Originally Posted by caz
However did you get the impression that the Battlecrease documentation (presumably conjured up in Keith's imagination) could be considered a point in favour of the diary being genuine?
Well clearly if the diary came out of Battlecrease, some people might consider it to be genuine for that very reason. Isn't it obvious?
This is essentially thread about whether there is evidence to show that the diary is not genuine. So that's what I am addressing my mind to.