|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:50 am: | 
|
Stan Russo
If you had read the post further you would have seen that I clearly stated I have never seen the letters, but there are people who have, like researcher Simon Wood in 1988,who has not used them to try an advocate any theory whatsoever. You probably don't know who Simon Wood is because it's not the actual case that interests you, but the 'alleged' diary.
Actually, if you look a bit further back in this thread, you'll find that John already posted information about Simon Wood back in April last year, and I posted a bit more.
Could you be a bit clearer about what you're suggesting regarding the alleged "FM"? From your posts, I can't see what you're driving at.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
In your post above, you write,
"So given that, I would actually take the 'F' and 'M' quite seriously as another form of communicating."
Except that, exactly as in the case of that 'C' on that rock, there's no evidence that any 'F' or any 'M' was ever there.
Here's the photo, you tell me what you see:
And then go here,
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
and see if the website doesn't offer just the same sort of list of important details that you yourself list above as evidence that the 'C' is really there. (Among other things, the letter C it turns out is the letter used by prop managers to label items to be placed deliberately in the center of staged shots.)
It's the same thing. People see what they want in old stains and blotches or irregularities in photos and then think it's meaningful.
But there's no historical evidence of any documentary sort that even suggests any such letters were ever there (in Kelly's room or on the moon).
And that's why neither account of "finding" letters in such photos is really evidence of anything or indeed demonstrates anything whatsoever.
Just trying to address the issue,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Actually John,
the case against the moon landings is one of the more interesting conspiracy theories I've heard.
i like to think its pretty good.
But really it doesnt have a lot to do with the diary now does it?
These letters (FM) I can make them be there, I can make them not be there, either way, it does not prove the diary is genuine if they are there,
here is for why, because if they are on the photo anyone could have seen them at anypoint in time and faked them into the diary.
Equally if they are not there there is always some dumb excuse, so!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
WHERE IS IT!?!?!?
Just where the hell is this F and M? I've never been able to see it, is it like one of those magic eye pictures? |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi
Its called pareidolia and is the tendency to see what we want out of an indistinct jumble although its usually faces. Check it out here: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_face_on_mars/index.html
But I must be pareidoliac as sometimes I look at some posts and think I see the point. When there is none.
But just because some people see something and some dont, does not mean its not there. Does it?
Lars |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Calm down Wintergreen,
it is just above Kelly's hand (that is the hand nearest to the camera)
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
HI Jenni,
Actually, the "moon landng was fake" case does have something to do with this whole FM silliness. In both cases people come to believe they "see" letters in the irregularities of a photograph and that these fictional letters are meaningful. And off we go.
It's not scholarship. It's not rational argumentation. It's not evidence. It's not even sound history, since there is no evidence of any sort in either case that the letters were ever really there --in fact, in both cases the documentary evidence suggests they weren't.
So in both cases, this is just desire replacing careful, analytic, rational and evidenced thought.
It's fun. It leads to goofy theories in both cases. But we should not mistake it for actual evidence or for serious thinking.
By the way, it happened again this week!
This is from Chicago, just a few days ago.
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4388177/detail.html?subid=10101401
Enjoy,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
No John,
because the moon landing is fake is based on science,
the radiation would have killed them (science)
the flag wouldn't blow in the wind as there was none (science)
the shadows are wrong (science)
Not i can imagine some letters
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Stop, Jenni.
You're killing me.
 
And they do imagine letters. Just like some of our friends around here.
Still trying to stop smiling,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Maybe John, maybe,
they are however, a lot more convincing!
Florida is that the home of NASA? Umm, maybe i will shut up.
I mean you have a lot to put up with in Florida (mainly Jeb Bush)
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, I suppose the "moonwalk was faked" crowd do make a more complete and thorough case than the Maybrick or old hoax crowds. But clearly the moonwalk people have worked harder at it.
Perhaps someday our friends here will have as much "evidence."
Have a fine day and greetings from sunny Florida,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
John,
something like that!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi people,
Thanks John.I found that website compelling and read it all.It has made me seriously consider the possibility that it may have been staged.If any country knows how to stage an event , and also have the audacity to pull it off, it is the USA.I am sitting on the fence now as to the moon landing and dont know which way to lean.But I wont go in to that any more, as Jenny or Lars might blow the whistle on me for hijacking the thread.
