Upon reading the Diary again...

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Thats just the trouble John, there is nothing to say that it wasn't either. Not good enough. That's loose, credulous and non historical method reasoning. It would not be acceptable in artistioc or academic circles.

If someone produced a hitherto unknown Leonardo, even if found in a place he had lived in, and looking like his work the onus would remain with those believing it to be genuine to prove PROVENANCE, and by scientific tests, that every aspect of the painting matched period, and what is known of the artist's life and work.

With the dairy that has not been done. As I understand it the provenance remains in question, there have been claims that it was forged, and the handwriting does not match known samples of the supposed author's. Not a good basis for any claims. further the contents appear to have been based on what was available publicly fairly recently and to contain no new FACTS that would convince any reserracher or that stand up to scruting as verifiable.

So no TEMPUS there is EVERYTHING to say that it is a dud, not kosher, a can of worms, a forgery. YOU and your buddies have to PROVE its genuine, not bandy words with those who retain a proper scholarly scepticism.

But then, as your posts demonstrate, you wouldn't know scholarship if it bit you in the butt.

Phil H

Scholarly scepticism! Well, if being scholarly means dismissing things that are quite clearly in front of your eyes, Phil, then you can keep it.

Leave us idiotic 'pro-diaryists' to our own devices and carry on with your own research (if you have any) - and we'll see who gets there quicker.

Your running scared, Phil, and you know you are.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Iain Wilson]

I think you miss Phil's point, Tempus. The diary's provenance has NOT been proven therefore it's authenticity has to be questioned. Saying "I believe this to be true!" is - as Phil puts it - poor historical method.

To use another example, following the Bolshevik Revolution the Tsar and his family were executed by the Cheka. The Soviet government released a statement saying that the Romanovs had been killed. Despite this, many people argued that some of the Royal Family had survived. Books were written, debates were had - there was even a woman claiming to be Anastatia Romanov. However, in all cases the onus was on the "somebody survived the massacre" camp to prove their claims to be true - not the other way around.

Ultimately the discovery and DNA testing of the family's remains put paid to any further debate on the subject, but would it surprise you to know that some people still believe that there were survivors?

:Your running scared, Phil, and you know you are.

I really doubt he is.

[RavenDarkendale]

Yet another interesting and relevant thread destroyed by more anti-diarist drivel. Do you guys not have your own suspects to concentrate on? Surely if there was enough evidence to prove your individual choices, you would not be wasting time on here by spoiling other peoples threads.

Kind regards,

Tempus

If you think that an opposing view is simply "drivel" why discuss anything on this forum? There is NO SUSPECT that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you cannot accept the possibility of the diary being forged, then you begin to wander into "blind faith syndrome."

If you truly believe the diary is genuine, there is certainly the possibility that you are correct. I don't ask you to abandon your convictions, just accept reality. Keep trying to find a way to prove your belief. This may come by having to find ways to PROVE your opponents wrong. You can't do that if you dismiss them as unimportant.

Take me, for example. I believe that the diary contains nothing that could not have been written in as a forgery. Yet the fact is, it also contains nothing that could not have been genuine. The fact that I think it possibly forged should not shake anyone who advocates the diary in any way.

Here's a good quote to remember when disagreements arise over anything in life:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

You believe the diary. I see the possibility of forgery. Neither of us has a broken leg!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Graham]

The last two posts are excellent, and sound advice to anyone whose faith in anything is blind, or verges on the blind. We should remember that his own personal, unshakeable belief that the 'Diary' was written by James Maybrick, and that Maybrick was the Whitechapel Murderer, cost Paul Feldman his fortune and much more.

I don't actually see the 'Diary' as a forgery; I see it as a hoax at worst, and at best a genuine attempt by someone to make a point, but for what purpose I haven't a clue.

Still good fun to discuss, though!

Graham

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I think you miss Phil's point, Tempus. The diary's provenance has NOT been proven therefore it's authenticity has to be questioned. Saying "I believe this to be true!" is - as Phil puts it - poor historical method.

I get Phil's point perfectly, Iain. It is a point that everyone got from the start!

