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

[rjpalmer]

Ike - apparently my response has disappeared into the ether, and I can't be arsed to write it again.

Maybe next week or the week after.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

Whoaa, hold on there, Lombro. What are you talking about?

I've not rattled off any examples of "one of" referring to something spectacularly unique. I can't even work out if you made a typo or you meant "one off", which is worrying.

What Victorian books have "of" spelled as "off"?

What do you mean by "your meltdown" over "one off instance"? I didn't start this thread. I haven't had a meltdown.

What does "There’s nothing “one of” or “one off” about “one off instance”" actually mean?

If your posts are being written in a language other than English, could you please identify it so that I can try and find an online translator for it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I posted the above on the wrong thread. Ignore.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

Just to try and explain to you what's going on in this thread, Lombro...

I'm not trying to prove anything about the identity of the forger(s). All I'm doing is saying that Michael Barrett's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 seems mighty suspicious considering that a few weeks after he started doing so he presented a literary agent in London with a hitherto unknown diary of Jack the Ripper which a forger could have created quite simply by acquiring an old Victorian or Edwardian photograph album with blank pages, ripping out the pages with photographs on them, removing any identifying labels on the inside cover, obtaining some commercially available ink with Victorian properties along with some nibs and using two or three books on Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick murder case to draft a fictional story whereby James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.

Even you could not have failed to notice that Ike's supposed explanation as to why Mike attempted to a acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 is totally different to Caz's supposed explanation. Each seems to reject the other's explanation, which is no wonder because neither makes any sense.

[Lombro2]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

[Darryl Kenyon]

Just to try and explain to you what's going on in this thread, Lombro...

I'm not trying to prove anything about the identity of the forger(s). All I'm doing is saying that Michael Barrett's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 seems mighty suspicious considering that a few weeks after he started doing so he presented a literary agent in London with a hitherto unknown diary of Jack the Ripper which a forger could have created quite simply by acquiring an old Victorian or Edwardian photograph album with blank pages, ripping out the pages with photographs on them, removing any identifying labels on the inside cover, obtaining some commercially available ink with Victorian properties along with some nibs and using two or three books on Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick murder case to draft a fictional story whereby James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.

Now, now Herlock you are talking sense. That will simply not do for some people on here

Darryl

[John Wheat]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

Absolutely ridiculous post. It is an obvious forgery with all the evidence pointing to it being penned by the Barretts. You nor anyone else has shown any sort of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now, now Herlock you are talking sense. That will simply not do for some people on here

Darryl

Welcome to the Land That Reason Forgot, Darryl.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

"Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up."? How is he committing a crime by seeking out a Victorian diary with blank pages? How is he covering up a crime by seeking out a Victorian diary with blank pages?

Whichever way you try to slice it, the blank pages requirement screams out that he wanted to write something on those blank pages because that's the only reason for requiring them. And he wanted blank pages specifically from 1880-1890. When someone asks me what two plus two is, I think I'm capable of working out the answer.

For your benefit, Lombro, the answer is "four".