A major breakthrough

[Pierre]

Ah, I see, you changed your mind did you.

And why, pray, have you changed your mind?

Because I have found more sources and therefore I believe even stronger now than I did then that what I said in my first post here is correct.

[David Orsam]

Because I have found more sources and therefore I believe even stronger now than I did then that what I said in my first post here is correct.

But that doesn't explain anything.

You said very clearly:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

We know that you can't give that answer conclusively. You haven't found "the last piece of evidence" during the past 12 months.

So why are you continuing to spend more time on it when you told us you would not?

Why are you not giving us the theory and data which you promised you would provide?

Why have you broken your promise?

[Elamarna]

Hi David,

You do everything you can now to destroy everything I write here. You are actually desperate.

Therefore, from now on, I will be more restrictive with information in the forum, since you systematically try to destroy it.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

You are so restrictive now how can you possibly be more so.

I sense that the fountain of hypothesis as run dry and so now stalling for time is the only option open

By the way to challenge a statement or information is not to destroy it, such only happens if the statement or info is untrue or inaccurate.


One puts forward an idea, others challenge it, the hypothesis either stands or falls


That is how science works.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Because I have found more sources and therefore I believe even stronger now than I did then that what I said in my first post here is correct.

Pierre

how do we know that is true.
publish one source, just one.

The alone title will do.


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

how do we know that is true.
publish one source, just one.

The alone title will do.

steve

Hi Steve,

do for what? What would a title for a source mean?

Would it help if I gave you a list of types of sources?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

how do we know that is true.
publish one source, just one.

The alone title will do.

I'm sure he won't do that - but even if it's true, he must have been able to predict in September 2015 that he would find some more supporting evidence. What he was clearly promising was that unless he could find conclusive evidence that his suspect was Jack the Ripper he would stop spending time on the search and would reveal his theory and data.

So absolutely nothing has changed since September 2015 except that Pierre has not done what he promised he would do.

[David Orsam]

Hi Steve,

do for what? What would a title for a source mean?

Would it help if I gave you a list of types of sources?

Ah, I knew it.

No Pierre, we want to be told the actual sources, not the "types" of sources. The actual data which you promised to provide in September 2015 please.

Thank you.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;395821]

I'm sure he won't do that - but even if it's true, he must have been able to predict in September 2015 that he would find some more supporting evidence.

"Must" he?

That is none of your business. And stop making comments based on nothing.

What he was clearly promising was that unless he could find conclusive evidence that his suspect was Jack the Ripper he would stop spending time on the search and would reveal his theory and data.

It is not your business what I do with my research, David. You have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. And do not put words into my mouth. Do not tell people what I say. I speak for myself.

And I have any right, as any other living person, to change my mind. You have absolutely nothing to do with it.

So absolutely nothing has changed since September 2015 except that Pierre has not done what he promised he would do.

You do not know anything whatsoever about what has happened since then. So stop spreading your lies about it.

[Pierre]

Ah, I knew it.

No Pierre, we want to be told the actual sources, not the "types" of sources. The actual data which you promised to provide in September 2015 please.

Thank you.

"We want to be told". I bet you do.

But as I have said, you will know when it is finished.

[David Orsam]

It is not your business what I do with my research, David. You have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. And do not put words into my mouth. Do not tell people what I say. I speak for myself.

I'm not putting any words into your mouth Pierre. I'm quoting your own words from September 2015:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

You've admitted you can't give a conclusive answer and have not found "the last piece of evidence" more than 12 months later. So where is "the theory and data" that you promised to provide?

[Mayerling]

What?

I have my degrees within the field of history and the social sciences. How come you think you can give this false information about me in this forum, John?

I do not accept that. I have told everyone here what my degrees are, and you are not in any position to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

As for the rest you write here: it is obvious to me that you know nothing about it. If you do, please give relevant references.

Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Except for your militant insistence you have degrees in the field of history and the social sciences we have seen absolutely no proof you do. It's only your word that you do. Your word - so far - remains worthless.

Repeatedly we have asked you for some form of proof of accreditation somewhere - and repeatedly you have refused to give it. Which means, either your accreditation is non-existent (which I feel is probably the case), or it is of such a low standard that it will not really pass much muster with all of us and other peer groups. Indeed I suspect you do not want word of these claims of yours to reach the people that know and work with you (especially your superiors/managers at the place you work at), as it may lead to some unpleasant job explosion.

If you actually have REAL PROOF OF ACCREDITATION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED , I strongly suggest that you produce it! This probably will mean letting us know your real name, and will either force you to reveal it at last or (more likely) hide like a frightened rabbit. I really feel it will be the latter.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

"We want to be told". I bet you do.

But as I have said, you will know when it is finished.

That's not what you said in September 2015.

Back then you said we would know it if you hadn't found the conclusive evidence after 12 months.

You haven't found the conclusive evidence after 12 months have you?

So why are you not "finished" now?

How much longer do you need? Another 12 months?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

do for what? What would a title for a source mean?



Would it help if I gave you a list of types of sources?

Regards, Pierre

it would allow a search to ensure such a source did exist, that would i am sure stop much of what is written.


if the list was just something like :

letters
newspaper articles not really.

Of course not knowing what you have it is not easy to say what would be useful

Overall a list would need to be need to be a bit more specific than i give above as examples

On the issue of letters for instance, to say letter written between xxxx and xxxx would be better.

If you are using family(not yours obviously) documents as a source then you need to say so, this should be easy, noone is asking for the family name for instance.


Better still would be what form the confession you have mentioned is?

letter? diary or a straight confession(I know unsigned)

and a rough date for such.


In all honesty Pierre that is what is needed.


Steve


that is the sort of thing required

[Pierre]

it would allow a search to ensure such a source did exist, that would i am sure stop much of what is written.


if the list was just something like :

letters
newspaper articles not really.

Of course not knowing what you have it is not easy to say what would be useful

Overall a list would need to be need to be a bit more specific than i give above as examples

On the issue of letters for instance, to say letter written between xxxx and xxxx would be better.

If you are using family(not yours obviously) documents as a source then you need to say so, this should be easy, noone is asking for the family name for instance.


Better still would be what form the confession you have mentioned is?

letter? diary or a straight confession(I know unsigned)

and a rough date for such.


In all honesty Pierre that is what is needed.


Steve


that is the sort of thing required

But Steve, it is only required for you to test me.

What you need is a testable scrap of paper, to test the killer.

Why isnīt it enough for you that I search for this bit of evidence?

Knowing that Pierre is a reliable person is not the same as knowing that the killer was the killer.

There are a lot of reliable ripperologists here - no one has found the killer.

[Elamarna]

"We want to be told". I bet you do.

But as I have said, you will know when it is finished.

Pierre

With all due respect, if you are not prepared to give any real info, then it may be better if you stopped until you are ready.

However after your claim yesterday that you will tell all descendents of the victims first, means that could be years away.

Please show some integrity, if you cannot finish this say so.

s