Originally posted by caz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
But I'm hardly the only one ever to suspect - very strongly - that Mike was pulling a fast one, when claiming he got the diary from Tony D, and when making his various forgery claims. I personally doubt he told the truth about how it came to be in his hands, from that day in March 1992 until his death.
We obviously disagree about what's totally illogical to believe or not believe, when it comes to the man who claimed to be a member of MI5, to be dying of cancer, to have foiled an IRA plot and what have you, so maybe we should leave it there.
No hard feelings I hope.
One thing I would say - if you believe Mike held the pen that wrote the diary, I think you may find you are in a minority.
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 02-27-2018, 04:39 AM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View PostRead all the posts, Abby. I'm not going to spoon feed you by repeating myself.
Love,
Caz
X
Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View PostBut I'm hardly the only one ever to suspect - very strongly - that Mike was pulling a fast one, when claiming he got the diary from Tony D, and when making his various forgery claims. I personally doubt he told the truth about how it came to be in his hands, from that day in March 1992 until his death.
We obviously disagree about what's totally illogical to believe or not believe, when it comes to the man who claimed to be a member of MI5, to be dying of cancer, to have foiled an IRA plot and what have you, so maybe we should leave it there.
No hard feelings I hope.
One thing I would say - if you believe Mike held the pen that wrote the diary, I think you may find you are in a minority.
Love,
Caz
X
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostI don’t need to waste my time caz. Phantom markings on a watch that just happens to appear shortly after the diary does. Bah..
Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.
They are NOT 'phantom' markings, Abby. And they appeared BEFORE the diary was published.
And I've 'swallowed' nothing. Where have I said I believed Maybrick put the markings there, or was the ripper?
I agree that you don't need to waste another second of your precious time on this. You seem to know very little about this subject, so I suggest you return to the topic of JtR and chill out a wee bit.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View PostFair enough Caz. It's clear you agree with me that Mike was involved in the fabrication of the diary. It's just to what extent where we disagree. I think the bottom line is the diary is a modern forgery. Cheers John
Once again, I suspect Mike never told the truth about how the diary came into his possession, so no, I don't agree with you that he was involved in its creation.
But that's fine. It wouldn't do for us all to agree.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View PostCharming!
They are NOT 'phantom' markings, Abby. And they appeared BEFORE the diary was published.
And I've 'swallowed' nothing. Where have I said I believed Maybrick put the markings there, or was the ripper?
I agree that you don't need to waste another second of your precious time on this. You seem to know very little about this subject, so I suggest you return to the topic of JtR and chill out a wee bit.
Love,
Caz
X
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View PostWhere did you get this idea from, John? Did you actually read the post you were responding to?
Once again, I suspect Mike never told the truth about how the diary came into his possession, so no, I don't agree with you that he was involved in its creation.
But that's fine. It wouldn't do for us all to agree.
Love,
Caz
X
Perhaps I worded things poorly. I do assume you agree that the diary is not an old forgery though. And you do think that Mike was deceitful as to how the diary came into his possession.
Cheers John
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostYes but that didn’t seem to bother you when I was a noob and you had me snookered into believing it was an old hoax.
I was aware you used to consider the possibility, but I assumed that was all down to your ability to think for yourself. I had no reason to imagine I had 'snookered' you into believing the diary was neither a Maybrick nor a Barrett production. I thought the handwriting could have achieved that much.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View PostHi Caz
Perhaps I worded things poorly. I do assume you agree that the diary is not an old forgery though. And you do think that Mike was deceitful as to how the diary came into his possession.
Cheers John
I don't know when the diary was created. If, as I believe, Mike had no knowledge of its creation, but was merely deceitful about who passed it on to him and when, it's hard for me to imagine how it could have been hoaxed as recently as the late 1980s. But then stranger things have happened. If the hoaxer put the diary somewhere, then died, for instance, without anyone knowing about their involvement, and it was subsequently found and only passed on to Mike because of his [limited] experience with the publishing world, it could still be a relatively recent document, but with no connection with the Barretts beyond the fact it ended up with them by pure chance.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostI don’t need to waste my time caz. Phantom markings on a watch that just happens to appear shortly after the diary does. Bah..
Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.
What information do you have that it isn't?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostBut wasn't it also used (under the name ivory black) to blacken shoes and boots and to restore the blackness of leather chairs and seats? Not to mention being widely used by artists for painting as well as being used in black ink.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostIn another thread today, Graham has said that he once mentioned on the Forum that black bone was used as an antidote for arsenic but that "it wasn't picked up by anyone." Not actually true because I responded to him back on 30 January 2017, #3141, as quoted above.
Get over it, everyone. The journal was acquired by James Maybrick and he was a Victorian (done). Plus, James Maybrick wrote the "'Maybrick' diary" (done). The clues were in the subject lines, for goodness sake.
Keep up everyone - it's hard being the only genius around here (although I have no doubt that the good Lord Orsam will rummage around long enough to locate some obscure thread from 1999 which points at someone else around here potentially being a genius too).
It was Maybrick, lads and lasses. And he should have been ...
Iconcoclast
Keeping it Real
Comment
-
Unfortunately, I do not have enough hours in my day to enable me to read and digest every one of Sir Orsam's posts. Sorry.
But yes, bone black may have been used to blacken boots, restore leather, etc., but I rather think that it would be carbon black in such applications. Apart from which, if bone black was used to make shoe blacking, then who would decide to spruce up their boots over a fairly expensive photo album? I'll stick with the arsenic antidote, thanks very much. But that is not to say that I accept that Maybrick wrote the Diary. No sir.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graham View PostUnfortunately, I do not have enough hours in my day to enable me to read and digest every one of Sir Orsam's posts. Sorry.
Originally posted by Graham View PostBut yes, bone black may have been used to blacken boots, restore leather, etc., but I rather think that it would be carbon black in such applications. Apart from which, if bone black was used to make shoe blacking, then who would decide to spruce up their boots over a fairly expensive photo album? I'll stick with the arsenic antidote, thanks very much. But that is not to say that I accept that Maybrick wrote the Diary. No sir.
Sounds to me like you just like the idea of connecting the bone black with arsenic.
Comment
Comment