One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Henry Flower]

You're trying too hard to obfuscate.

Just take a quick look in Sugden and then again in Marriott. Much quicker, very much clearer, not in the slightest motivated by Sugden or Marriott's personal disbelief in the journal. Compelling stuff.

I've seen your take on the GSG, so we know for a fact that you will find an FM wherever you want one. A splash of blood is an M. A non-existent F is an F, and if you're really desperate, and my god how desperate this is, a capital B in a copper's transcription will also be read as an FM left by Maybrick.

[Sam Flynn]

This is beautiful - this is exactly what I have just accused you of doing and you can't see it! You literally can't see it - wonderful!

Sarcastic, and ad-hominem again.

"... one would expect the 'F' to be as visible ...".

Yes, one would. It's called physics.

Sam Flynn (and others) might expect the 'F' to be as visible, but Sam Flynn was not in Kelly's room in 1888. What Sam Flynn expects to happen is determined by Sam Flynn's worldview.

Kelly's room was different? What was so different about Kelly's room that altered the laws of nature to such an extent that an "F" would have to be drawn differently, and exhibit different properties there?

This has nothing to do with my "worldview" - which I take to be an implicit accusation of bias on my part, cheers! - but plenty to do with my experience of painting, drawing, writing. If you can't extrapolate from your own experience of such things, I suggest you experiment and find out for yourself, rather than scornfully dismissing others' considered, and thoroughly thought-out opinions as the products of bias. They are nothing of the kind.

[Trevor Marriott]

And, so as to make another point, here is the relevant portion from the version of MJK1 published in Farson's book, where something like an "FM" can, in fact, be seen:

[ATTACH]18257[/ATTACH]

The key point is that the illusory "FM" is more apparent in the grainier, noisier version of the photograph, MJK1, which was used in Ripper books from 1972 onwards. In contrast, there is no "FM" apparent in the better-quality MJK2 image which was discovered, but not yet widely published (if at all), in 1988.

A clear case of pareidolia "The imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

A clear case of pareidolia "The imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know what pareidolia means, Trevor, but thanks anyway.

[Henry Flower]

We know what pareidolia means, Trevor, but thanks anyway.

Knowing what it means, and recognizing when you're doing it, are evidently two different things.

Oops - apparently we're not allowed to ascribe it to pareidolia. Ike has spoken.

[Iconoclast]

Knowing what it means, and recognizing when you're doing it, are evidently two different things.

Oops - apparently we're not allowed to ascribe it to pareidolia. Ike has spoken.

You might just be starting to get with the programme here, Hen.

[Iconoclast]

Hey Sammy Flynn,

If the journal could have been penned between 1972 and 1986, how on earth did those post-1987 revelations wind their mysterious ways into it? I'm thinking 'tin match box empty' and 'no heart no heart' in particular.

Ike
The Braggadocio Kid

[Henry Flower]

Ike
The Braggadocio Kid

If that word really is too long or too foreign for you, I have some shorter ones you could use.

[Iconoclast]

If that word really is too long or too foreign for you, I have some shorter ones you could use.

Honestly, Hen, whatever you can do to help.

[Sam Flynn]

If the journal could have been penned between 1972 and 1986, how on earth did those post-1987 revelations wind their mysterious ways into it? I'm thinking 'tin match box empty' and 'no heart no heart' in particular.

Did I set an upper limit of 1986 on the diary? I think not. All I've said is that I can't see its having been written earlier than 1972, and probably later. I see that you've narrowed it down still further - for which relief, many thanks.

[Iconoclast]

Did I set an upper limit of 1986 on the diary? I think not. All I've said is that I can't see its having been written earlier than 1972, and probably later. I see that you've narrowed it down still further - for which relief, many thanks.

Hen, is there a really obscure, overly-pretentious word for deliberately missing the point? If there isn't, maybe we could make one up? I'm thinking along the lines of flynnflower?

