Letters to Police

[Rainbow]

What do you want, Henry?

Pierre

Yes Pierre, I would like to listen to your opinion as a historian, not to tell me that the people were talking a lot about it..

Do you consider it a source of the past ?!

Did it happen in the past, that half the Kidney of Eddows had been sent to Mr. Lusk ?!

Where can I know exactly the limists here between what the journalists wanted me to believe and what realy Jack the ripper did in the past ?!

Can I use this letter to try to understand the motive of the killings, if not why ?!

Does this letter even belong to the past ?!

Thank you.

[Henry Flower]

What do you want, Henry?

Pierre

I find it interesting that in the process of relentlessly stalking and hounding any proponent of the Lechmere theory you resurrect three-and-a-half-years-dead threads to demand they account for their ideas, and then when asked to present your own you basically say, "Erm, to do history proper you has to research. I dunno, this is controversial, the kidney letter. For more info here's a link to an essay on casebook wot I read!"

Fine work, just superb. Take a look in the mirror, buddy.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Rainbow;419299]

Yes Pierre, I would like to listen to your opinion as a historian, not to tell me that the people were talking a lot about it..

Do you consider it a source of the past ?!

It is a source from the past.

Did it happen in the past, that half the Kidney of Eddows had been sent to Mr. Lusk ?!

There is no evidence for the kidney having come from Eddowes that I know of.

Where can I know exactly the limists here between what the journalists wanted me to believe and what realy Jack the ripper did in the past ?!

The limits are very often not clear from the start. One has to analyze the sources from an external (1) as well as an internal (2) source critical perspective.

1. Questions to the sources from the external perspective:

What type of sources are they?
What were the function(s) of the sources when they were created?
What was their provenience?
What was their purpose?
How can you use them?


2. Questions to the sources from the internal perspective:

What do the sources say?
What do they not say?
What is the meaning in the sources?
Is the source credible?
Did the person(s) producing the source have the ability to tell the "truth"?
Is the person speaking in the source an eyewitness?
Are there internal contradictions in the source / in the narrative(s)?
Is the person producing the source or the person(s) giving statements in the source objective?
Are there any tendencies in the sources?
Did the person producing the source or the one(s) giving statements have a motive to say anything else than the "truth"?

Can I use this letter to try to understand the motive of the killings, if not why ?!

To be able to use this letter to understand the motive of the killings (=s!) you have to establish by using source criticism (above) that it was written by the postulated serial killer in 1888-1889 (if you think that is the time period).

Does this letter even belong to the past ?!

It does belong to the past but you will have to examine it. Try the questions above, let´s see what your answers will be!

Thank you.

No problem.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Rainbow]

I tried all of these questions, and I couldn't answer any single question of them, and I find myself in front of two things:

either to wait for a miracle that will give me the true answers for them, for example, the one who wrote this letter will come back to life and explain everything to me, and even then, I will not be sure if he has any tendencies behinde it that I will not ever know.., and since I live in this time, how can I even believe anything he will say .. so , even miracles will not work here, and this source from the past will never tell me anything from the past..

Or to throw this letter in the garbage, because anything I will try, is just a guesswork... and wasting of time.

Isn't that the best thing to do, after trying to examine sources from the past ?!

At least Press, Journalists, try to make sense, try to give an information, but what are the historians doing at all ?

[Pierre]

I tried all of these questions, and I couldn't answer any single question of them, and I find myself in front of two things:

either to wait for a miracle that will give me the true answers for them, for example, the one who wrote this letter will come back to life and explain everything to me, and even then, I will not be sure if he has any tendencies behinde it that I will not ever know.., and since I live in this time, how can I even believe anything he will say .. so , even miracles will not work here, and this source from the past will never tell me anything from the past..

Or to throw this letter in the garbage, because anything I will try, is just a guesswork... and wasting of time.

Isn't that the best thing to do, after trying to examine sources from the past ?!

At least Press, Journalists, try to make sense, try to give an information, but what are the historians doing at all ?

Historians try to find out what really happened in the past when the past can not speak for itself.

Cheers, Pierre

[Rainbow]

Historians CANNOT find out what happened in the past.

They need to build there judgments on what appears to them as real but no garantie here..

Press, journalists, try to close the holes and historians dig for more, and the past will remain a mystery.

It is also a guesswork, did they know for example when the diary had been written ?

or maybe we should wait for more time, a century maybe, till it belongs more and more to the past and they start to give their answers ?! but again, after another century, will come a new generation of historians , and will dig new holes..

[Henry Flower]

Historians try to find out what really happened in the past when the past can not speak for itself.

