View Single Post
Old 01-10-2017, 09:31 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,381

Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
1. Baxendale, an experienced forensic document examiner, carried out an ink solubility test in the summer of 1992 and concluded that "the ink was found to be freely soluble, and I would have expected an ink applied to paper about a hundred years ago to be far less soluble, due to the effects of slow oxidation and other long term chemical reactions." He also appears to have concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the previous two or three years. As far as I am aware, this conclusion remains unchanged.
'He also appears to have concluded...' May I ask for a source for the above, as you seem unsure of your ground for once? It's nothing like the conclusion Baxendale reached in his second, more detailed account of his reasoning.

2. Eastaugh, who confesses to not being a forensic document examiner, did not carry out an ink solubility test so his conclusions about solubility (whatever they were) are unclear and not understood.
Are you accusing Eastaugh of commenting on the solubility specifically, without actually being qualified to do so? He was quite 'clear' about this in his own mind.

3. You comment that Baxendale has stated that "the book" was manufactured in the late 19th century. It is not in dispute that the scrapbook is an old book.
Not by you, perhaps, but you should have seen some of the efforts over the years to push the guard book forcibly into the 20th century.

4. You also comment that Baxendale said that he would have expected ink applied in 1889 to be "far less soluble". Is that not consistent with his findings as set out in his report?
I can't recall mentioning consistency, but you'd know more about that if you can reconcile Baxendale's 'likely... since 1945' with two or three years max. But expecting something is not the same as knowing it beyond doubt, which is actually a point in his favour, since scientists ought never to presume to 'know' anything for a 100% certainty. I would have expected you to grasp many more of the points I have been making than you appear to grasp, but I'd be wrong. Or are you more concerned with trying to score linguistic points over me than addressing the real issues, such as how Mike expected his 'creation' to defy all attempts to date stamp it '1992'?

5. You also say that Baxendale conceded that if such a document were found to have a similar solubility, "there would appear to be nothing in the chemical properties of the ink in the Diary to preclude it being of similar age". But no-one is saying that there is anything in the chemical properties of the ink inconsistent with it being from 1888. The question is about solubility.
Don't blame me, David. It was Baxendale who wrote that in the context of the ink's solubility. Maybe he just wasn't in your league when it came to consistency and sticking to the point.

Is there a document from the nineteenth century with "similar solubility" to that of the Diary? If so, what is it? If not, why does Baxendale's finding from his report (as set out in para 1 above) not stand?
Unless Eastaugh was making it up, it was 'clear' to him that the inks from his Victorian reference material demonstrated a similar solubility to the diary ink.

Ultimately, one can either accept what the expert says or try to find a loophole...
That's unfair and unworthy of you. In the scientific world one should never 'accept' what the first expert says without others being able to repeat the tests, get the same results and reach the same conclusions. Asking for a second, third or fourth opinion won't guarantee a loophole if there isn't one, will it? You should have seen all the demands a few years back for 'more tests - new tests - do them now!' by one particularly vocal and pedantic modern hoax conspiracy theorist. He wasn't content with one opinion or twenty. He wanted as many as it took to get the desired result. Odd really, if you now think Baxendale's could have been the first and last word on the diary's obvious modernity.


"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov

Last edited by caz : 01-10-2017 at 09:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote