Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick watch in higher resolution

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

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    If my theory - or anyone else's theory - is properly available to ridicule then perhaps that's what it ultimately deserves, though I can't help feeling we should congratulate the effort rather than denigrate the product.

    Nevertheless, please don't kid yourself that you are dealing in 'facts'. You could hardly be further from the truth of it. Where is the factual in your Top Ten entry ("the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr").

    It is misinformation and poisoning of the well such as this that produces that other now oft-quoted factoid: the scrapbook has been proven to be a hoax.

    Words like 'proven' and 'fact' have an unyielding meaning which your anvil and hammer will never re-shape.

    Ike
    ''If my theory - or anyone else's theory - is properly available to ridicule then perhaps that's what it ultimately deserves, though I can't help feeling we should congratulate the effort rather than denigrate the product'

    See this part , well i tried if years it doesnt work . ., so now i call the b###&#*# when i see it, and the watch is just that ..... next.

    Just like the people over on another thread who still like to quote newspaper reports over official police statements , more b##@@@#.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    ill poison that well [as you like to put it] every chance i get ike , what makes your theory any more or less subject to ridicule than mine or any one elses ?. See my above post about ''facts'' maybe youll understand why i dont give toss anymore.


    I look forward to wollowing away in the mud pits like the rest of us .
    If my theory - or anyone else's theory - is properly available to ridicule then perhaps that's what it ultimately deserves, though I can't help feeling we should congratulate the effort rather than denigrate the product.

    Nevertheless, please don't kid yourself that you are dealing in 'facts'. You could hardly be further from the truth of it. Where is the factual in your Top Ten entry ("the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr").

    It is misinformation and poisoning of the well such as this that produces that other now oft-quoted factoid: the scrapbook has been proven to be a hoax.

    Words like 'proven' and 'fact' have an unyielding meaning which your anvil and hammer will never re-shape.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 05-02-2022, 08:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Well here we go again with another reason why Ally asked the question in 2013 (and I paraphrase) "What's the point of the Casebook?".

    Over on the thread itself, we have Wickerman smirking because he's noticed MrBarnett's new candidate for Jack has the initials 'JM' - just like on Kelly's wall. No, seriously, the smirking was actually visceral. It's very obvious he thought he was being incredibly clever, and hundreds of readers will have thought he was being clever because none of them know which letters are mooted to be on Kelly's wall.

    And here we have Fishy1118 poisoning the well with misinformed opinion and unbelievably unrestrained assumption. Let me ask you Fishy1118, When you were a killer, did you not do anything childish or illegible? What's that you say? You never were a killer? Well how the **** do you know what one would do then?

    I think this whole remark - "the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr" - ranks in the Top 10 reasons why the Casebook is always going to be mired in slow, suffocating mud.

    The Casebook provides us all with a wonderful opportunity for discussing the possible. I'm hoping that one day we are allowed to seize it.

    Ike
    ill poison that well [as you like to put it] every chance i get ike , what makes your theory any more or less subject to ridicule than mine or any one elses ?. See my above post about ''facts'' maybe youll understand why i dont give toss anymore.


    I look forward to wollowing away in the mud pits like the rest of us .

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Thanks for that informed and qualified opinion.

    We all have those. Have any facts to dispute it?
    Depends, which ones would you like? New facts, old facts, made up facts, proven,facts ,unproven facts, disputed facts, misinterpreted facts, gods honest truth facts, ignored facts (insert one particular poster),unsubstantiated, facts,unreliable facts,fun facts............. the fact of the matter is im done with facts ,because its indeed a fact that they actually matter here .

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    The watch is shear nonsense , the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr . Really its just pathetic.

    Just for the record, i calll it as i see it .
    Well here we go again with another reason why Ally asked the question in 2013 (and I paraphrase) "What's the point of the Casebook?".

    Over on the thread itself, we have Wickerman smirking because he's noticed MrBarnett's new candidate for Jack has the initials 'JM' - just like on Kelly's wall. No, seriously, the smirking was actually visceral. It's very obvious he thought he was being incredibly clever, and hundreds of readers will have thought he was being clever because none of them know which letters are mooted to be on Kelly's wall.

    And here we have Fishy1118 poisoning the well with misinformed opinion and unbelievably unrestrained assumption. Let me ask you Fishy1118, When you were a killer, did you not do anything childish or illegible? What's that you say? You never were a killer? Well how the **** do you know what one would do then?

