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 The Baron View Post

    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).
    Iconoclast
    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

    Comment


    • You see what I mean Trevor!


      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
        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 ...
        Iconoclast
        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


          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

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              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
              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                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.
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  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

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    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
                    Iconoclast
                    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                      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

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                        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

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          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
                          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            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
                            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              The evidence proves its fake get over it

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Honestly, Trevor, just tell us all what it is, man!
                              Iconoclast
                              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X