Announcement

**Jonathan H** · 08-06-2012, 10:44 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Retired Air Force Colonel Says There Were 2 UFO Crashes At Roswell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/roswell-ufo-crash_n_1715663.html

EXCLUSIVE: Retired Air Force Colonel Says There Were 2 UFO Crashes At Roswell

**Tom Mitchell** · 08-07-2012, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1715663.html

Personally, I would be prepared to concede that there have definitely been hoaxes throughout history, if that is the point you are attempting to make (perhaps it isn't). The memory capacity of this Casebook may well be sorely strained if they are all enumerated in order to highlight to us the possibility that the Maybrick diary may be amongst their number.

If it eases your workload, can we all just agree that the Maybrick diary may be a fake?

PS Pardon the pun.

**caz** · 08-07-2012, 09:22 AM

Hi Tom,

Don't be a spoilsport. Let Jonathan do as much work as he likes, since he is evidently terrified of being thought gullible if he lets sleeping fake diaries lie.

The delicious irony is that those who swallow all Mighty Mel's unproven claims whole are every bit as gullible as those who swallow any of Mike Barrett's unproven claims whole.

I firmly believe that nobody alive today can tell us with any authority who wrote that diary or why.

Love,

Caz
X

**serya** · 08-07-2012, 09:31 AM

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

**The Good Michael** · 08-07-2012, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by serya View Post

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

My students swore they weren't cheating when I took away their cellphones.

Mike

**Tom Mitchell** · 08-07-2012, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by serya View Post

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

Hi Serya,

What Mike Barrett swore to was a serious criminal offence punishable by a prison sentence.

The fact that no-one followed it up - nor that the original police investigation was re-opened as a consequence of his 'confession' - should tell you all you need to know about Mike Barrett's endless emotional and drink-fuelled claims whilst his marriage was sadly disintegrating. The fact that he got all the details wrong in his confession should also warn us against taking it at face value as evidence of a hoax.

I genuinely pity the bloke - and not in a patronising way at all. He clearly went through a personal hell, and retained little of what he gained financially from bringing the diary to our attention. He lost everything of value to him, and we should remember that when we refer to his various claims of the 1990s.

Cheers,

Tom

**Jonathan H** · 08-07-2012, 10:42 AM

The second Roswell link was to an old man, a [late] primary source, who is either lying or delusional. Because the story he is now telling is demonstrably false from other primary sources.

But ... an old veteran, who has selflessly served his country wouldn't lie about a crashed flying saucer, in fact two of them-- would he?

The Surgeon’s Photo

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_surgeons_photo/

The modern history of the Loch Ness Monster began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of Loch Ness, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an enormous animal in the Loch. The Inverness Courier wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a monster. Intense media interest followed, and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.Later that same year, the Daily Mail, taking advantage of the Nessie craze, hired a famous big-game hunter, Marmaduke Wetherell, to travel up to the Loch to investigate the sightings and to find the monster, if he could. Although he found no monster, in December 1933 he did locate what appeared to be its tracksenormous footprints on the shore of the Loch leading into the water. Unfortunately, when researchers from the Natural History Museum examined the tracks, they determined they had been made with a dried hippo's foot, of the kind that were popularly used as umbrella stands. Humiliated, Wetherell retreated from public view.But a few months later, the Loch Ness monster again made headlines when a highly respected British surgeon, Colonel Robert Wilson, came forward with a picture (top) that appeared to show a sea serpent rising out of the water of the Loch.Wilson claimed he took the photograph early in the morning on April 19, 1934, while driving along the northern shore of Loch Ness. He said he noticed something moving in the water and stopped his car to take a photo. For decades this photo was considered to be the best evidence of the existence of a sea monster in the Loch. But Wilson himself refused to have his name associated with it. Therefore it came to be known simply as The Surgeon's Photo.For years skeptics were sure that the photo was somehow a hoax. But no rigorous studies of the image were conducted until 1984 when Stewart Campbell analyzed the photo in a 1984 article in the British Journal of Photography. Campbell concluded that the object in the water could only have been two or three feet long, at most, and that it probably was an otter or a marine bird. He suggested it was likely that Wilson knew this to be the case. But as it turned out, Campbell was wrong. The object in the water was not a form of marine life. It was a toy submarine outfitted with a sea-serpent head. This was revealed in 1994 when Christian Spurling, before his death at the age of 90, confessed to his involvement in a plot to create the famous Surgeon's Photo, a plot that involved both Marmaduke Wetherell and Colonel Wilson.According to Spurling, he had been approached by Wetherell (his stepfather) who wanted him to make a convincing serpent model. Spurling did this, and this model was then photographed in Loch Ness. The picture was then given to Wilson, whose job it was to serve as a credible front-man for the hoax.Apparently Wetherell's motive was revenge, since he was still smarting from his humiliation over the hippo-foot tracks. We'll give them their monster, his son later remembered him saying.In the original version of the image (bottom) the diminutive size of the Nessie model in relationship to the Loch can be seen. (The dark band along the top of the picture is the opposite side of the Loch.) The image given to the media was cropped to hide this perspective, making the monster appear larger than it actually was.

