Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Yeah right, you're full to the brim with Nurse Yappy's liquid cudgel, any more administered for the DT's would finish you off
    As I say, cut out the Billy Bollocks and answer the question.

    Assuming you can, of course ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Shame really - I was looking forward to a long break from all of this.

    Ike
    Still Here by the Looks of It
    Yeah right, you're full to the brim with Nurse Yappy's liquid cudgel, any more administered for the DT's would finish you off

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Let's cut out the Billy Bollocks, Observer.

    In your (frequently all-too ill-thought-out) opinion, how did the signature in the watch get to be such a good analogue for Maybrick's true signature on his marriage certificate?

    Answer this one, and we can start to really engage in the realities of the watch.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Then Stewart was telling lies and did not attempt our polish out the engravings
    No. Because you have twisted Turgoose’s words. He never claimed it WAS faked in this manner, he merely pondered how it could be done using a multi stage layering processes and numerous equipment with expert knowledge if the aim was to fake ageing. It was possible with expert knowledge and numerous equipment. He never claimed it WAS done this way. Just a theory.

    So logically why would an expert go to such trouble when the watch has remained in the family?

    Maybe the watch was just polished as the jewelller described and has actually is nothing to do with the theory of Turgoose. Just handier if you can link them I guess.

    Again no expert has supported this old etching tool nonsense that supposedly could provide the aged brass particle in the base of the etches with no trace of other particles down the sides of the etches - just the base.

    Then there is Maybrick’s signature. The loop on the K is pretty darn close to the one on his marriage register. A forger pre internet with expert watch engraving knowledge with expensive equipment seeks out a copy of the marriage license to just let the Johnsons keep the watch?

    Still, let that none of that stand in the way of the narrative you wish to portray.


    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    What a shame he didn’t just present it as an interesting anomaly, with possibly significant implications. He would have got a thumbs up from me for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Really, it's like beating yer bonce against the wall. It's pointless. A potential buyer wouldn't give a hoot if the inside back cover of a gold watch they were purchasing had a few "hardly visible" scratch marks in evidence. It doesn't detract from the watches aesthetic appearance
    Warning: A poster is attempting to use questionable personal opinions to make an argument!

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
    It proves nothing. Absolutely pathetic.
    We're putting you back in the Aviary here in Cuckoo Lodge

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    If no-one has beaten me to it, "To sell it".

    It's the same reason I, ironically, only ever wash my cars when I want to sell them.
    Really, it's like beating yer bonce against the wall. It's pointless. A potential buyer wouldn't give a hoot if the inside back cover of a gold watch they were purchasing had a few "hardly visible" scratch marks in evidence. It doesn't detract from the watches aesthetic appearance. As I said, Mr Stewart must of had a dose of Nurse Yappy's corrective jungle juice if he thought he could improve the watch's appearance by polishing out the inside back cover of the watch
    Last edited by Observer; 08-01-2020, 02:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    What experts would do this and why? The watch remains in the family so no money changed hands and thereby it must have been an expert having a jolly good laugh. This cannot be done by amateurs or amateur knowledge. What was not clear about that in the report?
    Then Stewart was telling lies, and did not attempt to polish out the engravings
    Last edited by Observer; 08-01-2020, 01:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    And he a jeweler, who undoubtedly had the equipment to hand, namely an eye loupe, did not have a look at the "scratch marks"? Also, can you think of a reason why Mr Stewart would try to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale?
    If no-one has beaten me to it, "To sell it".

    It's the same reason I, ironically, only ever wash my cars when I want to sell them.

    Leave a comment:


  • StevenOwl
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    David Orsam has announced today on his website that he found again another fatal error in the Diary that proves the Diary is fake.


    https://www.orsam.co.uk/specialannouncement.htm


    Without even reading it, I know he is right!

    Well done David!


    The Baron
    It proves nothing. Absolutely pathetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    yeah, but not someone referring to someone elses "Aunt".
    Honestly, such an anti-climax.

    My daughter - Izzy Iconcoclast - has a godmother in Scotland and also a friend of Mrs Iconoclast who, coincidentally, is called Margaret (this is all true). All her life, Izzy has called her 'Aunt Margaret'. Maybe, as Gary says, it's a Brit thing.

    So imagine Izzy is going to Scotland to be with her godmother during an operation and she happens to say that she'll also be visiting her Aunt Margaret.

    In my head for a few days or weeks, because I'm a bloke thinking about blokey things, are the words "Izzy Scotland godmother aunt". I'm not a violent man so let's imagine I'm thinking of going on strike even though we're all in lockdown.

    I'm writing in my brilliant DAiry about Izzy's impending trip to Scotland and I write:

    Izzy visits the city of dreams soon, I have decided I will wait until the time is ripe then I will strike with all my might. I shall buy her something for her visit. Will give her the impression I consider it her duty to visit her aunt. She can nurse the old girl and see her cousins while she's at it.
    Now, all you have to imagine is that James Maybrick had it in his head when he wrote the entry in question "Florrie London godmother aunt". Maybe it was so irrelevant to him that it was only ever "Florrie London aunt".

    So it is claimed by Dr Hopper that Florrie was off to visit her godmother, but maybe Maybrick had realised by then (April 1 1889), or maybe he still thought it was her godmother right up to the moment when Florrie told Dr Hopper she'd been to see her godmother (Maybrick [Thinks]: "Could have sworn it was her aunt").

    "Florrie London godmother bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"
    "Florrie London godmother aunt murder races horses arsenic"
    "Florrie London aunt murder Edwin races horses arsenic tea"
    "Florrie London bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"

    The bitch visits the city of whores soon, I have decided I will wait until the time is ripe then I will strike with all my might. I shall buy the whore something for her visit. Will give the bitch the impression I consider it her duty to visit her aunt. She can nurse the sick bitch and see her whoring master.
    As I say, such an anti-climax. It proves once again that Lord Orsam is an excellent researcher - the dark matter equivalent which perhaps is required in order to have a material Keith Skinner - but it most certainly does not prove the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick.

    Shame really - I was looking forward to a long break from all of this.

    Ike
    Still Here by the Looks of It

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

    Please firm an orderly queue.


    I haven't

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    No, Dundas may have got more than one of Mr Murphy's watches going, but if Dundas didn't remember the large ornate JO inscribed on the back cover of the Maybrick watch, or the clear H 9/3 inside it [engraved after the Jack/Maybrick scratch marks], and then described another watch entirely when asked about it, I'd say he had no chance at all of identifying and remembering a few barely visible scratch marks as 'inscriptions', and was even less observant than someone whose chosen pseudonym is Observer.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    An experienced watch repairer having no chance of identifying markings to the inside back cover of a watch they were repairing? Really? Albert Johnston had no problem identifying the marks. Watch repairers invariably look at any marks inscribed upon such watches, they can tell who repaired or serviced the watch and when. Dundas would surely have remembered the words "I am Jack" and J Maybrick should he have saw them. Trouble is they were not there, Robbie Johnston added them at a later date

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Ah, so if your wife habitually referred to her mother’s best friend or cousin or whatever as ‘aunt x’, it would be impossible for you to ever refer to her as you wife’s ‘aunt’? Or for the woman to have been referred to as an aunt to a third party?

    And I mean impossible, because the claim is that this is incontrovertible proof of the diary being a forgery.

    It’s weaker than ‘one off’.

    Toto has well and truly pulled the curtains aside this time.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-01-2020, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X