    I think this whole remark - "the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr" - ranks in the Top 10 reasons why the Casebook is always going to be mired in slow, suffocating mud.

    The Casebook provides us all with a wonderful opportunity for discussing the possible. I'm hoping that one day we are allowed to seize it.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    The watch is shear nonsense , the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr . Really its just pathetic.

    Just for the record, i calll it as i see it .
    Thanks for that informed and qualified opinion.

    We all have those. Have any facts to dispute it?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    The watch is shear nonsense , the real killer would never do something as childish and illegible as this if ever he wanted the world to recognise him as jtr . Really its just pathetic.

    Just for the record, i calll it as i see it .

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    My point is why assume the killer would give himself any moniker? Even if he did not write the "Dear Boss" letter, there's no reason to believe he identified himself as "Jack".
    In the diary, 'Sir Jim' very clearly identifies himself as "Jack", and signs off as 'Jack the Ripper', so we would expect whoever made the scratches in the watch to do likewise, whichever came first.

    I am curious as to why the engraver only picked the five victims. As far as I'm aware, the contemporary press had the Ripper's tally as high as nine or eleven. Therefore, you'd expect an old hoax to reflect that. Wasn't the "canonical five" a relatively modern concept? Unless, of course, the Ripper did indeed only murder those five but I find there's enough evidence to dispute that.
    Again, this matches the number and the initials of the Whitechapel victims claimed by 'Sir Jim' in the diary. Obviously the engraver could not include the initials of any victim whose name would not have been known to her killer.

    When the engravings were first deciphered, and the five sets of initials identified, the diary had yet to be published, with the details of which victims were identifiable from the text, or which might be conspicuous by their absence from it. So there were several ways in which a modern hoaxer could have made errors when choosing which initials to engrave or not to engrave. Omissions would have been less problematic, but one inclusion too many could have been instantly fatal.
    Last edited by caz; 08-02-2021, 12:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Arthur Leigh Allen, the Zodiac suspect, owned and wore a Zodiac brandwatch, that was the source behind this fabrication.



    The Baron
    Insightful as ever.

    I'm more intrigued by your choice of moniker on this forum. It is odd seeing an obscure Magna reference. What makes Baron Humbert von Gikkingen so interesting to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

    And I still don't see any initials on the wall.
    Yes, Scott, Simon was famously the first person to ever identify those letters on Kelly's wall and he could see them no problem when they didn't mean anything.

    Miraculously, when they meant too much, he could no longer see them again.

    That happens, I guess.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    Simon Wood was no longer a lone voice howling at the moon and - whilst I believe he still occasionally gets out there and works the old larynx on high hills at midnight - he is to be congratulated for spotting what turned out to be evident in the record from at very least Farson (1972) onwards (if not Lacassagne had he or she had an Apple iPhone SE 2020 in 1899).
    I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

    And I still don't see any initials on the wall.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Arthur Leigh Allen, the Zodiac suspect, owned and wore a Zodiac brandwatch, that was the source behind this fabrication.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    On the matter of the watch, it is hardly a telegraph, was it?
    The person's name, an admission of guilt, AND the canonical five's initials for good measure? I'd say so.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    It was inside the casing of the pocket watch. If I was to telegraph to all who I was, I'd pick perhaps a slightly more obvious means than microscopic etchings inside a watch no one may ever find.
    But it WAS found, and conveniently timed too. The ends justified the means.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    It's indicative of someone who would enjoy the fact sometime after his death this may or may not be found.
    The hoaxer might've been relying on that.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    A for the moniker it was what he was known by most popularly in the end, he is hardly going to give himself a new moniker because the one everyone knew grated him. No one would be disturbed to see etchings written by "I AM DAVE THE KILLER".
    My point is why assume the killer would give himself any moniker? Even if he did not write the "Dear Boss" letter, there's no reason to believe he identified himself as "Jack".

