Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News Flash!! . . . VINCENT VAN GOGH WAS JACK THE RIPPER!!

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

  • Do the splits and try to make money

    Originally posted by Vincent alias Jack View Post
    I hope the majority will be able to discern that my book is one of the good ones, both in the writing and in keeping to the facts.
    Hi Dale

    To some extent, it's indeed possible to "keep to the facts" and put forward a most bewildering theory at the same time.

    That's what Knight tried to do, for example. But of course he kept to some facts, not to all.

    If you've done better, fine.

    Comment


    • So, Dale... it's just occurred to me - weren't you the guy who was recently asked whether or not he had solid evidence that Vincent actually traveled from France to England several times during the autumn of 1888?

      I'm sure it was you. Maybe you just never noticed the question. Several posts from you since then without once addressing the point. So I thought I'd remind you.

      Dale, do you have evidence of Vincent travelling to and from London in the autumn of 1888? Not evidence that Vincent / anyone COULD have made the journey, but that Vincent specifically DID make such journeys that autumn?

      Your earlier references to travel suggest that you don't. If your answer is along the lines of "It's all dealt with in the book" then I for one won't be convinced. Empty salesman's patter.

      You don't have to give the details away here if you don't want to. Just a yes or a no. Do you have evidence that Vincent was in the right country to have committed the murders?

      Yours in anticipation!

      Henry

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
        So, Dale... it's just occurred to me - weren't you the guy who was recently asked whether or not he had solid evidence that Vincent actually traveled from France to England several times during the autumn of 1888?

        I'm sure it was you. Maybe you just never noticed the question. Several posts from you since then without once addressing the point. So I thought I'd remind you.

        Dale, do you have evidence of Vincent travelling to and from London in the autumn of 1888? Not evidence that Vincent / anyone COULD have made the journey, but that Vincent specifically DID make such journeys that autumn?

        Your earlier references to travel suggest that you don't. If your answer is along the lines of "It's all dealt with in the book" then I for one won't be convinced. Empty salesman's patter.

        You don't have to give the details away here if you don't want to. Just a yes or a no. Do you have evidence that Vincent was in the right country to have committed the murders?

        Yours in anticipation!

        Henry
        Hello Henry,

        Once again the very same point of contention against another painter, Walter Sickert.
        When or if that is produced, the natural follow up is where is the evidence the proposed suspect was in Whitechapel on each night in question. After all, PAV was in GB at the time of each murder- but Whitechapel? Thats a different kettle to burn on the fire.
        A question good enough for PAV is good enough for VVG.

        Best wishes

        Phil
        Last edited by Phil Carter; 04-14-2012, 12:39 PM.
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • Larner 1/10 - Must do better

          I believe, following the time Vincent moved to Arles in 1888, he was living in poverty...no expensive railway and ferry tickets then... unless of course he was a sponsored ripper...

          Dave

          Comment


          • ...ah...Sickert and van Gogh in a case of oneupsmanship. I'd gladly buy that novel. In fact, where's my pen?

            Mike
            huh?

            Comment


            • Hi Phil - you're absolutely right. However, I thought we could go easy on Mr Larner and start with the basics - ie, has he any convincing evidence that his 'suspect' was in the right country to have committed the crimes? But your point is well made - if it's shown that VG traveled to London during that autumn we still have to place him in Whitechapel. With three dogs in tow. And a doorknocker.

              Dave, he was receiving money from Theo his brother, but he and Gauguin had to budget very carefully indeed. Mind you, during their time in Arles together Theo did manage to sell some of Gauguin's work, so maybe Gauguin sponsored Vincent's prostitute murdering weekend jaunts. The money never lasted very long. Repeated travels to London are I think impossible to envisage given their circumstances at the time. (I feel foolish even discussing this garbage rationally using real words...)

              Personally I propose Nietzsche as the Ripper etc. His mental breakdown at the beginning of 1889 followed closely after the glut of blood in Miller's Court, and perhaps the celebrated catalyst of his collapse - his witnessing of a horse being flogged in Turin - released the inner torment by reminding him of his callous murder of three puppies in Kelly's room. (Well, someone put those dogs in that room!)

              Nietzsche had a foreign appearance and a truly grand mustache.

              Nietzsche spent the years prior to the murders moving (guiltily?) from city to city, and I've established that there were very probably murders of some kind in every city he lived in at some point. My research has also established that transport links did exist between the countries he frequented (Switzerland, Italy, France) and Great Britain, and that people could and indeed sometimes did use these transportation links etc.

