Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • We are back to the Sherlock Holmes...whatever left must be true scenario again.

    The theory with the least amount of assumptions is probably true...let's try Ockham's razor.


    The handwriting is not Maybrick's because he did not write it.

    The name "Posthouse" is anachronistic because the writer or dictator of the content made a mistake.

    The anachronistic phrase "One off" is a sign the diary was written later than claimed.

    When you stop playing Sherlock and start being just William, we are certainly getting into the "beyond reasonable doubt" stage, and if we follow the scientific method, there are no absolutes or "incontrovertibles", "Unequivocals" or "Undeniables".

    We must play the game with rules that are realistic.
    Last edited by DirectorDave; 01-29-2018, 05:57 AM.
    My opinion is all I have to offer here,

    Dave.

    Smilies are canned laughter.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
      We are back to the Sherlock Holmes...whatever left must be true scenario again.

      The theory with the least amount of assumptions is probably true...let's try Ockham's razor.

      We must play the game with rules that are realistic.
      The last question on an IQ test usually incorporates the former.

      Most people who quote the latter do not understand it. Pretty sure you do though.

      The diary is a fake!
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
        When you've got naysayers like this going out of their way not to see these glaring coincidences... and go to the lengths of making up scenarios that insults everyone's intelligence... It really is no wonder the thing has not been put to bed.
        This site is fine for those who wish to attack the Maybrick journal without any effort. You know who I mean - the "The diary is a fake!" brigade.

        If we had a similar site where only serious discussion of the Maybrick journal were permitted (trolls and critics would be banned and re-directed to the Casebook for their kicks), it would be interesting to see whether we had two or three of us registered and posting regularly or whether we would have twenty or thirty, or two hundred or three hundred. Every time I post, I notice the views go up by about 200 so I reckon there are a large number of non-posters who would love to contribute positively around the journal but don't because of the misinformation, urban myths, and sheer lazy thinking of the Naysayers.

        It's an interesting thought and one I may just explore deeper ...
        Iconoclast
        Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          If we had a similar site where only serious discussion of the Maybrick journal were permitted, it would be interesting to see whether we had two or three of us registered and posting regularly or whether we would have twenty or thirty, or two hundred or three hundred.

          It's an interesting thought and one I may just explore deeper ...
          Perhaps these free-thinkers can give you some tips, Ike: https://www.tfes.org
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            This site is fine for those who wish to attack the Maybrick journal without any effort. You know who I mean - the "The diary is a fake!" brigade.

            If we had a similar site where only serious discussion of the Maybrick journal were permitted (trolls and critics would be banned and re-directed to the Casebook for their kicks), it would be interesting to see whether we had two or three of us registered and posting regularly or whether we would have twenty or thirty, or two hundred or three hundred. Every time I post, I notice the views go up by about 200 so I reckon there are a large number of non-posters who would love to contribute positively around the journal but don't because of the misinformation, urban myths, and sheer lazy thinking of the Naysayers.

            It's an interesting thought and one I may just explore deeper ...
            Creating an echochamber deplatforming dissenters.

            It will be like university students who come out thicker than they went in.

            Stay here and fight your corner...diversity of thought is essential in academia.
            My opinion is all I have to offer here,

            Dave.

            Smilies are canned laughter.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
              The handwriting is not Maybrick's because he did not write it.
              Yawn.

              The name "Posthouse" is anachronistic because the writer or dictator of the content made a mistake.
              'Post House' (not 'Posthouse') would NOT be anachronistic (there have been millions of them, always). 'Poste House' would be anachronistic if the author was referring to that which opened in the 1960s in Liverpool. If you can prove he did, then you've proven the journal to be a fake. Please don't keep us waiting too long. Remember to clarify for us why he spelled 'post haste' 'poste haste' while you're at it. If 'poste' in 'poste haste' was a clear misunderstanding of how to spell 'post', then so was 'Poste House'. Your argument is shot, though you wouldn't know it if I didn't put the effort in to explain it to you.

              The anachronistic phrase "One off" is a sign the diary was written later than claimed.
              This may well be the case. It's neither proven nor disproven, but still you cite it as an irrefutable fact which refutes the journal's authenticity. How can you do that when this 'fact' is clearly not yet a categorical one? Unless, of course, you are simply determined that it should be so ...

              That was a rhetorical question, by the way.
              Iconoclast
              Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Perhaps these free-thinkers can give you some tips, Ike: https://www.tfes.org
                And that didn't just make my point, Sam?
                Iconoclast
                Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                  Creating an echochamber deplatforming dissenters.

