Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the watch is real but the document isn't?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Just to save me the hassle of looking up something you appear to have abridged, could you clarify for us all what is represented by the ellipsis, please?

    I'm sure it was nothing, but it does not to be clarified for the avoidance of any doubt as to what was originally said (a lesson, I believe, much taught by Lord Orsam himself back in the days before his dramatic resignation from the Casebook to spend more time with his family). On an entirely grammatical point, would I be right in saying that an ellipsis starts and ends with a space? (Just asking for a friend.)
    That's the exact quote as I found it, Ike, I have abridged absolutely nothing. I literally copy and pasted that passage, I tried to do it in Italics but it didn't work. You can find it in the Maybrick Wiki as it appears above.

    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    The main thrust of your argument around the embedding of aged particles to be later 'discovered' and 'dated' to many decades ago is that those scientists [see what I did there? - used your term to set up an argument against your position] whose speciality was metallurgy made pointless assessments on age [which was the objective of the exercise and what they were being paid to deliver] as they were so desperate to provide the client with a positive outcome that they completely forgot to add "thanks for the cheque ... but, mind, any idiot could also do it with an old school compass and a lot of rags".
    The very bloke that did the analysis said it could have been artificially aged using the same process I described. I'm not sure where the mystery here is. He literally says it in his own analysis. The only point of contention is his own belief that it would be difficult to do, despite unwittingly claiming it could be done simply by polishing.

    This is akin to "experts" claiming that (insert favourite hoax here) could be done but only by a fella what's really really clever. It's a nonsense. The fact remains, it could be artificially aged, therefore, claiming it couldn't be or wasn't, is a lie.

    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    I deeply distrust any argument that contradicts specialist opinion - not because I believe specialists to always be correct but because I suspect it is more likely that facile retorts are more likely to come from a deeply biased perspective.
    Then you deeply distrust the argument made by the very man who did the analysis in the first place, Ike, for it was him who claimed it could be forged, it was just his... wait for it, OPINION, that it would've had to have been done by someone in the know, despite how easily he claimed it could be done: polishing.

    Talk about being biased, there's been enough opinion on record that the initials on the watch cannot definitively be aged, yet you and others choose to believe that they could not and were not. That's a deeply biased perspective. I'm simply reading what was written and pointing out how the analysis DID NOT prove the watches initials as genuine. That you find issue with that basic fact isn't my problem, mate.

    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    PS The Maybrick signature on the watch is an extremely good match for the known Maybrick signature on his wedding licence. Is there any need for us to explore how that was possible or should we just conveniently ignore it in the same self-serving way you did (despite supposedly seeking evidence for or against)?

    Ike
    Is this the same wedding license that doesn't match the diary's writing??? Didn't you claim that there's little evidence James wrote that signature on the license? How can carved initials resemble the written word in a good enough manner as to presume a match?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

      The very bloke that did the analysis said it could have been artificially aged using the same process I described. I'm not sure where the mystery here is. He literally says it in his own analysis. The only point of contention is his own belief that it would be difficult to do, despite unwittingly claiming it could be done simply by polishing.
      Just so we're all clear, the metallurgist who said "But it's fairly easy to polish out some scratches to make them look old and layered" didn't also say "and as for embedding aged particles - well, any idiot just needs an old school compass".

      It's interesting how easy it is to be selective, isn't it?

      Is this the same wedding license that doesn't match the diary's writing??? Didn't you claim that there's little evidence James wrote that signature on the license?
      Stick to the argument, Mike. The signature on the watch is an extremely good facsimile for that on the wedding licence. No need to try to shift focus away from this by suddenly throwing in the scrapbook, now is there? If you can't make your argument stick regarding the licence and the watch, just admit it, and then - if you have to - try your little deflection technique.

      By the way, I don't recall claiming that there's little evidence James signed his marriage licence but I'm happy to be corrected. Who do you think did, then? A hoaxer, sneaking in ahead of him? Maybrick: "Oh, no need to sign it - someone's already done a really bad job of it for me".

      How can carved initials resemble the written word in a good enough manner as to presume a match?
      I've no idea what you mean by this.
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • #63
        For the benefit of Mike J.G.

        A little bit of science for you.

