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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post

    It's always seemed a little fortuitous to me that the Watch came to light so soon after the Diary, but I guess coincidences do sometimes happen. Don't they?

    Graham
    It is strange that 103 years passed before the scrapbook came to a more public attention and only one more year (plus a few months) for the watch to also surface.

    What is interesting is that the nest of hoaxers did not think to bring the two artefacts out at the same time to avoid the accusation that the latter was based upon the former. If the watch was a hoax, then its timing fitted: The Echo (or Post) had just published the first article on Maybrick as the Ripper, then the watch surfaced, perhaps put into the public eye by Robbie Johnson who engineered it that his brother should innocently take the watch in to work to be scrutinised.

    But - more importantly - why would a Sunderland fan carry a flag stating '1913' to the play-off final last May? It's bizarre. In the first final which was reasonably well documented by the new-fangled camera malarkey, they lost 1-0, having also missed a penalty (first time in a final). The black and white film on YouTube is a wonder to behold, but hardly a cause for red and white remembrance 116 years later.

    Obviously I say all this because the Villa won it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Ah ha, I see where you're coming from, Ike! It took a while..... Well, at least the Villa may survive another season in the Premiership, but it took a pandemic to do it. And looks like Grealish will be on his way, and who can blame him?

    Juat to return very briefly to what passes as reality on this particular forum; if, as it seems to have been suggested, Robbie Johnson himself was responsible for the scratches in the Watch, then when did he do it? From what I've gathered, Albert Johnson didn't broadcast his purchase of the Watch, and seems to have kept it in a drawer for some time prior to taking it to the University to show to his workmates. Prior to that, it seems he had kept it in a drawer at home for some months. It was only when he was examining it at the University that the scratches were noticed for the first time. I can't help but feel that, if Robbie Johnson was responsible for the scratchings, then it must have been with the collusion of Albert.
    And Albert, it would seem, was the very model of honesty and propriety - which I believe. Now that Caz is back in town, maybe she could offer comments regarding this?

    It's always seemed a little fortuitous to me that the Watch came to light so soon after the Diary, but I guess coincidences do sometimes happen. Don't they?

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post

    Because he can see matters only in black or white, Ike.
    Nothing wrong with that, Graham!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now, where is that Saudi prince when you need him ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    To be clear, Graham does not believe the scrapbook to be that of James Maybrick so I'm not clear why you are being so hostile towards him as though he does.
    Because he can see matters only in black or white, Ike. Simple as that. Mind you, if he's capable of comparing Mike Barrett with F Scott Fitzgerald, then perhaps there's more about him than you and I can possibly realise....................................

    Cheers!

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
    I don't believe anything was taken to any university, I believe that was just another bit of nonsense designed to try and help bolster an already ludicrous story. You don't just ring up a university and tell the receptionist you've found something interesting and ask can you see any random professor who may just happen to be passing the desk if they can book you in for an appointment asap. I strongly doubt that this occurred at all.
    Might be worth checking your facts (with regards this and most of your other points) before posting (unless you're just trolling). As I recall, one of Johnson's mates worked at the university and therefore was able to gain access to its facilities to help establish what - if anything - was scratched into the watch.

    This doesn't mean that any of this happened, of course, but it would certainly mean that your dismissive comment above (my bolding, by the way) is as facetious as you intended it, but with the delicious irony of rebounding entirely upon you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

    Translation: I'm not going to bother trying to address any of that because it doesn't mesh with my preferred narrative.

    To be clear, Graham does not believe the scrapbook to be that of James Maybrick so I'm not clear why you are being so hostile towards him as though he does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

    This tends to imply that you don't fully grasp what science is or how it's used.

    So far as I know, the watch has not been scientifically proven to be anything other than a curious addition to an already silly story involving a cotton merchant who apparently often frequented post offices for a jar of ale while penning his letters, according to Ike, lol.

    Much like the pages of a faked diary can be artificially aged, the scratches/marking on said watch can also be artificially or even accidentally aged. To deny this is what I truly find ironic. The basic lack of understanding of science on these forums is startling.
    I suspect this argument hinges profoundly on the underlying detail underpinning your "So far as I know".

