Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Well when your nine, it was awesome. Lol
    No doubt, lol. Don't get me wrong, in terms of what Patterson achieved, it was a stellar performance, but it wasn't really foolproof.

    I love the analogy, though, because the "soppy, unintelligible cowboy" act worked a charm on the people who did buy it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
      But Mike, there's no way even the most sophisticated costumers could've manufactured a suit that convincing back in the medieval era - er, sorry, in 1967! It's just impossible. And also, look at the way Patty walks: sort of hunching down slightly: that's not how humans normally walk, and if that was a man in a suit they would obviously just walk in a completely normal walk and not try to disguise their gait at all.

      Also, at about 3.04 in the unedited PGF if you look to the left of where Patty is disappearing into the woods you can clearly see there is a second gunman on the grassy knoll, just to the rear of the moon-landing props.
      You'd be surprised what some people actually believe when it comes to the PGF, lol. A Second gunman on the grassy knoll isn't too far from some of the strange theories out there!

      Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
      You need to stop seeing the wood, Mike, and get lost in the trees.

      The devil is in the details.

      Sole demonstrated provenance? Part-time writer? Obtained a blank Victorian diary? Confessed to a role in the forgery?

      Pah! Never mind that! Only a simpleton would fail to see that there is probably a deeper story hidden behind each of those facts, an explanation other than the obvious one. Look at these time sheets, and start riddling-out the various conflicting and meaningless statements by various electricians etc, none of which have been demonstrated to have a scintilla of truth to them, or any definitive relevance even if true.

      Stop seeing the wood. You're not supposed to!
      This is exactly my point, Henry; in that people will go out of their way to reason against the almost glaringly obvious, just because it doesn't fit their perceived and preferred notions of what must have happened.

      It's a case of well let's ignore that for a second, and that, and that. A foolish road to go down is one in which you spend so much time pushing the most likely solutions to one side and giving the benefit of the doubt to the unreasonable, and we see it time and time again with the Maybrick farce, just as we do with literally every other area of general woo, such as Bigfoot, the moon landings, 9/11, aliens, Kennedy, etc.

      People talk about coincidence, yet to accept that the diary is an older artifact, you've got to swallow coincidence after coincidence and go around the world to think up excuses for such silly things as pubs being known by untraceable nicknames, lol. "Some fella told me it was known as the Post House, but I don't think I can tell you his name or anything about him, but trust me, he was legit!"

      And the beat goes on.

      Comment


      • Forget the Patterson film...meanwhile the discussion lingers on... Brain Rawes, Eddie Lyons, Paul Dodd, Paul Feldman, etc. etc. What a confusing mess.

        Who's gonna straighten it all out? And when?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Hi rj,

          Yes, in the specific scenario whereby Anne takes an active part in either the composition or the writing out of the diary. I'd have told Mike to take a running jump. He'd have been on his own. In fact, I'd probably have phoned Doreen myself and said: "Don't believe him. He might sound plausible but he's just a very naughty boy - and a compulsive liar to boot".
          This is interesting, because you're basically doing exactly what you accused David of doing, which was hypothesizing about certain scenarios based on what you feel, and how you would react or think in a particular situation.


          Originally posted by caz View Post
          Ah, so you follow my own line of thinking, that Mike was only ever a "professional freelance journalist" in the loosest possible sense, and any work he submitted would have been done, or at least heavily tidied up, by his fool of a wife, and then presumably edited again by the magazine people before they accepted it for publication?
          That's quite a lot of assuming you're doing there, Caz. Interesting. Another case of putting your own spin on things based on what you think, which, again, is what you claimed David was doing.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            You seem to be judging Mike's truthfulness by what you personally find most likely to be true.
            And you seem to be judging certain scenarios based on what you personally find most likely to be true. Is it just me, or is this a tedious exercise in futility?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              If those floorboards were up before the morning tea break, the diary could have been in the Saddle - courtesy of the electrician who lived just down the road - when Mike turned up for his daily beer rations before collecting Caroline from the primary school opposite.
              I thought they took it to a random Liverpool university building first? How long did it take for them to ring up a random department in any number of random university-affiliated buildings across town and set up a random meeting with a random member of staff? Apparently, these details are lost to the sands of time. Funny, that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                Forget the Patterson film...meanwhile the discussion lingers on... Brain Rawes, Eddie Lyons, Paul Dodd, Paul Feldman, etc. etc. What a confusing mess.

                Who's gonna straighten it all out? And when?
                You'd do well to take note of the Patterson film, tbh. This discussion will always linger on, Scott. That's the problem!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  Forget the Patterson film...meanwhile the discussion lingers on... Brain Rawes, Eddie Lyons, Paul Dodd, Paul Feldman, etc. etc. What a confusing mess.

                  Who's gonna straighten it all out? And when?
                  Letís not forget devereaux who seems to have been dropped from the story by those now reinventing it.

                  Remember the one Mike said gave it to him, the same one Anne said she gave it to to give Mike.