I see the 'C' but say YES, just coincidence on the rocks surface, as with the face on Mars.But I would like ,if I may ,put this into perspective.Jennifer.D.Peg and John, would you agree that JtR did like to communicate as I stated in my last post.The showy display of his work alone indicates this.There is the very real possibility of the Lusk letter, or Saucy Jacky letter, the message in front of Eddow's apron also points to this. As far as Mars faces and cloud images(pareidoliac) - THIS IS NOT MARS OR STARING AT THE CLOUDS. I would take any lead, clue or possibilty regarding any matter of this case VERY SERIOUSLY. I have noticed that many posters seem to be flippant on many ripper matters. Let me say this - There is nothing flippant about Jack the Ripper or the case.Take everything as a possibility.
I see 2 sets of 'F' and 'M'.Yep , it may be a coincidence.As long as it has not been disprooved conclusivly, they remain firmly in my Ripper dossier.
Thanks Stuart |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Actually I found the F.M before I came back to this thread, sorry for the outburst. I'm a highly excitable guy, in print anyway.
Wintergreen.
P.S It is in a ridiculous place, why would write it on such an awkward angle, wouldn't his hand have kept hitting the side of the bed? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Stuart writes:
"Thanks John.I found that website compelling and read it all.It has made me seriously consider the possibility that it may have been staged.If any country knows how to stage an event , and also have the audacity to pull it off, it is the USA.I am sitting on the fence now as to the moon landing and dont know which way to lean."
Excellent.
My work here is done.
Thanks all,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Wintergreen,
its not there outside the imagination.
the imagination is a powerful thing
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Hi Jenny;
I am starting to lean in your direction.
* flag flapping about - hard to do without any weather conditions.
* 3 layers of atmosphere , 4 if you live in a big city, yet we still see the stars here on Earth. Funny that the stars had the day off up there on those landings.Maybe they were sick.
* funny that NASA edited the footage seen in Australia of the coke bottle being drop kicked by Armstrong.If they had nothing to hide, why edit the footage?
* funny that light obeys different rules up there - with the shadows.
Anyway back to jack.
All the best from sunny Queensland |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Stuart,
I'm not saying the moon landings were fake.
it would be kinda cool if they were!
though its fun to suggest it, mainly to wind up John.
I do think the evidence is a lot more convincing that that for the diary - but still.
As for comparisons for FM, I don't really see the comparison.
The FM is only there when you know where to look.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 885
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hiya Stuart,
Let's just take these one by one, shall we?
* flag flapping about - hard to do without any weather conditions.
I can make a flag flap without wind. I take the pole it is on, I twist it, it moves. Voila. Very simple that.
* 3 layers of atmosphere , 4 if you live in a big city, yet we still see the stars here on Earth. Funny that the stars had the day off up there on those landings.Maybe they were sick.
How come we don't see the stars in the day time? Do they get the day off? Ponder that and you will have your answer.
* funny that NASA edited the footage seen in Australia of the coke bottle being drop kicked by Armstrong.If they had nothing to hide, why edit the footage?
First, it wasn't drop kicked and second it was apocryphal. You are telling me that in that grainy black and white video, people were able to see a coke bottle clear as day? Yeah, I think not. There are other inconsistencies in this story but that will do.
* funny that light obeys different rules up there - with the shadows.
Actually it obeys the same rules as here on Earth-with the shadows.
See...all those arguments that on the surface seem so compelling that it must be a hoax, just blown apart by simple logic. Too bad in the case of the diary, logic works the other way around.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Ally,
You're such a killjoy.
--John  |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
Jenny.I need to see your facial expressions here to detect whether you are winding up or serious as I am an outsider to this party.Maybe you could send me a video link or use the little round faces for expressions.On a serious point - do you think that the diary of Maybrick is seriously real and not hoaxed? I am on the fence here as well.
C. I. Ally. thanks for your post. I dont mind at all talking about the moon landing, if no whistleblowers declare us hijackers.I would like to take a couple of points up.
1. No , we dont see starts during the day for this reason: The suns light refracts off the Earth's surface - 75% water - and when it hits the atmosphere it creates a blue sky effect, totally opaque to stars light.At night , without the refracted light, a black sky appears which is not opaque to stars light.
