Watch Discussion (moved thread)

[Omlor]

As I suspected.

A troll.

--John

[Soothsayer]

Now then, where were we?

Delightful.

So Omlor, let’s see what you have managed to tell us since my last visit:

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post, Caz - I wish I'd spotted it earlier!

I loved the 'see teacher after school' comments.

[Omlor]

And once again Caroline falls back upon proofreading internet posts for typos.

It really is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.


Now then, the longer bit of energy above, dedicated, it appears, to arriving at the profound and scholarly conclusion that "all Omlor’s posts on the subject [are] a complete waste of space" is really just more nonsense which says absolutely nothing new and in no way challenges any of the claims I made in the post to which she is referring.

Of course, she has to trot out the old tease about secret tests that are really being arranged but that none of us know about (despite their never actually happening), because she can't do anything else. The record year after year is perfectly clear.

As I have long said, all writing on this topic must be reduced to pure repetition, with nothing new and nothing real in any of it, unless and until these artifacts are finally shown to fully qualified experts so that they might tell us what is and is not possible using the latest technologies.

Past history and the passing of DiTA day after DiTA day tell us that's not going to happen anytime soon.

People are indeed free to work out for themsleves why that might be.

We are where we ever were, despite hints about secret squirrel evidence and despite whispers of secret arrangements for testing aqnd despite all the other dodges offered in the face of the actual record that exists concerning these hoaxes and how they've been sold in print and how they've been handled for the past decade.

It's not a very admirable history. And the future looks very much like the past.

Never a surprise,

--John

[caz]

Now then, where were we?

Delightful.

So Omlor, let’s see what you have managed to tell us since my last visit:

1) You are still sore about the treatment you (together with a reputable and objective expert) received from someone you appointed to help with ‘proper testing’, who was a fellow modern hoax believer, but was also bright enough to appreciate that the only testing being proposed required samples of an ink that nobody was willing or able to supply.

No surprises there then.

2) Of course the real James Maybrick could have read some Crashaw.

Old news, but glad to see you finally dragged up to speed in print this side of the next decade.

It’s the only bottom line needed: Mike Barrett made no faux pas if he told the truth about plucking the words at random from his Sphere book, unwittingly making Sir Jim quote a Whitechapel vicar’s son in the process.

[NB: if he told the truth - biggest if in the world]

3) You are still in denial about the testing by Dr Platt (which, incidentally, was organised successfully under the watchful eye of the same individual you are still so sore at over the second of your two failed efforts - see 1)), which took place behind the scenes but with an agreement by all parties that the results would be published whatever they turned out to be.

Pretty sad and delusional to refer to ‘rumours’ of ‘secret behind the scenes’ [secret doesn’t need qualifying - see teacher after school] attempts at testing, and to claim that ‘for years and years’ nothing has ‘ever’ come of it [ever doesn’t belong here - see teacher after school], even when the proof of the exact opposite has been staring you in the face since the Platt results were released.

The only one hinting at ‘promises’ of future testing is you, when you keep misleading everyone with the impression that there are countless qualified experts out there just waiting for the chance to offer their services and the latest technology to test the diary and watch.

Since you have ducked my three simple questions I will rephrase them and answer them myself:

1) Can Omlor get contact details for anyone currently offering new testing techniques, who is keen to have a crack at either the watch or the diary?

No - didn’t think so.

2) Does Omlor know for a fact that efforts to find such a person are not ongoing?

No.

But he can’t imagine why he - and presumably these boards - would not be informed of the efforts made behind the scenes. He can’t see why embarrassing experts who have been approached, but are unable or unwilling to help for whatever reason, might make even more of them reluctant to get involved.

3) Does Omlor have any evidence of qualified experts offering their services directly to the owner of either artefact since Dr Platt was commissioned?

No.

He has to believe in a constant stream of experts being turned away and refused access to artefacts they are simply dying to get their hands on.

4) So - are all Omlor’s posts on the subject a complete waste of space?

Anyone still following can work that one out for themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

I can imagine the 'seriously old school' Elton Smith looking down with a twinkling, mischievous smile, and thinking that Omlor's inability to grasp where apostrophes don't belong is "laughable" and "a real give away" too.

Of course, he would have been too much of a gentleman and scholar to express the thought.

So that lets me off, because I'm as much a gentleman as Omlor is a scholar.

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[joelhall]

and would he have been able to engrave himself?

[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]

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

[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]

im not familiar with this watch.

what exactly is testing supposed to tell us?