        "Stanley Dangar, for reasons I never understood, decided the scratches had been recently engraved and that Bristol and Manchester Universities were wrong. He also believed the watch to be a lady’s watch. He talked to me of a ‘conspiracy’ led by Paul Feldman and he joined in the battle on the Internet to this effect and said that he was arranging simulation tests in Germany to prove that brass particles could easily be embedded in the watch artificially. Those tests did not work. ‘We had a little difficulty,’ he told me later. In fact, by April 1997, the laboratories had still failed to make brass particles stick into gold."
        - Shirley Harrison

        The nonsense of an old etching tool (e.g. rusty compass) would not leave aged brass particles in the BASE of the engravings. It would leave trace evidence on the sides of the engravings too. The fact the are embedded in the base proves they are of considerable age. Embedded particles. Do you have any idea how big a particle is?

        "Dr Wild told Robert Smith privately that he personally felt the scratches could be as old as 1888/9. So both Dr Turgoose and Dr Wild agreed that the likelihood of anyone acquiring the considerable technical and scientific expertise necessary to create scratches that would pass their test was very remote. Both agreed, too, that the scratches were at least several decades old, thus ruling out any possibility that the watch is a modern forgery."

        So we have a watch that cannot be a modern forgery based on all of the scientific analysis, unless someone had the necessary skill and equipment to pass the tests - which are very remote. The polishing of the scratches is as relevant to the point of aged brass particles as your squeezey cheese reference.

        The above is established scientific fact. On this basis we can conclusively rule the watch out as being a modern forgery. It dates to the latest the 1970s and potentially as far back as the LVP. That is where the watch stands on absolute science today.

        Did Maybrick etch it? Well we have no scientific proof. But there are some remarkable similarities to marriage licence, especially with the ornate M, double loop on the K and the loop in the Y.

        That's remarkable luck for a 1970s forger long before the advent of the internet.
        Last edited by erobitha; 10-24-2021, 02:10 PM.
        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

          I tried to do it in Italics but it didn't work.
          When you are composing your text, you can highlight the bit you want to italicise and click the slanty I icon on the ribbon at the top of the text box (where you will find lots of formatting options).

          Personally, I was a young man of the '80s and learned it the shortcut way:

          Control+I = Italics / Italics Off
          Control+B = Bold / Bold Off
          Control+U = Underline / Underline Off
          Control+A = Select All (very handy for when the system automatically logs you out and you risk losing a 30-minute work of art)
          Control+C = Copy (also very handy for when the system automatically logs you out and you risk losing a 30-minute work of art)
          Control+W = Close Window
          Control+Shift+T = Reinstate last closed tab in web browser

          Et cetera ...

          PS That wasn't an ellipsis - it was just a force of habit ...
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
            How can carved initials resemble the written word in a good enough manner as to presume a match?
            That might have been a good question, Mike, if it had been worded completely differently.

            If I may be so bold, a better question might have been:

            How would a hoaxer working in 1993 have set about carving a replica of the real James Maybrick's signature, without even knowing what form he used, let alone having an example in front of him to copy from?

            How many gold watches do you think you'd need to deface before carving a signature in a 'good enough manner' to resemble the way, for example, I signed my name on my marriage certificate? Would you agree it couldn't be done, without first having a good idea of how I sign my name and how I form the letters I include?

            You seemed to be arguing that this can't be done in a good enough manner to produce an exact match. I'd say that was fair, even for anyone trying to carve their own signature in gold. But I'd go further than that, and suggest that it shouldn't have been possible to carve anything remotely like another person's signature, without a clue what the result should look like.

            If you genuinely believe it would be a piece of cake to reproduce what is on that surface, and get similar observations and conclusions from Wild and Turgoose, then put your money where your mouth is and succeed where Stanley "Dangerman" failed. You could start by investing in a gold watch, just like Albert Johnson did, but choose someone else's signature this time, so you aren't influenced by the number of times you have clocked JM's.

            Come back when you have some practical experience to share, of how it was for you.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 11-01-2021, 12:44 PM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #66
              ...and response came there none. Why am I not surprised?

              Another stroke of luck to consider, if a hoaxer made the engravings on the back of the early and very limited publicity about the diary, without knowing what JM's signature should look like, or that initials also featured in the diary, is the one that tops the lot.

              A timepiece of all things was chosen for their companion hoax, which rather begs the question of whether they knew that Maybrick, cotton merchant and fornicator, had a coat of arms bearing the legend: TEMPUS OMNIA REVELAT before hitting on the ingenious idea of a confessional watch, so that 'time' would literally reveal all.

              If I had been the hoaxer and hadn't been aware of that corker, I would have been tickled pink and nobody could have wiped the smile off my face.

              Love,

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


              Comment

              Working...
              X