the diary

[pinkmoon]

Yes, sure. As if.

Mike Barrett should have been sent packing with his diary and told to come back when he had proof where it had come from and where it had been for over a hundred years.Other people who attached themselves to the diary when a chance to make a lot of money appeared should have stayed away their involvement helped inflate a small scam into something bigger.I know people have spent a lot of their own money trying to prove diary genuine I'm sure the chance of making a lot of money persuaded them to do this.

[Cogidubnus]

You started it

Well you asked a frigging silly question so I gave you a frigging silly answer...

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

In a semi-sober attempt to find out how easy this would be to do? I surmise it might've seemed like a good idea at the time...

Yes, sure. As if.

[Cogidubnus]

Why would a drunkard Scouser want to buy an unused Victorian diary?

In a semi-sober attempt to find out how easy this would be to do? I surmise it might've seemed like a good idea at the time...

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

Why would a drunkard Scouser want to buy an unused Victorian diary?

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;277478]Its never been disproved (incredibly considering its been around for so long..), but what makes you say it can never be proved?

What if more evidence surfaces? Can you carry on saying its all some conspiracy or major fraud no matter what?


I think when we find out the truth about the diary which will be soon hopefully because of this information discoverd by mr skinner in 2007 we will be quite disappointed .This diary was never a complex fraud it was given credibility by certain people who investigated it I personally think Shirley Harrison's book shouldn't have been published till the history of the diary could be proved.Like I said I've got a feeling the outcome of this will leave us all a bit deflated.If you get a pen and paper and do a time line of events regarding diary it sort of jumps out at you what has occured.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.

Are they still lucan for him ?

[Kaz]

"The whole thing about the diary is that it can never be proved but again it can never be disproved".

Its never been disproved (incredibly considering its been around for so long..), but what makes you say it can never be proved?

What if more evidence surfaces? Can you carry on saying its all some conspiracy or major fraud no matter what?

[pinkmoon]

Maybe, once it is discovered, Lucan's long lost diary will provide said verification!

I think Lord Lucans diary is Mike barretts next project.

[Haskins]

I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.

Maybe, once it is discovered, Lucan's long lost diary will provide said verification!

[pinkmoon]

I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.

[Cogidubnus]

That's one for the "glub"

All the best

Dave

[Haskins]

It can never be disproved, but it's what you might call a long shot. Roughly on a par with the odds of Elvis crashing-landing a UFO on top of the Loch Ness Monster.

[pinkmoon]

I think this may be worth viewing for those who are interested in the authenticity of the Diary. The video linked is concerned with the authenticity of a document linked to the Shakespeare authrorship controversy. The Diary is mentioned at about 28-29 minutes in. Peter Bower, a paper historian and analyst, dismesses the Diary. He mostly dismisses it on account of what he claims is the age old tell tale sign of forgeries. That the paper used to write the Diary is not Diary or Journal paper. That it is a photograph album. Now, this will not be news to those interested in the Diary. What mat be of news is Bower's claim that such incongruity is often a tell tale sign a forgery has taken place. That many forgers have come unstuck on this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLKLBPGG5g

"The whole thing about the diary is that it can never be proved but again it can never be disproved" I was told this by Mike Barrett a few years ago and you know what he is dead right.The best we can ever hope for is to find out the truth of how it came into Mr barretts possession that part I think will be very straightforward I think the bit about who wrote it and why we've got no chance on that one.

[jason_c]

I think this may be worth viewing for those who are interested in the authenticity of the Diary. The video linked is concerned with the authenticity of a document linked to the Shakespeare authrorship controversy. The Diary is mentioned at about 28-29 minutes in. Peter Bower, a paper historian and analyst, dismesses the Diary. He mostly dismisses it on account of what he claims is the age old tell tale sign of forgeries. That the paper used to write the Diary is not Diary or Journal paper. That it is a photograph album. Now, this will not be news to those interested in the Diary. What mat be of news is Bower's claim that such incongruity is often a tell tale sign a forgery has taken place. That many forgers have come unstuck on this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLKLBPGG5g