Questions for Fairclough

[DVV]

Keep thinking of it, then.

[Malcolm X]

Hello David. I am still unclear on why one cannot accept Toppy as Hutch and yet utterly reject the Royal Conspiracy Theory.

Cheers.
LC

well the Royal Conspiracy is total garbage and to be honest not worth discussing.....

Reg had Toppy's photo when Ivor went around to see him, but this visit was arranged well in advance, so there's just enough time to get someone else to pose for a photo and pretend that it's your dad...... but Reg had a proven father ....... yes exactly.

but there's no proof that this person is the same GH that saw MJK, you can link REG to Toppy and this has to be true anyway... obviously, but you can not link this to MJK.

This is where your arguement fails, because both REG and Toppy are true and are connected to Whitechapel for sure...... but there is no proof that Toppy is this very same GH.

they could both be pretending, for sure, you are a nice guy Richard but too trusting and i definitely wouldn't trust Fairclough either

all of this looks like a stitch up job, it's very suspicious.

the real GH eyewitness made his name up and all that Fairclough did was to look for someone back in 1888 called by this very same name, he then picked up a phone book and traced his modern day relatives, this took time.

there are a few other GH around at this same time too, so it wasn't that hard for Fairclough to do so, because Lechmere/ Sam Flyn have done so too, you can probably trace the modern day relatives of these other GH as well.

so once he did this, they just made up a story together..... simple.

Ivor told me that he spoke to Reg, he told me that he thought that Reg was lieing... so there you go.

[DVV]

Are you pulling my leg ?

I just cannot see the Toppy = Hutch equation as inextricably bound up in Fairclough's theorising.
Cheers.
LC

Because the "Toppy = Hutch equation" appears ONLY in Fairclough theorising, as far as I'm aware.

Worse : the only other person Reg has been in touch with (regarding Toppy) said he did not believe him, as it seems.

[DVV]

Ruby ? Lechmere ? Caz ? (sorry for those I forget)

Still flatly sure the pic is genuine ?

That would be admirable.

"Also, further allegations that Prince Albert Victor lived as a secret prisoner in Glamis Castle until the 1930's, a photograph purporting to be of the Prince, taken in 1910, being among the illustrations." (A to Z, p 435)

For the record, PAV died in 1892.

[caz]

Hi DVV,

I'm not sure where I gave an opinion on the photo.

But I'm with Lynn and others on this one. If Fairclough knowingly used bogus material to push some theory or other, it doesn't follow that everything he has ever claimed or been involved with must be thrown out as bogus.

If he claims the sun will rise and set tomorrow, will you laugh at all the fools who think he could actually be right on this occasion?

Since GH existed and Toppy existed, and nobody has yet been able to prove that GH was or wasn't Toppy, then it follows that Fairclough cannot be accused of knowing that Toppy was not the witness when claiming otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi Caroline

Hi DVV,

I'm not sure where I gave an opinion on the photo.

My (only) mistake, then. Sorry !

But I'm with Lynn and others on this one. If Fairclough knowingly used bogus material to push some theory or other, it doesn't follow that everything he has ever claimed or been involved with must be thrown out as bogus.

Once again, since Toppy=Hutch appears ONLY in Fairclough's, I have EVERY reason to doubt its veracity, and this goes for the photo as well.

It's not a mere suspect-book (on which the majority of us would peacefully disagree), it's an incredible collection of false evidences and fake documents, or so it seems.

That's where Toppy-the-witness comes from, and that's the only ripper book in which Reginald chose to speak.

[DVV]

Now certainly Richard will come and remind the forum that Reg did spoke to the radio in the 70s, but since this programme seems to have passed completely unnoticed, it doesn't change anything : Toppy-the-witness really appears in Fairclough.

I've never doubted Richard's words about him listening this programme (in his aunt's garden, that's it ?), but how can he be sure that it was the same man that Fairclough "discovered" 20 years later ?

And assuming it was the same guy (let's be generous), why did he remain silent for two decades ?
And why, lastly, did he talk to the craziest royal theorist ever and nobody else ?