Sammy, I think it will be obvious to everyone that you've rather wilfully flynnflowerised my question there. Interestingly enough, it is another example from the Axis of Evil that statistics is not a subject which yields easily to the humanities: If the information I cited was from 1987 or later, then the period of time during which that information must not have been available to our hoaxer must have started with your first year (1972) and ended with the last year before publication (1986) unless you include the first bit of 1987 before the information was published. Technically, the latter year is the year of the publication of the later of the previously-unpublished information, but I was only certain of 1987 so that's why I plumped for 1986.

For the record, my saying 1972 to 1986 is all about the impossible period of the hoax not the likely period.

Mrs Iconoclast has just said "One man's genius is another man's utter crap" (I must have just mentioned I'm a genius?). Personally, I'm surprised at the sexist tone employed by my spouse (I trust she's actually female - just because she's a 'Mrs' seems to mean nothing on this site), and quite frankly her flynnflowering of my argument.

Ike

[Henry Flower]

Hen, is there a really obscure, overly-pretentious word for deliberately missing the point? If there isn't, maybe we could make one up? I'm thinking along the lines of flynnflower?

Sammy, I think it will be obvious to everyone that you've rather wilfully flynnflowerised my question there. Interestingly enough, it is another example from the Axis of Evil that statistics is not a subject which yields easily to the humanities: If the information I cited was from 1987 or later, then the period of time during which that information must not have been available to our hoaxer must have started with your first year (1972) and ended with the last year before publication (1986) unless you include the first bit of 1987 before the information was published. Technically, the latter year is the year of the publication of the later of the previously-unpublished information, but I was only certain of 1987 so that's why I plumped for 1986.

For the record, my saying 1972 to 1986 is all about the impossible period of the hoax not the likely period.

Mrs Iconoclast has just said "One man's genius is another man's utter crap" (I must have just mentioned I'm a genius?). Personally, I'm surprised at the sexist tone employed by my spouse (I trust she's actually female - just because she's a 'Mrs' seems to mean nothing on this site), and quite frankly her flynnflowering of my argument.

Ike

It's never a good sign - this immediate recourse to the word 'pretentious' when confronted with vocabulary that is familiar to those more educated, but not to yourself. You sit there on your high-horse speaking down to people most of the time, then someone uses a word with which you're unfamiliar, and immediately the accusation of 'pretentiousness' comes out. Students do the same, in my experience. Or commenters on IMDB who've failed to understand a great piece of cinema. "ohmygod that was so pretentious!" It's the insecure person's alternative to the unthinkable admission that they just didn't understand the thing.

Widely read people would not be unfamiliar with the word or the concept of braggadocio, Ike. Please try to understand: you are not the benchmark. People who know less than you are not feebleminded, those of us who know more are not pretentious. You're just comfortably in the middle. (Is 'mediocre' a pretentious word too?)

And that's why we love you, Ike!

PS - my condolences to Mrs Ike.

[Henry Flower]

Rest assured, that was my last word on the great braggadocio controversy. I won't have time today to enjoy your wit, Ike, as I have the immense pleasure of resealing a shower and sanding a kitchen ceiling ahead of me.

I'll bet that James Maybrick never had to do sh*t like this....

PS Ike - if you ever want to read a book teeming with braggadocio, written by a genuine genius, one who makes you look in comparison the very picture of shy retiring modesty, I recommend the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini, a violent and boastful renaissance goldsmith and artist with a fiery temper and a truly lovable psychopathic streak. It has the additional virtue of not being a forgery, but don't let that put you off.

[Iconoclast]

It's the insecure person's alternative to the unthinkable admission that they just didn't understand the thing.

Yes, my psychiatrists have frequently called it insecurity, so I think you could well have struck a chord there. Shame they aren't with us any more to confirm their shared diagnoses.

This goldsmith chap sounds quite a one, mind, doesn't he? A boastful fellow, though, does not good bedtime reading make so I'll probably have to stick with my Jackie Collins' collected works for now.

Mrs Iconoclast thanks you and wonders if you'd be willing to take me out occasionally?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I recommend the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini, a violent and boastful renaissance goldsmith and artist with a fiery temper and a truly lovable psychopathic streak.

Do you know, even if it's got big words in it, I'm going to give it a go! I might not get it all, but I'm looking forward to the boasting and the sneering contempt.

Can you let me know who wrote it, though, please?

Cheers.

Ike