Blurred

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378290]

Pierre

The Dear Boss letter is a red herring!

Yes, but the journalists used the same types of descriptions for it as for the GSG, THAT is my point. <

So - and thanks for highlighting this - the view on the red herring became the view on the GSG. This means that we have many problems with the 1888 views on the GSG, i.e. the following:

1. Some journalists expected the handwriting to have been looking something like the Dear Boss letter and they distributed this perspective through their newspaper articles - and here we are with it!

2. The GSG was interpreted in different ways, so you have a variety of interpretations about the deciphering of the GSG - and on top of that you have interpretations based on the view on the Dear Boss letter.

3. Swanson did not state anything of the above when he wrote about the GSG!

4. Swanson had another description, in fact two:
a) The text was written in "a normal hand".
b) The text was "blurred".

So I think these discrepancies between the descriptions of the journalists and Swanson - as well as the view of ripperologists on the GSG - are important to discuss.


You have argued on the thread "An important discovery", which of course it was not, that not only was it not from the killer, but was a fake, written after the event, did you not? You then introduced it into this thread, post #47, on the face of it, to attempt to use it as an argument for not accepting the press reports on the GSG, has you claim they carried a bias from the Dear Boss letter.

However it is obviously that it may have been introduced as a diversion, to avoid answering the question first raised in post #27 and again in post #44 of this thread:

as to why you equate Swanson's word "blurred" with being written by a left hand. Of course you have still given no support for for this suggestion.

Did you read the result of my pilot study? The hypothesis is built on that.

Also there is new data that I am researching now and can not discuss.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Last time I mentioned Long was in regard to Pierre. I don't think Long can be tied into anything other than the GSG controversy.

I don't know Long's "beat" history, so no clue as to where he was on the other relevant nights.

Thanks Jerry

was just wondering ?

cheers

Steve

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry

That is my point, he is trying to fit the theory he has to the evidence, this is all theory lead, not evidence lead .

Not heard Long mentioned in ages, think the last time was by you.
As a matter of interest how many can he be tied to apart from Mackenzie?, I know you have said you don't suspect him, so may not have an answer to that?

Steve

Last time I mentioned Long was in regard to Pierre. I don't think Long can be tied into anything other than the GSG controversy.

I don't know Long's "beat" history, so no clue as to where he was on the other relevant nights.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. You do not know to use the sources properly, being an amateur. But that is why I told you that the sampling frame was The British Newspaper Archive. So perhaps you will learn this now.

In your post #47, when you made the point under discussion, you didn't say anything about a "sampling frame"; in fact, you didn't mention the British Newspaper Archive at all. Even if you had done, it would simply have meant that you selected an inappropriate "sampling frame" which produced a false result. This is the sign of a rank amateur non-historian and it is no wonder that you don't want to read this reply which is a sign of someone unable to face up to the reality of their own sloppy research.

[Elamarna]

My personal opinion is that he/she thinks the killer used both hands. Trained by the 9th Lancers. That's why he/she is so concerned with the GSG. Alfred Long was trained to use both hands.

Hi Jerry

That is my point, he is trying to fit the theory he has to the evidence, this is all theory lead, not evidence lead .

Not heard Long mentioned in ages, think the last time was by you.
As a matter of interest how many can he be tied to apart from Mackenzie?, I know you have said you don't suspect him, so may not have an answer to that?

Steve

[jerryd]

Nice Try,

Yes I agree there is no way of knowing if the GSG was blurred or not, and I also agree that Swanson's would have had all the information before him, so his views cannot be completely ignored. And to look at what this could have meant was a good idea.

However you hypothesised that the GSG was written by a left hand, an idea from left field so to speak.

Despite repeated attempts to know why you suggested this? what lead you to consider this?, the far lesser of the two possibilities, you have STILL not given an answer.

You further went on to say that you were not saying the writer was left handed. Again you give no reason for this suggestion.

When I first saw the length of the post #90 I hoped you had given the answer to the question asked.
Alas while you have attempted to explain the Dear Boss letter; there is no attempt to answer the other question.
Why do you find it so hard to explain, if as you say:

"Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally,"


You are truly adept at smoke screens my friend.

