Originally posted by Sam Flynn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostI doubt that even the most attentive person would notice that a long-distance horse-race held this year took 10½ seconds less than an equivalent race a few days ago, never mind 20 years. It's just not the sort of thing you "feel"; more the sort of thing you'd have to look up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostI doubt that even the most attentive person would notice that a long-distance horse-race held this year took 10½ seconds less than the equivalent race 365 days ago. It's just not the sort of thing you "feel"; more the sort of thing you'd "look up".
Also:
The good news for the rest of the human race is that we can get by just fine without having to observe some form of perpetual and highly literal fundamental truth.
Well, yeah, maybe. And fair enough, if we allow that sort of maybe then it's not incontrovertible, and that was the point of the thread, so ok. But still, the pile of pebbles on one side of the argument seems far bigger than the pile on the other.Last edited by Henry Flower; 12-31-2016, 03:43 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostNow, if we could find which book of [Grand National] records the forger might have used...
I'm not saying that there weren't earlier compendiums available, but a review of one such (T H Bird's A Hundred Grand Nationals, 1937) states that, "as with other early works it is short on photographs and statistics" [source here]. Vian Smith's 1969 book, however, seems to have been a treasure-trove of facts and figures.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 12-31-2016, 03:40 PM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostYou've gone from the notion that someone "may have timed the race informally or the formal timer of the race may have commented" to someone now experiencing the race (wrongly) as the fastest in twenty years.
I mean, if you have a 1 mile race where the winning horse crosses the line after 9 minutes and a 4 mile race where the winning horse crosses the line after 10 minutes, you are not seriously telling me that anyone would say that the 1 mile race was the fastest race of the two are you?
It's the shortest one yes, but not the fastest. See the difference?
A fractitionally shorter distance run in a fractitionally shorter time will not feel to the observer like a 'faster' race because the difference in distance run is not as transparent as your ridiculous 4 miles versus one mile. Of course the casual observer would not note the difference. It would take someone timing it (informally or formally) who could then note to any interested party that the time taken was the fastest in 18 years. If they neglected to add that "mind, it was over a fractitionally shorter distance", the mathematics of this mistake would be quickly cemented.
It isn't any more complicated than that, and it absolutely does not prove a hoax I am afraid.
Happy New Year everyone. We are 15 minutes away from 2017 so I really think we should get on the sherry and be done with it for now ...
Ike
Comment
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostI was a regular race-goer for many years, and have attended the Grand national on a number of occasions. I can honesty say, not once did either I or my companions comment on whether a race was a fast ran affair. It's not the sort of thing race-goers comment on. Not only that, if you're on the course, you can only see the horses briefly as they fly past your position. It's a physical impossibility to gauge whether a race has been ran in record time.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Iconoclast View PostIt would take someone timing it (informally or formally) who could then note to any interested party that the time taken was the fastest in 18 years. If they neglected to add that "mind, it was over a fractitionally shorter distance", the mathematics of this mistake would be quickly cemented.
Given that the 1889 race was not the fastest in 18 years no-one would have been saying it was in 1889. Therefore Maybrick could not possibly have written in his journal that the race was the fastest he had ever seen.
Anyone who has ever been to a horse race and understands how ludicrous it would be for Maybrick to have made this statement will know that the Diary has not survived to 2017.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostGiven that the 1889 race was not the fastest in 18 years no-one would have been saying it was in 1889. Therefore Maybrick could not possibly have written in his journal that the race was the fastest he had ever seen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by StevenOwl View PostUtter nonsense. I know plenty of people who spout a lot of bullshit, and it's very likely that some of them write the same in their diaries/journals too, just like Maybrick could have done in 1889.
Given that it wasn't pouring down with rain all afternoon you must agree that he couldn't possibly have written that it was.
It also wasn't the fastest race he had ever seen and, therefore, he could not possibly have thought it was, therefore, he could not possibly have written those words in his journal.
Comment
-
Given that StevenOwl accuses me of writing "utter nonsense", I set this challenge to him and to anyone who believes in the diary's veracity.
Imagine this was the sentence in the Diary:
"Did not the whore see her whore master in front of all, true the race was the slowest I have seen and it was pouring with rain all afternoon, but the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more than knowing his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly ha ha".
As the race was not a slow race that day and as it was not pouring with rain would not either of those statements on their own prove that the diary was a forgery?
Finding that a record book gave the wrong impression that it was the slowest race in 18 years or that it was raining that day would, of course be the icing on the cake to explain why the forger made the mistakes, but I repeat my question: would not either of the inaccuracies in the above sentence have disproved the diary?
Or would you come back and say "people spout a lot of bullshit in their diaries so it means nothing"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostGiven that StevenOwl accuses me of writing "utter nonsense", I set this challenge to him and to anyone who believes in the diary's veracity.
Imagine this was the sentence in the Diary:
"Did not the whore see her whore master in front of all, true the race was the slowest I have seen and it was pouring with rain all afternoon, but the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more than knowing his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly ha ha".
As the race was not a slow race that day and as it was not pouring with rain would not either of those statements on their own prove that the diary was a forgery?
Finding that a record book gave the wrong impression that it was the slowest race in 18 years or that it was raining that day would, of course be the icing on the cake to explain why the forger made the mistakes, but I repeat my question: would not either of the inaccuracies in the above sentence have disproved the diary?
Or would you come back and say "people spout a lot of bullshit in their diaries so it means nothing"?
If it had not rained that day and he had written that it had, my first thought would be to check if there were any periods at all during or after the race when it rained. If there hadn't been any such periods, I would genuinely be confused and somewhat concerned that the old psychopath had finally undone himself, I agree. Thankfully, he didn't so we can all breathe easier again on that score.
IkeLast edited by Iconoclast; 01-01-2017, 10:16 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAs the race was not a slow race that day and as it was not pouring with rain would not either of those statements on their own prove that the diary was a forgery?
I don't believe that Maybrick could have experienced a slow race nor been informed by someone timing it that it was any sort of slow race (unless the record books were wrong and it turns out that it was run over 100 metres and was actually a straight sprint that year).
If it had been a uniformly dry day that day and the author had written it was pelting down, I'd draw the same conclusion.
On either count, I would keep an open mind for some time in considering how either or indeed both of these errors could have crept into the journal but - ultimately - I imagine my conclusion would be that both entries were written by someone who simply wasn't there that day and - therefore - was presumably not James Maybrick.
Hope this helps.
Now, pray tell, what was the point you were trying to make here?
Ike
Comment
Comment