google ngrams

[Herlock Sholmes]

The legitimate science says the diary is older than 1992. It doesn’t make sense.

But if you think “one off” makes it a forgery, that’s fine for you. We beg to differ. So what?

In baseball, if there’s a guy in left field covering a fourth base, why would you want to get rid of him and his base? What’s it to you? He can still catch the odd pop fly. Or gnat.

What "legitimate science" says the diary is older than 1992? Please quote the report which states such a conclusion.

The "one off instance" problem is not one of opinion, it's fact. But if you don't want to accept the facts, that's entirely up to you.

[Scott Nelson]

Well Scott, we do need to forget Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome because there is absolutely no evidence that Mike suffered from this in March 1992, no doctor diagnosed it, and, let's face it, you've basically invented it.

So you're jumping on the bandwagon of accusing me of making things up? Thanks a lot. Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome.

Maybe if you conducted more personal research instead of wasting your precious time posting all over the place, you'd be better informed.

Good riddance.

[Lombro2]

The ion migration says it’s old and the one negative test for chloroacetamine says Barrett was lying and it wasn’t ink he bought in a store. Those are reliable facts.

The rest is academic. Best date: “Prior to 1970”.

[Scott Nelson]

If Billy Graham had been involved, the last thing in the world Anne would have done is to bring Billy's name up in connection with the diary and even invite Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner in to question him. That makes no sense to me.

Anne was leading them away from the truth, not toward it.

Anne could have been inviting discussion to deflect attention elsewhere. True motives are at best speculative so long after the events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you're jumping on the bandwagon of accusing me of making things up? Thanks a lot. Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome.

Maybe if you conducted more personal research instead of wasting your precious time posting all over the place, you'd be better informed.

Good riddance.

I wasn't even aware there was a bandwagon of people accusing you of making things up Scott. Why do you think such a thing exists? But you appeared to have fewer qualms when you accused me a while ago of having someone ‘pulling my strings.’

I think it's fair to say that the one rather crucial thing missing from your posts on this topic is.....evidence.

Until I see some evidence that Michael Barrett was diagnosed of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome in or before March 1992 then, yes, I'm afraid I can only conclude that you've made it up.

I'm aware that there are unconfirmed reports of such a diagnosis in circa 1995 but that was after years of heavy drinking during the diary period (and, of course, a common cause of this syndrome is alcohol misuse)..

But I fear that you've decided to apply what was going on with Barrett in 1995 back to the earlier period of Spring 1992, and I suspect that could be where you are going wrong in your analysis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The ion migration says it’s old and the one negative test for chloroacetamine says Barrett was lying and it wasn’t ink he bought in a store. Those are reliable facts.

The rest is academic. Best date: “Prior to 1970”.

As I'm sure you well know Lombro, the novel and unreliable method of dating documents by ion migration has long been discredited and is no longer used to date documents. If you actually believed it, you would date the document to no earlier than 1909, which is what Rod McNeil concluded, thus ruling out James Maybrick. The fact that you clearly don't rule out Maybrick means that you place no reliance on ion migration as a method of dating documents hence you must now be acting in bad faith by cherry picking one part of the conclusion that you like (and a conclusion that wasn't even part of McNeil's original finding).

Chloroacetamide was discovered in the ink when tested by Analysis for Industry in 1994.

[Lombro2]

Again you leave out the conclusive Negative test for Chloroacetamide (same as a paternity test — negative rules) and that the chemical was found in other 19th century inks. For convenience?

Oh yeah! The diary being sealed might account for any 20 year or more discrepancy.

Nothing new nothing real and nothing on topic. Again.

Barrett authorship? Dung theory! Pre-1970s proves it. Thanks for showing us again and again the desperation and senseless effort needed to push the dung ball and keep it from rolling back down the hill.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again you leave out the conclusive Negative test for Chloroacetamide (same as a paternity test — negative rules) and that the chemical was found in other 19th century inks. For convenience?

Oh yeah! The diary being sealed might account for any 20 year or more discrepancy.

Nothing new nothing real and nothing on topic. Again.

Barrett authorship? Dung theory! Pre-1970s proves it. Thanks for showing us again and again the desperation and senseless effort needed to push the dung ball and keep it from rolling back down the hill.

Leeds University carried out two tests in November 1994. The first was positive for chloroacetamide, the second was negative. AFI's test a month earlier was positive for chloroacetamide. That makes 2 positive tests and 1 negative. But even if the negative test was correct, it simply means that Barrett's affidavit was wrong in identifying the ink used for the forgery as Diamine. As I've already made clear, I place no reliance on Barrett's affidavit. What I've said on multiple occasions is that the diary must have been created after 1945 and that no reason has been given by anyone as to why the Barretts weren't capable of creating it.

With Rod McNeil, to repeat: his 1993 test put the date of the ink on the paper at between 1909 and 1933, depending on the amount of exposure to light, thus effectively ruling out Maybrick as the author. That's what you call "the science". Later, he made a statement offering an opinion that the diary was created prior to 1970 but cautioned that "there is always the possibility of error associated either with the operator or the techniques itself". The reason for his change of mind was not explained so that the result cannot be repeated. That is not science. You discard McNeil's test findings but seem to rely on his later statement. That is not science.

[Lombro2]

The document was sealed tight for 100 years. You think it might affect the science?

Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum or an air tight canister like the diary.

Barrett Hoax Theory is absolute rubbish. My theory isn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The document was sealed tight for 100 years. You think it might affect the science?

Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum or an air tight canister like the diary.

Barrett Hoax Theory is absolute rubbish. My theory isn’t.

You started talking about science in your earlier post, Lombro, now you've moved to guesswork.

If we can randomly push McNeil's earliest date back 21 years from 1909 to 1888, so that the diary in his view, as you represent it, was created at some point between 1888 and 1970, which seems little better than a guess, why can't we push it forward a mere 22 years to account for all kinds of factors that McNeill didn't take into consideration, including, as McNeil admitted, the possibility of error on his part, or of the technique?

The fact of the matter is that there is no science which tells us that the diary was created before 1992. It just doesn't exist. As you now seem to admit, we only have your "theory".

At least we can be certain of one thing Lombro…that ‘one off instance’ categorically proves the diary a fake despite the frankly embarrassing efforts at rebuttal.

[Lombro2]

Now we're back to artificial aging by Michael Barrett.

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum but it does exist amidst the vacuous.

Again, tell it to Gary!