Watch Discussion (moved thread)

[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

[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

[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

[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]

As I suspected.

A troll.

--John

[Maria]

Seing is believing.

After 13 years we have seen nothing. The Platt test proved absolutely nothing, so there is nothing to brag there. The diary continues to be a hoax.

Now that the forgers have been caught with the wrong hand-writing in the diary first attributed to James, they are now claiming: " Wait a minute... it is really Michael Maybrick who did it not James " Pull the other one ! ha,ha,ha.

It is so very funny to see how the fools will fall for this one as well and these inescrupulous people who are selling books based on this hoax can continue doing more money on it.

I think is the perfect scam. It just involves the fools falling for it.

[Graham]

Maria,

Don't know if your eyesight is getting poor with your advancing years, but this thread is actually about the watch, not the diary. And I'm not being inescrupulous, either.

Can you please enlighten us as to precisely who is still making money out of the Diary (even though I ignore my own advice regarding the subject of this thread?)

Graham

[Omlor]

Graham,

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ripper-Co...1857510&sr=1-1

All the best,

--John

[Graham]

Fair enough, John, but we wonders - yes, we wonders - just how many copies of that book are being sold today.

Graham

[Graham]

Yes, Maria. My secret is out. I AM Anne Graham.

Am I?

Graham

PS: under your name it says 'detective'. I suggest that the first 't' is replaced with an 'f'.

[joelhall]

er....

forgive me. who exactly is arguing for what?

joel

[Graham]

In any thread in which Maria takes an interest, it's anyone's guess.

However, I believe that the original thrust of this thread concerned the authenticity, or otherwise, of the infamous 'Maybrick' watch... I think.

Graham

[joelhall]

ohhhhh.

i thought that & the diary were a load of b****cks?

i dont think most people need scientific testing to tell them that, do they?

joel

[Graham]

Correct

Graham

[Soothsayer]

ohhhhh.

i thought that & the diary were a load of b****cks?

i dont think most people need scientific testing to tell them that, do they?

joel

With classic Descartian logic your comments above reflect those of too many of our fellow posters and reveal all we need to know about the self-appointed doyens of truth who come on this site and yell very loudly that the diary is a clear and obvious hoax.

I think [the diary must be a hoax], therefore I am [incapable of considering any other possibility to be the case].

I think [I know everything and everything I know is the Truth], therefore I am [not to be challenged or questioned or spoken to unless it is in a tone of deferential admiration].

The diary has its weaknesses - the handwriting, the Poste House anachronism, the three Eddowes items effectively one after another from Fido, the breasts in the wrong place chief amongst them.

But the diary also has its strengths - the reference to 'FM' in Kelly's room absolutely fundamental amongst them.

The jury of true and honest men is actually still out because for all its weaknesses and all its critics over the years, no one single piece of evidence has been incontrovertible.

There is a Middle Way ...