Cheers, Pierre

Absolute nonsense, and clinching proof that you are not what you claim to be.

[Rainbow]

And can you also explain to me what the different is between a book written in the past, and an article of a journalist from the past ?!

Do you give more value to the old books ?! don't they also try to send to me the informations their authors wanted ?!

Or the notes of policemen from the past saying they knew who Jack the ripper was , how should I deal with it ?! what makes them better than an article in an old newspaper ?!

I have happily made my case and knew who Jack the ripper was, I believe what is written , and I will continue using it, I will not waste my time with historians if they are as you suggest

The historians you are describing Pierre do nothing, they enjoy wasting time, istn't that the core of their work .. the passing of time ..

[Elamarna]

And can you also explain to me what the different is between a book written in the past, and an article of a journalist from the past ?!

Do you give more value to the old books ?! don't they also try to send to me the informations their authors wanted ?!

Or the notes of policemen from the past saying they knew who Jack the ripper was , how should I deal with it ?! what makes them better than an article in an old newspaper ?!

I have happily made my case and knew who Jack the ripper was, I believe what is written , and I will continue using it, I will not waste my time with historians if they are as you suggest

The historians you are describing Pierre do nothing, they enjoy wasting time, istn't that the core of their work .. the passing of time ..

If Pierre is what he claims is actually secondary to the message contained in the above post and others recently posted.
It portrays the tendency to disregard the opinions of experts be they historians or medics in favour of the opinions of non experts.
It fosters a belief that facts are unimportant, and personal belief is all that matters.

To ignore knowledge in favour of guesswork is utterly amazing.


Steve

[GUT]

If Pierre is what he claims is actually secondary to the message contained in the above post and others recently posted.
It portrays the tendency to disregard the opinions of experts be they historians or medics in favour of the opinions of non experts.
It fosters a belief that facts are unimportant, and personal belief is all that matters.

To ignore knowledge in favour of guesswork is utterly amazing.


Steve

An incredible attitude isn't it.

But then it's the same with evidence, what does it matter when one has a theory to push.

[Pierre]

If Pierre is what he claims is actually secondary to the message contained in the above post and others recently posted.
It portrays the tendency to disregard the opinions of experts be they historians or medics in favour of the opinions of non experts.
It fosters a belief that facts are unimportant, and personal belief is all that matters.

To ignore knowledge in favour of guesswork is utterly amazing.

Steve

Hi Steve,

and then of course we have the "real experts", in this particular case, the ripperologists.

But ripperology is not a university discipline.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

and then of course we have the "real experts", in this particular case, the ripperologists.

But ripperology is not a university discipline.

Cheers, Pierre

No but their knowledge of the events is useful and should be used, the same does not apply to the intreptation of those events of course.

I was more thinking of medical experts and historians as the post appeared to be an attack on historians in general and suggesting journalists are somehow superior.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

No but their knowledge of the events is useful and should be used, the same does not apply to the intreptation of those events of course.

I was more thinking of medical experts and historians as the post appeared to be an attack on historians in general and suggesting journalists are somehow superior.


Steve

Steve, I agree - and that is precisely why I think it is actually *very* important to remind people again and again that the poster 'Pierre' has repeatedly claimed to be a historian, but has provided not a jot of evidence to support the claim, and has moreover made innumerable statements that are frankly - in terms of content, reasoning, evidence, and temperament - way, way below what would be expected of an academic of any standing.

It is precisely BECAUSE the evidence and reasoning of genuine historians, experts, and scientists is greatly to be preferred to the guesswork of amateurs that I keep reminding people that Pierre is an amateur ripperologist and - until he wants to offer evidence to the contrary - not an historian. I don't appreciate charlatans posing as experts, giving expertise a bad name.

I actually think that's quite important.

[GUT]

Hi Steve,

and then of course we have the "real experts", in this particular case, the ripperologists.

But ripperology is not a university discipline.

Cheers, Pierre

You don't need a subject to be a University Discipline for someone to be an expert.

Just have a look at any dictionary, here's what Webster says

having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

[Henry Flower]

You don't need a subject to be a University Discipline for someone to be an expert.

Just have a look at any dictionary, here's what Webster says

And moreover, this being the internet how very, very easy it is for any tom dick or harry to simply announce their own academic brilliance as a historian, or scientist, or sociologist, or statistician et al, without actually having any expertise in any of those fields.

I trust an expert or historian when I can look them up and see what they have studied or published, or how many years of expertise and experience they have amassed.

Imagine being such a snake that you spend more than a year trying to 'pull rank' on everyone, without ever offering one sliver of evidence that you have properly earned any right to do so.