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 GUT View Post
    ...big in the Ripper world a tiny blip outside...
    A tiny blip in the outside world but a persuasive one none the less.

    I can tell you that, when I read the first Diary book, I was thoroughly convinced, so much so that I never even knew there was still a mystery until Patricia Cornwell's book came out in 2002. That's about a nine year gap in Ripper updates, proof that the "Ripper world" is, or was, a much tinier blip than the Diary.

    Comment


    • I thought Feldman's book was a damn good read, with much information that was new to me, but where I thought he fell down flat was in his desperate attempts to link Anne Graham's descent from Florence Maybrick. He must have had a reason for this - perhaps associated with his profession as a film and TV producer, and he saw potential. But his 'interview' with Billy Graham proved absolutely nothing, at least as far as I'm concerned. It took a rather wild leap of the imagination if Feldman thought he'd proved the link.

      Graham
      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
        I thought Feldman's book was a Mmn good read, with mucormation that was new to me, but workmena thought he fell down flat was in his desperate attempts to link Anne Graham's descent from Florence Maybrick. He must have had a reason for this - perhaps associated with his profession as a film and TV producer, and he saw potential. But his 'interview' with Billy Graham proved absolutely nothing, at least as far as I'm concerned. It took a rather wild leap of the imagination if Feldman thought he'd proved the link.

        Graham
        Hi Graham,I think the glint of gold short circuited Mr Feldmans common sense he neglected some basic things in his research like the workmen from battlecrease who drank in Mr Barrett s pub.
        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

        Comment


        • Hi Jason

          I think the glint of gold short circuited Mr Feldmans common sense he neglected some basic things in his research like the workmen from battlecrease who drank in Mr Barrett s pub.
          With respect I don't think you got this right...at least certainly not at the end... My understanding is that he became so obsessed with the diary, so perversely convinced in it's authenticity, that he actually went out and squandered a fortune in trying to prove it...I don't think he ever had any realistic hope in hell of recovering a fraction of what he spent, never mind turning a profit...

          Let's ask Caz, who probably knows more on the subject than anybody else....Caz?

          All the best

          Dave

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
            Hi Jason



            With respect I don't think you got this right...at least certainly not at the end... My understanding is that he became so obsessed with the diary, so perversely convinced in it's authenticity, that he actually went out and squandered a fortune in trying to prove it...I don't think he ever had any realistic hope in hell of recovering a fraction of what he spent, never mind turning a profit...

            Let's ask Caz, who probably knows more on the subject than anybody else....Caz?

            All the best

            Dave
            Hi Dave,from what I can remember I think Mr Feldman was thinking major film for his discoveries I think he worked on the principle spend a lot make a lot.
            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

            Comment


            • Maybe at first Jason, but at the end? Like I said, let's ask Caz...

              All the best

              Dave

              Comment


              • Since we're asking Caz questions, I have a few.

                1. Do you consider Old Hoax Theory the prevailing one? Is New Hoax theory even still viable for you?

                2. Is there proof that the text is old, and not just the journal? Is the ink test definitive?

                3. You like to champion the excellence of the author. Is that because a superior forgery more likely to come from a contemporary forger that from a modern one?

                4. How can Feldy, Rubenstein, and Cantor all be wrong?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                  Hi Jason



                  With respect I don't think you got this right...at least certainly not at the end... My understanding is that he became so obsessed with the diary, so perversely convinced in it's authenticity, that he actually went out and squandered a fortune in trying to prove it...I don't think he ever had any realistic hope in hell of recovering a fraction of what he spent, never mind turning a profit...

                  Let's ask Caz, who probably knows more on the subject than anybody else....Caz?

                  All the best

                  Dave
                  Yep, Dave. While Feldy was highly ambitious, and saw film, fame and fortune in his future via the diary, he did become a man possessed by it, believing with every fibre of his being that it was genuine and that he would be the one to find conclusive proof that Maybrick was indeed the ripper. In the end he sacrificed a lot more than hard cash to fund his efforts - his marriage and his health went out of the window too, ultimately - I believe - leading to his death at a relatively young age.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                    Since we're asking Caz questions, I have a few.

