An experiment

[Pierre]

Pierre, I would be interested to know how many serial murderers do you think are actually directly targeting the root causes of their hatred and anger.

Aren't the actual victims *always* a proxy for the real target, on some level? If they were not, the killing would not continue.

I have no problem imagining a killer motivated by loathing of his world, a man who hates; hates women, hates prostitutes, hates foreigners, and who vents his loathing on the easiest, weakest targets.

Hi Henry,

I have encountered something new tonight and I am very tired now.

I think I will have to take a break and find out what to do now. So this will be short.

Yes. The actual victims are a proxy for the real target, they are all representations for the real target.

Best wishes, Pierre

[GUT]

Hi Henry,

I have encountered something new tonight and I am very tired now.

I think I will have to take a break and find out what to do now. So this will be short.

Yes. The actual victims are a proxy for the real target, they are all representations for the real target.

Best wishes, Pierre

So more of the old "I've found something new but I'm not telling" that he has been dragging out for the last year.

[GUT]

So more of the old "I've found something new but I'm not telling" that he has been dragging out for the last year.

Oh well he told us one more piece if his mythical data and he'd reveal all.

He claims that he has one more piece of data so now he must reveal all.

Please folk don't hold your breath, I seem to recall hearing multiple times that he has a new source but he has NEVER not once told us anything.

[Henry Flower]

Be reasonable folks - Pierre actually didn't state he had found new evidence, or new sources, he merely said he had 'encountered something new'.

My guess is he's just read some actual history and is slightly traumatized.

Only kidding Pierre. I know you're a real historian. I mean scientist. I mean statistician. I mean sociologist. I mean dilettante.

[GUT]

Be reasonable folks - Pierre actually didn't state he had found new evidence, or new sources, he merely said he had 'encountered something new'.

My guess is he's just read some actual history and is slightly traumatized.

Only kidding Pierre. I know you're a real historian. I mean scientist. I mean statistician. I mean sociologist. I mean dilettante.

👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

[John Wheat]

Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.

[GUT]

Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.

He can't.

He hasn't got one.

[Henry Flower]

He can't.

He hasn't got one.

I actually don't agree. I'm sure he has a suspect.

All he needs now is ... some evidence.

It is laborious and time-consuming to go through all the evidence, to cherry-pick that which can be used to support your suspect, to re-invent the meaning or the wording or the date of any evidence that needs a little tweaking in your favour, and to annihilate or ignore any that flat-out contradicts it. It takes time and effort, and Pierre is to be commended for putting in the legwork as so many suspect-led researchers before him have done.

Pierre is no historian. Pierre is a fine upstanding Ripperologist.

[Pierre]

I actually don't agree. I'm sure he has a suspect.

All he needs now is ... some evidence.

It is laborious and time-consuming to go through all the evidence, to cherry-pick that which can be used to support your suspect, to re-invent the meaning or the wording or the date of any evidence that needs a little tweaking in your favour, and to annihilate or ignore any that flat-out contradicts it. It takes time and effort, and Pierre is to be commended for putting in the legwork as so many suspect-led researchers before him have done.

Pierre is no historian. Pierre is a fine upstanding Ripperologist.

Hi Henry,

I have a question for you. I think you are able to answer it and to show us all what the established facts are, on which you build your answer.

For what reasons are there ripperologists?

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, with respect, I have no interest in indulging you, your games, your comical leading questions, or your abstractions.

It's genuinely a shame; if you put half the effort into presenting evidence or arguments that you do into self-justification, belittling others, avoiding questions, and the hypocritically authoritative laying down of rules for *others* to follow, you might actually be an admirable and worthwhile contributor.

[Pierre]

Pierre, with respect, I have no interest in indulging you, your games, your comical leading questions, or your abstractions.

It's genuinely a shame; if you put half the effort into presenting evidence or arguments that you do into self-justification, belittling others, avoiding questions, and the hypocritically authoritative laying down of rules for *others* to follow, you might actually be an admirable and worthwhile contributor.

I donīt want to be admirable or a contributor to ripperology. I want to do history.

