Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

distances between kills.odd

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • . THe nose: the left nostril is related to Venus in a system of magic that just happens to be used by my suspects. Only they would need a nose.
    Only the tip of her nose was cut off. Perhaps they decided that they could do without the nostril after all. Perhaps they substituted a toenail clipping?
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by albie View Post
      The ear in that same system is related to Saturn. This is only appropriate to my research. We do not know if it was missing as we do not know if the nose is missing.
      The tip of the nose was stitched back on, as is apparent from the mortuary photographs. The detached piece of ear wasn't missing either, as Dr Brown reports that it fell out of the deceased's clothing when the body was being undressed.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        The tip of the nose was stitched back on, as is apparent from the mortuary photographs. The detached piece of ear wasn't missing either, as Dr Brown reports that it fell out of the deceased's clothing when the body was being undressed.
        I missed that one of course. Thanks for the reminder Gareth

        It puts that particular nonsense to bed though.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by albie View Post
          I am David Icke's biggest detractor, to the point that I was banned from twitter.
          If I may, is this from twitter altogether or just from corresponding with David Icke?

          Comment


          • Just been catching up on this thread and theory.

            16 pages and what is amazing is the utter lack of knowledge demonstrated by the proposer of the theory, about the case itself.
            That is not to say the theoriest does not know any, simply that they have not shown very much in their posts.

            What there is in the posts, is a tendency to support, ideas which are not commonly accepted. And a belief that everyone else is wrong, they are right, and all those arguing against are small minded and envious.

            What is given as evidence, is not evidence, it is conjecture based on possibility, nothing wrong with such, but there is nothing other than the belief that the theoriest has in their own untested hypothesis,one which by definition is hard to test,given so much is based on myth and the supernatural.

            Until such time as real measurable evidence is presented there is really little to say about such ideas.


            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Just been catching up on this thread and theory.

              16 pages and what is amazing is the utter lack of knowledge demonstrated by the proposer of the theory, about the case itself.
              That is not to say the theoriest does not know any, simply that they have not shown very much in their posts.

              What there is in the posts, is a tendency to support, ideas which are not commonly accepted. And a belief that everyone else is wrong, they are right, and all those arguing against are small minded and envious.

              What is given as evidence, is not evidence, it is conjecture based on possibility, nothing wrong with such, but there is nothing other than the belief that the theoriest has in their own untested hypothesis,one which by definition is hard to test,given so much is based on myth and the supernatural.

              Until such time as real measurable evidence is presented there is really little to say about such ideas.


              Steve
              We agree for a change Steve

              Very different to argue against strongly held beliefs , similar to religion .
              It's like when people use the bible, as if it's a form of evidence , to back up a religious argument .
              They are unable to grasp the idea that to someone who isn't religious the bible isn't evidence of anything .
              It then becomes an impossible discussion
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                Just been catching up on this thread and theory.

                16 pages and what is amazing is the utter lack of knowledge demonstrated by the proposer of the theory, about the case itself.
                That is not to say the theoriest does not know any, simply that they have not shown very much in their posts.

                What there is in the posts, is a tendency to support, ideas which are not commonly accepted. And a belief that everyone else is wrong, they are right, and all those arguing against are small minded and envious.

                What is given as evidence, is not evidence, it is conjecture based on possibility, nothing wrong with such, but there is nothing other than the belief that the theoriest has in their own untested hypothesis,one which by definition is hard to test,given so much is based on myth and the supernatural.

                Until such time as real measurable evidence is presented there is really little to say about such ideas.


                Steve
                Excellent post Steve. Sums everything up perfectly
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • albie. Just trying to real-time your theory but probably won't venture too far down that rabbit-hole. Can't tell whether you're claiming that Jack the Ripper drew out a diagram on a map before the murders were committed. Or whether you think Jack the Ripper walked out these distances to form a diamond shape prior to the murders In either case, he would have to keep in mind that the four points had to provide him with suitable locations to commit murder.

                  It looks like you used an ordnance map from 1894 and MS Paint, which weren't available to Jack the Ripper in 1888. If it's the first case ie using a map and a ruler, which street map do you theorize Jack the Ripper used?

                  Only real interest in the topic is the part about maps, as in, did Jack the Ripper use one for the purpose of the murders?
                  there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                  Comment


                  • If you connect four of the "canonical five victims" with red lines and the "other possible victims" with white lines, you get a red square and a white rectangle.* This is significant because the white rectangle leads a path down Commercial Street directly to 13 Miller's Court, and it is a known fact that all JTR conspiracies must end with Mary Kelly (it's a rule). So now all we need to do is answer the question: who functions in a universe of "squares and rectangles"? I realize the answer is obvious so I won't waste the time of such a learned group by explaining myself, but I think we can all agree we are closer now, than we have ever been before, to understanding who Saucy Jacky really was. Food for thought.

                    *This is a reference to the new rethought RSWT theory, not the original, often debunked RSWT theory. I realize it can be difficult to distinguish between the two, that is why I chose to use both red and white lines.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	magic.jpg
Views:	106
Size:	181.6 KB
ID:	700594

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by APerno View Post
                      So now all we need to do is answer the question: who functions in a universe of "squares and rectangles"? I realize the answer is obvious so I won't waste the time of such a learned group by explaining myself, but I think we can all agree we are closer now, than we have ever been before, to understanding who Saucy Jacky really was. Food for thought.
                      A Square, the hero of Flatland. Wait, proof positive that the Ripper was Edwin Abbott?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by APerno View Post
                        ....So now all we need to do is answer the question: who functions in a universe of "squares and rectangles"? I realize the answer is obvious so I won't waste the time of such a learned group by explaining myself, but I think we can all agree we are closer now, than we have ever been before, to understanding who Saucy Jacky really was. Food for thought.
                        Obviously, Jack was really Matt Goss from Bros. And his brother.

                        Comment


                        • There is a similar theory to Albie's in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st Dec 1888. The only trouble is that they foolishly join the dots to make a cross, not a rhomboid.

                          https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881201.html

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            There is a similar theory to Albie's in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st Dec 1888.
                            That's Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson's letter. One of the most interesting of the first-generation conspiracy theorists.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              That's Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson's letter. One of the most interesting of the first-generation conspiracy theorists.
                              Aah, thanks Sam. A suspect I've sadly neglected. But he did actually come to mind when I read it.

                              ​​​And, to conflate two threads, I think I recently read somewhere that he was in Portsmouth shortly before the Whitechapel murders?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                Obviously, Jack was really Matt Goss from Bros. And his brother.
                                Please excuse my ignorance but I don't get the joke (regarding my very silly theory); although, there being two of them, works well with the 'double event.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X