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 MrBarnett View Post

    Im open minded about all of this. My instincts tell me the diary is a late 20th century fake, but I've yet to see a single Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable anachronism Which Refutes the Diary.



    Bumbling buffoon.



    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      I haven’t seen the actual quote regarding the horse Gary (I’ve been looking for it)

      The ‘Bunny’s Aunt’ point, which I’ve just read seems convincing though? Florence surely couldn’t have confused godmother for aunt which points to the author getting their info from the first wave of books on the subject where the error originated.
      hi herlock
      and in Lord Orsams blackmail or mrs barret article he shows in that in letters between barrett and his wife, he threatens to reveal something implicating her unless she talk to him telling her... "we both wrote it. thats a fact". in a private letter. game over.
      "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 The Baron View Post



        Bumbling buffoon.



        The Baron


        The words with the meanings seemingly used in the diary both existed in the 1880s. Used together they are complementary in meaning and amusingly alliterative, in the same way that the term bumptious buffoon was used in the 19th century.

        Perhaps you can explain why it would have been impossible for anyone in the 1880s to
        have combined them.

        A quick peek at the thread title might be useful before you reply.

        Comment


        • While we’re at it, perhaps we can ponder the long absence of the use of ‘topping oneself’ (meaning to commit suicide, esp by hanging) in the press. Between the 1870s and the 1920s wasn’t it?

          Does that suggest that it was forgotten for half a century? Or does it suggest that written sources are an unreliable record of spoken language?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi herlock
            and in Lord Orsams blackmail or mrs barret article he shows in that in letters between barrett and his wife, he threatens to reveal something implicating her unless she talk to him telling her... "we both wrote it. thats a fact". in a private letter. game over.

            Abby,

            If you were a public prosecutor hoping to convict MB of forgery (or whatever the charge might be), would you be confident of obtaining a conviction with this letter as your only evidence?

            Gary

            Comment


            • "bumbling buffoon" was a good spot from The Baron. As I've noted myself on the other threads, it's seems like it should be common, but as it stands, no one has found a printing of it. That's interesting, regardless of what side of the debate your on. Sadly it seems, as was evidenced with the announcement of the "special announcement", debates regarding possible evidence of modern (ie, Barrett family) hoaxing aren't looked at on individual merit, but on their proximity to David Barrat. As The Baron is unashamedly his biggest fan, but not by a long shot his sock puppet, his bumbling buffoon discovery is instantly dismissed, because it's Pro Orsam or some such crap. But it's a good point he raises. I myself have said that both words were in use, and should have made sense in the LVP, it seems plausible. So why can't we find a single example?

              ​​​​​​I've not been exactly polite to The Baron myself, but that doesn't mean I'll rubbish his findings for that reason.
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi herlock
                and in Lord Orsams blackmail or mrs barret article he shows in that in letters between barrett and his wife, he threatens to reveal something implicating her unless she talk to him telling her... "we both wrote it. thats a fact". in a private letter. game over.
                Mike was desperately trying to seek a meeting with Anne and was trying everything he could to bully her into taking one. You would know that if you reviewed the overall context of which that was written by Mike. I see the ‘confession’ as one person trying to jolt the other into giving them what they wanted. There is no communication back from Anne to confirm they wrote it together. Another Orsam red herring.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  A quick peek at the thread title might be useful before you reply.
                  Personally, I don't need a smoking gun and a fatal shot to the heart to know the diary is a modern fake. It dies a suitable death from a thousand small cuts.

                  The thread title is a rather transparent attempt to place the onus on the skeptics. 'Prove to ME it's a fake! Just one solid shot to the heart!' Even though the true believer is obviously immune to a preponderance of damning evidence.

                  One could just as easily start a thread along the lines of 'give me ONE coherent reason why I should think the diary is anything other than an audacious modern fraud.'

                  So far, in 26 years, no one has given me a convincing argument that it isn't. And I'm fairly certain 6,000 posts on the subject won't change that.

                  Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-29-2020, 03:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Bumbling buffoon is interesting because it seems like it would have a long use, but apparently it wasn’t concocted before the 1940s. I never thought to check it.

                    I wonder if someone has checked for outfoxed/outfox/outfoxes in the papers? As noted in the ngrams-thread, I haven’t found it before 1911, I think it was.