I am not here to argue that point, I am here to argue the case for an FM that so far only the diarist and I have spotted. The things in that photograph need explaining by a little more than the dissmisve tone that Phill offers up. If you wish to proceed in that manner, then so be it. I shall carry on my way.
The diary's provenance will never be proven if people like Phil simply dismiss facts by saying they don't exist, when they clearly do. All Phil wants, as a 'scholar', is nicely written down proof that things exist, even though he knows full well - rather convienently - that much of the documentation has been destroyed. We would all like that, Iain. But sadly we know that will - probably - never be the case. I, therefore, am trying to bring to the table evidence that is worthy of discussion. I have done that, and I will continue to do so - unlike certain people who continue to think that ignoring things in photographs and saying 'it is not up to us to provide proof' is somehow more worthy than people who come up with cogent arguments based on photographic evidence.

I wonder what you would say if I was to show you another FM, written on the partition wall of Mary kelly's bedroom, that no one has seen before. I mean I know what Phil would say: trick of the light! or some such nonsense, but it would be interesting to see the excuses then.

To use another example, following the Bolshevik Revolution the Tsar and his family were executed by the Cheka. The Soviet government released a statement saying that the Romanovs had been killed. Despite this, many people argued that some of the Royal Family had survived. Books were written, debates were had - there was even a woman claiming to be Anastatia Romanov. However, in all cases the onus was on the "somebody survived the massacre" camp to prove their claims to be true - not the other way around.

Ultimately the discovery and DNA testing of the family's remains put paid to any further debate on the subject, but would it surprise you to know that some people still believe that there were survivors?

I have no idea what you are talking about, Iain. You seem to be going off track in order to help Phil. God knows why! When will you understand that I have come to my conclusions after years of listening to all the arguments for and against the various candidates for the ripper. I do not need help from anyone else. I know through my own (on-going) research that, so far, Maybrick is by far the most likely candidate to be the ripper. Now you can dismiss this evidence - like Phil - all you like, but it is evidence that continues to mount up around one candidate only - Maybrick.
I really doubt he is.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

If you think that an opposing view is simply "drivel" why discuss anything on this forum? There is NO SUSPECT that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you cannot accept the possibility of the diary being forged, then you begin to wander into "blind faith syndrome."

Who says that I haven't accepted the possibility. Sorry, Ravendarkdale, you seem to be under the impression that I have blindly accepted that Maybrick was the killer without thinking through all the other possibilities. Ridiculous! I have, they were amongst the first things that any sensible person would entertain when approching such a thing as this.
If you truly believe the diary is genuine, there is certainly the possibility that you are correct. I don't ask you to abandon your convictions, just accept reality. Keep trying to find a way to prove your belief. This may come by having to find ways to PROVE your opponents wrong. You can't do that if you dismiss them as unimportant.

It is not Phil's belief that the diary is a forgery I am questioning, it is his reasons for believing it. Especially when he comes up with the very 'scholarly' approach of things don't really exist in photos that are clearly there. This raises my suspicions straight away.

I have been proving my opponents wrong, Raven. I have offered up actual crime scene evidence and responded to everyone's questions on that evidence. The only person who dismisses arguments is Phil. He offers nothing up.

Here's a good quote to remember when disagreements arise over anything in life:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

You believe the diary. I see the possibility of forgery. Neither of us has a broken leg!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

##


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Victor]

Hey Tempus,

Have you read this => http://www.casebook.org/images/rip62-sample.pdf?

Why doesn't the "diarist" mention any of these things?

The flat circular object is a china plate with a patterned border, behind which stands a bowl partially obscured by a smaller, lipped, bowl and a bottle laying on its side. Behind this large bowl are three smaller shallow vessels. Atop these, sloping from left to right, a spoon rests in a heart-shaped dish, behind which sits what might be a plume of feathers or a bunch of leaves. And to the right of the photograph, half out of shot, is a round short-necked glass or porcelain container which is possibly for wine, beer or spirits. Also on the china plate is a small lump of unidentifiable matter.

In addition to the initials "FM", someone else can see a plume of feathers in the picture, why doesn't the "diarist" mention them?