                    1. Do you consider Old Hoax Theory the prevailing one? Is New Hoax theory even still viable for you?
                    I'm on the fringe with Keith Skinner, believing the diary is not a modern production, but not the work of James Maybrick either.

                    When I first found the diary facsimile and transcript at the end of Shirley Harrison's book (after reading Feldman's) I read it through three or four times from different viewpoints: as if it were genuine; as if it were a modern fake by the Barretts to make money; as if it were an older hoax, not necessarily intended for publication, and so on. I had to do this before trying to decide what was viable or not, based on its emergence in 1992 and the people supposedly involved. From then on, I could never really consider the modern hoax conspiracy theory viable, and I most certainly couldn't today.

                    2. Is there proof that the text is old, and not just the journal? Is the ink test definitive?
                    Of course not, or we would all just be left with who, why and how old is old. Equally, there is nothing that proves the writing can't be old, and all the ink tests to date have failed to prove modernity, or even indicate it as more likely.

                    3. You like to champion the excellence of the author. Is that because a superior forgery more likely to come from a contemporary forger that from a modern one?
                    Eh? Since when have I championed the 'excellence' of the author? I believe it was a hoax, and therefore whoever wrote it was playing a part, and not necessarily writing to the best of their own abilities. To me, the diary reads like someone dumbing down to take 'Sir Jim' down a peg or two, making him come across as an uneducated nouveau riche - 'I frequented my club' being but one example I recall off the top of my head.

                    4. How can Feldy, Rubenstein, and Cantor all be wrong?
                    It's Canter - but I'm afraid I can't really answer a question like that. You still have to get past the handwriting, before you even start on the content.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 01-31-2014, 05:22 AM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Caz,

                      I mentioned this once before: I'm sort of a believer in a 1950s-1970s creation, before computers anyway. What does that make me? (I absolutely expect a charming, if smart-a$$ answer here.)

                      Mike
                      huh?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                        Caz,

                        I mentioned this once before: I'm sort of a believer in a 1950s-1970s creation, before computers anyway. What does that make me? (I absolutely expect a charming, if smart-a$$ answer here.)

                        Mike
                        Hi GM,

                        That puts you on the fringe with me and Keith I guess.

                        Which makes you part of a shawl.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I believe it was a hoax, and therefore whoever wrote it was playing a part, and not necessarily writing to the best of their own abilities. To me, the diary reads like someone dumbing down to take 'Sir Jim' down a peg or two, making him come across as an uneducated nouveau riche - 'I frequented my club' being but one example I recall off the top of my head...
                          The "matching quotes" for frequented on dictionary.com all come from Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862).

                          http://quotes.dictionary.com/search/...utmk=202151185

                          Perhaps the author read Walden and used it to make James sound Civil War Era, American frontier posh!

                          Comment


                          • Mr Barrett summed up the whole situation when he told me"the diary can never be proved however it can never be disproved"I would like to point out he was commode hugging drunk when he told me this.
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              I'm on the fringe with Keith Skinner, believing the diary is not a modern production, but not the work of James Maybrick either...You still have to get past the handwriting, before you even start on the content...
                              Is the handwriting standing between you and the as-yet unsupported belief that the mysterious hoaxer, with 'insider' knowledge, could be James Maybrick himself?

                              If so, then you are dismissing James as a possible or probably hoaxer for a flimsy reason. Please give the researchers, who found the samples of Kurten's handwriting, some credit.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                                The "matching quotes" for frequented on dictionary.com all come from Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862).

                                http://quotes.dictionary.com/search/...utmk=202151185

                                Perhaps the author read Walden and used it to make James sound Civil War Era, American frontier posh!
                                Hi MayBea,

                                Thanks for these examples, but I see I didn't make myself clear. The use of 'frequented' is correct in each case, while it is not in the diary:

                                'I frequented my club' means to go there frequently, while Sir Jim meant it in the sense of a single occasion, as in: 'I went to my club (last night or whenever)'. It's just a bit of pretentious twaddle - deliberate in my view, in line with the high and mighty character being drawn.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X