One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

I did try tellin him.

Well, with your informative insight and in-depth research, how can anyone else compete?

[erobitha]

And he wonders why he was labeled a diary defender

A diary defender.. on steroids



The Baron

I don't wonder anything Barry.

Thanks for joining in.

[erobitha]

So you do admit it was a hoax then?

No John, I'm playing along with you.

Thanks for dropping by.

[John Wheat]

As much as I’d admit that Americans get irony and Germans have a sense of humour.

National generalisations aside. Why are you answering a question asked to another poster?

[Iconoclast]

So you do admit it was a hoax then?

As much as I’d admit that Americans get irony and Germans have a sense of humour.

[John Wheat]

I encourage everyone to read the reports.

Turgoose explained how difficult it was to replicate these results. What he was actually saying is that with the right equipment and expertise, you might be able to replicate similar results, but it requires the right equipment and technical knowledge to pull it off with a "complex multi-stage process". Turgoose admitted himself he couldn't replicate it.

But yet, we are to believe Albert, Robbie and now John White between them mastered this hoax.

So you do admit it was a hoax then?

[FISHY1118]

Its still true its a fake though.

I did try tellin him.

[John Wheat]

Thanks again for dropping by with your invaluable input.

No problem. You don't need to keep thanking me.

[The Baron]

Nope - 31 years on and still nobody has found a single piece of evidence which 100% proves the scrapbook was a modern fake.

We've found .. we've found

You just need to catch up with all of this.


The Baron

[The Baron]

We do not have the conclusive proof either way.

And he wonders why he was labeled a diary defender

A diary defender.. on steroids



The Baron

[erobitha]

What a load of bullshit.

Thanks again for dropping by with your invaluable input.

[erobitha]

Ever notice how Jay Hartley is always here to "ensure the public gets to understand the reality" of the watch, but he never actually quotes the reports?

Could it have something to do with what Dr. Turgoose actually wrote in his conclusion?

"However, whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin of the engravings, it must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.

They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multistage process…."

Full report here:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Turgoose Report on the Maybrick Watch - 10 August 1993

Enjoy.

I encourage everyone to read the reports.

Turgoose explained how difficult it was to replicate these results. What he was actually saying is that with the right equipment and expertise, you might be able to replicate similar results, but it requires the right equipment and technical knowledge to pull it off with a "complex multi-stage process". Turgoose admitted himself he couldn't replicate it.

But yet, we are to believe Albert, Robbie and now John White between them mastered this hoax.

[rjpalmer]

Not the scientific reports of metallurgists who date the scratches of considerable age, at least decades old, long before the diary's known existence.

It's far easier for critics to sweep over the watch, but thankfully, I am here to ensure the public gets to understand the reality. Not what suits the critics narrative.

Ever notice how Jay Hartley is always here to "ensure the public gets to understand the reality" of the watch, but he never actually quotes the reports?

Could it have something to do with what Dr. Turgoose actually wrote in his conclusion?

"However, whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin of the engravings, it must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.

They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multistage process…."

Full report here:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Turgoose Report on the Maybrick Watch - 10 August 1993

Enjoy.

[John Wheat]

Initially, RJ's assertion is correct. Those involved with Shirley's book were initially concerned, but after meeting Albert and hearing his story, nobody believed he was being anything but honest about his story. We also have his friend called John White who verified Albert's story. Either Albert was so cunning that he deliberately looked for witnesses to corroborate his story, or John White was also in on the hoax. Or he could just be telling the truth. Albert was a deeply religious man, who also paid for the initial tests out of his own pocket.

All of this was before we even knew of the Battlecrrease timesheets. The watch was sold in July 1992 after having come back from repair earlier the same year. My money is on the watch being repaired after 9th March 1992 by Tim Dundas.

Still, an old pin and tin can are enough for the critics. Not the scientific reports of metallurgists who date the scratches of considerable age, at least decades old, long before the diary's known existence.

It's far easier for critics to sweep over the watch, but thankfully, I am here to ensure the public gets to understand the reality. Not what suits the critics narrative.

https://jayhartley.com/the-inconveni...aybrick-watch/

What a load of bullshit.

[erobitha]

Even the diary's supporters were terrified it was a 'bandwagon' hoax--with good reason.

Initially, RJ's assertion is correct. Those involved with Shirley's book were initially concerned, but after meeting Albert and hearing his story, nobody believed he was being anything but honest about his story. We also have his friend called John White who verified Albert's story. Either Albert was so cunning that he deliberately looked for witnesses to corroborate his story, or John White was also in on the hoax. Or he could just be telling the truth. Albert was a deeply religious man, who also paid for the initial tests out of his own pocket.

All of this was before we even knew of the Battlecrrease timesheets. The watch was sold in July 1992 after having come back from repair earlier the same year. My money is on the watch being repaired after 9th March 1992 by Tim Dundas.

Still, an old pin and tin can are enough for the critics. Not the scientific reports of metallurgists who date the scratches of considerable age, at least decades old, long before the diary's known existence.

It's far easier for critics to sweep over the watch, but thankfully, I am here to ensure the public gets to understand the reality. Not what suits the critics narrative.

https://jayhartley.com/the-inconvenient-truth-of-the-maybrick-watch/