              Last edited by Henry Flower; 04-14-2012, 09:13 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                Hi Phil - you're absolutely right. However, I thought we could go easy on Mr Larner and start with the basics - ie, has he any convincing evidence that his 'suspect' was in the right country to have committed the crimes? But your point is well made - if it's shown that VG traveled to London during that autumn we still have to place him in Whitechapel. With three dogs in tow. And a doorknocker.

                Dave, he was receiving money from Theo his brother, but he and Gauguin had to budget very carefully indeed. Mind you, during their time in Arles together Theo did manage to sell some of Gauguin's work, so maybe Gauguin sponsored Vincent's prostitute murdering weekend jaunts. The money never lasted very long. Repeated travels to London are I think impossible to envisage given their circumstances at the time. (I feel foolish even discussing this garbage rationally using real words...)

                Personally I propose Nietzsche as the Ripper etc. His mental breakdown at the beginning of 1889 followed closely after the glut of blood in Miller's Court, and perhaps the celebrated catalyst of his collapse - his witnessing of a horse being flogged in Turin - released the inner torment by reminding him of his callous murder of three puppies in Kelly's room. (Well, someone put those dogs in that room!)

                Nietzsche had a foreign appearance and a truly grand mustache.

                Nietzsche spent the years prior to the murders moving (guiltily?) from city to city, and I've established that there were very probably murders of some kind in every city he lived in at some point. My research has also established that transport links did exist between the countries he frequented (Switzerland, Italy, France) and Great Britain, and that people could and indeed sometimes did use these transportation links etc.

                Hello Henry,

                "There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist..."
                (Monty Python -Philosopher's song)

                Which may have some bearing on pub visitation in the area and any empty beer containers laying around. His initials,FN, were likely the original scrawled letters on the wall in Kelly's room, depending on whether he kept a diary of the events or not.

                Back to basics- the simple truth about this alarmingly silly suggestion is exactly like Sickert, PAV, Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, et al. Any of them at all with very few exceptions are not known to have been violent to women with anything more than a paintbrush or a dogs leash or muzzle.
                i really do wonder what rubbish will be invented next to support a named suspect theory.

                What are the odds on a Sickert theorist calling Emma Smith's 'blunt instrument' attack being done with a fistful of paintbrushes done by a gang of Sickert-like impressionist scholars that inspired Walter to start the real stuff? Tabram was stabbed 39 times with a sharpened painter's palette knife? The dark alleyways and streets reflected the dark side of this form of painting?

                And please dont get me started on the psychological reasons for Eddowes' ear piece vis a vis VG. The nearest thing to a painting these murders have is the brush strokes on MJK3.

                Have a nice weekend

                best wishes

                Phil
                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                Accountability? ....

                Comment


                • I'll give it one more try before my mind gives way altogether.

                  Dale,

                  You've shown us all a lot of nonsense about concealed images in Van Gogh paintings. Would it be too much to ask that you answer the question posed some time ago, by myself among others:

                  Do you have proof that Vincent van Gogh was in England during the Autumn of Terror?

                  You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you keep dodging a basic issue of this nature. In fact you remind me of the man who went on a show, in Monty Python's Flying Circus, claiming that he had three buttocks. At least, when asked to drop his trousers and prove it, he had the decency to admit that he was a fraud.

                  Please answer the question.

                  Regards, Bridewell
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • You're right on the money Phil.

                    And as a professional artist I can say that almost all palette knives - even sharpened ones - will bend or break before they'll penetrate far into flesh.

                    Not that I've tried it... obviously....

                    F.N. on Kelly's wall - now there's an intriguing angle - well spotted

                    Regards,

                    Michael

                    Comment


                    • FN

                      Don't get it - Fan Noght?

                      Sounds a bit Irish to me!

                      Dave

                      Comment


                      • Dave, try to keep up! Fred Nietzsche!

                        Comment


                        • Bridewell, are you equating the three buttocks with the three dead dogs? Would you remain unconvinced even if Mr Larner discovers in Vincent's portrait of Dr Gachet a hidden image of Terry Jones exposing his triple cheeks?

                          Comment


                          • Sorry Henry...I'm still absorbing the implications...three buttocks = two arses..the symbolism has somehow fallen down...

                            Puzzled

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • Three buttocks = two arses! My god you're right. 'Double event this time'!

                              Comment


                              • http://www.vggallery.com/painting/p_0463.htm

                                Look what I found! Perhaps he had a day off in the middle.
                                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X