A respectable doctor wouldn't lie about photographing something very strange, and obviously alive, in a Scottish loch -- would he?

To Tom

In terms of historical methodology the 'Diary' is not a reliable source because it cannot be traced, and no other primary source backs it up -- please let's leave the 'I am Jack, really!' fake fob-watch to one side -- and therefore it's limitations far outweigh its potential values.

Barrett's ex-spouse's alternative account self-servingly neutralised her oscillating ex-husband, eg. it would not matter if he went back on his retraction of his retraction, and so on.

The question is was that undeniably self-serving element, which gave the 'Diary' a supposedly new and authentic trail, just a coincidence -- or part of an improvised scam to rescue the original scam?

**Simon Wood** · 08-07-2012, 10:52 AM

Hi Jonathan,

Irrespective of who wrote it or why, the "diary" is a crock.

Regards,

Simon

**Jonathan H** · 08-07-2012, 11:29 AM

To Simon

Do you mean that if it actually was written by Maybrick he was just having a bit of macabre fun, not seriously claiming to be 'Jack' because, from an examination of the text itself, it is obviously not written by the authentic murderer?

I'm just just trying to clarifying your post, being the thickie that I am.

**Simon Wood** · 08-07-2012, 12:27 PM

Hi Jonathan,

I hadn't thought of that. It's very funny.

No, I was thinking more of its 20th Century author.

Regards,

Simon

**serya** · 08-07-2012, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post

My students swore they weren't cheating when I took away their cellphones.

Mike

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

**Kaz** · 08-08-2012, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by serya View Post

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

**caz** · 08-08-2012, 10:53 AM

Only the truly gullible or woefully underinformed would swallow any of Mike Barrett's diary claims whole - sworn under oath, on his grandmother's life or down the pub.

They all remain unproven or can be disproven.

Also, I totally understand why Jonathan would prefer us to leave the watch to one side. He is certainly not alone in being unable or unwilling to delve beneath the shiny new hoax surface he prefers to see and deal with what is actually there.

One handwritten, the other scratched into metal - two different objects that have kept the experts guessing about their real age for two decades and counting, while the amateurs think they know better.

Love,

Caz
X

**caz** · 08-08-2012, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by serya View Post

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

And if the most mischievous student signed a bit of paper, claiming to be a master forger, but couldn't give a remotely coherent, truthful or convincing account of how he did it, I'm sure you would believe him anyway and complain when the police asked you to stop wasting their time.

Love,

Caz
X

**spyglass** · 08-08-2012, 10:03 PM

Hi all,

First off, all of the arguments for and against the diary has been gone over many times...I cant see the point of starting a new thread when there are at least two already in existance.

Secondly, the fact remains it has still yet to be proven FAKE...even though some posters and authors catogoricaly claim that it is, and so to those who do, please please just PROVE IT.

I eagerly await the entrance of Soothsayer!

Regards.

Announcement

Fake!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment