One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

"I left it there for the fools to find"

Some how morphs into an F AND M

Which surely would be

"I left them there for the fools to find".

[GUT]

From Harrison II (hardback, p29):

Like Dr Turgoose, Dr Wild photographed slivers of brass embedded within the scratch marks. They were blackened with age. The penultimate paragraph of his detailed report (which also stresses the need for much more lengthy work to pinpoint the precise age of the scratches) reads: Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least od several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Dr Turgoose (1993) and in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.

I offer you this now - in advance of the inevitable asinine posts which tend to follow and which follow the general line that aging engravings in a watch would be a ten-minute job for anyone with an oven. Try it, if you don't believe it. You'll just end up with a very hot watch ...

Ike

I have no issue with several tens of years, so about 1950....

Not a century.

[Iconoclast]

Well they knew about the F and M, without mentioning them, and as many people can't see them, well"......

So realisticall the best we can date them is the 1900s.

So what?

GUT,

Could you re-send this one but in English this time?

"They knew about the F and the M without mentioning them". What do you mean, they didn't mention them?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

"I left it there for the fools to find"

Some how morphs into an F AND M

Which surely would be

"I left them there for the fools to find".

Ah - the mystery solved, well done.

[GUT]

GUT,

Could you re-send this one but in English this time?

"They knew about the F and the M without mentioning them". What do you mean, they didn't mention them?

Ike

Where in the comic book does he say I wrote F and M. Nowhere.

[Iconoclast]

I have no issue with several tens of years, so about 1950....

Not a century.

That's fine. Not a problem.

Incidentally, how did the hoaxer in 'about 1950' know about the unpublished material which was still some 35 years or more from being released?

Here's a wee hint: Always have a quick think about the implications of your 'solutions' before you rapidly fire them into the ether ...

[Iconoclast]

Well they knew about the F and M, without mentioning them, and as many people can't see them, well"......

So realisticall the best we can date them is the 1900s.

So what?

1900s, 1950. And you critiscised me for having a wide sweep of options in a recent post!

[GUT]

That's fine. Not a problem.

Incidentally, how did the hoaxer in 'about 1950' know about the unpublished material which was still some 35 years or more from being released?

Here's a wee hint: Always have a quick think about the implications of your 'solutions' before you rapidly fire them into the ether ...

Who says he did.......?????

Maybe you need to take your own advice.

By the way if you believe maybrick wrote the diary I've got a great house in Washinton DC I can sell you, it's all White looks good, I'll give you a deal.

[Iconoclast]

Where in the comic book does he say I wrote F and M. Nowhere.

I think I would need to draw your attention back to the 3,000 times this has been discussed in this thread already.

In sum: It's obvious what he's referring to, but he just critically (for pedants who might be reading 128 years later) failed to write "Hey guys, I'm talking about the letters 'F' and 'M' here when referring to the initials of the woman I married and who I consistently refer to as the whore".

[GUT]

That's fine. Not a problem.

Incidentally, how did the hoaxer in 'about 1950' know about the unpublished material which was still some 35 years or more from being released?

Here's a wee hint: Always have a quick think about the implications of your 'solutions' before you rapidly fire them into the ether ...

Well who scratched it in 1950???? That's about the earliest date you get for the watch....

Oh maybe just ignore the evidence.

Same for the tests on the diary ink you get a range from 1892 (by which time Jim is dead) a latest of 1942... Then watch which dates to several decades before the testing.... Mmmmm winder when it was all put together????

[Iconoclast]

Who says he did.......?????

Maybe you need to take your own advice.

By the way if you believe maybrick wrote the diary I've got a great house in Washinton DC I can sell you, it's all White looks good, I'll give you a deal.

GUT,

Any chance you could do some new jokes? We've had all of these 'gullibility' jokes many times before - and, I suspect, by you.

Your question "Who says he did.......?????" tells me all I need to know about your posts. If your 'hoaxer' wrote the journal in 1950 (or indeed any time before 1987) how did he or she know to mention the two unpublished references to 'tin match box, empty' and Kelly's missing heart?

It's not rocket science, GUT. Just engage your brain before firing off your surreal responses.

Oh, and try to get a bit cleverer with the jokes. Honestly, I found it quite embarrassing for you that you thought you were being clever and funny.

[GUT]

GUT,

Any chance you could do some new jokes? We've had all of these 'gullibility' jokes many times before - and, I suspect, by you.

Your question "Who says he did.......?????" tells me all I need to know about your posts. If your 'hoaxer' wrote the journal in 1950 (or indeed any time before 1987) how did he or she know to mention the two unpublished references to 'tin match box, empty' and Kelly's missing heart?

It's not rocket science, GUT. Just engage your brain before firing off your surreal responses.

Oh, and try to get a bit cleverer with the jokes. Honestly, I found it quite embarrassing for you that you thought you were being clever and funny.

Not as embarrassing as believing in the diary, by a long shot.

[Iconoclast]

Well who scratched it in 1950???? That's about the earliest date you get for the watch....

Oh maybe just ignore the evidence.

Same for the tests on the diary ink you get a range from 1892 (by which time Jim is dead) a latest of 1942... Then watch which dates to several decades before the testing.... Mmmmm winder when it was all put together????

Just heading out with the dogs, will respond to this mince when back ...

[Iconoclast]

Well who scratched it in 1950???? That's about the earliest date you get for the watch....

Oh maybe just ignore the evidence.

Same for the tests on the diary ink you get a range from 1892 (by which time Jim is dead) a latest of 1942... Then watch which dates to several decades before the testing.... Mmmmm winder when it was all put together????

Please, GUT, have some self-respect. You don't know any of the evidence otherwise you wouldn't be saying such damning untruths about a document you are clearly desperate to see undone.

Dr Wild stated that "the engravings were at least of several tens of years age".

I'm assuming here that I don't have to explain to you what 'at least' means?

So that's the evidence I'm relying on. Remind me, what was the evidence you were citing?

[Iconoclast]

Not as embarrassing as believing in the diary, by a long shot.

Oh dear, you're actually determined to make it worse!