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

[Iconoclast]

But I've said my piece and will stay out of it, as I have little interest in wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I couldn't agree with you more, RJ. I've said my piece too. Whether it's counting angels on the head of a pin or wondering if me auntie's gonads are actually testicles, none of it provides us with any helpful movement towards answers or - God forbid - the truth.

I would note further though that claiming X could have done E, J, M, R, T, and V to achieve Y is simply an alphabet soup of contrivance and implausibility.

Mike Barrett could have gone to the Moon and back to source his 'hoaxed' scrapbook, we'll just never know either way with any certainty.

Just saying.

[Yabs]

I think Herlock has already explained that the diary could only be returned if not as described.

For example if I ordered a red coloured pen on a similar basis I could have been sent either of these items, both fit my request for a red pen except the one on the right has blue ink.
If I required one with red ink it would have been down to me to be more specific in my request.
Hindsight is everything.




Also.. would Barrett ask if the pages are dated if being told they are blank as requested?
I’m sure he was informed it was an 1891 diary as that leaves room for returns if not properly described, but to Barretts mind that’s not a problem if most of the pages are described as blank.
The blank paper dating to that time period is the aspect that was of importance to Barrett, it’s not like he wasn’t prepared to make adjustments and remove dates/pages from the front of the book.

[Lombro2]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're either not keeping up, RJ, or you are being deliberately evasive.

What I was doing was pointing out that what Herlock said Keith had NOT said was actually pretty much EXACTLY what he did say. This has nothing to do with Martin Earl or anyone else. This was about a poster making a claim about what someone did NOT say when - unless the pedant police have lost their cell keys - no-one could possibly be drawing that conclusion.

• Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page".
• Keith actually stated, "dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page".

Are you claiming to be that guy who says the words weren't the same therefore neither was the sentiment everyone else understood from them?

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

"Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page"."

Now you're misremembering what I said. I was very careful with what I posted in my #1401. It was this:

"a "full description" of the diary doesn't include the words "the date printed on every page". If you don't believe me, why don't you just ask Keith Skinner? Because he wrote a very full and detailed description of the 1891 diary which did not include those words!"

What I said was entirely accurate. Keith's description does not, and never has, included the words "the dates are printed every page".

The point I was making was that even though Keith was fully aware of the significance of the 1891 diary, he didn't use the word "printed". Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to think that Earl's supplier didn't use the word "printed".

It doesn't work the other way, though, Ike. We can't say that because Keith said that it was "dated 1891 throughout" this means Earl's supplier used those words or similar. This would be the case even if Keith didn't know of the significance of the red diary to the forgery claim when he wrote his description because no two descriptions by two different people for two different purposes could be expected to be exactly the same. But, of course, Keith wasaware of the significance of the red diary to the forgery claim. So his own description, written, as Roger has said, with hindsight, is irrelevant to the question of what Mike was told.

Keith's "sentiment" is equally irrelevant.

Stop obsessing over insignificant trivia.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would ask you what Keith could possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ but you won’t give the answer that everyone else would give because that’s not where your argument is going.

That said, what could Keith possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ if NOT ‘printed on every page’?

What does it matter what Keith meant?