I left it there for the fools but they will never find it.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Sorry everyone!

It's taken me ages to load the images on the other thread. This one, however, wouldn't go on the main thread no matter what I tried, so I'm posting it here.




Enjoy,


Tempus

[Beowulf]

Sorry everyone!

It's taken me ages to load the images on the other thread. This one, however, wouldn't go on the main thread no matter what I tried, so I'm posting it here.

[ATTACH]13916[/ATTACH]


Enjoy,


Tempus

I don't get it.

Can you give some explaination of this? Where is the 'FM'?

[Stephen Thomas]

I don't get it.

Can you give some explaination of this? Where is the 'FM'?

Well, there's definitely an 'F'.

One out of two ain't bad.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Here is the 'M.' Remember: he did not have access to a stencil, protractor or ruler, he simply made it using his own inteligence and cunning. If you do not believe that this is an 'M', then all I can say is, 1) you must all have very neat handwriting and, 2) how on earth do except half 'Ms' in the diary as being such. People write the letter 'M' in different ways: some neatly, some untidily, but they are still 'Ms.' This is not a calligraphy class, it is a murder scene!




Kind regards,

Tempus

[Barro]

Here is the 'M.' Remember: he did not have access to a stencil, protractor or ruler, he simply made it using his own inteligence and cunning. If you do not believe that this is an 'M', then all I can say is, 1) you must all have very neat handwriting and, 2) how on earth do except half 'Ms' in the diary as being such. People write the letter 'M' in different ways: some neatly, some untidily, but they are still 'Ms.' This is not a calligraphy class, it is a murder scene!

[ATTACH]13918[/ATTACH]


Kind regards,

Tempus

Is this for real ?.....are you really serious ?....

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Of course I'm serious, Barro. What do you think it is? Why is there an 'F' on her arm. Why is the piece a chemise there? Why is there something like an 'FM' where a, supposedly, fake diary says there is? They have been placed in that position by the murderer, that's why!


Sorry, I'll stop now. I am, quite literally, exasperated. Maybe I'll come back with more positive proof like find finding James' name or buisness address on one of the letters (Watch this space). Maybe that will convince you.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Kaz]

Of course I'm serious, Barro. What do you think it is? Why is there an 'F' on her arm. Why is the piece a chemise there? Why is there something like an 'FM' where a, supposedly, fake diary says there is? They have been placed in that position by the murderer, that's why!


Sorry, I'll stop now. I am, quite literally, exasperated. Maybe I'll come back with more positive proof like find finding James' name or buisness address on one of the letters (Watch this space). Maybe that will convince you.


Kind regards,

Tempus

Don't bother getting exasperated with these people, they are closed minded. They don't WANT to see those initials there, they clearery are there so JM is still a #1 suspect!

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

When I was a kid, that was the dumbest and greatest magazine ever. Forrest J. Ackerman(n?) was a guy I wanted to meet. Creepy and Eerie were great because of the lascivious artwork, but man did I jones for FM.

Mike

Hi Michael, just seeing your reply. That's awesome. You should get a copy now, it's still great, though Forry died a few years ago. Basil Gogos still does covers sometimes. Check out www.captainco.com .

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Iannocenti]

Hi there! Hi all!

LONG time 'lurker' - first time poster.

It's been a while since I last visited the forum and had a good read through all the posts regarding the diary. I have read the books relating to the diary and was, at first, completely convinced of its authenticity - but there are a few points that don't quite make sense and to write them off as 'a lapse in memory' or 'due to an insane mind' doesn't really hold true for me.

I post now however in regards the initials mentioned in the diary, left at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. As far as I am aware, there are two or three original photographs of the scene; the photographer concentrating on Mary Kelly's body. From what I understand, there is more of the room left UNphotographed than was captured on film.

So why is it assumed that the initials mentioned should be displayed in the photograph? If the initials are in front for all to see.............are they in front of the fire..........the door........the bed...........the body? I am not sure why there is so much argument about initials that can be made out in the photo..........when looking at ANY photograph, it would be possible to make out what COULD appear to be initials.

Did James know which angle the crime photographs would be taken? Did he assume the initials would appear in the photographs? Would they NEED to be near the body in order to be 'in front' and to allow James to feel very clever?

Just a thought, for now.
I am looking forward to chatting with posters on this forum, having my interest in JtR re-ignited after seeing Trevor Marriot's A 21st Century Investigation recently.

Ian

[Phil H]

Thank you Ian.

You have made points that I have tried to drive home for a long time now, but much more clearly than I.

Now you are posting I hope we will read your contributions often and with benefit. Welcome.

Phil

[Iannocenti]

Hi Phil,
Nice to 'meet' you and I hope to contribute more to this fantastic forum.

[Phil H]

Don't bother getting exasperated with these people, they are closed minded. They don't WANT to see those initials there, they clearery are there To me that suggests that you believe that because you cannot persuade others to your view - indeed, the majority to your view - they are wrong and you are right.

That is not logic.

The onus, as I have so often said, is for those of you who believe in the diary to convince others of the facts, we unbelievers have to do nothing.

I think, indeed, that some of us can see SHAPES in the photographs, but as those who were in the room never mention them, are unpersuaded that they are more than coincidental. Working from photographs as you are, as ian has said, forces the perspective of the photograph on the viewer. Not a good basis for anything. As we all know, the camera can lie.

A man who sees a mirage may be convinced of the reality of the vision he sees, the wise companion is more cautious and recognises that what is being seen is an illusion. Is the cautious one not WANTING to see the mirage, and is the visionary really CLEAR?

If the marks were real, then those policemen in the room on the day, when they were fresh and in all the awfulness of COLOUR, do you not think they would have shouted out even louder than they do in a grainy sepia photograph?

If they had been seen they would have been noticed and discussed. They were not.

Also as Ian has said, what about the rest of the room which (had the diaryist ever been there he would have seen). Why no mention of marks there?

Since the diary ONLY discusses marks visible in the famous photograph, the conclusion logicall MUST be that the diaryist saw the pic and wrote the fake diary, and that would date it to a time AFTER the photo was made public. On that I am clear and special pleading will not persuade me otherwise.

You are post hoc rationalising because YOU appear desperate to believe.

I am unconvinced that Kelly was killed by Jack, but I am pretty sure she was not murdered by James!

Phil

[bolo]

Hello all,

cloudgazing is a wonderful waste of time. Yesterday I saw a formation of nice and fluffy cumulus clouds that looked like a rabbit at first, then to my utmost surprise they transformed into the clearly visible image of Louis Diemschütz as we know him from some sketches.

Jack The Ripper: Case Closed, eh.

Regards,

Boris

[Phil H]

Yesterday I saw a formation of nice and fluffy cumulus clouds that looked like a rabbit at first, then to my utmost surprise they transformed into the clearly visible image of Louis Diemschütz

I saw the same clouds, Boris and to me they transformed into MJ Druitt sitting contemplating his writing. But then perhaps we saw them from different positions - it's all perception, isn't it.

Phil

[bolo]

Sorry Phil, my money's on Diemschütz, the clouds told me so, he's the Ripper. Now I'm going to form a theory on this definitely ascertained fact - I've heard that Diemschütz's cart had rubber tyres and he also had a map of the East End. You know... rubber tyres... ...and a MAP!

Nudge, nudge, say no more, etc.