Eli Wright

[+DieChecker]

I'm suspicious because Eli used an entire page to write down two sentances. Paper was expensive before mass production, and no one wrote such large letters unless they were basically illiterate, and then you'd see the lack of skill in the letters.

I'd suspect that to get enough material for a DNA test at all, would take an entire page of blood drops. Anyone confirm that assumption?

Also I noticed that the word, "Nosferatu" was used on the page with the claws and fangs. That word was invented around 1860. It was an invented word meaning "vampire", and was said to be Romanian. Yet no word even close exists in Romanian, meaning vampire, or any other word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_(word)

Nosferatu does not correspond to any existing word in the Romanian language in any historical phase (aside from that introduced by the novel and the films).[5] Internal evidence in Dracula suggests that Stoker believed the term meant "not dead" in Romanian, and thus he may have intended the word undead to be its calque.[6]

So the book couldn't be older then 150 years, even if the writer somehow got a hold of the obscure German book that began its popular usage. It wasn't until 1890s and Bram Stoker's book Dracula that the word came into general public use (Especially in the USA). And that would be only about 120 years ago.

[Kenemet]

There are some things that are very modern about it, including the drawing of the ship (made by someone who has apparently never really looked at one of these ships.) Phrasing is more similar to the 20th century, inconsistent in material dating to the 1830's ("...given a new location" is one of those.) Then there's the geographic error of "sailing between the countries" of which I shall say no more other than to indicate that it's modern. "...binds of air" is, likewise, nonsensical in the context of something written during the 1830's.

There are a number of sentences that are grammatically incorrect -- and in ways that would not be used by a semi-literate person and certainly not in anyone educated during those times (the writing is practiced enough that we can assume the scribe spent quite a number of years in school, though the capital "I" letter is very rough and other nonstandard letters (as others have remarked) would seem to indicate little beyond the most rudimentary education.)

And the pen appears to be a fixed width pen (another neoglism.)

Still, it's a charming little book and one that would go well with a steampunk outfit. I like the style of it!

[jaylemurph]

There are some things that are very modern about it, including the drawing of the ship (made by someone who has apparently never really looked at one of these ships.) Phrasing is more similar to the 20th century, inconsistent in material dating to the 1830's ("...given a new location" is one of those.) Then there's the geographic error of "sailing between the countries" of which I shall say no more other than to indicate that it's modern. "...binds of air" is, likewise, nonsensical in the context of something written during the 1830's.

I generally don't like to use merely literary evidence to (dis)prove historical authenticity of documents, but this would be a rather obvious exception to the rule.

--Jaylemurph

[Myles]

There are many different details in the journal, like him talking about the love of his life "Elise" who killed herself at the age of 19 two years after his manor burned down, while reading about his love dying there are droplets of blood all over the pages, we assumed that this was from him crying and that he must have been crying blood, because the pattern of droplets was that of tears.

This part bothers me. Why would anyone assume drops of blood were from someone crying blood. That's a pretty big assumption. What is the pattern of tears? Is that from the inner corner dripping from the eyes? Is it from the cheeks after the tears rolled down the skin? Is it from the outer eyes. This was a red flag for me. Pardon the pun.

There are many different details in the journal, like him talking about the love of his life "Elise" who killed herself at the age of 19 two years after his manor burned down, while reading about his love dying there are droplets of blood all over the pages, we assumed that this was from him crying and that he must have been crying blood, because the pattern of droplets was that of tears.

This part bothers me. Why would anyone assume drops of blood were from someone crying blood. That's a pretty big assumption. What is the pattern of tears? Is that from the inner corner dripping from the eyes? Is it from the cheeks after the tears rolled down the skin? Is it from the outer eyes. This was a red flag for me. Pardon the pun.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

One question strikes me. Maybe it has been asked already. I havent read any comments yet. Why keep a spanning journal and also self inflict amnesia. (With the help of the dear smotherer) Seems to me it would be counter productive?

