 'a matter of weeks' under the sunlamp for every five years of simulated exposure to sunlight? Or 'a matter of weeks' from the end of the treatment? Either way, how many weeks would it have taken to simulate 'at least 90 years' of exposure [which was the opinion he gave Shirley of the diary's age]? Maybe David would be better off going with Mike's early 1990 date for its creation. After all, the Barretts may have known their stuff concerning this, but they were not psychic and could not have known, in April 1992, who might examine the writing within 'a matter of weeks' and find only five year's worth of apparently natural fading. That would have been a fat lot of good.
And how are we meant to interpret the word fading in 'an accelerated fading apparatus', if this isn't a specific reference to - er - fading?
Now, as I'm sure the Chief Diary Defender knows, some formulas of iron gall inks result in writings that can turn brown quite rapidly through exposure to sunlight. In other words, sunlight can mimic the effect of oxidization of ink. So, while I can't say what Voller was thinking, I have to take into account the possibility that he was saying that the appearance of the Diary which caused him to think it was 80-90 years old included both the fading and the bronzing and that both effects could be produced by an artificial fading apparatus or UV sunlamp.
Well this is exactly the sort of thing I was asking about, and the answer is hardly enlightening, if my cat will excuse the pun. The bronzing Voller saw in the diary was very slight, barely visible and only apparent in one or two places when he held the book up to the window, yet he thought the writing was at least 90 years old. If he was right, how old would it have been when the first signs of bronzing appeared? And I still have no idea how much Diamine bronzes by comparison, or how obvious it would be to the observer of an original sample [not a photo or photocopy!].
What I understand Voller was shown was a colour photocopy of Nick Warren's 1995 test sample which was made in 1998, i.e. three years after the sample was written, i.e. exactly the same number of years after 1992 when Voller examined the Diary in 1995. This colour photocopy (i.e. from 1998) is what I have already reproduced in this forum.
I'll look out for that. So far I can only recall seeing the photo David took of an original test sample from 1995.
Yes it was a colour photocopy not the original but we're not doing a precise scientific experiment here. We are simply trying to get to the truth and the colour photocopy is good enough for our purposes. Voller certainly had no objection to it and felt able to express an opinion in writing based on viewing it.
Ah, so now Voller is elevated almost to Dr status, and his opinion on this colour photocopy amounts to getting to 'the truth'. Wonderful. Or it might have been if this had involved a 'like for like' comparison, visually or chemically, between the original diary and an original test sample in Diamine.
I wonder what Voller would make of pages 34 and 35 of Robert's book and how he would explain the differences.
Moreover, and crucially, it would seem that the Diary could have been written with Diamine ink because it exhibits similar characteristics to Nick Warren's test sample.
Shame about Robert's book then, because it begs to differ.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
The embarrassingly desperate attempts by the Chief Diary Defender to suggest that Nick Warren created some kind of forged test sample can be ignored but what about the claim that I pointed out some "twattish behaviour" of Warren?
What actually happened is that Robert Smith claimed in his book that an anonymous letter sent to him in (he says) 1995 was written by Nick Warren (using a sample of Diamine ink). The Chief Diary Defender simply accepted this and referred to it as a sample sent to Smith by Warren. But not a jot of evidence has been provided to support the claim that it was Warren who wrote and sent the letter and Smith did not think to reproduce it in his book.
I had to point out that, as the letter is anonymous, it cannot be linked to an individual without evidence.
The point could be cleared up very simply by a copy of the letter being produced so that we can all see (a) whether it is in Nick Warren's handwriting and (b) whether it exhibits the same bluish undertones as Smith's own 2012 test sample.
No such copy has been produced despite Robert Smith being a "close friend" of the Chief Diary Defender.
What conclusions can we draw from that?
That Robert doesn't post here and may not have read the latest posts.
If he decides not to embarrass Warren further by producing his anonymous letter, thereby completely undermining all the recent attempts to flog the life back into the dead Diamine horse, I will be a trifle disappointed but there'd be bugger all I could do about it. David can just carry on blaming others for their failure to respond to his increasingly petulant demands, which he clearly wants to be ignored so he can fill his empty evenings with even more empty complaints about having nobody to play with but the cat's mother.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
I still don't understand the point made about the "prophesy" which is all I asked RJ about, and while someone has had fun trashing Melvin Harris (a person who is elsewhere held up as an authority on ink!) this doesn't help with the issue of what the connection is supposed to be between Harris saying in early December 1994 that he would name three forgers and Mike Barrett identifying three forgers in his affidavit of 5th January 1995. I couldn't care less if Harris got the identity of the forgers wrong or got it right but decided not to say anything on legal advice because he didnít want to be sued. It's not what I was asking about. I suppose actually focussing on the question I asked and dealing in facts is too difficult for some when there is a dead person they can merrily abuse.
So I post a snippet of factual information from Devereux's will and am asked how "low" I can go? It's bizarre. I have seen a theory (not mine) that Devereux was the driving force behind the Diary and was transferring his own feelings about his wife onto the Diary's author. That's a theory and, given what Mike says in his affidavit, it has to be worth considering. I appreciate that some people don't like it when facts are posted and would prefer to engage in full rampant speculation (something I deliberately avoided in my post about Devereux's will) but I prefer to post the facts, not hide them, thank you very much.
Oh, ha ha, so now we are being told that there IS a note of Keith Skinner's 2004 meeting with Colin Rhodes are we? Yesterday, it was "Note? What note?" Today, it's: Yes there is a note but there's also a recording!!!! Unbelievable. How disingenuous can one get?
Clearly, knowing how meticulous Keith Skinner is, I figured there must be a note. So where is it? Why has it not been produced?
I just don't understand.
And the idea that someone is "repeating herself" when that person is actually giving different answers to the same question - one day attempting to deny the existence of a note, the next day admitting it exists - is extraordinary.
I need to wrap my head around Diary Defender logic. Asking for a note to be produced means that I don't want it to be produced. And doing so in some way is supposed to be "pissing people" off (according to the person who is, apparently, the official spokesperson of those who donít post or produce information). So in order to get a note produced I am not supposed to ask for it to be produced, is that right? Is that how it works?
So how does one ensure a note is produced? Psychically? Through the power of the mind?
It gets even harder to ask for a note to be produced when the response is "Note? What note?" because that would be the response when such a note doesn't exist. Now that this feeble attempt at evasion has been exposed the usual nastiness emerges.
There appears to be some sort of misapprehension that I actually care, for myself, whether documents are produced or not. Like I'm sitting here eagerly waiting for them like an excited schoolboy. But if we are genuinely trying to get to the truth of this matter then it's perfectly obvious that documents should be produced when available. Or how else are we going to make progress, as opposed to going round and round in circles with endless speculation (which some people obviously enjoy)?
If someone of Keith Skinner's stature says that a document is going to be produced in "a few weeks" then that is what I would expect to happen and it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask why this promise hasn't been kept. How long am I supposed to wait before asking? A year? Ten years? Twenty?
No answer has been provided as to why the Diary transcript prepared by the Barretts hasn't been produced, as it was promised it would be, just speculation that Keith or James might be "busy". Well if that's the case why is it not possible for Keith or someone else (if Keith is too busy) to say that he's too busy now but will do it at the first opportunity? I had thought that Keith Skinner joined this forum specifically for the purpose of answering questions and providing information. He's yet to make a single post on his own account!
And if Keith Skinner has a problem with any of my posts (which would greatly surprise me) he can presumably say so himself rather than have dark hints dropped via his official or unofficial spokesperson, the same person who tries to turn everything I say into an attack on him and has, for reasons best known to herself, been doing this at every possible opportunity for the past two years.