Watch Discussion (moved thread)

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Jenni Shelden]

caz,

not without opening myself up to a libel action.

but you are right lifes too short

thast why i cant be bothered arguing on maybrick threads

Jenni

[Omlor]

Sigh,

Is it really necessary to make the old distinction again?

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.

There is no inconsistency.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

-- John

[caz]

"...questioned artefacts...

I love that.

In this case, I think it's polite-speak for "hoax".

--John

Hi John,

No - it's scientific-speak for questioned artefacts.

You think a museum would take a hoax off someone's hands and test it?

Interesting.

But then you are someone who believes passionately that the watch is a hoax while also believing passionately that it still has to be tested, presumably just to make absolutely sure.

Have a great weekend, o ye of so much, yet so little faith in your own convictions.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Sorry, Jen, life's too short to try and fathom what your response has got to do with either of our previous posts or the topic in hand. Could you try a coherent sentence this time and actually tell me why you suggested that Albert would not want the watch tested again? Thanks.

[Jenni Shelden]

Caz,

yes tested like the sept letter was tested, where we have to wait for Patrica's whims versus tested by someone I know, yes that could well have been what i meant!

Jenni

[Omlor]

"...questioned artefacts...

I love that.

In this case, I think it's polite-speak for "hoax".

--John

[caz]

Chris,

he could donate it to a museum, but then again i guess it might be tested if he did that

Jenni

Hi Jenni,

I don't know whether museums are in the habit of taking questioned artefacts off their owners' hands and paying out to have them tested. But who do you think it will be a problem for if the watch is tested again?

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last few years you must be aware that 'he' (doesn't 'he' even deserve a capital H now?) paid out more for tests in the early days than the watch cost him in the first place. He had no worries then about testing, so where's your evidence that he would now?

If you are trying to imply that the current owner would not want the watch to end up with someone who can afford to pay for further testing, that's frankly rather ridiculous. The very fact that it's for sale - and we all know about it - shows that he must be perfectly happy with the idea that its future owner may want to subject it to further tests and may let us all know the results.

So were you just being mischievous, or do you mean that you are worried this might result in more testing, because the scratches could be confirmed to be at least several decades old?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

That watch

Victoria:

Can I ask something from you ?

Your brother as an orologist could you ask him please to see this watch and if he recognizes it as the watch which he sold to Stephen Parks ?

I know you do not wish to involve your brother in all this, but I´m just
very curious what he has to say.

Thank You.

-Maria

Hello Maria,

I have just recently sent my brother some better photos of the watch .. that
Steve had sent me to show him.
I am curious also to see what he has to say, I shall let you know as soon as
he gets back to me.
I'm sure that he will not find the watch unusual at all, by that I mean he will recognise
the style as familiar .. I say this as I have a 'converted' pocket watch (to a wrist watch)
that was my mother's .. and it is almost identical. But of course
there are no fake scratched initials on it.

The question will be if he actually remembers selling that particular watch ..
or something that looked the same to Steven, all those years ago.
He has for many years now, collected, sold and traded watches and clocks,
and taught himself how to do certain repairs on them.

To me the most interesting thing here is that he had this very clear memory
of meeting Steven Park .. the way that he described Steven, the night it happened
etc will stay in my mind forever. I too also remember Steven looking at his watches that night.
So even if the watch in question is not the one my brother sold Steven, to
me it proves that it was a part of Steven's original plan .. a watch to go with the diary that he was writing.

Victoria

[Maria]

Victoria:

Can I ask something from you ?

Your brother as an orologist could you ask him please to see this watch and if he recognizes it as the watch which he sold to Stephen Parks ?

I know you do not wish to involve your brother in all this, but I´m just
very curious what he has to say.

Thank You.

-Maria

[Christine]

I for one would like to see Patrica Cornwall buy it and have it tested....

More seriously though, I hope someone with means and interest does buy the watch and have it tested. That would be a good solution for all, I think.

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris,

he could donate it to a museum, but then again i guess it might be tested if he did that

Jenni