KR,
Vic.

[Phil H]

The only person who dismisses arguments is Phil. He offers nothing up.

If it's me you are referring to, I'd dispute that, and I think you'll find that I always provide an explanation when I disagree.

I perhaps am harsh in insisting on the accepted historical method as the way of moving forward, but that's because there really is no alternative. Speculation is fine, if clearly labelled as such, but creating unstable houses of cards by erecting assumption on supposition ad infinitum, or insisting on something as being a fact when it isn't, need to be called out IMHO, when spotted.

I make no apologies for that.

Sorry to highjack the thread.

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

That is an extremely healthy mindset to hold, Raven.

And the default position on the Diary and the Watch should be skepticism. But not with all this rancor. And there should be acknowledgement that after twenty years we are still no closer to being able to name the Diarist.

If you think that an opposing view is simply "drivel" why discuss anything on this forum? There is NO SUSPECT that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you cannot accept the possibility of the diary being forged, then you begin to wander into "blind faith syndrome."

If you truly believe the diary is genuine, there is certainly the possibility that you are correct. I don't ask you to abandon your convictions, just accept reality. Keep trying to find a way to prove your belief. This may come by having to find ways to PROVE your opponents wrong. You can't do that if you dismiss them as unimportant.

Take me, for example. I believe that the diary contains nothing that could not have been written in as a forgery. Yet the fact is, it also contains nothing that could not have been genuine. The fact that I think it possibly forged should not shake anyone who advocates the diary in any way.

Here's a good quote to remember when disagreements arise over anything in life:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

You believe the diary. I see the possibility of forgery. Neither of us has a broken leg!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Tempus omnia revelat]

The only person who dismisses arguments is Phil. He offers nothing up.

If it's me you are referring to, I'd dispute that, and I think you'll find that I always provide an explanation when I disagree.

Yes, you do provide explanations when you disagree - I am not denying that. I am merely questioning the nature of your explanations.

I perhaps am harsh in insisting on the accepted historical method as the way of moving forward, but that's because there really is no alternative. Speculation is fine, if clearly labelled as such, but creating unstable houses of cards by erecting assumption on supposition ad infinitum, or insisting on something as being a fact when it isn't, need to be called out IMHO, when spotted.

What I have discussed on this thread has nothing to do with assumption. It is clearly in the picture. That is a fact! I am merely relating to you what the diarist says those items are there for. If the diary is a forgery then you still have to explain those items. You choose to work round this question by simply dimissing them. That is something I cannot accept that. There is a reason for everything.

I make no apologies for that.

There is no need to apologise. I quite enjoyed the discussion, actually.
Sorry to highjack the thread.

Phil H

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hey Tempus,

Have you read this => http://www.casebook.org/images/rip62-sample.pdf?

Why doesn't the "diarist" mention any of these things?

In addition to the initials "FM", someone else can see a plume of feathers in the picture, why doesn't the "diarist" mention them?

KR,
Vic.

Erm...why would he? It's nothing to do with him - he's not an interior designer! I think you miss the whole point of the discussion, Victor.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Victor]

Erm...why would he? It's nothing to do with him - he's not an interior designer!

Well if he mentions the initals because he put them there, then why doesn't he mention the plume of feathers that he left between the victims legs? Or the ring in the box? Or whatever anyone else can see like the crocodile?

KR,
Vic.

[RavenDarkendale]

As I have stated before, I have seen a black and white print of the MJK crime scene where you can see an FM on the wall, but nit very clearly. It doesn't show in the sepia print nor Amberlime's enhanced version of the photo. There does seem to be some sort of pattern in the surface of the wall. I dunno. I have seen the initials in a print, and I see them nowhere in a print. Could it merely be light and shadow?

Now the F on the arm is undeniable. But why Maybrick? Why not Frederick Deeming, Carl Feigenbaum, Joseph Fleming,
Fogelma (Norwegian Sailor), Francis Thompson, Francis Tumblety, someone with an F actually in their name, not their wife's?

Just asking

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Iain Wilson]

I get Phil's point perfectly, Iain. It is a point that everyone got from the start!