Edited November 25, 2014 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[kmt_sesh]

This isn't the sort of topic that usually interests me but I thought I'd add my two cents. I've got nothing better to do at the moment.

I'm no handwriting expert so I can't comment authoritatively on that, except to say the handwriting doesn't resemble any style I've observed in archival archaeological reports I've studied from the nineteenth century. More questionable to me is—as others have pointed out—how crisp and dark the handwriting is. After two centuries? I don't know that I've ever seen handwriting from the nineteenth century that's still so crisp and dark.

I'll leave grammatical styles to those who know that topic better. My first professional degree was in English literature and education, and all I can say is a lot of this journal "sounds" twentieth century to me.

The journal itself (cover and pages) does indeed look old. This would be difficult, albeit possible, to fake. An antiquities expert would be able to tell the difference, I'd imagine. But as others have posited, it could be a legitimately old blank journal to which someone has added modern writing.

Someone earlier was wondering about the viability of DNA in the supposed blood drops. AngelShadow has stated that this blood has been subjected to DNA analysis. In point of fact a single drop of blood contains a huge quantity of DNA material, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the supposed blood in the journal could be sampled. The greater question is, is the DNA in the blood still viable? It's not that old, so assuming the journal has been well stored, the genetic material in the blood should still be viable. But what of the proof of the analysis?

It's one thing to claim the analysis but, of course, quite another to prove it. I might suggest to AngelShadow that he scan and post the report on the DNA analysis. He could redact anything of a personal nature pertaining to him or his friend and show just the findings. An "abnormal" finding is overly vague, so what does this mean? Any geneticist should be able to clarify the oddity in the finding. We need more detail. The inference is, I suppose, that "abnormal" suggests something weird about "vampire blood," but this isn't exactly scientific, is it?

The journal itself (cover and/or pages) could be subjected to C14 analysis. This would confirm the age, and given the supposed nineteenth century origin for the journal, C14 analysis should be quite precise (excluding contamination, which is possible). The ink also can be subjected to analysis. Is it of the correct chemical signature for ink used in the early nineteenth century? Such analyses would also need to be posted for public review, naturally.

One must wonder who has underwritten the cost of the analyses conducted thus far. Genetic testing alone can be fairly expensive.

But to me, at least, the most compelling argument against authenticity is, well, vampires are not real.

[jaylemurph]

But to me, at least, the most compelling argument against authenticity is, well, vampires are not real.

I assumed this was the pink elephant in the room we were all politely ignoing.

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

I assumed this was the pink elephant in the room we were all politely ignoing.

--Jaylemurph

Naturally I could've just written that and left it there, because it's really all that needs to be said.

Bottom line, and all that.

But I am the long-winded sort.

[huckstep]

Example of writing from 1836 India ink bleeding through

Pink elephant? What pink elephant?

The image is too small for me to see unfortunately, but if the handwriting reads correctly (not mirror image) both ways, that was also a fairly common way to save both paper and/or weight (for mailed items) in the period. One deliberately wrote cross-ways, then turned the paper and wrote at right angles, and it was surprisingly readable by the recipient, by turning it appropriately. Yet you could get twice the message on one side of the paper and use the other side to fold up into a self-contained envelope with a blank outside to use for the address, requiring no envelope nor weight of an envelope. One could fold up a paper so it self-locked together with no need for glue or sealing wax (not even going to try to explain the steps verbally online) though glue or wax made it more secure of course.

I'm familiar with usage in the US in the first half of the 19th century, after which it faded as paper and postage got cheaper, but don't know the context beyond there.

That's not directly relevant to a diary, of course, when weight didn't matter or the pages were already bound and couldn't be replaced with something cheaper. If it was cloth, issues with bleed-through would be unpredictable. So it's just a bit of random trivia about cross-ways writing like that. India ink flows poorly off a dip pen--a thinner formulation usually worked better and was used for standard handwriting--but of course the premise here is that the diary was written in blood or a mixture of blood, so again, all bets are off.