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

[Iconoclast]

It is possible that the alleged “FM” initials in the crime scene photo of Mary Jane Kelly were only visible in the photograph due to the photographer’s flash or other photographic effects, rather than being noticeable to the naked eye at the time.
Here’s why:
1. Early Photography and Flash Effects
• Late 19th-century photography often used magnesium flash powder, which produced a harsh, bright light that could highlight details otherwise unseen in dim conditions.
• The angle of light and shadows created by the flash could reveal textures, stains, or patterns that might not be visible under natural light.
2. Photographic Artifacts & Exposure Issues
• Long exposure times and the limitations of early photographic techniques could create visual distortions or enhance existing patterns in the image.
• Overexposed areas or shadows could unintentionally give the illusion of letters or symbols.
3. Blood & Wall Stains Reacting to Light
• Blood and organic matter can reflect or absorb light differently under artificial lighting.
• If there were smudges or splashes of blood on the wall, the flash could have made certain parts appear more distinct in the photograph.
4. Psychological Perception (Pareidolia)
• Humans are naturally inclined to see patterns in random data (known as pareidolia), which could explain why some people perceive “FM” while others do not.
• If the marks were not noted by police or witnesses at the time, it’s likely they were not distinct to the naked eye but became more noticeable in the photograph.

Er ... pareidolia ... er ... stupid ... er why did the coppers not look ... er ... er ... Ike's a twat ...er ... er ... er ... [****, I'm in danger of losing a point here] ... er ... er ... blood splatters!

[erobitha]

A previous poster mentioned the Cottingley Fairies, which I point out because I am fascinated with fairy mythology and actually own Conan Doyle's book on the subject. The photos are so obviously of paper cutouts of fairy art that I can't believe anyone actually believed in them at the time.

I bring this up because the "FM" "initials are so obviously pareidolia that I can't believe anyone buys it. Aren't I correct in assuming that no one noticed these "initials" at the time? Isn't that weird? No it isn't, because there were no initials.

-Kuno

It is possible that the alleged “FM” initials in the crime scene photo of Mary Jane Kelly were only visible in the photograph due to the photographer’s flash or other photographic effects, rather than being noticeable to the naked eye at the time.




Here’s why:




1. Early Photography and Flash Effects

• Late 19th-century photography often used magnesium flash powder, which produced a harsh, bright light that could highlight details otherwise unseen in dim conditions.

• The angle of light and shadows created by the flash could reveal textures, stains, or patterns that might not be visible under natural light.




2. Photographic Artifacts & Exposure Issues

• Long exposure times and the limitations of early photographic techniques could create visual distortions or enhance existing patterns in the image.

• Overexposed areas or shadows could unintentionally give the illusion of letters or symbols.




3. Blood & Wall Stains Reacting to Light

• Blood and organic matter can reflect or absorb light differently under artificial lighting.

• If there were smudges or splashes of blood on the wall, the flash could have made certain parts appear more distinct in the photograph.




4. Psychological Perception (Pareidolia)

• Humans are naturally inclined to see patterns in random data (known as pareidolia), which could explain why some people perceive “FM” while others do not.

• If the marks were not noted by police or witnesses at the time, it’s likely they were not distinct to the naked eye but became more noticeable in the photograph.

[Lombro2]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

[Lombro2]

My point about the Cottingley Fairies was that debunkers love hoaxes. They're not going to debate letter pareidolia and ask everyone to do a Rorschach test over an incidental part, of a contested text, that is a matter of interpretation and therefore inconsequential and you therefore win no argument anyway but you keep trying to. Why? What is it about the Diary that brings out the yadda yadda nada.

[Kunochan]

[I]Provided that first it can be determined that they are in fact the initials F. and M. and not simply pareidolia. And of course then that would have to be followed by proving that the diary is genuine and written by Maybrick.[I]

A previous poster mentioned the Cottingley Fairies, which I point out because I am fascinated with fairy mythology and actually own Conan Doyle's book on the subject. The photos are so obviously of paper cutouts of fairy art that I can't believe anyone actually believed in them at the time.

I bring this up because the "FM" "initials are so obviously pareidolia that I can't believe anyone buys it. Aren't I correct in assuming that no one noticed these "initials" at the time? Isn't that weird? No it isn't, because there were no initials.

-Kuno