Watch Discussion (moved thread)

[caz]

not without opening myself up to a libel action.

Thanks for your honesty, Jenni.

Can you at least see now why it is thoroughly uncalled for and entirely false to imply that Albert does not want the watch tested, considering that he paid to have it tested within weeks of the scratches coming to light, and that by selling it, he is willingly giving prospective buyers total control over whether it gets tested again in the future?

If he had never allowed anyone to examine the thing at all, and was refusing to ever let it out of his hands (and claiming the scratches date back to 1888, which he never has claimed) you would have had an argument. As it is, it merely points to what passes for reasoning in these parts, and it does the modern hoax believers no favours at all.

Talking of which....

Yes, both the watch and diary are clearly and obviously hoaxes.

Yes, they should be thoroughly tested using the latest technologies so that we might find out through science whatever we can about when these hoaxes were made.

Omlor,

If you can't see how your first statement - if taken at face value by any testing organisation in the known universe - impacts on the 'should' part of your second, then I can understand why you are doomed to be disappointed by the people around you.

Fortunately, I trust that there is still just enough sense left in the world that some reputable testing organisation can still be found one day soon, who will see your daily "clear and obvious hoaxes" rant on an internet message board for what it is, and won't therefore judge it a criminal waste of anyone's precious resources to use the latest technology, just to try and ascertain for you when your 'clear and obvious hoaxes' were created.

"This ham sandwich, with Shakespeare's teeth marks in it is a clear and obvious hoax.

It should be thoroughly tested using the latest technologies so that we might find out through science whatever we can about when this hoax was made."

This is the equivalent of your position, right?

Daft much?

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Are you just playing dumb for rhetorical effect or do you really not see the obvious need to test both of these artifacts to determine when they were made, despite the fact that we know they were not made by the real James Maybrick?

It's a simple enough idea. We have two artifacts that were sold to the public as authentic when they were in fact fake. We don't know who created them or specifically when. Consequently, showing them to scientists who have access to the latest technologies so that they can tell us what is and is not possible regarding dating them is the logical thing to do if we want to learn more abut their creation.

Honestly, this is a no-brainer. The very fact that anyone would have to explain such a common-sense thought indicates just what a very twisted and warped place this Diary World can be.

Never surprised, but always amazed,

--John

[Graham]

Would anyone happen to know if the Watch has been sold, or if any interest has been expressed in it by potential buyers?

Just interested.

Graham

[caz]

Fortunately, I trust that there is still just enough sense left in the world that some reputable testing organisation can still be found one day soon, who will see your daily "clear and obvious hoaxes" rant on an internet message board for what it is, and won't therefore judge it a criminal waste of anyone's precious resources to use the latest technology, just to try and ascertain for you when your 'clear and obvious hoaxes' were created.

Omlor,

What was it about this paragraph from my previous post that you failed to grasp? It doesn't matter what you or I think about what needs to be done. What matters - if you are serious about any of this - is finding someone who is ready and willing to conduct further tests despite the fact that the items in question are regularly and loudly proclaimed to be 'clear and obvious hoaxes' by the same person who shouts the loudest and longest for those tests to be done.

I admire your humility if it never occurs to you that if your voice had the power to carry as far as those in a position to offer new tests, it could actually make them think: "You know what? I don't think I'll waste my time thanks. That chap on the internet is obviously satisfied that the things were hoaxed in the late 20th century and he claims to know what he's talking about."

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

Oh, look.

A new excuse.

We shouldn't or won't be able to test these artifacts properly because John has said they are hoaxes.

This may be the saddest, most ridiculous, most pathetic excuse of them all (and over the years there have been some real doozies).

Of course, even though they are hoaxes, they should still be properly tested to determine when they were created -- especially if we are interested in learning more about their origins. But that's beside the point. Here, now, what is truly breathtaking is just how far Caroline is willing to go to find her own reasons why the these two artifacts have not been (and will not be) thoroughly and properly tested, or even, at the very least, shown to the proper experts so that they might tell us what is and is not possible using the latest technologies.

Rarely do you find people who work so hard at finding or creating reasons not to learn stuff.

