One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Let's see, now did it go?

THIS FORUM AS A REPUTATION FOR GOOD RESEARCH, I WILL NOT SEE IT DESCEND INTO THE USE OF INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.

SO IF YOU WANT THIS THREAD TO REMAIN OPEN, AND I AM MINDED JUST TO CLOSE IT, BEHAVE.

But anything to score a point against a perceived enemy, eh?

Just a gentle reminder to all of our dear readers that the quotation above was not posted at 'the other place' in reference to anything Caz had posted there so I don't understand why RJ feels that he has the right to cite it in reference to anything Caz has posted here. Has she become someone's keeper and must answer for their actions? Unless RJ is attempting to score a very tangential point against a perceived enemy in so doing? Now wouldn't that be ironic given his posturing and his faux-offence?

Personally, I don't mind a spot of the old Anglo-Saxon though I note that the language was graciously accepted by the poster in question as his and his alone, much to his not inconsiderable credit, I would venture. I doubt I'd have had such brilliant self-control, I really do.

And, yes, Caz, being as heartened this season as I have by the good fortunes of the barcodes, the recent catastrophic drop off in form of the Jambos has been much softened for me. Like a pillow. A feather pillow. Nice and light for what could have been my weary head, but was not.

Am I accusing people of lying regarding their remarkable inability to see the 'shapes' that so many can see effortlessly, whether 'diary defender' or 'diary distractor'? If it isn't against the rules, it should be, but I don't think that that was what I was saying to Fishy (and my apologies if that's how he read it). I think I have drawn this analogy before and - if I haven't - I am now. It is very much like those remarkable Magic Eyes pictures which - if you can't 'see' them - seem like some sort of collective joke on the part of those who claim they can. The reality is that they are not jokes, they really do contain brilliantly-light (how ironic!) shapes which literally leap out at you in glorious 3D, but only when you train your brain to see them. I don't think that that is accusing someone of lying, I really don't.

And Caz, what you should do with John Wheat is, when he makes one of his utterly facile comments, just repeat it back at him. It drives him crackers. You watch ...

[Iconoclast]

That is a complete and utter cop out.

That is a complete and utter cop out.

[John Wheat]

That is a complete and utter cop out.

Immaturity

[Aethelwulf]

I don't know how many more times it has to be said the light in the room must have been poor.

There were two small windows, most likely covered in grime. In an enclosed courtyard with limited sunlight.

The main door was opposite a brick wall which was part of the passage.

The front door, when opened, went to the bedside table. That would block the light from one of the windows, which likely cast a shadow across the head of the bed and therefore, the wooden partition door on the other side of the bed.

Blood dries a dark brown on wood. It would be seen as the usual grime to the naked eye in a dark room.

When the flash ignited, it caught the initials.

When the blood was applied, there would have been ample light from the fire, and the blood would have been bright red.

Under intoxication, it is completely feasible Maybrick assumed what he could see clearly at the time would be the same in daylight.

Understandable I suppose that a rubbish theory needs laughable excuses to support it.

[erobitha]

Understandable I suppose that a rubbish theory needs laughable excuses to support it.

Regardless of whether you believe there are initials on the wall or not, how I described the room is pretty accurate.

Or do you think the room had so much natural light that every blemish and stain could be seen in its finest detailed glory?

Because that would be laughable.

[Iconoclast]

Immaturity

Immaturity.

(Honestly, I could do this all night.)

[Iconoclast]

Understandable I suppose that a rubbish theory needs laughable excuses to support it.

Once again, we see the 'Can't See It' argument, this time morphed into the 'That's Just Laughable' dismissal. These are clearly cheap soundbites spoken by those who don't want to explore the possible and the plausible and instead want to casually wipe away any position they don't want to have to properly defend.

This instinct in the 'dismisser' is so rooted in their DNA that they spout forth without properly considering the consequences of their responses. In this particular case, ero b makes a perfectly reasonable claim (apropos my own) regarding the lack of natural light in Mary Kelly's room, but - without any attempt to reasonably deconstruct the argument - you blindly call 'Foul!' where no foul has been committed.

I don't know, maybe y'all think the rest of us are too stupid to spot the vacuity in this senseless demolition of every notion you don't like. But - word to the wise, chummy - we ain't. Try mounting some sort of cogent challenge one day. You might actually surprise yourself.

[Aethelwulf]

Regardless of whether you believe there are initials on the wall or not, how I described the room is pretty accurate.