                    Ultimately, linguistic arguments won’t count as irrefutable evidence because apparently Maybrick could have been a shakespearian genius, inventing expressions and phrases otherwise unknown.

                    Also, since he was a syphilitic psychopath hopped up on arsenic, any mistake in the diary is not actually a mistake but simply Maybrick misremembering, imagining what he might have done or spoofing press reports just for jolly. Even if nothing in the text suggests it.

                    So looking for a single irrefutable fact in the text is futile, since no single fact will be accepted as irrefutable.

                    Comment


                    • The Diary defenders want you to believe that Barrett was so stupid that he couldn't have written this masterpiece.


                      They maybe haven't read when the ripper in the "diary" wanted to cut the whore's head and stuff it down her throat!





                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                        While we’re at it, perhaps we can ponder the long absence of the use of ‘topping oneself’ (meaning to commit suicide, esp by hanging) in the press. Between the 1870s and the 1920s wasn’t it?

                        Does that suggest that it was forgotten for half a century? Or does it suggest that written sources are an unreliable record of spoken language?
                        Hi Mr B.
                        The phrase “top myself” is used to outline a personal intention, and something a newspaper reporter would be unlikely to write unless they were either suicidal, or quoting another individual.
                        Bumbling buffoon on the other hand, could be used by a writer to describe every person that has ever existed, so it is perhaps much more surprising that it does not appear at all.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                          "bumbling buffoon" was a good spot from The Baron. As I've noted myself on the other threads, it's seems like it should be common, but as it stands, no one has found a printing of it. That's interesting, regardless of what side of the debate your on. Sadly it seems, as was evidenced with the announcement of the "special announcement", debates regarding possible evidence of modern (ie, Barrett family) hoaxing aren't looked at on individual merit, but on their proximity to David Barrat. As The Baron is unashamedly his biggest fan, but not by a long shot his sock puppet, his bumbling buffoon discovery is instantly dismissed, because it's Pro Orsam or some such crap. But it's a good point he raises. I myself have said that both words were in use, and should have made sense in the LVP, it seems plausible. So why can't we find a single example?

                          ​​​​​​I've not been exactly polite to The Baron myself, but that doesn't mean I'll rubbish his findings for that reason.
                          Al,

                          How many examples of this wonderfully alliterative phrase can you find in the 70 years between 1950 and 2020?

                          Thousands?
                          Hundreds?
                          Dozens?

                          I’ve only found a handful and I’m left wondering why.

                          Of course, questioning whether referring to a female family friend as an aunt is such a major error that it entirely eliminates the possibility that the diary is genuine could only be motivated by a hatred of Lord O. No reasonable person would consider such an outrageous idea.

                          Gary

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

                            Hi Mr B.
                            The phrase “top myself” is used to outline a personal intention, and something a newspaper reporter would be unlikely to write unless they were either suicidal, or quoting another individual.
                            Bumbling buffoon on the other hand, could be used by a writer to describe every person that has ever existed, so it is perhaps much more surprising that it does not appear at all.
                            My point about ‘top myself’ was whether the written record accurately reflects its conversational usage, which I doubt died out for 50 years and then miraculously came back into vogue. If that phrase could go underground for half a century, why is it unreasonable to consider that both versions of ‘one-off’ might have been in use in the 1880s?
                            Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-29-2020, 05:53 PM.

                            Comment



                            • It seems that if you aren’t convinced that any of the so-called anachronisms are in fact such, then you are either:

                              a diary defender, or

                              an Orsam hater.





                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                Bumbling buffoon is interesting because it seems like it would have a long use, but apparently it wasn’t concocted before the 1940s. I never thought to check it.

                                I wonder if someone has checked for outfoxed/outfox/outfoxes in the papers? As noted in the ngrams-thread, I haven’t found it before 1911, I think it was.

                                Ultimately, linguistic arguments won’t count as irrefutable evidence because apparently Maybrick could have been a shakespearian genius, inventing expressions and phrases otherwise unknown.

                                Also, since he was a syphilitic psychopath hopped up on arsenic, any mistake in the diary is not actually a mistake but simply Maybrick misremembering, imagining what he might have done or spoofing press reports just for jolly. Even if nothing in the text suggests it.

                                So looking for a single irrefutable fact in the text is futile, since no single fact will be accepted as irrefutable.
                                Hi Kattrup,

                                I’ve found an 1866 example of ‘outfoxed’.

                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-29-2020, 06:42 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X