But in Diary World, for years now, it's been the trademark of those who have the objects in their hands and many of those who have participated in the history of the hoaxes.

Delighted by this newest bit of desperation,

--John

[joelhall]

im not familiar with this watch.

what exactly is testing supposed to tell us?

[Omlor]

When and how the hoax initials were created.

It's been a very long time since any expert has had a chance to examine the thing and the technology has changed quite a bit in the last fifteen years.

--John

[joelhall]

whos initials are they purported to be, and why is this linked to the whitechapel murders?

[Mike Covell]

whos initials are they purported to be, and why is this linked to the whitechapel murders?

They are the initials of the 5 victims, plus James Maybrick's name and "I am Jack"

You will find dissertations here, http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/

Or try here for more details, www.jamesmaybrick.org

[joelhall]

and would he have been able to engrave himself?

[caz]

Omlor,

Now you have me down as a scientist who could offer to do more tests on the watch and the diary, but instead am making excuses for not doing so? I really think you have me confused with someone else. It's becoming a habit of yours.

I am pointing out to you that in order for new tests to take place, someone somewhere has to want to conduct them. My ‘excuse’ is that I don’t happen to know of anyone who is currently offering a technique that has been used to date either scratches in gold or ink on paper, let alone someone who is eager to repeat the technique with the watch or the diary. I can't magic them up out of thin air. Poor excuse I know. But magic was never my strong point.

Surely even you can see that it is something of a stumbling block all the while that nobody can actually be found who is even interested in looking at the items and describing what techniques they can offer?

If you know of anyone, then there is not an excuse in the world for not providing full details. I mean, why would you, of all people, have said anything about new tests being available, if you were not prepared to say it all?

If, on the other hand, you don’t know of anyone, and are only guessing that some new technique may have been developed since the last tests were conducted, then you’d better start thinking up a good excuse for constantly blaming others for the failure of mythical scientists to perform mythical tests.

That’s also becoming a habit: blaming everyone else for not finding your mythical scientists, your mythical tests and your mythical modern hoaxers.

So what's your excuse?

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

If someone else can tell me where, exactly, in my earlier post, I have Caroline Morris "down as a scientist," I'd appreciate it.

I've just re-read my words and the only thing I can think of is that Caroline is simply uttering a bit of pure nonsense for some sort of odd rhetorical effect (perhaps a diversionary one).

Clearly, at no point anywhere in my post do I even imply Caroline is a scientist and, in fact, I am careful to distinguish between her and the experts who should someday (God willing) be allowed at least to examine these artifacts and determine for us all precisely what is and is not possible using the latest available technologies.

As for contacting these experts myself and trying to arrange to get this thing done properly -- sadly, I have been down that road before and most of you people know exactly what happened and how the expert and I were both treated.

I am not stupid enough to let the same match burn me twice.

Past experience sometimes produces wisdom.

--John

[caz]

Put up or shut up time

As for contacting these experts myself and trying to arrange to get this thing done properly -- sadly, I have been down that road before and most of you people know exactly what happened and how the expert and I were both treated.

Omlor,

Nobody is asking you to contact any experts or try to arrange anything - heaven forbid. Every time you do that something bad happens to poor Johnny and you try to shift all the blame for your own inadequacies onto the wrong people.

One time you backed out of your offer to help 'for personal reasons', which were never satisfactorily explained to those concerned, since all you had to do was get some kind of testing proposal from the scientists concerned (anything would have done to get things going) and the personal reasons you gave didn't prevent you from posting or emailing all sorts of other people at the time and ever since.

Another time you didn't give the diary owner the chance to 'treat' you any way at all, choosing to keep the process just between you, your expert and a third party. This individual was meant to say yes to tests that required Diamine ink (even though it was repeatedly pointed out that none was available, despite your own misguided assurance to your expert that someone could be found to supply or make some). If you are still hurting from the treatment you got, take it up with that third party, who believes, as you do, that the diary is a modern fake, and wanted to offer someone the chance to prove it.

Yet another time, you blabbed about having had contact with a number of experts who assured you that the real James Maybrick could not have read any Crashaw. But once again, you used the way poor Johnny had been treated as an excuse for not identifying your experts or asking them if they would mind explaining their reasoning publicly.

