Originally posted by Jonathan H
View Post
And to Tom Westcott who recently made unsubstantiated claims about the diary.
Anne Barrett's father substantiated her story about the journal going back to 1943. Fair enough, he was her father, but you nevertheless have to call two people liars if you do not accept their stories. Have you some insight which you can share with us to justify such a claim?
Like Tom Westcott, you came on and made a wildly-inaccurate claim: you told the Casebook readers that the journal had no provenance except in the modern era, and I want you to man up and tell us all where you got this insight from. If it was from the usual wishful-thinking and misinformation which normally informs the judgements of journal-debunkers, then just admit it. Just say, "I thought it was true and I thought I could say what I want without having to answer for my claims, but you've got me Soothsayer, I don't actually have any grounds for making the claims I have made".
Incidentally, since when did Carl Sagan define scientific rigour? Extraordinary claims simply need evidence, full stop. That cuts both ways. If you are going to say that X is a known fact, be prepared to provide the evidence for it, extraordinary or otherwise ...
PS Let's be clear, I will live with the journal being a hoax if hoax it can be proven to be. Until the day it is so proven, I will not give up the fight to have its case made, and indeed defended against scurrilous wishful-thinking and misinformation. Amen to that, your graces.
Comment