An experiment

[David Orsam]

Thus not understanding your own opinions.

I fear you didn't read Steve's post my dear boy.

He wasn't suggesting anything. You asked for a certain word and he gave you that word that you were asking for.

[David Orsam]

I will get back to you.

My dear boy, how very kind of you.

[MysterySinger]

Hi MysterySinger,

I do not agree that there is a code in this message. I think that the letter w was blurred and therefore not perfectly legible.

W is one letter originally composed of two v:s.

There is one word in the dictionary where two letters can give one word with the same beginning, Ju-, and end, -es, when you take out w (v+v).

That is the word that Steve suggested.

Cheers, Pierre

Thank you Pierre. I'm not entirely sure we should be fixed on the letters in the word taken as "Juwes". Since they were written by hand and, as you say were not perfectly legible, the word may not have begun with Ju at all. I'm not sold on the idea, either, the word was Judges, and I present to you another possibility.

We're used to seeing the hand written note provided by the Police at the time . It could simply be in the hand writing of the Policeman or it could have been an attempt by him to show the writing in exactly the same format as he saw it. The first letter needn't have been a J at all. In the example below, I've used the From Hell letter to show that what we assume to be a "J" on the wall, could easily be another letter - an "I" perhaps or the "S" from the word "Signed" at the bottom, but there are other possibilities such as an "L".

The idea here is not to show that the writer of the From Hell letter also wrote the GSG. It is merely to compare some hand written individual letters from the time.

So here is the possibility, maybe, that the word was actually "Lusks" and you can see a handwritten version of it, plus one with the picture showing white on dark since that would be more like how it was seen .

It proves nothing, of course, but Lusks could refer to the man and his son(s) or refer to the WVC perhaps. Wasn't there also an incident where someone was supposed to have pulled a knife on Mr Lusk?

[c.d.]

No disrespect to anyone that is trying to solve the mystery of the GSG. Thinking outside the box is encouraged. But with the GSG, if one is so inclined and has enough time, the letters and words can be manipulated to spell out pretty much any damn thing. A laxative advertisement perhaps or something along the lines of "for a good time call Queen Victoria." The possibilities are endless and probably all wrong. Only the author of the GSG knows for sure.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I may be going out on a limb here but I would posit that the gsg says that --the Jews are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.

[GUT]

I may be going out on a limb here but I would posit that the gsg says that --the Jews are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.

Dangerous interpretation that.

[Kattrup]

There is one word in the dictionary where two letters can give one word with the same beginning, Ju-, and end, -es, when you take out w (v+v).

That is the word that Steve suggested.

There are at least two words, since juries also fits. In fact fits your theory much better, since the dg in judges would loop above and below the main line. It is unlikely that such letters would have been so mistaken.

Whereas a missing dot would make ri less clear - try making a single dot with chalk on brick - not easy.

[MysterySinger]

.....and all for the want of a single photograph.

Would probably have sparked the same amount of debate anyway.

[Pierre]

There are at least two words, since juries also fits. In fact fits your theory much better, since the dg in judges would loop above and below the main line. It is unlikely that such letters would have been so mistaken.

Whereas a missing dot would make ri less clear - try making a single dot with chalk on brick - not easy.

Hi Kattrup,

Wrong.

Juries were groups, not men.

Judges were not groups, but men.

Using a hypothesis that the writing was blurred and knowing it was produced on a brick wall, we can not know anything about main lines or loops. I.e. there is not a normal main line to hypothesize from.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

Dangerous interpretation that.

Not dangerous just common and may very well be a misinterpretation.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=c.d.;416156]

No disrespect to anyone that is trying to solve the mystery of the GSG. Thinking outside the box is encouraged. But with the GSG, if one is so inclined and has enough time, the letters and words can be manipulated to spell out pretty much any damn thing.

No, I do not think so. Why?

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.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Juries were groups, not men.

In which case the phrase "the judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" would be tautological and would be better expressed as "Judges will not be blamed for nothing".

[Pierre]

In which case the phrase "the judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" would be tautological and would be better expressed as "Judges will not be blamed for nothing".

I have analyzed this question earlier here. You appearantly choose to ignore what I wrote.

If you do not understand the differences between a judge and a man you will have to find out a way to learn.

[David Orsam]

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

Not true my dear boy. He was the only person who was kind enough, and could actually be bothered, to answer your question; one to which you already knew the answer you wanted.

The suggestion that the word might be "judges" was made long before you joined this forum. I think Nina Brown suggested it way back in 2009, as posted at the time on JTR Forums.

[Pierre]

In which case the phrase "the judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" would be tautological and would be better expressed as "Judges will not be blamed for nothing".

And you are probably just being sloppy now: I am discussion the version of the GSG which was:

"The Ju--es are not the men..."