[Pierre]

1. Hypothesize that the author could write. The evidence is the GSG in itself.

2. Hypothesize that the author knew how to spell correctly. The evidence is in every other word in the GSG.

3. Hypothesize that the author could choose the words from the words in any English dictionary. The evidence is in any English dictionary.

4. Hypothesize that the word X is written by:

1) An author who could write.
2) An author who could spell correctly.
3) An author who could choose the words from an English dictionary.

5. Hypothesize that the word X is not written by an author who could not write, spell correctly or choose the words from an English dictionary:

The word X is the one, exclusive example for hypothesize 5.

But since there is strong evidence for 1, 2, 3 and 4, we must refute 5.

The consequence is that the word x is not produced as in hypothesis 5, but as in 1-4.

The conclusion therefore is that the word follows the evidence for 1-4.

There is one word in the English dictionary which fits Ju--es that uses the same amount of letters and alludes to men:

Ju-dg-es: as Steve so brilliantly said, and he was the only one who was able to figure it out.

6. Hypothesize that it was dark, that the GSG was written on a rough surface, on a brick wall and with chalk which could be blurred. There is evidence for dark, rough surface, brick wall and chalk.

Conclusion: Hypothesis 6 is an explanatory hypothesis supported by valid and reliable evidence.

Do you not think it is interesting that the rest of the words were legible?

7. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the order of the words wrong. The evidence is that there are different versions for the word "not".

8. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the spelling wrong. The evidence is the different spellings of the word.

Conclusion: The dictionary and the author can be hypothesized as more reliable than those who copied the text?

Yes, that is a question.

[Henry Flower]

I donīt want to be admirable or a contributor to ripperology. I want to do history.

That's very grand, but nothing you've posted so far implies that you have any sort of aptitude or competence in that field.

You are merely a hidden-clue-discovering-suspect-led ripperologist. My commiserations.

[barnflatwyngarde]

1. Hypothesize that the author could write. The evidence is the GSG in itself.

2. Hypothesize that the author knew how to spell correctly. The evidence is in every other word in the GSG.

3. Hypothesize that the author could choose the words from the words in any English dictionary. The evidence is in any English dictionary.

4. Hypothesize that the word X is written by:

1) An author who could write.
2) An author who could spell correctly.
3) An author who could choose the words from an English dictionary.

5. Hypothesize that the word X is not written by an author who could not write, spell correctly or choose the words from an English dictionary:

The word X is the one, exclusive example for hypothesize 5.

But since there is strong evidence for 1, 2, 3 and 4, we must refute 5.

The consequence is that the word x is not produced as in hypothesis 5, but as in 1-4.

The conclusion therefore is that the word follows the evidence for 1-4.

There is one word in the English dictionary which fits Ju--es that uses the same amount of letters and alludes to men:

Ju-dg-es: as Steve so brilliantly said, and he was the only one who was able to figure it out.

6. Hypothesize that it was dark, that the GSG was written on a rough surface, on a brick wall and with chalk which could be blurred. There is evidence for dark, rough surface, brick wall and chalk.

Conclusion: Hypothesis 6 is an explanatory hypothesis supported by valid and reliable evidence.

Do you not think it is interesting that the rest of the words were legible?

7. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the order of the words wrong. The evidence is that there are different versions for the word "not".

8. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the spelling wrong. The evidence is the different spellings of the word.

Conclusion: The dictionary and the author can be hypothesized as more reliable than those who copied the text?

Yes, that is a question.

Complete and utter gibberish!

How long do the serious students of the case have to put up with this nonsense?

[Henry Flower]

Complete and utter gibberish!

How long do the serious students of the case have to put up with this nonsense?

Apparently we don't. We're expected to just skip the dozens of concurrent threads the oaf starts, if we think he's full of crap. Oh, and skip his endless diatribes on any and every thread anyone else starts, especially re Lechmere, which threads he habitually destroys also, despite his frequent mewling that David Orsam must NOT destroy Pierre's own threads.

Personally I shall now take this forum off my bookmarks and go play somewhere else. Pierre is everywhere on the forums: it's like when you order fish at the restaurant, but it seems to be more bones than meat, and you end up nibbling little scraps until the pleasure of the meal is entirely ruined.