Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R.L.S., H.J., & E.H.: a questions of sources and results

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Isn´t it sufficient with the "explanations" given by the attackers "Henry Flower", "David Orsam" and "GUT"?

    Pierre
    I take that as confirmation that I was more or less right. Thanks Pierre. Am adding you to my buddy list

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      Isn´t it sufficient with the "explanations" given by the attackers "Henry Flower", "David Orsam" and "GUT"?

      Pierre
      I've been included as one if the attackers, at least I'm in good company.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by GUT View Post
        Why not. (You might get a tax deduction anyway).

        Doesn't take much for that one to claim to be an expert on anything.

        Still can't believe he claims to be a great historian
        Silly GUT, I can't. I don't know the secret of the power for the motors of the "Nautilus" (Verne and "Nemo's" "Nautilus", not the actual one that is now at Groton's Submarine museum in Connecticut, which I have visited - that's a nuclear powered one). '

        The limits to my knowledge of how to power pre-Holland and Lake subs is that of the U.S.S. Turtle (Bushnell's Revolutionary craft), and the C.S.S. Hunley (now found and being restored in Charleston), both of which were powered by men using cranks. Captain Nemo's men had some electricity, but the motors were run by something that wasn't quite explained.

        Jeff

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by GUT View Post
          I've been included as one if the attackers, at least I'm in good company.
          How dare you, sir! I am an amoral animal.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            Isn´t it sufficient with the "explanations" given by the attackers "Henry Flower", "David Orsam" and "GUT"?
            I, for one, haven't put forward any explanation so this remark is very strange. Obviously Pierre is just evading a simple, reasonable and polite question.

            Henry has, of course, nailed it. And when Pierre saw that one of the characters in the play was Sir Thomas White, the Lord Mayor of London, he realised he had found was the conclusive proof he was looking for.

            Queen Mary, Princess Elizabeth and the Lord Mayor all in one play!! It could only mean one thing. Gogmagog is Jack the Ripper!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              I, for one, haven't put forward any explanation so this remark is very strange. Obviously Pierre is just evading a simple, reasonable and polite question.

              Henry has, of course, nailed it. And when Pierre saw that one of the characters in the play was Sir Thomas White, the Lord Mayor of London, he realised he had found was the conclusive proof he was looking for.

              Queen Mary, Princess Elizabeth and the Lord Mayor all in one play!! It could only mean one thing. Gogmagog is Jack the Ripper!
              David, stop doing the man's treasure-hunting, I mean, clue-decoding, er, sorry - source analysis for him! Get out of his archives!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                I, for one, haven't put forward any explanation so this remark is very strange. Obviously Pierre is just evading a simple, reasonable and polite question.

                Henry has, of course, nailed it. And when Pierre saw that one of the characters in the play was Sir Thomas White, the Lord Mayor of London, he realised he had found was the conclusive proof he was looking for.

                Queen Mary, Princess Elizabeth and the Lord Mayor all in one play!! It could only mean one thing. Gogmagog is Jack the Ripper!
                No, it could also mean we should consider that Queen Mary's cousin and chief advisor, Cardinal Reginald de la Pole, was the unofficial ancestor of Jack the Ripper. Too bad the bodies of the victims were not burned at the stake - that would have been proof conclusive.

                I still wish he'd explain how he came across that idiotic play!

                Jeff

                Comment


                • #53
                  Hi All,

                  When Sir Thomas White (1492–1567) was Lord Mayor [1553], the Lord Mayor's Show was held on 29th October.

                  After Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1751, the date of the Lord Mayor's Show was changed to 9th November.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Despite Pierre claiming not to have mixed up his Marys, this is what he posted on 14 November 2015 in the thread 'Social Class of Jack the Ripper', while discussing the Gogmagog letter:

                    "...when you understand his hint at Tennyson, you can see why he posed the body of Mary Jane the way he did."

                    So Pierre was saying that when you understand that Tennyson was the author of 'Queen Mary' you can understand the pose of MJK, even though the pose he was referring to was in a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Despite Pierre claiming not to have mixed up his Marys, this is what he posted on 14 November 2015 in the thread 'Social Class of Jack the Ripper', while discussing the Gogmagog letter:

                      "...when you understand his hint at Tennyson, you can see why he posed the body of Mary Jane the way he did."

                      So Pierre was saying that when you understand that Tennyson was the author of 'Queen Mary' you can understand the pose of MJK, even though the pose he was referring to was in a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots.
                      Quite so, but let's wait and see if his rebuttal involves anything other than name-calling and resentment. Also, he might just rant that you are "lying", and hope the noise deflects attention from his catastrophic error.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Mayerling, sir, I got distracted by the presence of the irritant Pierre, but I did intend to say what an enjoyable thread this has been. This is one of those side-streets off the man thoroughfare that makes Ripperology sometimes a real pleasure.

                        I was also interested to read more on the Phoenix Park assassination by The Invincibles, reference to which crops up repeatedly throughout my favourite novel, Joyce's Ulysses.

                        Many thanks sir.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                          Mayerling, sir, I got distracted by the presence of the irritant Pierre, but I did intend to say what an enjoyable thread this has been. This is one of those side-streets off the man thoroughfare that makes Ripperology sometimes a real pleasure.

                          I was also interested to read more on the Phoenix Park assassination by The Invincibles, reference to which crops up repeatedly throughout my favourite novel, Joyce's Ulysses.

                          Many thanks sir.
                          Thanks Henry, I hoped it would be an enjoyable thread. Literary connections always appeal to me, but this seemed more at home in the "Social Chat" threads than the more serious minded ones. Feel free to just discuss the Stevenson and Conan Doyle matters. I may also return to that formerly mentioned theory of mine concerning Doyle, Oscar Wilde, and Macnaughten that I added on another thread some time back.

                          Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            When Sir Thomas White (1492–1567) was Lord Mayor [1553].
                            In 1888, of course, the Lord Mayor was another "White"; Sir James Whitehead, to be precise.

                            /trivia
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mayerling View Post
                              Silly GUT, I can't. I don't know the secret of the power for the motors of the "Nautilus" (Verne and "Nemo's" "Nautilus", not the actual one that is now at Groton's Submarine museum in Connecticut, which I have visited - that's a nuclear powered one). '

                              The limits to my knowledge of how to power pre-Holland and Lake subs is that of the U.S.S. Turtle (Bushnell's Revolutionary craft), and the C.S.S. Hunley (now found and being restored in Charleston), both of which were powered by men using cranks. Captain Nemo's men had some electricity, but the motors were run by something that wasn't quite explained.

                              Jeff
                              Groton, an interesting name.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                                How dare you, sir! I am an amoral animal.
                                See, good company for me to be in.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X