                  No wonder no one believes any of it.
                  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


                  • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                    Haha, cheers, Sam. No chance! It was very uneventful, tbh. While it was interesting to see the players, etc, I was mostly bored by it all, a friend I was with seemed to enjoy it, though.
                    Hi Mike,

                    Keith Skinner looked out for you at the conference, expecting you to say hello and challenge him on all sorts. He even checked the attendees list with no luck and came away assuming you didn't book your place after all.

                    Of course, he was also assuming your username was your real name, which is not necessarily the case. So were you just too shy to speak to him when you had the chance? It's a great pity because you could have cleared up some issues with the man himself and shared the results with us here on your return.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                      Nah, it's mainly an obvious conclusion based on the lack of other contenders and the fact that the entire saga is riddled with inconsistencies and silliness, coupled with the fact that Mike actually got hold of a Victorian diary and was clearly the type to want to get involved in something like that in order to acquire some type of fame, and money, that he wasn't getting in his regular work as a bit-writer.
                      So would you concede that if, for argument's sake, Mike didn't have anything to do with creating the diary, but was shown it by someone else, he was just the kind of person who'd want to 'get involved' with something like that 'in order to acquire some type of fame, and money', that he wasn't getting as a house husband in March 1992?

                      Considering all of the coincidences you're willing to gobble down in order to have the diary be an older hoax...
                      Sorry, Mike, but could you describe one or two of these 'coincidences' I'd have had to 'gobble down' if I wanted to believe it was an older hoax?

                      As I've said on many an occasion, the handwriting arguments apply as much to all the named modern players as they do to Maybrick. It's hardly a huge leap of faith to speculate [which is par for the course around here and all any of us can do without proof] that if the diary was not penned in the late 19th century, it might not have been penned circa 1992 by anyone in Mike's creative writing circle either.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                        You completely failed to answer or address any of Henry's post, there, Caz.
                        In that case, Henry must have completely failed to bring this oversight to my attention, or was too much of a gentleman to do so.

                        Since you didn't quote Henry's post when quoting my response, I assume you are not actually asking me to find it and try again.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                          "Some fella told me it was known as the Post House, but I don't think I can tell you his name or anything about him, but trust me, he was legit!"

                          And the beat goes on.
                          If you need to lie, Mike, may I suggest you take a step back and work out why?

                          I've already told you the name of the extremely nice, local pub history buff who indicated to me where the Liverpool posthouse was, and I've already told you that the former landlord of Rigby's in Dale Street indicated the same building to Robert Smith when he was there back in the 90s. Neither of them directed us to the tiny Poste House in Cumberland Street, even though this is much nearer to Rigby's than the Old Post Office.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                            I thought they took it to a random Liverpool university building first?
                            Did you, Mike? Why's that then? Besides, I thought you didn't believe in any such visit.

                            How long did it take for them to ring up a random department in any number of random university-affiliated buildings across town and set up a random meeting with a random member of staff? Apparently, these details are lost to the sands of time. Funny, that.
                            I have no idea. Not sure why you're asking me, as I don't think any such visit - if it happened as Arthur Rigby described - could have taken place during a tea break or lunch hour on floorboards day. He was working in the house for 8 hours.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              Hi Mike,

                              Keith Skinner looked out for you at the conference, expecting you to say hello and challenge him on all sorts. He even checked the attendees list with no luck and came away assuming you didn't book your place after all.

                              Of course, he was also assuming your username was your real name, which is not necessarily the case. So were you just too shy to speak to him when you had the chance? It's a great pity because you could have cleared up some issues with the man himself and shared the results with us here on your return.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              No, mate. As I say, I was in a bit of a hurry as I actually have a life to lead! lol. I'm a busy man, Caz. I didn't have time to "challenge" an old bloke about his hobbies. I probably wasn't on the list because I bought my ticket on the day and went with David Upton, a man I believe you have met before. Tell Keith, if he wants a straightener or something then he's free to PM me

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                So would you concede that if, for argument's sake, Mike didn't have anything to do with creating the diary, but was shown it by someone else, he was just the kind of person who'd want to 'get involved' with something like that 'in order to acquire some type of fame, and money', that he wasn't getting as a house husband in March 1992?
                                I don't rule out the idea that Mike didn't concoct it, but I'd be very surprised if he had nothing whatsoever to do with it, very surprised. I've said this before; I believe Mike was involved to some extent.



                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Sorry, Mike, but could you describe one or two of these 'coincidences' I'd have had to 'gobble down' if I wanted to believe it was an older hoax?
                                Come on, Caz, you know which coincidences I'm talking about as I've brought them up, as others have, many times before. David has brought them up many times over. For one, you were very insistent that the Poste House was actually the Tavern, and that one secret gent was privy to this knowledge, while nobody else was, you know the rest of the coincidences, so I won't go into it atm.

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                As I've said on many an occasion, the handwriting arguments apply as much to all the named modern players as they do to Maybrick. It's hardly a huge leap of faith to speculate [which is par for the course around here and all any of us can do without proof] that if the diary was not penned in the late 19th century, it might not have been penned circa 1992 by anyone in Mike's creative writing circle either.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                The problem with that is that there's nothing to suggest it's an older haox, but enough to suggest it's more modern in origin. If anyone has any evidence of it being older, they're more than welcome to offer it, but I shan't be holding my breath!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X