Steve

My personal opinion is that he/she thinks the killer used both hands. Trained by the 9th Lancers. That's why he/she is so concerned with the GSG. Alfred Long was trained to use both hands.

[Elamarna]

Nice Try,

Yes I agree there is no way of knowing if the GSG was blurred or not, and I also agree that Swanson's would have had all the information before him, so his views cannot be completely ignored. And to look at what this could have meant was a good idea.

However you hypothesised that the GSG was written by a left hand, an idea from left field so to speak.

Despite repeated attempts to know why you suggested this? what lead you to consider this?, the far lesser of the two possibilities, you have STILL not given an answer.

You further went on to say that you were not saying the writer was left handed. Again you give no reason for this suggestion.

When I first saw the length of the post #90 I hoped you had given the answer to the question asked.
Alas while you have attempted to explain the Dear Boss letter; there is no attempt to answer the other question.
Why do you find it so hard to explain, if as you say:

"Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally,"


You are truly adept at smoke screens my friend.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378302]

Show some humility and maybe people may respond to you in a different way.

As long as David sets the tone here with his constant misunderstanding, belittling and ridiculing that is what everyone here seems to favour.

Back on topic

Thank you.

This is a thread you began, attempting to show that Swanson's use of the word "blurred" had somehow meant the GSG was written by someone using their left hand.

Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally, but I find it interesting. I want to see if history can develop the knowledge about the case. So hypotheses are good.

you made it clear you were not saying the writer was left handed, that was a very interesting statement, and we both know why.

However to date you have failed to prove that suggestion, or even advance it.
Instead YOU bring the issue of the Dear Boss letter, which does nothing but mudy the waters as you well know.

Steve, it was actually you who told me that I should take into account that the GSG was written in a good schoolboy hand. # 46:

"Please take into account the writing is described as good schoolboy, meaning a trained stylized hand."

And when you did so I became curious and started to analyse the sources for that expression. And then I found that the sources were not reliable and that the expression is not in the original inquest. I also found a variation of that expression and similar expressions about the Dear Boss letter so I hypothesized that the journalists expected the GSG to have been written by the author of the Dear Boss letter.

So since you wanted me to take that expression or that statement as you see it into account, I did, by analysing it.

And what could the connection be between that statement and the statement of Swanson?

He writes "an ordinary hand", so there does not seem to be any connection.

From this we can not draw any conclusions that the statement of the GSG being "blurred" was based on reliable sources (that Swanson had) but at least we can say that Swanson looked upon the matter differently than did some journalists.

I repeat the point from post #82,

"While you refuse to say why you equate "blurred" with the text having been written by a left hand this entire thread is pointless."

Regards

I do not think it pointless to try and get some knowledge about what Swanson could have known, given that he was the chief inspector and should know more about the GSG than some journalists.

So that was what I wanted to do.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Your post makes my point for me Pierre

"It sadly appears you are incapable of ever admitting a failing or a mistake."


Show some humility and maybe people may respond to you in a different way.


Back on topic

This is a thread you began, attempting to show that Swanson's use of the word "blurred" had somehow meant the GSG was written by someone using their left hand. you made it clear you were not saying the writer was left handed, that was a very interesting statement, and we both know why.

However to date you have failed to prove that suggestion, or even advance it.
Instead YOU bring the issue of the Dear Boss letter, which does nothing but mudy the waters as you well know.

I repeat the point from post #82,

"While you refuse to say why you equate "blurred" with the text having been written by a left hand this entire thread is pointless."

Regards

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378300][QUOTE=Pierre;378298]

Pierre

These were your words

Donīt tell me what my "words" were. Read what I say instead.

"So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did."

So my friend you did say not my fault, archives fault.

No, the archive omitted the article. But I am not "blaming" the archive.

What is the problem now, Steve? I know that this archive is not "complete". And my selection is not "complete". There are A LOT of articles about the two issues discussed. But many say the same thing.

Why donīt you read what I say here?

Do you just want to get cheap points?

Do you feel you want to protect David?

