One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Henry Flower]

I don't know, Caz. Perhaps the hoaxer(s) thought that what they were writing was the very epitome of verisimilitude.

Yes, we're either dealing with something that thinks it's convincing but isn't, or else something that is spoofing the above.

It's hard to say. And as Caz would usually point out, we can't claim to know which of those options was the real motivation until we know which of those options was the real intention.

I find them equally interesting, and equally amusing. I suppose it's cleaner to laugh along with a joke than to laugh at someone who wasn't trying to make one.

But screw that. It's all amusing.

Caz - did you have a chance to read Ike's History vs Maybrick epic? Did you have any thoughts on the remarkable contortions by which he was able to find the names of Maybrick's brothers, sisters, parents, wife, pet poodle, primary school master, tailor, family butcher, and childhood chess partner cryptically secreted in the text of the GSG?

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,

Did my mention of the name 'Monty' inspire that last quote

2nd greatest comedy film of all time IMHO .

Ha! Weirdly, it did not! I was merely musing on things that appear in texts that shouldn't have been there. Like the FM, based on dodgy reproductions in books of a certain era, but clearly not there in more faithful recent reproductions.

Aaaaargh!

(BTW - what is number 1 if Holy Grail is no.2?)

[caz]

Wonderful.

You're beginning to make me wonder are there any concrete James & Michael links or parallels with George & Weedon.

Oh yes. And links between George & Weedon and people like MacNaghten and Sims.

And I never knew there might be when I first sat down to read the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Oh yes. And links between George & Weedon and people like MacNaghten and Sims.

And I never knew there might be when I first sat down to read the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

Tease!

[caz]

Only a couple of years out? Not bad considering the trouble we've had with dating some historical artefacts.

Maths not your strong point, Gareth? At least a couple of years out, surely, if you say 1972 at the earliest and the scientists said 1969 at the latest [prior to 1970].

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But it might equal "in front of their eyes", Caz, "for all eyes to see".

Hmmm, with a bit of manipulation, Gareth. The diary could have made it clearer, but it didn't. We have what we have been given and no more. What was with the mole bonnet and Christmas saving it?

As to the "it [singular]", doesn't the passage start with the crossed-out line "Her initial [singular] there", before plumping for "An initial here, an initial there"? The hoaxer(s) could have done with a continuity editor.

What, incontinent continuity? Whatever next! So your hoaxer gleefully plucked the FM he thought he could see in a modern photo, but put 'Her initial there' before reaching for his calculator, working out that two was actually considerably more than one and striking out the offending line?

Is Mike Barrett back in the frame again?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Maths not your strong point, Gareth? At least a couple of years out, surely, if you say 1972 at the earliest and the scientists said 1969 at the latest [prior to 1970].

I wasn't that far out, Caz. 31st December 1969 to 1st Jan 1972 = a couple of years plus one day.

Besides, it's a fact that, where I come from, "a couple" means "a few", as in:

Customer: Can I 'ave a couple of them bread rolls?
Shopkeeper: Of course! 'Ow many do you want?

Check out the entry in the online Wenglish Dictionary, "Talk Tidy", here:

http://talktidy.com/c.html

Well worth a shufti - some funny stuff there. Not sure if it'll be of much help in Portmeirion, as Wenglish is largely a South Wales phenomenon.

[caz]

I agree. It might mean that he's left it "in front of their eyes, for all eyes to see right in the middle of the photo I'm looking at in this paperback."

A bit like plonking his tin match box empty into the diary straight out of Fido?

Yes, I'm sure that's what I would do if I wanted the royalties to keep coming in from my cunning forgery that isn't even a forgery.

Let's revert to the shallow thinking, shall we? It has been a long day.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hmmm, with a bit of manipulation, Gareth. The diary could have made it clearer, but it didn't.

Hard to say what "I left it in front" might otherwise mean. Surely not "I left it in front of her ___"? If so, maybe we need to take a closer look at MJK3.

Is Mike Barrett back in the frame again?

Baphomet might be.

[caz]

I don't know, Caz. Perhaps the hoaxer(s) thought that what they were writing was the very epitome of verisimilitude.

You really believe that, Gareth?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz - did you have a chance to read Ike's History vs Maybrick epic? Did you have any thoughts on the remarkable contortions by which he was able to find the names of Maybrick's brothers, sisters, parents, wife, pet poodle, primary school master, tailor, family butcher, and childhood chess partner cryptically secreted in the text of the GSG?

My thoughts on the matter would not have been particularly enlightening, Henry, so I was happy to leave that effort to others, such as your good self.

Mockery where it's most needed, I say. And Ike's posts on the GSG are in a class of their own.

Like you can't really satirise Trump because he does too good a job himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

You really believe that, Gareth?

Yes, I believe it's probable that the writer(s) genuinely believed they were creating a believable text. Why go to all that trouble otherwise? It's rather a long document, parts of it evidently researched, and it is - after all - written on genuine Victorian paper. Perhaps it was a creative writing project that got out of hand, or perhaps it was deliberately intended to be a hoax from the outset. Either way, I believe that whoever wrote it did their best to make it as authentic-sounding as possible.

[caz]

I wasn't that far out, Caz. 31st December 1969 to 1st Jan 1972 = a couple of years plus one day.

Besides, it's a fact that, where I come from, "a couple" means "a few", as in:

Customer: Can I 'ave a couple of them bread rolls?
Shopkeeper: Of course! 'Ow many do you want?

Check out the entry in the online Wenglish Dictionary, "Talk Tidy", here:

http://talktidy.com/c.html

Well worth a shufti - some funny stuff there. Not sure if it'll be of much help in Portmeirion, as Wenglish is largely a South Wales phenomenon.

What about 'at the earliest' and 'at the latest', Gareth? Are they meaningless terms or did you just conveniently forget about them?

Your '1972 at the earliest' allows for anything from 1972 up to 1992, while the scientists' 'prior to 1970' allows for anything back from 1969 to 1889, do they not?

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

My thoughts on the matter would not have been particularly enlightening, Henry, so I was happy to leave that effort to others, such as your good self.

Mockery where it's most needed, I say. And Ike's posts on the GSG are in a class of their own.

Like you can't really satirise Trump because he does too good a job himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hm. Yes, if you can't satirize Trump because he's beating you to it, maybe The Donald is actually cleverer than we give him credit for....

[Sam Flynn]

Your '1972 at the earliest' allows for anything from 1972 up to 1992, while the scientists' 'prior to 1970' allows for anything back from 1969 to 1889, does it not?

No, I'll go for somewhere between 1969 and 1972. That's only "a couple" of years, and it's within the limits suggested by the tests. A "couple" of years isn't even a rounding error in terms of a Turin Shroud/Time Team sort of perspective, so I'll settle for that. Good old scientists, eh?

On grounds of style and content alone, there is no earthly way that the diary was written before the 1970s.