Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by packers stem 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by packers stem 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - by Batman 4 hours ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (39 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (16 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (13 posts)
General Discussion: Martin Fido discovery 2018 - (6 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1011  
Old 06-11-2017, 03:13 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,794
Default

Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 06-11-2017, 03:26 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.
He can't.

He hasn't got one.
__________________
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 06-11-2017, 03:42 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
He can't.

He hasn't got one.
I actually don't agree. I'm sure he has a suspect.

All he needs now is ... some evidence.

It is laborious and time-consuming to go through all the evidence, to cherry-pick that which can be used to support your suspect, to re-invent the meaning or the wording or the date of any evidence that needs a little tweaking in your favour, and to annihilate or ignore any that flat-out contradicts it. It takes time and effort, and Pierre is to be commended for putting in the legwork as so many suspect-led researchers before him have done.

Pierre is no historian. Pierre is a fine upstanding Ripperologist.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 06-12-2017, 04:26 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
I actually don't agree. I'm sure he has a suspect.

All he needs now is ... some evidence.

It is laborious and time-consuming to go through all the evidence, to cherry-pick that which can be used to support your suspect, to re-invent the meaning or the wording or the date of any evidence that needs a little tweaking in your favour, and to annihilate or ignore any that flat-out contradicts it. It takes time and effort, and Pierre is to be commended for putting in the legwork as so many suspect-led researchers before him have done.

Pierre is no historian. Pierre is a fine upstanding Ripperologist.
Hi Henry,

I have a question for you. I think you are able to answer it and to show us all what the established facts are, on which you build your answer.

For what reasons are there ripperologists?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 06-12-2017, 06:07 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Pierre, with respect, I have no interest in indulging you, your games, your comical leading questions, or your abstractions.

It's genuinely a shame; if you put half the effort into presenting evidence or arguments that you do into self-justification, belittling others, avoiding questions, and the hypocritically authoritative laying down of rules for *others* to follow, you might actually be an admirable and worthwhile contributor.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 06-12-2017, 10:34 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Pierre, with respect, I have no interest in indulging you, your games, your comical leading questions, or your abstractions.

It's genuinely a shame; if you put half the effort into presenting evidence or arguments that you do into self-justification, belittling others, avoiding questions, and the hypocritically authoritative laying down of rules for *others* to follow, you might actually be an admirable and worthwhile contributor.
I donīt want to be admirable or a contributor to ripperology. I want to do history.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:40 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

1. Hypothesize that the author could write. The evidence is the GSG in itself.

2. Hypothesize that the author knew how to spell correctly. The evidence is in every other word in the GSG.

3. Hypothesize that the author could choose the words from the words in any English dictionary. The evidence is in any English dictionary.

4. Hypothesize that the word X is written by:

1) An author who could write.
2) An author who could spell correctly.
3) An author who could choose the words from an English dictionary.


5. Hypothesize that the word X is not written by an author who could not write, spell correctly or choose the words from an English dictionary:

The word X is the one, exclusive example for hypothesize 5.

But since there is strong evidence for 1, 2, 3 and 4, we must refute 5.


The consequence is that the word x is not produced as in hypothesis 5, but as in 1-4.

The conclusion therefore is that the word follows the evidence for 1-4.


There is one word in the English dictionary which fits Ju--es that uses the same amount of letters and alludes to men:

Ju-dg-es: as Steve so brilliantly said, and he was the only one who was able to figure it out.

6. Hypothesize that it was dark, that the GSG was written on a rough surface, on a brick wall and with chalk which could be blurred. There is evidence for dark, rough surface, brick wall and chalk.

Conclusion: Hypothesis 6 is an explanatory hypothesis supported by valid and reliable evidence.

Do you not think it is interesting that the rest of the words were legible?

7. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the order of the words wrong. The evidence is that there are different versions for the word "not".

8. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the spelling wrong. The evidence is the different spellings of the word.

Conclusion: The dictionary and the author can be hypothesized as more reliable than those who copied the text?

Yes, that is a question.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 06-13-2017, 07:19 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I donīt want to be admirable or a contributor to ripperology. I want to do history.
That's very grand, but nothing you've posted so far implies that you have any sort of aptitude or competence in that field.

You are merely a hidden-clue-discovering-suspect-led ripperologist. My commiserations.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 06-13-2017, 07:27 AM
barnflatwyngarde barnflatwyngarde is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
1. Hypothesize that the author could write. The evidence is the GSG in itself.

2. Hypothesize that the author knew how to spell correctly. The evidence is in every other word in the GSG.

3. Hypothesize that the author could choose the words from the words in any English dictionary. The evidence is in any English dictionary.

4. Hypothesize that the word X is written by:

1) An author who could write.
2) An author who could spell correctly.
3) An author who could choose the words from an English dictionary.


5. Hypothesize that the word X is not written by an author who could not write, spell correctly or choose the words from an English dictionary:

The word X is the one, exclusive example for hypothesize 5.

But since there is strong evidence for 1, 2, 3 and 4, we must refute 5.


The consequence is that the word x is not produced as in hypothesis 5, but as in 1-4.

The conclusion therefore is that the word follows the evidence for 1-4.


There is one word in the English dictionary which fits Ju--es that uses the same amount of letters and alludes to men:

Ju-dg-es: as Steve so brilliantly said, and he was the only one who was able to figure it out.

6. Hypothesize that it was dark, that the GSG was written on a rough surface, on a brick wall and with chalk which could be blurred. There is evidence for dark, rough surface, brick wall and chalk.

Conclusion: Hypothesis 6 is an explanatory hypothesis supported by valid and reliable evidence.

Do you not think it is interesting that the rest of the words were legible?

7. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the order of the words wrong. The evidence is that there are different versions for the word "not".

8. Hypothesize that the people who tried to copy the GSG got the spelling wrong. The evidence is the different spellings of the word.

Conclusion: The dictionary and the author can be hypothesized as more reliable than those who copied the text?

Yes, that is a question.
Complete and utter gibberish!

How long do the serious students of the case have to put up with this nonsense?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:00 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
Complete and utter gibberish!

How long do the serious students of the case have to put up with this nonsense?
Apparently we don't. We're expected to just skip the dozens of concurrent threads the oaf starts, if we think he's full of crap. Oh, and skip his endless diatribes on any and every thread anyone else starts, especially re Lechmere, which threads he habitually destroys also, despite his frequent mewling that David Orsam must NOT destroy Pierre's own threads.

Personally I shall now take this forum off my bookmarks and go play somewhere else. Pierre is everywhere on the forums: it's like when you order fish at the restaurant, but it seems to be more bones than meat, and you end up nibbling little scraps until the pleasure of the meal is entirely ruined.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.