                  It will be like university students who come out thicker than they went in.

                  Stay here and fight your corner...diversity of thought is essential in academia.
                  Oh you can rest assured I'll be staying here, my son. It's those who are put off by the vitriol I am thinking about ...
                  Iconoclast
                  Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                    Creating an echochamber deplatforming dissenters.

                    It will be like university students who come out thicker than they went in.

                    Stay here and fight your corner...diversity of thought is essential in academia.
                    By the way, I didn't like the sentiment of your post, but I thought it was surprisingly original and entertaining for a Naysayer. Just saying. Even made me smile, for goodness sake, and usually only Lord Orsam does that.
                    Iconoclast
                    Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Iconoclast;439561]
                      'Post House' (not 'Posthouse') would NOT be anachronistic (there have been millions of them, always). 'Poste House' would be anachronistic if the author was referring to that which opened in the 1960s in Liverpool. If you can prove he did, then you've proven the journal to be a fake. Please don't keep us waiting too long. Remember to clarify for us why he spelled 'post haste' 'poste haste' while you're at it. If 'poste' in 'poste haste' was a clear misunderstanding of how to spell 'post', then so was 'Poste House'. Your argument is shot, though you wouldn't know it if I didn't put the effort in to explain it to you.



                      This may well be the case. It's neither proven nor disproven, but still you cite it as an irrefutable fact which refutes the journal's authenticity. How can you do that when this 'fact' is clearly not yet a categorical one? Unless, of course, you are simply determined that it should be so ...

                      That was a rhetorical question, by the way.
                      I am not dealing with irrefutable facts, you are not understanding my post, I said there are no absolutes, incontrovertibles, Unequivocals, Undeniables.

                      Ockham's Razor deals with probables.

                      The "Posthouse" probably being a mistake makes the least amount of assumptions no matter who composed it. It could have been Maybrick circa 1889, or "The nest of forgers" circa 1987.
                      My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                      Dave.

                      Smilies are canned laughter.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        By the way, I didn't like the sentiment of your post, but I thought it was surprisingly original and entertaining for a Naysayer. Just saying. Even made me smile, for goodness sake, and usually only Lord Orsam does that.
                        delusions of grandeur much?
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                          By the way, I didn't like the sentiment of your post, but I thought it was surprisingly original and entertaining for a Naysayer. Just saying. Even made me smile, for goodness sake, and usually only Lord Orsam does that.
                          I was doing your the honour of being blunt, the sentiment of my post was an attempt to shame you into staying.

                          If us weirdos go unchallenged we go into strange, dark subjects like cricket.
                          My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                          Dave.

                          Smilies are canned laughter.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=DirectorDave;439565]
                            Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post


                            I am not dealing with irrefutable facts, you are not understanding my post, I said there are no absolutes, incontrovertibles, Unequivocals, Undeniables.

                            Ockham's Razor deals with probables.

                            The "Posthouse" probably being a mistake makes the least amount of assumptions no matter who composed it. It could have been Maybrick circa 1889, or "The nest of forgers" circa 1987.
                            Dave,

                            I am not dealing with irrefutable facts, you are not understanding my post, I said there are no absolutes, incontrovertibles, Unequivocals, Undeniables.
                            You're absolutely right - certainly none which refute the journal. Thanks for the support there, bud.

                            Occam's Razor does not deal with probables at all: It is a simple statement of logic which argues that the theory which explains all the known facts with the fewest amount of assumptions is the one which should take precedence. It isn't about proving or disporoving a theory but simply about guiding one to which should take precedence at any given time.

                            Incidentally 'Poste House' almost certainly was a mistake, which under your principle makes James Maybrick as the author of the Ripper journal the most plausible conclusion as it requires the fewest number of assumptions to support it.

                            Cheers,

                            Ike
                            Iconoclast
                            Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                              I was doing your the honour of being blunt, the sentiment of my post was an attempt to shame you into staying.

                              If us weirdos go unchallenged we go into strange, dark subjects like cricket.
                              If you ever want me to go, please just talk about cricket ...
                              Iconoclast
                              Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                6) The ‘Who is Jim?’ newspaper article after the first canonical murder
                                What's the significance of this supposed to be? You've been banging on about it since 2008 so you must think it's important.

                                Is it simply that a newspaper on 1st September 1888 mentioned a "Jim" and Maybrick's first name was James/Jim? And that's an amazing coincidence?

                                Or are you actually arguing that the "Jim" mentioned in the newspaper article was Maybrick?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X