The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Iconoclast]

Oh, I get it, it’s Wescott not Westcott. How very droll of you.

[rjpalmer]

You have me at a disadvantage as I’m in a hotel 250 miles away from the book in question

On the road, eh? If you're visiting Liverpool again, why not drop by Anne's and run your theory past her and see what she thinks?

Good night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good Lord, Roger, go back to my original post and you will see that I was illustrating how turning ‘Juwes’ to ‘James’ is mocked but Harris himself tolerated Stephenson’s flight of fancy without a comment or a blink of the eye. Do keep up!



You have me at a disadvantage as I’m in a hotel 250 miles away from the book in question but I’m feeling confident that I was working from a book in my collection written by someone called Tom Westcott who actually posted on the Casebook in that name too.

Just checked. Was ‘Ripper Confidential’ not published in this name? Maybe it wasn’t his actual name but I’m not sure why that would be worthy of note if it isn’t.

But, Ike, those are two completely different things. Even if we leave aside the fact that Stephenson was Harris's suspect, so that Stephenson would, in Harris' mind, have known exactly what was on the wall, and was either revealing the truth or deliberately lying, a mis-transcription by the constable of Juives for Juwes, which is what Stephenson was suggesting, bears no relation whatsoever to a theory that the correct word was "Juwes" but was a code which should be read as "James" leaving "the James are the men" as the meaningless message. There's just no comparison. The former is plausible, if very unlikely, the latter is bizarre. Even if there was a comparison, how can it possibly be a topic worthy of comment in this thread? What does it have to do with anything about whether the diary is an old hoax, new or not a hoax?

[Iconoclast]

But, Ike, those are two completely different things. Even if we leave aside the fact that Stephenson was Harris's suspect, so that Stephenson would, in Harris' mind, have known exactly what was on the wall, and was either revealing the truth or deliberately lying, a mis-transcription by the constable of Juives for Juwes, which is what Stephenson was suggesting, bears no relation whatsoever to a theory that the correct word was "Juwes" but was a code which should be read as "James" leaving "the James are the men" as the meaningless message. There's just no comparison. The former is plausible, if very unlikely, the latter is bizarre. Even if there was a comparison, how can it possibly be a topic worthy of comment in this thread? What does it have to do with anything about whether the diary is an old hoax, new or not a hoax?

Herlock,

Honestly, I could say that two and two equalled four and five minutes later you'd be telling me it doesn't.

If you don't get the points I am making (none of them, Herlock - you never get a single point I make so answering you is genuinely pointless from my perspective) then that is clearly my endless, repetitive failure to explain myself sufficiently cogently and I am a pragmatist at heart so if it doesn't work after many attempts, it's best to invest your limited time trying something else.

Can we just all agree that I will post points of note and - by default, even if you don't reply - everyone will assume that you either disagree or you don't get my point?

It will save both of us a great deal of wasted typing time. No?

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Honestly, I could say that two and two equalled four and five minutes later you'd be telling me it doesn't.

If you don't get the points I am making (none of them, Herlock - you never get a single point I make so answering you is genuinely pointless from my perspective) then that is clearly my endless, repetitive failure to explain myself sufficiently cogently and I am a pragmatist at heart so if it doesn't work after many attempts, it's best to invest your limited time trying something else.

Can we just all agree that I will post points of note and - by default, even if you don't reply - everyone will assume that you either disagree or you don't get my point?

It will save both of us a great deal of wasted typing time. No?

Cheers,

Ike

Ike,

I don"t think your response is fair, reasonable or appropriate. You're not saying that two and two equals four. Far from it. I explained to you why there is a fundamental problem with your argument. I see you have no response to that. I asked you what it has to do with this thread. You haven't answered. Feel free to post whatever you want but if it doesn't make sense I'll probably continue to say so, and explain why. As far as I'm aware, that's the purpose of this forum and the whole point of a public debate.

[Lombro2]

The purpose of the forum is to cover all theories and possibilities and present them without having to face a gauntlet of debunkers. Bad theories should die their own natural death. If they're good theories, they should live on without people propping them up like Bernie Lomax.

Good theories don't need help. They help you by continually giving researchers gifts that make them look good. Barrett theory hasn't provided any "library miracle" since 1992.