NEWS FLASH
A. There is no water on the moon's surface to refract the suns light.Fact.
B. There is no atmosphere on the moon to alter light in any way.Fact.
THUS ALLY, THE SKY IS ALWAYS BLACK ON THE MOON EVEN WHEN THE SUN IS UP.AS IS SEEN IN THE MOON LANDING PHOTOS.
As I have stated above, A BLACK SKY IS NOT OPAQUE. Thus there is nothing to stop the star light from being seen, even in the moon's day.There is no light source hindering the stars own light.On a black sky, you must see stars.
I hope you can give me some input on this interesting point.Oh, back to the case now. Ripper, Ripper, ripp...
Have a great weekend, I know I will. Stuart. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 890
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
We can't see the stars during the day because the bright light of the sun prevents us from seeing the relatively dim star light. The sky is not opaque.
Just like we can't see the stars because of the brighter light of the sun, when taking photos, BIG SHINY lights will obscure small not so bright lights. Therefore, when taking pictures on the surface of the bright and shiny moon with shiny space suits or vehicles in the foreground, the greater light from the reflected "sand" and objects will obscure the little shinys from the stars. They won't show up. Take a photo outside at night and aim at your brightly lit house or street light. The relatively dim light of stars won't show.
(Message edited by Ally on April 24, 2005)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 891
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Oh and the sky is blue due to "refracting"/scattering as light waves pass through the atmosphere not off water on the planet surface. That's just goofy.
(Message edited by Ally on April 24, 2005)
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 525
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Ally,
Thanks for returning a little sanity here. As it is, my skies are rather leaden right now but you made them bluer anyway. And Stuart, if you want to sell junk science, at least have the light relecting not refracting off the water. The processes are quite different.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 139
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
And this has what to do with the case?
We're going round in circles circles.
Good work John. Mission accomplished.
Circles circles.
SJR |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 892
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Don,
Always glad to inject a little 6th grade Science into the mix.
Stan,
We've been going around in circles on this issue for years. What, you think this is the first FM thread?
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 140
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Ally,
Oh I know we're going round in circles and have been for years.
But I just call them how I see them.
Some people enjoy the circular trip though, enough to help it along when certain elements are beneath them. A little nudge is all that's needed to turn an answer to a question into a sideshow.
Fun wasting time and effort isn't it? Some people get their little jollies off it too.
SJR |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
But you know, it really wasn't a waste of time.
It demonstrated quite nicely how this whole "find the hidden letters in the photo and make up a theory" nonsense works.
So thanks, Stan, for the kind words about the success of the mission.
Always happy to oblige,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 141
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
You are very welcome John.
Like my guidance counselor always said, "If you can't be good at something, then be really really good at nothing".
Perhaps the Druitt board could use some information about the Sun. Or maybe those who want real information about Tumblety could use a nice dose of knowledge about pudding.
There's so many more places where your specific expertise can be utilized. Don't just stick to the Maybrick board. Infect it all, I say.
SJR |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Guess you missed the point of this little demonstration, Stan.
That's OK.
I'm sure there'll be another one in the near future.
Here in Diary World, as you've suggested, we go by Nietzschean time.
Or, if you prefer, Carly time.
--John (humming to himself, "I know nothing stays the same / But if you’re willing to play the game...") |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 142
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Actually John, I got the point. I think you've missed the bigger point.
Stuart is beneath you because you are better than him, because he dared to ask a question about something that you don't care about, don't believe in and can't fathom why anyone would dare bring up. As he is beneath you it is okay to mock him, which simultaneously takes the actual topic to a sidetrack that leaves many wondering what that original question was. It's amusing because he doesn't believe everything you do and actually wants to learn. He desrves your scorn and sarcasm because he wonders about silly things you feel are unimportant. What I did was wrong, trying to set someone straight about an obviously erroneous conclusion based upon some information about the case. What you did was right, mock, scorn, deflect, sit back and laugh.
This is the new status of the case. I just feel that your talents are far too broad to limit them to just the Maybrick thread. I'm sure someone earnestly wants to know some information about Walter Sickert. Perhaps you can tell them about tornadoes?
So ... I did get the point - people see what they want to see. It doesn't mean it exists.
You don't seem to understand the bigger picture - sometimes, even if you are superior, you don't have to act like it. It's almost never constructive, as is plainly obvious because Stuart most likely has forgotten his original query, to go focus on believing we never landed on the moon.