    I am curious as to why the engraver only picked the five victims. As far as I'm aware, the contemporary press had the Ripper's tally as high as nine or eleven. Therefore, you'd expect an old hoax to reflect that. Wasn't the "canonical five" a relatively modern concept? Unless, of course, the Ripper did indeed only murder those five but I find there's enough evidence to dispute that.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    I am open to the possibility of a "false confession" which may have become the inspiration of a diary "hoax". However, my inclination is the watch is 100% genuine of that time period (aged brass particles embedded in the base of the engravings and eroded) make the watch very compelling. Robbie Johnson did not meet the Turgoose criteria of "considerable skill and technical expertise". Wild's report is confident enough to place the engravings "...at least several tens of years of old." His only issue was how far back he could comfortably commit, but even we accept the minimum of twenty years - that means pre 1974. It is not part of any "modern" hoax.
    Well, Dr Turgoose did conclude that the age of the engravings could not be proven, and may have been modern made, albeit skilfully done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    This I believe goes to why so many believe the watch to be a hoax. The "timing" seems a little too convenient for many, but obviously not for me.

    My faith in the watch is greater than the scrapbook. The science is too compelling.

    It does create an uncomfortable truth. The scrapbook is generally regarded as being a modern hoax as it contains some information post 1980s in terms of its public knowledge, or alternatively, it is genuine.

    The watch etchings have been scientifically proven to be at least tens of years age (and possibly more) in 1994. That means the watch must have been "hoaxed" pre-1974 at the latest.

    So somewhere between 1888 and 1974 a watch was engraved with these marks. In 1992 a scrapbook appears with information that was only public knowledge post-1980s.

    Only the genuine scenario can account for both artefacts being created at the same time. The hoax theory cannot support that.
    Indeed, and two points of note:

    1) The scrapbook is seen as a hoax largely because that was the initial momentum successfully driven by Melvin Harris and his Committee of Integrity (my arse) in what was a rather self-evidently non-independent review of the case (an independent reviewer would not have been working on their own study of the Whitechapel murders due to be published within a couple of years). Galvanising the likes of Nick "Tunnel Vision" Warren, they just collectively decided they were right and patted each other on the back (cf. the sanctimonious Sugden referenced in my brilliant Society's Pillar). This momentum led the easily-led Sunday Times to declare "Fake!" even though no-one had proved it to be so (and their own newspaper article under that banner being deeply equivocal), and very possibly influenced the irrelevant analysis of Kenneth Rendell (as in, a wealthy man would buy a proper book for his diary, etc.). Times Warner pull out in America, and suddenly everyone's jumping on the hoax bandwagon from which few have jumped off again. Had the scrapbook had a less vociferously biased introduction, we may have had fewer sceptics, but either way James Maybrick's record of his crimes has never had a truly balanced review. Inside Story is probably the least biased analysis, but the vast majority of works on (or touching on) the subject are just polemics from a fixed view.

    2) The watch's etchings were first interpreted (around July 1993?) at a time when the Maybrick-Ripper link had already been made so it's perfectly likely that it was the pre-publication newspaper reports of the Victorian scrapbook which enabled the viewers of the watch to be able to decipher what was etched in it. No coincidence required.

    ero b, I know that the watch is your main driver for accepting James Maybrick was Jack the Spratt. For me, I would say the main driver lies in the scrapbook itself, late on, a reference to Florence Maybrick's initials left around the room, and - lo and behold - as a consequence of the scrapbook's claims, the 'FM' on Kelly's wall finally coming to light. Simon Wood was no longer a lone voice howling at the moon and - whilst I believe he still occasionally gets out there and works the old larynx on high hills at midnight - he is to be congratulated for spotting what turned out to be evident in the record from at very least Farson (1972) onwards (if not Lacassagne had he or she had an Apple iPhone SE 2020 in 1899).

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Indeed they would. I was working from the position of the watches claimed heritage, because opening the Battlecrease biscuit tin is opening a proverbial can of worms.

    If the watch was knocking around pre Eddie Lyons for as long as claimed, and is therefore not connected to the floorboards miracle, what would be the chance in that scenario?
    This I believe goes to why so many believe the watch to be a hoax. The "timing" seems a little too convenient for many, but obviously not for me.

    My faith in the watch is greater than the scrapbook. The science is too compelling.

    It does create an uncomfortable truth. The scrapbook is generally regarded as being a modern hoax as it contains some information post 1980s in terms of its public knowledge, or alternatively, it is genuine.

    The watch etchings have been scientifically proven to be at least tens of years age (and possibly more) in 1994. That means the watch must have been "hoaxed" pre-1974 at the latest.

    So somewhere between 1888 and 1974 a watch was engraved with these marks. In 1992 a scrapbook appears with information that was only public knowledge post-1980s.

    Only the genuine scenario can account for both artefacts being created at the same time. The hoax theory cannot support that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X