Rude, Ike. Rude.
The Switchblade has unfinished business here, so watch it!
I asked RJ a couple of civil questions, based on his favoured hoaxer's actual words.
Mike has the floor again:
'When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.'
I asked RJ what he believed Mike did and how long this was before he took the diary to London. His response was swift as requested, but predictably contained projected hyperbole: 'I am confident that he wouldn't have soaked the entire diary in a bed pan filled with a gallon of the stuff, thus ruining the entire scrap book. Why would he do such a thing? Why would anyone do such a thing?'; deviation by the bed pan load, and more padding than Paddington.
Mind you, why would he answer in 30 words, when 1,000 would do?
He could simply have said: 'No, I don't believe Mike soaked the whole cover, or did this in early 1990. I believe he used a little linseed oil on or around All Fools' Day 1992.'
And how very appropriate that would have been!
Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
I believe Keith has promised to explain why Barrett (or the Barretts) requested at "least twenty blank pages."
This suggests, to any reasonable person, that they intended to write something one those twenty blank pages, which, in turn, suggests a pre-existing typescript.
This suggests, to any reasonable person, that they intended to write something one those twenty blank pages, which, in turn, suggests a pre-existing typescript.
But yes, without any other information, a reasonable person might well reach the conclusion that Mike intended something to be written on the blank pages.
It takes an unreasonable person to sweep away what other information exists, that casts a measure of doubt.
The advert Mike placed between 9th and 12th March 1992 would also make sense if it wasn't the diary he wanted, but just a bit of paper he could wave about - preferably an invoice or receipt, or even the advert itself - to prove his interest in such an item at that time, or to legitimise his ownership of the old book supposedly dating from 1889, for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it.
I mean, it wouldn't have been the only time Mike was prepared to claim he had physical proof of his purchase of the scrapbook, would it? He was still claiming in 1999 to have the auction ticket for it, which presumably - if Orsam wasn't joining up the wrong dots - would have given him the date of 31st March 1992, to tell Harold Brough in June 1994, then Alan Gray when they were working together on the affidavit typed up in January 1995. Mike could have done as much without parting with the actual ticket, and without either of them needing to rely on his famously faulty memory for dates, of which Gray was only too well aware.
Love,
Switchypoo
X
Comment