So again - good job. Keep it up. It makes it easier for those who honestly want to forward the case to have individuals like yourself involved, with all due respect.
SJR |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Stan, my good friend,
You write: "Stuart is beneath you because you are better than him."
You really shouldn't say such things. Some people are likely to get insulted.
Backing away and awaiting the delightful explanation and correction that's sure to come,
--John
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Hey Mates,Buddies,Comrades !!
May I ask if anyone present at the time the picture was originally taken ever mentioned marks on the wall in police reports or Home Office files and if not,since they went to extraordinary lengths with the GSG,which, of course,occurred prior to this,then why not?
It may be entirely possible that these marks are there or rather,were there. If they were there and there was no investigation whatsoever,then if they were there...just maybe the police were aware of why they were there and believed they were not noteworthy.
I've looked around in books and magazines,here at Casebook and everywhere else....I can't find a reference.
I tend to think that if the "F.M" was there,the police certainly had to see it and most definitely would have stated so in some sort of file and/or it winding up mentioned in a periodical.
What do you folks think ?
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 893
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Once upon a time there was a man who believed that the Diary was a hoax. He would come to the message boards and post pompously about how he was right, and anyone who didn't agree with him was a total moron. His message often got lost in his manner because, although there were many people who did agree with him, they found his manner of posting to be so obnoxious that most people attacked him and mocked him continuously. Including John Omlor. His name was Melvin. I find the constant role reversals on this board to be dizzying but the irony just keeps on coming. At least I remain constant in an ever changing universe, under an opaque sky.
How,
If there had been an FM, there would have been mention of an FM.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 143
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
John, my good friend,
I can be a jackass sometimes. I'm really not the stick in the mud my posts make me out to be. We just differ in where we focus our mocking and sarcasm. I like to mock religious folks. No offense to anyone.
Apology offered.
I still do believe the case can be solved someday. I get unnecessarily angry when I see issues deflected and subsequently lost. Not that "FM" is all that important of an issue, but I do like to explore every option.
SJR |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 342
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Ally:
Thats what I feel likewise.
The attention that the GSG recieved,which was as you know as far as I am concerned,totally warranted and bona fide never trickled down to this "F M" until the Diary issue was brought up. If it was there in 1888, it didn't make an impression on those policemen and apparently no one else until..well,you know the rest.
He isn't here to defend himself,but in all fairness,Mr. Harris never did and yet should have,disclosed what he says he knew about the cadre of forgers. The "dishonesty" he detected in the Diary "camp" never was fully explained.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Ally,
Nice try. But I think you'll find significant differences in our rhetorical strategies of choice.
And for all his upper case, in your face, unironic nonsense, Melvin did do some fine work, you know. It's still on this site.
So I am anything but insulted by the comparison, despite all the problems I had with Melvin's online style.
Besides which, in the end, for me this discussion here has not been about Stan, or Melvin, or Stuart or anyone else. It's been about logic and actual documented evidence versus desire and speculative imagination. And in an argument like this one, I know which side I'll always come down on, no matter whose name is on the roll there.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
Oh hell,
stuart,
i am sorry to confuse,
no i eman when you tell yourself its there you can make it be there, its a trick of the mind or something.
I bet random people who didnt know what to look for would not find it even if you said do you see any intials on this photo.
that is all
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 638
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Since Jenni brought up the point of people not seeing it unless they are told it's there to see, that raises an interesting additional point. From my experience, unless people are told where it supposedly is they often see it somewhere else completely. Directly above the mattress on the right hand side, more over to the left, farther up the wall in the middle diagonally, way up the wall and huge, itty bitty on the headboard, carved into body parts, and probably more.
So they've all agreed that the one cloud looks so much like an elephant that it couldn't be an accident, but they can't agree on which cloud it is unless they compare notes about it beforehand. Such is the power of suggestion.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Hello Again
I was reading about visions that could be put into people's minds. So, since my kids are old enough, I think, to see the photos of Mary Kelly, I asked them to look close and tell me if they could see any P's or O's in the photo. My son said he could see an "M'" on the wall, and maybe an "E" or "F" before it. My daughter saw the "M", but not the "F". She also mentioned about an "M" on Mary's Right Leg by the large cut. They could not find any P's or O's. Two letters I just made up to see if their minds would cause the letters to appear.
Regards,
Trav |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page