GSG xmas present

[Pierre]

He might have decided not to give the source he interprets after what happened with gogmagog, he gave his interpretation, and the source, and got destroyed, by just giving his interpretation when he is destroyed he can claim "but mine was a different source".

Nothing "happened". The Gogmagog-letter was a letter in the newspapers. There is nothing preventing me or any other historian of discussing different interpretations. You can not generalize from such discussions.

[GUT]

Maybe he means Sauce, you know Cranberry for on Turkey, Brandy for on Pud, etc.

Hang on why does "Pud" fit so well with Pierre.....

[GUT]

I'm seeing mention in this thread to a "source".

Where do I find this source?

And when are we going to get our xmas present?

Maybe he means Sauce, you know Cranberry for on Turkey, Brandy for on Pud, etc.

[GUT]

Pierre,

You have critiqued a document and interpreted it the way you think it reads. You have not provided the source for anyone else to do the same. Are we supposed lay down and agree with you on those terms? The historical sources all say the word on the wall was in some form or fashion 'Jews'. Not judges. Where do you draw the line for what historical sources are correct and incorrect? Only when it fits into your theory? You have done nothing to change the status quo.

He might have decided not to give the source he interprets after what happened with gogmagog, he gave his interpretation, and the source, and got destroyed, by just giving his interpretation when he is destroyed he can claim "but mine was a different source".

[GUT]

I hope you saved the gift receipt, because I would like to return it

I thought of just regifting it back to the original gifter.

[David Orsam]

Will he be doing the present tomorrow then?

[Pierre]

Pierre Jerry is right, if you are not prepared to give details, then say nothing.

Steve

But donīt you think it is interesting that the GSG has an explanation?

You should not "believe" me, but you may at least try another thought.

Look at the set of statements I make in the OP and say what you think. You can pretend it is just another ripperologic book or article.

Without believeing it: What do you think about the content? What sort of a history is it?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

All very clear Pierre, but until you give source details for others to check, the sources you say exist do not.

Its really very simple, you do not take another persons work as being gospel.

Its the sources which as you rightly say will prove the case.

So we need the sources do we not!!

Steve

Steve,

I am analyzing the sources constantly and I would like to come to a point in this were I can sit down and write the book to give you the whole history with all the sources. I am fighting with my academic conscience all the time. Is it the right point in time now to do this or not. Do I have all the material. Is there still data I must look into. And so on and so forth. And I know that there is still a little work to be done.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Yes, and I am sorry for that. But there is a name on it and the name is also in the case of the Whitechapel murders.

Pierre Jerry is right, if you are not prepared to give details, then say nothing.

Steve

[Elamarna]

You mean that without a reference you can not access the source. That is what you mean.

I understand that everyone thinks that this case will never be solved. A long time has passed and many ideas have blurred the view on the sources.

But I think it is solved, Steve. And I am trying my best to give you what I can.

I do not expect anyone to believe me. But I do think that the case is solved.

The only reason I think that is the sources. They are too many, too coherent and too explanatory. They could not exist if they were not explaining the murders.

There is data both inside the Whitechapel murders case and outside it. Data is on a micro level. It is highly explanatory and throws light over old unanswered questions.

The GSG was one of those questions but it is not a question anymore.

Regards, Pierre

All very clear Pierre, but until you give source details for others to check, the sources you say exist do not.

Its really very simple, you do not take another persons work as being gospel.

Its the sources which as you rightly say will prove the case.

So we need the sources do we not!!


Steve

[Pierre]

Hard to argue with that data when it is not disclosed. Don't you think a better approach to all this would be to remain quiet until you can present all of your data and then see what comes of it?

Yes, and I am sorry for that. But there is a name on it and the name is also in the case of the Whitechapel murders.

[David Orsam]

you don't want--it was a lump of coal

At least that would useful.

And it would probably be about as helpful in explaining the CSG.

[Pierre]

Pierre, without a reference it is not a source, you know that.

Steve

You mean that without a reference you can not access the source. That is what you mean.

I understand that everyone thinks that this case will never be solved. A long time has passed and many ideas have blurred the view on the sources.

But I think it is solved, Steve. And I am trying my best to give you what I can.

I do not expect anyone to believe me. But I do think that the case is solved.

The only reason I think that is the sources. They are too many, too coherent and too explanatory. They could not exist if they were not explaining the murders.

There is data both inside the Whitechapel murders case and outside it. Data is on a micro level. It is highly explanatory and throws light over old unanswered questions.

The GSG was one of those questions but it is not a question anymore.

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

I do not need to stretch it. There is a lot of data for this explanation.

Regards, Pierre

Hard to argue with that data when it is not disclosed. Don't you think a better approach to all this would be to remain quiet until you can present all of your data and then see what comes of it?

[Elamarna]

Steve,

The new source showing that he falsely stated that he was a judge is not "a view". It is a source in a British archive.

Cheers

Pierre

Pierre, without a reference it is not a source, you know that.


Steve