Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Abby Normal
    replied
    amazing none of the so called experts on the diary ever caught this fatal error.

    another tour de force in the truth by Lord Orsam.

    and in the blackmail piece.." you and me wrote the diary." in a private note to his wife threatening her. cmon.

    we are all fortunate that Lord Orsam still has an interest in ripperology.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    His brief attempt to polish out the engravings don't match Dr Turgoose's report
    Your commitment to link the polishing and old etching tool as the means of forgery are admirable but of course not correct.

    The brass particles in the bass of the etchings could not be accounted for by any of the experts. No expert mentioned they could be faked in the way you describe.

    If Turgoose was pondering the possibility that the etches themselves could look aged by using a multi stage process and numerous types of equipment that would indicate an expert knowledge would be required. Even if that were true and such expertise was used, it still does not account for that aged brass particle in the base of the etches.

    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?

    No report has backed up this old etching tool nonsense. It’s something the like of you and Orsam cling to but is not backed by any science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    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.


    yeah, but not someone referring to someone elses "Aunt".

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    And why on earth do you suppose any jeweller would have done that, with people like you in the world, waiting to describe such a claim as 'absurd'?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    His brief attempt to polish out the engravings don't match Dr Turgoose's report

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Science to prove my polishing theory? It's not a theory, it's common sense man ...
    Okay, even if we all gave you your "It's Incredibly Easy to Age Scratchings in a Watch" theory, two things:

    1) Why is it only ever noted by the dilettantes and the delinquents but not by Turgoose and Wild, the two acknowledged experts? After all, they were being asked this very question in effect!
    2) Why has no-one - despite many requests - ever explained how the signature in the watch is such a good copy of Maybrick's actual signature?

    I'd love to know!

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Had a Power Nap
    Feeling Magic

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    What a great find of his Majesty!


    Hooo Haaa


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Observer,

    It wasn't erobitha's explanation; it was Mr Stewart [sorry, Mr Murphy, as erobitha says], who sold Albert the watch! He said he noticed the scratch marks [which to the naked eye just look like random scratch marks at most, not engravings] and tried to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale. Now, he may have been trying to do the impossible, but it was what he said he did, and I see no reason why he would lie about it, can you?
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Where is the science that proves your polishing theory? Direct me to which report suggests that any of the polishing that took place could in anyway fake the aged brass particles in the base of the engravings? I seemed to have missed that bombshell. The polishing does not age it if anything it makes it harder to get a more accurate assessment of age as layers of various metal compounds are eroded. The aged brass particles in the base of the scratches is what dates the etchings being at least "tens of years old" - in 1994.

    I will happily keep schtum when you provide that science. I never claimed the polishing was done to make the watch more attractive to sell. I think you find the antiques shop owner Ron Murphy who actually made that claim (Edit: It was Mr Stewart who did the polishing). As for clueless, some of us actually analyse clues properly and some of us don't. Observation is a little lacking from the "Observer". Another ironic twist in this saga.
    Science to prove my polishing theory? It's not a theory, it's common sense man, why polish the inside back cover of a gold watch? The aged brass particles could be nothing more than the hoaxer using an aged engraving tool. Yes you did say the polishing was done to make the watch more attractive to sell, I've took a brief look to find the post but can't find it. Anyway another member of The Floorboard Faithful has subsequently said as much

    " It wasn't erobitha's explanation; it was Mr Stewart [sorry, Mr Murphy, as erobitha says], who sold Albert the watch! He said he noticed the scratch marks [which to the naked eye just look like random scratch marks at most, not engravings] and tried to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale."

    But lets look at what Dr Turgoose said with regard to the inscriptions.

    "They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages"

    Did Mr Stewart use this method? Indeed not. Why did Dr Turgoose not observe Mr Stewart's attempt to polish out the engravings? Of course Dr Turgoose could have got it all wrong when he said

    "They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages"





    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    A final plea for mercy...?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxD4Ff7dY

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Any last word?

    Regret confession?!

    Pleading for forgiveness?!

    Repentance?! Contrition?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Lord Orsam speaks!
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-01-2020, 04:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    ...until the next opportunity for one of Lord O's inner circle to take a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story.

    Has someone taken a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story?

    Keith Skinner by way of Iconoclast concedes that it was a mistake, and you seemed to do the same:
    Apologies if Inside Story misled anyone
    It is unfortunate [...] and I have no excuses
    and
    I agree [...] Our 'error' in this instance was in not putting a date on the communication [etc]
    But pretty quickly it's
    people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.
    and
    a gratuitous swipe
    I haven't yet seen anyone faulting the authors for making a mistake. No book is without error. How an author reacts to one is, of course, telling.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Shows how much faith they have in LOBSTER Day, if nothing else.
    Hmm, does that qualify as a gratuitous swipe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Click image for larger version Name:	2020 07 31 Streetlamp.jpg Views:	0 Size:	98.2 KB ID:	738786

    Bloody Hell - talk about sailing close to the wind! Here's an idea, Ike - post a picture intended to represent the menacing charm of The Switchblade at midnight under a streetlamp under the intended victim's bedroom, and don't think too hard at the results you get from Googling "streetlamp female assassin". No - better still - be quite pleased with it!

    Talk about possible typos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Gulp! Now where the Hell is my 'Go' bag???

    Ike
    Gone But Not Forgotten
    (Humble apologies, Caz, if this - as I am beginning to fear - is not a picture of a female assassin standing underneath a streetlamp.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Iconoclast,

    Your wish is my command.

    But as for apologising, you stand more chance of getting a Blue Whale up your bum.

    Until someone unearths Abberline's personal autograph book, the Diary will remain the ultimate example of Ripperological shenanigans, of which there are many.

    Stay safe.

    Simon
    Hi Simon,

    Arguably too much equivocation in there for my liking, but I'll take it as read (the night before LOBSTER Day changes DAiryWorld forever) that what you meant was a full and heartfelt retraction of every negative thing you've ever said about James Maybrick's candidature for Jack. Very decent of you, old boy.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X