September 17th Letter

[Rob Clack]

Dulux? Your input is always appreciated, Rob, but I don't see how using contraceptives in this case would have changed anything.

Oh I don't know, it sounded as if you needed some protection

[John Bennett]

I'm just glad John didn't take up my suggestion of using a Dulux colour chart by the letter to help get the colour reproduction right, otherwise some people might be pointing the finger at a big fluffy dog as the faker.

Rob

Dulux? Your input is always appreciated, Rob, but I don't see how using contraceptives in this case would have changed anything.

[Rob Clack]

I'm just glad John didn't take up my suggestion of using a Dulux colour chart by the letter to help get the colour reproduction right, otherwise some people might be pointing the finger at a big fluffy dog as the faker.

Rob

[Cap'n Jack]

I accept that, John, but I still question your use of such a modern background for the image.

[John Bennett]

In that the modern lined paper intentionally reflects the photographer's ambitions and design in regard to this letter; in that I mean to modernise the letter with special effects to attach a degree of doubt and speculation to the original?
Subtle, but it works.

(My emphases in this quote)

Just for reference, that was the 'offending' phrase.

'Ambitions'? No, Sir.

[Dan Norder]

In other words, a few of you are about to get sticky egg all over your faces

Bower could say the moon was made out of green cheese if the check Cornwell gave him was big enough, but that wouldn't mean the scientists at NASA have eggs on their faces.

[John Bennett]

Monty
I don't think I questioned John's intention, it was his method and practise that bothered me, in that he may have made an error by photographing this letter against an obviously modern background.
This I believe has had a subtle - but deadly - influence on how many might view or consider the letter.
I made the same argument about his choice of colour for the image he posted.

Thanks AP, this is a criticism I have no problem with. I did what I did and if anybody thinks it was executed well or clumsily (for want of a better word) then it is a matter of opinion and as you would probably agree, valid. I just took umbrage to any inference that I was intentionally doctoring material to suit an end, i.e. to push the 'fake' argument.

Certainly not intended, believe you me.

JB

[Cap'n Jack]

Monty
I don't think I questioned John's intention, it was his method and practise that bothered me, in that he may have made an error by photographing this letter against an obviously modern background.
This I believe has had a subtle - but deadly - influence on how many might view or consider the letter.
I made the same argument about his choice of colour for the image he posted.

[DVV]

AP,
I respect your position, but since some say: "Now, prove it to be false", I just want to point out that it should be quite the reverse: "Please, the matter can be of interest, so try to prove it to be genuine" (since it has been discovered in 1987, no contemporary newspaper mentioned it, etc).

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

St Jack

That a serious post AP?

Cos questioning the intentions of John, one of the most honest people on these boards, who holds no bias or intention to any suspect or theory, is tantamount to the very act you dispise, no?

Monty

[DVV]

Hi John Benett,
Right,
but in my opinion it's just logical to think this document to be a hoax (for many reasons). I don't "want" this letter to be a hoax, it really looks like.

Amitiés,
David

[Cap'n Jack]

My own point of view - right from the start of this - has been to stand by the side of someone who I thought was being unfairly bullied and villified by an outspoken majority who had absolutely no intention of indulging in fair play or fair comment.
It matters not a jot to me whether the letter is genuine or not.
I just don't like bullies; and they don't like me.

[John Bennett]

Some people want this letter to be genuine.
Why?
I will never know.

Some people want it to be proved genuine and others want it proved otherwise. This issue (like many in the field) has its advocators and critics, it's nothing new.

[DVV]

Some people want this letter to be genuine.
Why?
I will never know.

[Chris]

In other words, a few of you are about to get sticky egg all over your faces and are frantically stitching together your backtrack pants in advance.

While you're continuing to post here, it would be really helpful if you could answer that question about the tests you said you'd been told about by a senior member of staff at the National Archives.

On Friday you appeared to confirm that I had correctly understood what you were saying, but then your post was removed. That makes me wonder whether you had had second thoughts.

So please can you confirm whether the following is correct? Are you saying that the senior member of staff of the National Archives told you that tests had been conducted by TNA, and that they had determined that the paper came from the relevant period, and that the ink was "as it should be"?

If that is correct, I will ask someone at the National Archives whether they can provide further details of these tests.