Or do you think the room had so much natural light that every blemish and stain could be seen in its finest detailed glory?

Because that would be laughable.

Give over. There is of course no way the police had means of lighting the room to a brighter extent than kelly's fire. We know abberline made an inventory of the room, so how did he do that in the dark? We know Phillips described the exact corner, floor and partition wall, where the 'initials' were located - he must have been fumbling in the dark I suppose? We know a camerman set up his equipement at the far end of the room looking out - he must have just guessed in the dark. Can't belive anyone actually believes this BS.

[Iconoclast]

Give over. There is of course no way the police had means of lighting the room to a brighter extent than kelly's fire. We know abberline made an inventory of the room, so how did he do that in the dark? We know Phillips described the exact corner, floor and partition wall, where the 'initials' were located - he must have been fumbling in the dark I suppose? We know a camerman set up his equipement at the far end of the room looking out - he must have just guessed in the dark. Can't belive anyone actually believes this BS.

A room does not have to be pitch black to be 'dark'. A lack of natural light does not prevent people being able to function perfectly well in a room. Given that no-one spotted the initials when they were published in book after book from 1972 onwards, staring out at us, then I don't think that people will find it even remotely strange that people who were not looking for initials on Kelly's wall back in November 1888 would not notice them. I think their attention would be drawn to the carnage Jack had left, but clearly you don't.

What we can never know is what that room looked like in reality, but I think we can say that proposing that obscure, unexpected details might have had no hope of being noticed in the gloom is most certainly not BS. So why do you have to say it is? The casual dismissal is the mark of a dilettante. Maybe that's the way you want to be perceived?

[erobitha]

Give over. There is of course no way the police had means of lighting the room to a brighter extent than kelly's fire. We know abberline made an inventory of the room, so how did he do that in the dark? We know Phillips described the exact corner, floor and partition wall, where the 'initials' were located - he must have been fumbling in the dark I suppose? We know a camerman set up his equipement at the far end of the room looking out - he must have just guessed in the dark. Can't belive anyone actually believes this BS.

I never said it was pitch black. I said it did not have much natural light.

The partition was a door, not a wall. Which means it was wooden. Blood goes darkish brown against wood. That particular spot probably had access to the least amount of natural light during the day.

Why would they look for the initials if they were not readily visible?

[Aethelwulf]

I never said it was pitch black. I said it did not have much natural light.

The partition was a door, not a wall. Which means it was wooden. Blood goes darkish brown against wood. That particular spot probably had access to the least amount of natural light during the day.

Why would they look for the initials if they were not readily visible?

Simple translation of Ikobitha's posts above: they have no plausible answers as to why people who were actually in that room looking at the very area in question didn't report any initials. Obviosuly looking at the scene second hand 130+ years later through a photo trumps actaully being there.

[Aethelwulf]

So why do you have to say it is?

As is the case with every moronic theory, the people that shout loudest are the ones that get heard, despite spewing forth torrents of verbal diarrhoea. Just trying to keep erobike in check.

[Iconoclast]

Simple translation of Ikobitha's posts above: they have no plausible answers as to why people who were actually in that room looking at the very area in question didn't report any initials. Obviosuly looking at the scene second hand 130+ years later through a photo trumps actaully being there.

Simple translation of AethelMerman's posts above: in a dimly-lit room where the focus was the destruction of a woman's body on the bed, everyone would have spotted dried blood on a wooden door even though no-one had any reason to look for any.

Obviously the scene second-hand 130+ years later through a photograph would trump being there because the cameraman's flash would make it permanently light in the photograph and only infinitessimally briefly light in the room when he set the flash off.

But, honestly, everyone else gets that. This obsession with saying 'It Ain't So' is exactly what I enjoy doing to Wheato - pure childishness.

No amount of bluff and bluster from you (or anyone else) will make Kelly's room a Stadium of Light.

[Iconoclast]

As is the case with every moronic theory, the people that shout loudest are the ones that get heard, despite spewing forth torrents of verbal diarrhoea. Just trying to keep erobike in check.

Well you should locate a moronic theory before you attempt to denigrate it.

Thing is, no-one's going to buy this one. You've over-reached yourself. Your case is groundless. Feel free to keep pursuing it as I am happy to rip it apart every time you try to have the last word.

[DJA]

No amount of bluff and bluster from you (or anyone else) will make Kelly's room a Stadium of Light.

Kelly's room had once been the parlor or games room of the large house.

Natural light could have been augmented by kerosene lamps of up to 251 watts.