What are you, Omlor? A man or a mouse?

Let's find out once and for all, shall we?

It's put up or shut up time.

Your reference to contacting 'these experts' yourself implies that you would have no trouble doing so if only you had not had all these bad personal experiences. So:

1) Can you get contact details for anyone currently offering a new testing technique, who may be interested in having a crack at either the watch or the diary?

2) Do you know for a fact that efforts to find such a person have not been ongoing behind the scenes since before Dr Platt was found (that name ring any bells?) and for at least as long as you have been whining on about nothing happening?

3) Have you any evidence whatsoever that such a person has offered their services directly to the owner of either artefact since Dr Platt was commissioned?

Can you answer yes to any of the above? Or are all your posts on the subject a complete waste of space?

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

Goodness,

Someone is getting testy.

I wonder why?

I'm not going to rehash the entire sordid history of the previous attempt I made, with my own funds, to get the diary properly tested by a reputable and objective expert.

If anyone has any doubts about what happened or exactly how we both were treated during the whole sad affair, they can send me e-mail and I will send to them, as I have already sent to so many others, the complete, unedited record of all the dated e-mail exchanges during the entire process and they can follow the whole history first hand for themselves.

I'm happy to do that, because I know exactly what the record shows.

I have, by the way, also never made any claims about anyone ever saying that the real James Maybrick "could not have read any Crashaw." Anyone here can feel free to check the written record on that one too and see that I have never said such a thing.

Caroline is just making this up. I do know the conversation she thinks she is citing. If she (or anyone) goes back and checks she will see that neither I nor anyone said what she has so casually and deceptively written here. The claim that was made was significantly different.

Of course, I can only laugh when she tells me it's "put up or shut up time," since this is coming from the person who has already written in public that the so-called secret "Battlecrease evidence" will let all potential modern forgers "off the hook."

Of course, there has never been a "put up" for that one -- and more than a full year has passed.

As for rumors of secret behind the scenes attempts at testing and promises of future testing and all the rest of that good stuff hinted at in her questions at the end of her post -- well, we've all heard all of this so very many times before. And for years and years and years nothing has ever come of it.

At what point do people with good common sense simply stop believing the hinting and hiding games?

We're not far from yet another July 14th.

Anyone want to bet whether there will be any new test results this year?

Same as it ever was,

--John

PS: I do hope that I am wrong. I hope that there are serious attempts being made all the time to get the watch and diary thoroughly and properly tested using the latest technologies, or at least that the watch and diary are being shown or will soon be shown to qualified experts so that they might tell us what is and is not possible nowadays. I hope that every effort is being made by the owners of both of these artifacts to learn everything science could possibly tell us about when these items were created and how. I hope that's what is happening. I would be very happy to be mistaken about all of this.

[Omlor]

A simple twist of fate....

Elton Smith has died.

In one of life's (or at least Diary World's) cruel little jokes, Caroline Morris has just dredged up an old conversation from years ago where I mentioned that when I first was interested in the appearance of those five words from that particular poem by Crashaw in a diary allegedly by James Maybrick, I asked a number of colleagues of mine who were experts in the field about such a citation.

That was many years ago.

Today I received word that an old colleague of mine, a professor who specialized in Victorian and Romantic literature and sacred verse, a man who taught students well into his eightieth decade and beyond and whom I knew for my whole career as a teacher has passed away at a very old age.

You will probably be able find his obituary in the next few days. He taught at the University of South Florida.

He was a remarkable old guy. We agreed on almost nothing. We had different views on life and religion and politics. But we had a grudging respect for one another. When I got interested in the diary, he was one of the first people I asked about the Crashaw quote.

He found it's appearance in the diary "laughable" and "a real give away," especially given who it's alleged author was. I remember him smiling a twinkling and mischievous smile when he said it.

He would have had no time or patience for this list (or any on-line message board) or the silliness here. He was seriously old school. But he loved his work and he loved his students.

And he will be missed.

This has nothing to do with the diary really or any of the ridiculous discussions that take place concerning these cheap hoaxes. But I thought people should know he was alive, and he was a good teacher, and now he is gone.

And that's all.

Back to the usual nonsense,

--John