    Maybe, just maybe, you don't know enough?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
    So far as I know, the watch has not been scientifically proven to be anything other than a curious addition to an already silly story involving a cotton merchant who apparently often frequented post offices for a jar of ale while penning his letters, according to Ike, lol.
    You appear to have access to a computer, therefore to Wiki, so here you go - I'll save you both the effort of looking for it and of perpetuating your apparent ignorance of it:

    Post house (historical building)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Jump to navigationJump to search This article is about the building used in the past for mail and passenger services. For the mail delivery centre, see Post office.
    A post house, posthouse, or posting house was a house or inn where horses were kept and could be rented or changed out. Postriders could also be hired to take travellers[1] by carriage or coach and delivered mail and packages on a route, meeting up at various places according to a schedule. Routes included post roads. A postmaster was an individual from whom horses and/or riders known as postilions or "post-boys" who might help a coachman drive coaches could be hired. A postilion might also travel on a coach to take back his employer's horses. The postmaster would reside in the post house.[2]
    Post houses functioned as the Post offices of their day as national mail services came later.



    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    In the same manner that mine doesn't with yours. We are all, each and every one of us, entitled to our opinions. Which, having read some of your previous posts, is a concept with which you appear very uncomfortable. I've laid out my feelings about Mike Barrett, as you have with yours. If you don't agree with mine, tough ****. And vice versa.

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post
    Yawn..........
    Translation: I'm not going to bother trying to address any of that because it doesn't mesh with my preferred narrative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Yawn..........

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post
    And where and when was this infamous confrontation between Robbie Johnson and Anne Graham? And he lied to Paul Feldman? What lies did he tell him? Where did Paul Feldman record these 'lies'? You tell me what he meant by "all this", please, because I haven't a clue. Can you be a little more specific if possible? I asked you a fairly direct question, so a fairly direct rather than a mysterious response would be appreciated.

    Discuss the Diary again?? But you and others on these boards have never discussed the Diary - you have just stated your opinions and totally refused to accept some of those held by others who do not necessarily agree with your opinions. That, my friend, is not a 'discussion' as I understand the meaning of the word.

    And regarding Mike Barrett. That piece you showed in a recent post. Can you please tell us how you know it was written by Mike, word for word, punctuation for punctuation? I do have some slight experience of writing articles (for technical publications, as it goes) and as I am not a professional journalist in the accepted sense of the expression as I understand it, my articles were invariably 'improved' by the full-time journalists employed by those publications. I didn't mind. And I don't think Mike even was a journalist in any sense of the word - rather, he liked to interview 'celebrities' and then base his articles around those interviews. And once he'd got his famous word-processor, how do you know that it was Mike who wrote up his notes into an acceptable article, and not the far more literary Anne? Was he an acceptable typist? I repeat - my understanding of Mike is that he wasn't completely illiterate, but his literacy was of a low level.

    Graham
    I hope you're not being serious.

    You're now doubting that Mike Barrett wrote any articles? David Orsam pretty much covered all of this in his article. Mike clearly did write articles, ergo, he was a writer. Simply doubting this fact despite the truth being, quite literally, committed to ink for all to see, is just plain weird, IMO.

    Many writers are not literate. This fixation you have with Mike not being a good speller is frankly baffling. Do you know anything about Agatha Christie? "She is best known for her detective novels and short story collections. But at the same time, she couldn’t even balance her own checkbook due to her learning disability, believed to be dysgraphia. She had a hard time spelling correctly, as a self proclaimed “extraordinarily bad speller” and was not good about remembering numbers, but her learning disability did not hold her back."

    What about F. Scott Fitzgerald? " F. Scott Fitzgerald is believed to have had a learning disability which was mostly likely dyslexia. It’s reported that he was kicked out of school at the age of 12 for not focusing or finishing his work, and he had a very hard time spelling, but he succeeded as a writer despite his disability."

    I could go on, but I don't think it's at all a fruitful discussion, seeing as how many people who write often struggle to spell... I could once again point to the large number of hack Ripper authors...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    The scientific analysis, by world-renknowned experts in this field, all claimed the aged brass particles at the base of the engravings could not be faked without advanced technical knowledge and the markings were at LEAST decades old - in 1993 - long before the diary was discovered.

    The watch remains an incnovenient truth, dismissed because of timing and not science. The irony.
    This tends to imply that you don't fully grasp what science is or how it's used.

