Again you indulge in this lying misrepresentation of non-publication of private research as “concealment” and “withholding”, as if I had the journal under lock and key — but of course, it’s perfectly OK and a different story entirely when you do it. Imagine my surprise on encountering for the nth time your self-serving double standards.
Your fudging of the chronology is typical of your fudging in general — and again (you’re really not getting this, are you?), I have no obligation to publish any of this — and again, I’m not Frank Dörnenburg and I’m not responsible for his decisions and actions. Why in any case are you bellyaching about this? According to you, the image in question — this one:
— does contain evidence of forgery. The small circle, remember? The one which in your drawing (and nowhere else on earth) is a circle with a central dot? So what’s your problem? Didn’t spot the “clear evidence” first time round?
You believe in giving people all of the relevant material? Go on, then! Let’s see you post your images of this one page, the one you’ve made a song and dance act of! Actions speak louder than words. Go on, back up what you’ve claimed in two published articles to date.
And again the base ingratitude: but for me dropping you the hint (5th of March this year!), you’d still believe that the journal is in the British Museum. I didn’t spoonfeed it you? Diddums. It’s always been easy to find, even in 1998.
“I certainly have no intention of publishing every page from Vyse's journal, most of which is not relevant to this particular question, as well you know.”
Actually, Creighton, I don’t know this at all. Unlike you, I don’t prejudge the question of what is or is not relevant, in a journal which is barely readable.
I’ll hang my head in shame in your dreams, Creighton (the same happy land in which Vyse is a forger).
All the time you’ve wasted on this, when you could have been doing something useful, like putting those images online . . .