The more I'm thinking of Toppy, the bigger is the rat I smell.

[lynn cates]

You're a naughty boy, Clement.

Hello Malcolm.

"This is where your argument fails, because both REG and Toppy are true and are connected to Whitechapel for sure...... but there is no proof that Toppy is this very same GH. "

Hmm, what IS my argument?

Let's try this. Let's say that Lord Salisbury was a naughty Tory. Now let's say you write a book that says "Ah, but Lord Salisbury was a naughty Tory. Fie upon him!" Suppose later your book is discredited. Does it follow that LS was an outstandingly good Tory? He may have been a naughty boy for all that.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Let's try this. Let's say that Lord Salisbury was a naughty Tory. Now let's say you write a book that says "Ah, but Lord Salisbury was a naughty Tory. Fie upon him!" Suppose later your book is discredited. Does it follow that LS was an outstandingly good Tory? He may have been a naughty boy for all that.

Cheers.
LC

A very bad example. Or is it a conscious sophism ?

For in the case of Salisbury, we know who is Salisbury, whereas in Toppy case, we ONLY have the words of a dubious book as a proof of the subject identity, while it's precisely this identity which is in question here (Toppy=Hutch or not).

Try another, my dear.

[lynn cates]

propositions

Hello David.

"Because the "Toppy = Hutch equation" appears ONLY in Fairclough theorising, as far as I'm aware."

Are you suggesting that Gareth and Christer are Royal Conspiracy theorists?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but:

1. Fairclough believed Toppy = Hutch

and

2. Toppy = Hutch

assert different propositions. This can easily be verified by noting the scope of the epistemic/doxastic operator in (1) and its absence in (2).

Hence, we seem to have the following set of truth values.

i) (1) is false and (2) is false.

ii) (1) is false and (2) is true.

iii) (1) is true and (2) is false.

iv) (1) is true and (2) is true.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

point

Hello David.

"For in the case of Salisbury, we know who is Salisbury, whereas in Toppy case, we ONLY have the words of a dubious book as a proof of the subject identity, and worse, it's precisely this identity which is in question here."

You have completely missed the point. See my other post above.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Are you suggesting that Gareth and Christer are Royal Conspiracy theorists?

LC

Why hiding yourself behind Gareth and Fish ? if you believe they are signature experts and endorse their opinion, then you don't need Fairclough nor my misguided posts, the case is closed for you.

To me, it's less so than ever.

Then if not closed in your opinion either, do tell me, please, where it is said that Toppy was the witness ? where and nowhere else ?, I mean. (Btw I'd like to know what did Edwards disbelieve : was it Reg's story only ? Or both his story and the Toppy=Hutch theory ?)

[DVV]

here."

You have completely missed the point. See my other post above.


LC

I don't need your above post to comment the previous ones, believe it or not.

[lynn cates]

ontology vs epistemology

Hello David.

"Why hiding yourself behind Gareth and Fish ?"

Not at all. You listed 1 theorist (of which you were aware); I added 2 more.

And, just as with Fairclough, Gareth and Christer's beliefs are independent of whether or not Toppy = Hutch.

If Toppy = Hutch, that's an ontological statement. Same if Toppy does not equal Hutch.

But X BELIEVES that Toppy = Hutch, is an epistemological statement.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

You are replying "Oh, you've missed my point" after I've proved your point was pointless, if I can say.

It is clear for anybody on the thread that you are saying one thing and one thing only : it is not because Faircluff theory is bullshit that all is bullshit in his book.

Quite a simple idea that I've not missed, as savage as I am.

And I'm just telling you that as long as the only source for Toppy=Hutch will be Fairclough, the reasonable position is to doubt its veracity and look forward for more solid evidence.

For the last time, we are not dealing with an ill-documented study, but with a deliberate swindle using fake diaries and fake pics.

If I had to prove my father was Hutchinson, I'd rather go to SPE than to Nostradamus. Reg only went to Nostradamus.