Maybrick Diary - Fake or Genuine

[rjpalmer]

Fading and bronzing are two different occurrences. Bronzing is the iron in iron gall ink oxidizing (ie., basically rusting).

[Lombro2]

And rusting has nothing to do with oxidization….

[Lombro2]

Exposure to air or humidity…

If you refuse for the life of you to see the issue from the other point of view, isn’t that like a team refusing to acknowledge the other teams points?

No wonder you get shutout wins all the time!

[Lombro2]

okay you got me
with bronzing v fading. Or did you?


Tips to Prevent Bronzing

Storage:

• Store in a cool, dark, and dry place: This helps prevent oxidation and fading of the ink.
• Use an airtight container: This minimizes exposure to oxygen and moisture, which can accelerate bronzing.
• Avoid excessive humidity: High humidity can promote oxidation and encourage bronzing.

Brought to you by artificial intelligence.

[rjpalmer]

And rusting has nothing to do with oxidization….

I don't know if this is a deliberate wind-up, but I have to put you back on ignore, Lombro.

Rust IS caused by oxidation. It's when air and water (or water vapor) turns iron into iron oxide.

Why not do some research instead of the non-stop chest thumping and sabre rattling? If you want to believe in the diary, that's great. I'm happy for you.

[Lombro2]

Isn't it amazing how the Battlecrease "rumors" about the Diary have built-in explanations for every unforeseen conundrum?

How were these rumormillers able to foresee all these problems and build in the answers ahead of time?

The Diary put, not only under a "floorboard" but place in a "mythical" sealed biscuit tin. Who would have thunk it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like we know that Barrett tried to buy a Victorian diary ‘ahead of time’?

Proven forgery. Fodder for the gullible.

[Lombro2]

The proverbial red diary that provides more questions than answers.

The rumormillers had more foresight than Michael Barrett.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no ‘question’ about it. Bought in preparation for creating the forgery that you have fallen for hook, line and sinker.

[Lombro2]

As I said, I’m on the fence on this issue.

[Lombro2]

Anyone who voted for forgery because they think it’s proven that Michael Barrett forged it should probably change their vote to Don’t Know.

You can’t call something a forgery and not know who did it. Germany would be laughed off the map if they didn’t know who forged the Hitler Diaries.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone who voted for forgery because they think it’s proven that Michael Barrett forged it should probably change their vote to Don’t Know.

You can’t call something a forgery and not know who did it. Germany would be laughed off the map if they didn’t know who forged the Hitler Diaries.

That is a ludicrous statement.

In the art world there are countless works of art labelled as fakes and forgeries where the identity of the forger is unknown.

Why you think we need to prove the identity of the forger of the fake Ripper diary is beyond me.

We know the diary is a modern fake due to the inclusion of the twentieth century expression "one off instance". So it wasn't written by James Maybrick. That's all we need to know. And that's all the poll question asks.

[Lombro2]

Well at least you admit you don’t know with 100 percent certainty who penned the diary, just that you know with 100% certainty that it couldn’t have been James Maybrick.

I think a lot of voters would think this was a significant consideration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well at least you admit you don’t know with 100 percent certainty who penned the diary, just that you know with 100% certainty that it couldn’t have been James Maybrick.

I think a lot of voters would think this was a significant consideration.

I’ve never claimed with 100% certainty as to who penned the diary; only that Barrett was likely to have been involved in its creation. I am however certain that James Maybrick didn’t pen the diary because it contains a phrase that couldn’t have been used in 1888/9. It’s as simple as that. Just as it would have been a fake had the writer mentioned going to London for the Queen’s funeral.

[Iconoclast]

I’ve never claimed with 100% certainty as to who penned the diary; only that Barrett was likely to have been involved in its creation. I am however certain that James Maybrick didn’t pen the diary because it contains a phrase that couldn’t have been used in 1888/9. It’s as simple as that. Just as it would have been a fake had the writer mentioned going to London for the Queen’s funeral.

Oh, if only he had! That would have saved us all a lot of soul-searching and pain over the last 30+ years. But he didn't, did he? He didn't mention going to see Everton play at Goodison Park on the opening day of the Football League, the very day he killed Annie Chapman, and he didn't mention Queen Victoria getting the six-foot-under treatment. What a wee scunner, eh?

So that means you have to rely on an expression for which there can never be concrete evidence that it could not have been used in 1888 or 1889. We might all hear the argument loud and clear - as I do - but I'm not jumping in feet first with full-on support for a hoax until I know for certain that the term 'one-off' could not have been used figuratively with 'instance'. There must be millions of documents from the Victorian period which are no longer available to us (never mind all those spoken words now lost to us forever) so I'm not jumping in feet first to back up me auld da's desperation to make a killer point.

Just as 'freshly picked carrots' was apparently never spoken or written by anyone, ever, ever, ever, until 1947, so the expression 'one-off instance' was never used until whenever it finally was.

And at least freshly picked carrots is about as unambiguous as it gets, as opposed to the 'one-off instance' which might have actually been ' a one 'off' instance'. We'll just never know, sadly, so we'll need a wee bit more than that set of assumptions before we jump ship and join your creaking hull.