Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    He didn't touch on the weather so let's just stick with what he did write.
    Surely you can cope with a simple hypothetical question.

    You must admit that it would not have been possible for him to have written in his diary that the rain was pouring down that afternoon.

    You must also admit that had he done so we would have known it was a forgery.

    In the same way. it wasn't possible for him to have written that it was the fastest race he had ever seen and thus we know it's a forgery.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      Now, pray tell, what was the point you were trying to make here?
      See my post above.

      It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was the slowest race he had ever seen.

      It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was pouring down with rain during the afternoon.

      It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was the fastest race he had ever seen.

      Comment


      • When you look at what Maybrick is supposedly saying in his diary, it's not a question of statistics, he is clearly saying that he took great pleasure from the Grand National being the fastest race he had ever seen. Thus he says:

        "Am I not a clever fellow, the bitch gave me the greatest pleasure of all. Did not the whore see her whore master in front of all, true the race was the fastest I have seen, 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".

        In other words, he is saying that while he took pleasure from the race being the fastest he had seen, and while he took pleasure from standing near the Prince of Wales (being JTR), he took even more pleasure from seeing his wife with her lover.

        In other words, he supposedly enjoyed the race being so fast, the fastest he had ever seen. But really, how could he possibly say that? How could he have taken pleasure in a fast race (even if it truly had been the fastest race)? A decent paced race, a good gallop sure, but the fastest he had ever seen? It's ludicrously unrealistic.

        It's clear evidence of forgery.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          We do not know any such thing. It was the shortest race by distance in 18 years. That's all.
          Could we just agree on least amount of time as surely we both agree on that?

          If to Maybrick 'least amount of time' equalled 'fastest', I'm okay with that.
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            See my post above.

            It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was the slowest race he had ever seen.

            It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was pouring down with rain during the afternoon.

            It wasn't possible for Maybrick to have written it was the fastest race he had ever seen.
            As we agreed in my previous post, it was indeed most possible for Maybrick to have written it was the fastest race he had ever seen based upon the fact that the least amount of time was recorded as having elapsed.

            You're just adding in the bit about distance run. Maybe Maybrick didn't do that bit in his head.
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              Could we just agree on least amount of time as surely we both agree on that?
              Yes, but there would have been no significance in that given that the race was run over the shortest distance.

              Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              If to Maybrick 'least amount of time' equalled 'fastest', I'm okay with that.
              So your entire belief in the diary hinges on Maybrick mistakenly thinking he had witnessed the fastest Grand National in recent memory?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                When you look at what Maybrick is supposedly saying in his diary, it's not a question of statistics, he is clearly saying that he took great pleasure from the Grand National being the fastest race he had ever seen. Thus he says:

                "Am I not a clever fellow, the bitch gave me the greatest pleasure of all. Did not the whore see her whore master in front of all, true the race was the fastest I have seen, 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".

                In other words, he is saying that while he took pleasure from the race being the fastest he had seen, and while he took pleasure from standing near the Prince of Wales (being JTR), he took even more pleasure from seeing his wife with her lover.

                In other words, he supposedly enjoyed the race being so fast, the fastest he had ever seen. But really, how could he possibly say that? How could he have taken pleasure in a fast race (even if it truly had been the fastest race)? A decent paced race, a good gallop sure, but the fastest he had ever seen? It's ludicrously unrealistic.

                It's clear evidence of forgery.
                It's clearly not evidence of a hoax. At best, it begs the question why he felt the need to say it (if of course he did). If it was simply impossible for there to be any grounds upon which those words would have been written down by him, then fair enough, but there clearly are grounds.

                He's not writing there and then - this is not a literal and immediate commentary on his feelings on the day. It's retrospective. He wants to make the point about the thrill of seeing them together, and he wants to mention how close he was to his Royal Highness, and he happens to have heard or read or whatevered that this was the least time elapsed of any GN for 18 years, and just slips it into the journal as part of the build up to the two points he really wants to gloat over and recall.

                This just isn't the issue you're making it out to be, David.
                Last edited by Iconoclast; 01-01-2017, 11:32 AM.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Yes, but there would have been no significance in that given that the race was run over the shortest distance.



                  So your entire belief in the diary hinges on Maybrick mistakenly thinking he had witnessed the fastest Grand National in recent memory?
                  Not my entire belief, no.
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    Yes, but there would have been no significance in that given that the race was run over the shortest distance.
                    Significance is in the eye of the beholder, David. If Maybrick believed that he had seen the race with the least amount of time lapsed and assumed that he'd therefore seen the fastest race for 18 years, that doesn't seem to me to be a leap of faith so great that it must be evidence of a hoax.

                    I appreciate that you do, of course.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      and he happens to have heard or read or whatevered that this was the least time elapsed of any GN for 18 years, and just slips it into the journal as part of the build up to the two points he really wants to gloat over and recall.
                      That's not what he says in the journal though.

                      Makes me wonder what would have happened if Aintree had shortened the Grand National to three miles. The crowd would have gone mental in witnessing the fastest race in the history of the world!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        Significance is in the eye of the beholder, David. If Maybrick believed that he had seen the race with the least amount of time lapsed and assumed that he'd therefore seen the fastest race for 18 years, that doesn't seem to me to be a leap of faith so great that it must be evidence of a hoax.
                        Oh Iconoclast, it really is.

                        Comment


                        • Hi All,

                          A weather report for Grand National day.

                          Yorkshire Gazette, 30th March 1889

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	YORKSHIRE GAZETTE 30 MAR 1889 WEATHER.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	43.5 KB
ID:	666869

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            That's not what he says in the journal though.

                            Makes me wonder what would have happened if Aintree had shortened the Grand National to three miles. The crowd would have gone mental in witnessing the fastest race in the history of the world!!!
                            Well I think I made this point yesterday and today, albeit tangentially. The ability to discern an insignificantly changed distance in a horse race is as unlikely as the ability to discern an insignificantly lesser amount of time passed. It is only when the changes are significant that our senses can step in and draw their own conclusions. If the race had been run over 100m and a straight sprint, everyone would have noted the shorter distance and the lesser time. The sort of changes in 1889 relative to other years presumably were not significant and therefore not discernible. In this regard, I accept that Maybrick was unlikely to have discerned by his own senses that less time had elapsed or that less distance had been run. What I would not exclude, however, is the very reasonable possibility that the less time run was pointed out to him - intentionally or otherwise - and he subsequently inferred that he had seen a faster race when documenting the event in his journal afterwards.
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Hi All,

                              A weather report for Grand National day.

                              Yorkshire Gazette, 30th March 1889

                              [ATTACH]17881[/ATTACH]

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Well that rules out the rain mistake in the journal, had there been one of course.
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                Oh Iconoclast, it really is.
                                Oh David Orsam, it really isn't.

                                Isn't pantomime season over yet?
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X