Are you in a bad mood?

I donīt see why you systematically misinterpret me.

It is raining today. But I donīt blame the sky. It is monday (if it was). But I donīt blame the week for not making it a tuesday. An archive is limited. I donīt blame it.

IT IS JUST AB OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE DISCUSSED IS NOT IN THAT ARCHIVE.

That is no mistake. And nothing to worry about.

But look at the different articles and read the analysis. Also, read Davids post about 100 percent. There you have something to worry about.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378298]

You can not blame a collection of texts. This is just Davids strategy as usual. Belittling and ridiculing everything I say. The words are his, not mine.

And David fails do even discuss the subject. As do you. The subject is the reliability of the sources. Not "blaming" an archive.

But of course, that subject does not sit well with David. He relies on them 100 percent.



Regards, Pierre

Pierre

These were your words

"So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did."

So my friend you did say not my fault, archives fault.

Anyone who uses the British Newspaper Archive, should know of its limitations, some papers are not covered at all.
However it is still a useful source as you seem to feel having apparently relied on it for much of post #81.

If you were not aware of the limitations of the archive its not a problem, just say so and move on.

It sadly appears you are incapable of ever admitting a failing or a mistake.



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378297]

That is so funny Pierre, my sides are splitting. If the below is not "blaming" the archive what is it?

You can not blame a collection of texts. This is just Davids strategy as usual. Belittling and ridiculing everything I say. The words are his, not mine.

And David fails do even discuss the subject. As do you. The subject is the reliability of the sources. Not "blaming" an archive.

But of course, that subject does not sit well with David. He relies on them 100 percent.

Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Historians do not "blame" archives. Go to a university and ask people there. They will help you understand.

That is so funny Pierre, my sides are splitting. If the below is not "blaming" the archive what is it?

So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;378292]

This is the problem with amateur non-historians, they don't know how to use the sources properly.

Yes, I know. You do not know to use the sources properly, being an amateur. But that is why I told you that the sampling frame was The British Newspaper Archive. So perhaps you will learn this now.

(This is the only type of language he manages and understands!)

The "British Newspaper Archive" is not an archive of every British newspaper. Far from it, it contains only a small minority of British newspapers. It does not contain back issues of the Daily Telegraph. Therefore, there is no point searching for text of the Daily Telegraph in the British Newspaper Archive.

That is something we all know, so perhaps you would try to understand this as well. And especially as I, in my initial post to Steve - and not to you - wrote that there "seems" to be a problem with the sources.

But "seems" is a word that you have had a hard time trying to understand in your conversations earlier with Fisherman so probably you did not understand it when I wrote it either.

Very amusing, though, the way that Pierre blames the British Newspaper Archive for his own shoddy research. Somehow I managed to find the reference in the Daily Telegraph and the reference in the London Daily News; it wasn't difficult.

Historians do not "blame" archives. Go to a university and ask people there. They will help you understand.

When added to the reports from the Times and The Morning Post, these self-evidently prove that Pierre has got it all completely and disastrously wrong and I don't think I need to say any more on the topic.

Disaster. Yes, that is a good description of your accusations and misinterpretations here.

And as others have done before me I say "bye David". You are not honest. So back to the ignore function again.

[David Orsam]

However, I have read the "answer" of David. He accuses me of ”omitting an article” and, as usual, he is wrong.

The British Newspaper Archive does not produce the article from The Daily Telegraph when I search ”round hand”.

So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did.

This is the problem with amateur non-historians, they don't know how to use the sources properly.

The "British Newspaper Archive" is not an archive of every British newspaper. Far from it, it contains only a small minority of British newspapers. It does not contain back issues of the Daily Telegraph. Therefore, there is no point searching for text of the Daily Telegraph in the British Newspaper Archive.

Very amusing, though, the way that Pierre blames the British Newspaper Archive for his own shoddy research. Somehow I managed to find the reference in the Daily Telegraph and the reference in the London Daily News; it wasn't difficult.

When added to the reports from the Times and The Morning Post, these self-evidently prove that Pierre has got it all completely and disastrously wrong and I don't think I need to say any more on the topic.