    So far as I know, the watch has not been scientifically proven to be anything other than a curious addition to an already silly story involving a cotton merchant who apparently often frequented post offices for a jar of ale while penning his letters, according to Ike, lol.

    Much like the pages of a faked diary can be artificially aged, the scratches/marking on said watch can also be artificially or even accidentally aged. To deny this is what I truly find ironic. The basic lack of understanding of science on these forums is startling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post
    RJ, listen. I do not, never did, and never will believe that Michael John Barrett wrote the Diary. He had not the wit. If he was personally responsible for 100% of that article you show in your post, then call be Hans, 'cos I'll be a Dutchman. No way. At best, he may have had something of an input, but if the Diary originated in 12 Goldie Street, then it wasn't Mike who produced it. If he did, then why did he not pursue a lucrative and glamorous career in journalism? Mike apparently always wanted to be a writer, and told as much to anyone who would listen, but he never made it, did he? Too pissed? Too crap?

    The fact remains that, unless Anne ever cares to speak up (and who would believe her even if she did, given the degree of universal cynicism on these boards) we shall never know.

    I find it significant and somewhat illuminating that the two responses so far to my post have failed to mention the Watch, which is actually also the subject of this thread. The Watch seems not to attract the same degree of pulpit-hammering as the Diary, possibly because the forensic analysis is much more difficult to shoot down, and almost certainly because it is beyond the grasp of mere mortals such as we.

    So.....about the Watch, gentlemen?

    Graham
    You're falling for the oldest trick in the book, Graham. You simply cannot allow yourself to believe that Barrett had anything to do with faking the "diary" merely because you don't believe he could read, write, or think in a manner that you find suitable for writing a book. Well, frankly, the amount of nonsense books out there on the Ripper, and Maybrick, written by similarly inept authors should prove how wrong you are.

    I've waffled on about other hoaxes before, and how people were unable to accept that they were the work of everyday blokes simply because they were everyday blokes, as if these hoaxes simply must be the work of staggeringly wise sages, lol.

    People who create literature, art, music, aren't all musing over black coffee, wearing black turtlenecks and berets, discussing the fall of Rome. Quentin Tarantino can neither spell, nor understand how words are even basically formed, choosing to write his scripts phonetically. Now, I'm not comparing Barrett to Tarantino, I'm merely pointing out the fact that being behind a hoax such as "the diary" does not require a person to be channeling the literary genius of Charles bloody Dickens. The sooner some of you lot grasp this fact of reality, the less likely you are to be mugged off in the future by laughable pranks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post
    Well, I was, perhaps forlornly, hoping for something of a discussion, but possibly out of the question.

    I never suggested that I believed the Diary came from Battlecrease (note the spelling). Whatever it was that Paul Feldman thought had been taken to Liverpool University by some of the workmen, it wasn't the Diary. Feldman never actually discovered what it was, but later came to the conclusion that it wasn't the Diary.

    What 'unknown writer' was I supposed to be offering up? I said that there is a slight possibility that Anne had more to do with the Diary's production than she evwer admitted. I also repeated the old tale, which Anne put about, that she found it behind a cupboard and that it had been in her father's possession since 1940. This was never proved, and Anne never went into much more detail.

    Barret was a writer?? You what? Ever seen any of his productions? he could hardly sign his name!

    And the Watch? You've not given me the benefit of your considered and esteemed opinions regarding this. Don't you have any, then?

    Graham
    Why're you taking my post so personally Graham? My post was in response to yours, not in retaliation, mate, calm down, lol.

    I don't believe anything was taken to any university, I believe that was just another bit of nonsense designed to try and help bolster an already ludicrous story. You don't just ring up a university and tell the receptionist you've found something interesting and ask can you see any random professor who may just happen to be passing the desk if they can book you in for an appointment asap. I strongly doubt that this occurred at all.

    Barrett (note the spelling) was a writer, meaning, he wrote, he was paid for doing so. The level of skill in that writing isn't even a matter in this discussion, seeing as the writing in the diary isn't something I'd put on par with Mark bloody Twain, it's clumsy, dramatic and obviously nonsensical.

    What would you like to discuss regarding the watch? Frankly, Graham, if you buy any of this rubbish then I've got a bridge to sell you, mate.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X