Well why not say that, rather dismiss his - and anyone else who happens to disagree with you - posts as "anti-diarist drivel"?

I am here to argue the case for an FM that so far only the diarist and I have spotted. The things in that photograph need explaining by a little more than the dissmisve tone that Phill offers up. If you wish to proceed in that manner, then so be it. I shall carry on my way.

Nobody who is seriously debating your point is being dismissive (although I will grant that there are a few people on that thread who appear to be in it for kicks) and to brand their arguments as such cheapens your own position.

If someone doesn't agree with your point of view it doesn't mean that they are simply waving a hand and ignoring your arguments - look at the FM thread and you'll see that most of those arguing with you started off by giving reasons why they can't see an FM where you can.

However, to demand that your point of view be respected yet at the same time dismiss others who don't agree with you as "blind" or somehow crazy for failing to see what you see in a picture is incredibly egocentric and wears the patience somewhat.

The diary's provenance will never be proven if people like Phil simply dismiss facts by saying they don't exist, when they clearly do.

There's that egocentric point of view again - you believe you can see something in a grainy, century old photograph, and that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow deluded. When you carry on like this you do nothing other than stifle healthy, robust debate.

All Phil wants, as a 'scholar', is nicely written down proof that things exist, even though he knows full well - rather convienently - that much of the documentation has been destroyed.

Is there really anything wrong with wanting concrete proof?

I, therefore, am trying to bring to the table evidence that is worthy of discussion.

And I applaude that. However, surely you can draw the distinction between "evidence" and "speculation". You BELIEVE you can see FMs in the picture, others disagree. This is like me citing my belief in God as being evidence that He exists which is clearly not one and the same thing.

I have done that, and I will continue to do so - unlike certain people who continue to think that ignoring things in photographs and saying 'it is not up to us to provide proof' is somehow more worthy than people who come up with cogent arguments based on photographic evidence.

You have done nothing of the sort. You are bringing up points to debate - which is still good - and letting others know what you believe, but if you think that what you have shared is evidence you are mistaken.

As for the "it is not up to us to provide proof" stance - it is a valid point of view. You are stating your belief in a document that has a nebulous provenance - it is up to you to convince us of it veracity, not the other way around. That's like me producing a letter and shouting "Hey - I've got a new Ripper letter direct from the killer. It's the real deal and will continue to be until someone says otherwise!" It doesn't work that way.

I wonder what you would say if I was to show you another FM, written on the partition wall of Mary kelly's bedroom, that no one has seen before. I mean I know what Phil would say: trick of the light! or some such nonsense, but it would be interesting to see the excuses then.

And there's that tone again... Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view - and can give reasons WHY they don't agree with you - doesn't make their stance nonsense! I'll say it again, taking that tone really cheapens your stance and makes people less likely to side with you.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Iain. You seem to be going off track in order to help Phil. God knows why!

Clearly it went over your head. The example I cited - another historical mystery - was there to illustrate a point; namely that those who believed something that was not borne out in fact (and, indeed, in this case seemed to go against established fact) had the onus placed upon them to prove their case, not the other way around. Which is similar to the diary.

When will you understand that I have come to my conclusions after years of listening to all the arguments for and against the various candidates for the ripper. I do not need help from anyone else. I know through my own (on-going) research that, so far, Maybrick is by far the most likely candidate to be the ripper.

I am not disputing your conclusions, nor am I trying to disuade you from them. It is laudable that you have a suspect that you're willing to defend. I am simply disagreeing with them.

Now you can dismiss this evidence - like Phil - all you like, but it is evidence that continues to mount up around one candidate only - Maybrick.

...in YOUR opinion. Again, I have not been dismissing anything, but rather I have been DISAGREEING with you. Also, what you have shown is NOT evidence. Incidentally, what has been "mounting up"? You've been trying to convince people about "FMs". What else has been "mounting up"?

Regards,

Iain

[Phil H]

Well, it's comforting to note that if I and my approach are being dismissed, so are all scholars, scholarship and the universally accepted standards and methods of academic study!! Seems I'm in good company!!

Phil H