One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

This:

>>"If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax"

Funny thing is, David Orsam has cited a reference to the Liverpool Football Club dating back to 1874!



So in essence, there is nothing that can prove the diary is a fake!

The Baron

To be clear, was this a reference to 'Liverpool Football Club' or to 'the Liverpool Football Club'. There's a whole world of difference (especially if you're a Scouser).

[The Baron]

You see what I mean Trevor!


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

You see what I mean Trevor!

The Baron

Trevor may well, but I'm not sure everyone will be following your logic there. I'm assuming that English is your native language so it's not obvious why you would fail to understand what 'the Liverpool Football Club' means (in isolation, it means the football club in Liverpool - implying that there was only the one, but obviously not Liverpool FC).

Of course, your point is lost anyway because you were implying through your example that any apparent anachronism could be dated sufficiently early to not be an anachronism at all (when it suits Orsam's argument, of course).

How about if James had talked in his diary about standing by the Mersey and casting his eyes over those two proud Liver Birds - Bertie and Bella - stood on top of the Liver Building?

Let's see him find an 1889 or earlier reference to those plump beauties which would permit of James Maybrick casting his eyes over them ...

[Trevor Marriott]

This:


>>"If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax"


Funny thing is, David Orsam has cited a reference to the Liverpool Football Club dating back to 1874!




So in essence, there is nothing that can prove the diary is a fake!



The Baron

You are another one who needs to look at the evidence to show it is a fake and not reject it so quickly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor may well, but I'm not sure everyone will be following your logic there. I'm assuming that English is your native language so it's not obvious why you would fail to understand what 'the Liverpool Football Club' means (in isolation, it means the football club in Liverpool - implying that there was only the one, but obviously not Liverpool FC).

Of course, your point is lost anyway because you were implying through your example that any apparent anachronism could be dated sufficiently early to not be an anachronism at all (when it suits Orsam's argument, of course).

How about if James had talked in his diary about standing by the Mersey and casting his eyes over those two proud Liver Birds - Bertie and Bella - stood on top of the Liver Building?

Let's see him find an 1889 or earlier reference to those plump beauties which would permit of James Maybrick casting his eyes over them ...

Again you are muddying the waters with irrelevant statements, why dont you just stick to the facts

I stand to be corrected but I dont think the liverbirds you mention were there is 1888 when you suggest the diary was written.



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

I stand to be corrected but I dont think the liverbirds you mention were there is 1888 when you suggest the diary was written.



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No ****, Sherlock!

That was the entire point!



PS The Liver Building was erected in 1911 and the Liver Birds in the form of Bertie and Bella were added at that point. So - IF THEY HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE DIARY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXAMPLE ON AN ANACHRONISM WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE DIARY TO BE A HOAX unlike the previous example I gave of Maybrick referring to Liverpool Football Club (according to his Hardship the Lord Orsam)..

[Iconoclast]

Again you are muddying the waters with irrelevant statements, why dont you just stick to the facts

Feel free to stick with the facts yourself, Trevor, rather than attempting to conflate two separate conversations to imply I am drifting.

Let's stick to the facts.

You claimed to have incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable evidence that the diary was a fake (remember - you said it had been proved to be a fake?): so we're all still agog waiting for you to explain to us all what that evidence is.

Just stick to the facts, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

No ****, Sherlock!

That was the entire point!



PS The Liver Building was erected in 1911 and the Liver Birds in the form of Bertie and Bella were added at that point. So - IF THEY HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE DIARY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXAMPLE ON AN ANACHRONISM WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE DIARY TO BE A HOAX unlike the previous example I gave of Maybrick referring to Liverpool Football Club (according to his Hardship the Lord Orsam)..

You are on a different planet to the rest of us, In a world of your own, because they were not mentioned in the diary so why introduce something that is irrelevant

I hope you are reguarly taking your medication

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

You are another one who needs to look at the evidence to show it is a fake and not reject it so quickly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

He's 'The Baron'. He's an Orsam acolyte. He 'knows' it is a fake!

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

Feel free to stick with the facts yourself, Trevor, rather than attempting to conflate two separate conversations to imply I am drifting.

Let's stick to the facts.

You claimed to have incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable evidence that the diary was a fake (remember - you said it had been proved to be a fake?): so we're all still agog waiting for you to explain to us all what that evidence is.

Just stick to the facts, Trevor.

and you were asked to present the evidence to support the diary being authentic but we all still wait and I suspect it will be a long wait

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

He's 'The Baron'. He's an Orsam acolyte. He 'knows' it is a fake!

Ike

The evidence proves its fake get over it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

You are on a different planet to the rest of us, In a world of your own, because they were not mentioned in the diary so why introduce something that is irrelevant

I hope you are reguarly taking your medication

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Honestly, dear readers, keep your nerves here, the pain will soon be over.

If the Liver Birds were mentioned by name in the Maybrick scrapbook, there's a reasonably good chance the hoax would be blown out of the Mersey water.

THEREFORE, there ARE examples of anachronisms which would blow the scrapbook out of the water (if 'Liverpool FC' wouldn't have) despite what the poster claimed.

Trevor - none of this has anything whatsoever to do with our discussion; it is no more than a sideshow by that poster who can never decide what his or her first language is who posted a reply (#7607) mentioning you which is how you must have thought you were part of that conversation.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

and you were asked to present the evidence to support the diary being authentic but we all still wait and I suspect it will be a long wait

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

#7595, which you responded to with a vacuous dismissal. Here is the gist of my response:

With regard to the evidence which supports the authenticity of the diary, I would honestly have to refer you to my brilliant Society's Pillar - ideally the 2025 version which is going to be an even bigger blockbuster than the original though obviously you've got to be a wee bit patient for that one - but I could distil my primary evidence down to the presence of 'FM' on Kelly's wall (initials predicted in the diary in the context of Kelly's death) and James Maybrick's highly-idiosyncratic signature appearing in the back of his watch with the confession "I am Jack" and his victim's initials. There's more, but that's the distilling bit. You know where to go for the rest, mate.

So no-one is waiting, Trevor, and therefore it won't be a long wait for anyone.

Unlike those foolishly forming a polite queue to hear your incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary.

[Iconoclast]

The evidence proves its fake get over it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Honestly, Trevor, just tell us all what it is, man!

[rjpalmer]

In 1995, a British film producer came out with 17 minutes of footage which he marketed as an "Alien Autopsy," supposedly showing a post-mortem being conducted on a space alien that had been recovered from an alleged UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. It was turned into a sort of 'you decide' documentary, not unlike Feldman's film from roughly the same era.

It was obviously bogus, of course, and years later the film maker even admitted it was, but now called it a 'reconstruction' based on actual footage he had seen years earlier. The original film, he claimed, had deteriorated from age and humidity, and he was forced into 'replicating' it with all due apologies, etc. Thus, he claimed it was a hoax--but the hoax of a real film.

We've seen this same suggestion with the Maybrick hoax. Instead of biting the bullet and just admitting it's all poppycock, the theorists argue it is a modern hoax based on an old hoax (now conveniently lost); or, they argue it is an old hoax, but based on an 'oral tradition' (also conveniently lost) that Maybrick really was Jack the Ripper.

For future reference this line of argument will be called the 'hoax once removed gimmick' (HORG), which appears to be the last refuge of denial.