|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | 
|
Now, Glenn, don't make Phil think he's alone--I agree with him too and:
Except that you provide No detail and very little dicussion and much supposed "challenge". there is a name for women like that that
You read my mind,Phil!!
In most ways I think it's the better part of valor to ignore people like Kitty, since obviously the attention is what she's after. Sometimes,though,responding clears our own heads and brings us into focus.
Glenn--
back to the movie part of tonight's program, yes Nosferatu, a truly great film, back when vampires were evil and repellant as opposed to sexy and attractive a la Interview With the Vampire et al. }
Mags
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Phil,
The term "dregs of humanity" is a value statement that tells us more about your value system than ours.To state that these women were dirty is to mean just that.Women who were trying to survive well below what would now be considered "the Poverty line" in a society that was criminal in terms of its exploitation and oppression.Not all of them were found upon examination to be dirty,Polly Nichols was described as having clean limbs and Mary Kelly was described as of neat appearance wearing a clean white apron by Walter Dew.
Returning now to this question of a value system,You seem to be ready to diminish yet further these unfortunate women by referring to them as " Dregs of humanity" while hearing none of it if it concerns say the "truth" of civil servants or the old Etonian Macnaghten"s rather bewildering and some would say questionable memorandum which gives me the impression that you
do not see all human beings as being of equal value and instead that certain classes of people
are "superior"-or have shall we say been "miseducated" about their intrinsic superiority [at schools like Eton for example].
Well OK you think and believe all that stuff if you want.But to me Mary Ann Nichols,Annie Chapman,Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly along with all the other struggling and desperately poor individuals of Victorian England[including Kosminski and his family] ---will always be a thousand times dearer to me than any of your affluent bourgeoisie!
By the way---can we know your identity please?
Best Wishes
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2534
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Yes, Mags,
I believe that "sexy", distinguished vampire started with Bela Lugosi in Tod Browning's Dracula from 1931 (the same Tod Browning who also did London After Midnight and Mark of the Vampire -- according to statements from the actors, he was known to be a real prick, torturing and exhausting everybody on the sets; the only one who apparently is said to have gained his respect was Lon Chaney).
I have Nosferatu with Max Shreck (brrr....) on DVD, a brilliant edition with all previously missing scenes and the original tints.
Too bad it's not the original music as well, because the original score (played by a symphony orchestra at the premiere at the Berlin Zoo) is far superior to any other crap they put in instead.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2535
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
I think Phil just put forward a manner of speaking in order to prove a point, Natalie.
I agree it was rather harsh, though, but I don't think it was directed to the women as such, only to imply that they were filthy and ragged.
Of course, it might have been expressed differently, but... I find it hard to believe that it has anything to do with his values.
But by all means, I better let him speak for himself....
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 28, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 381
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
The British Film Institute released "Nosferatu" on dvd here a couple of years back with music by Jams Bernard (who composed music for a lot of Hammer Horror movies including six Draculas), and very good it is, it fits the film perfectly.
Nothing really to add to this thread except that I don't think Gull was involved in anyway and I think some of us seem to forget that these poor women were human beings feelings and should be treated with some courtesy.
Rob |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Phil, you are suffering from sexual deprivation. So it seems. I've never seen such alot of displaced cantankerousness in my life. Come on sort yourself out. It's scarcely my fault you haven't got answers, and you haven't got a life either. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Jeff, nice to hear from you on the board, with some helpful contributions. Please feel free ( all who contribute genuinely) to speak as you wish on Stowell, I have no firm fixed opinion on him or his motives.
From the point of view of his being a delusionist, or an ambitious caperer, I think it's unlikely, as his stories ( if merely ambitious) would simply be unlikely to get him credit in the circles he aspired to. Indeed they might only serve those in some sort of pact to cover tracks. In which case he was something of a tool. It's the identities he uses that are intriguing in the case. It's as if he's trying to counter alternative information. But whose?
I'm not involving any characters in my theorising without evidence to back up my position, but I agree your point on the business of society connaissances. In a domain where everyone knew everyone, singling out diverse activity that existed among the few, is only for the very insightful. It takes considerable research effort. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2537
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Robert,
Yep, that is my DVD edition. The British Film Institute and James Bernard. That is the best version out there so far, since it has the original tints and the largest collection of new added scenes. I think in America this version is released by Kino.
However, although James Bernard's score is rather OK, it can't in any way be compared to the original score by Hans Erdmann, which is ten times better. Unfortunately that score only exists on a music CD on RCA, conducted by Gillian Anderson (not the actress).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
I haven't heard Hans Erdmann score, so I am not in a position to comment. I think at last count there were about 18 different dvd releases. This link gives a rundown on them http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/verleiche/nos.html The english eureka dvd had a good picture but a poor music score.
All the best
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2540
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Sorry but I couldn't make that link work...
But yes, there are an incredible jungle of DVD releases out there. Just take browse out on Amazon, and you'll be amazed.
Regarding the good British Film Institute version we're talking about here - and which was produced in collaboration with Channel Four -- it seems like it's the same version that Kino has released for the USA market.
I first had it on ordinary VHS tape, but when the DVD arrived I as somewhat disappointed about the picture restoration quality. There is hardly any difference compared to the VHS edition, and very little, if none, digital restoration.
But anyway, considering it's the most complete version out there and Bernard's music is OK, I'd say it's the best there is so far.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 384
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:45 pm: |
|
That link didn't work but it's on this website http://www.dvdbeaver.com/ under dvd comparisons
Rob |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Maria 'Mags',
I havn't come here to seek attention, but rather to challenge people who're absolutely stuck in a rut, like yourself. If you've no ideas or have no idea how to respond intelligently, please ignore the challenge, that's cool with me.
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 60
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Mags, and others affiliated, I have done nothing except challenge americans who are stuck in a rambling rut with their theories. It's quite justified, as although this is a good board, a few cantankerous individuals such as Mags and friends, have been stuck in a rut, going nowhere with their ideas. It's a very common complaint about this board elsewhere on other areas of the internet. Lots of people find the same problem. Just a cleaky few who stick rigidly to their views and fire from the hip in an aggressive manner at any new researchers.
Because you're getting nowhere fast, and are incredibly abusive to other researchers' theories, you have got to take this seriously. I'm not going to blend in with underresearched views and what is sometimes pretty low quality work because some aggressive, unqualified participant holds a gun to my head about it!
From what I gather, my challenges have been quite mild compared to many other bright peoples' whom you've also lost in the past.
To be honest with you all, I see alot of antisocial people with little in their lives, making aggressive statements to anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's hardly worth Steven Ryder and others doing any serious work. This board is dominated by an undereducated, uninformed cleak, and only afew sit pretty while good researchers bow out and the public lose out. It's a shame for interested people. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2543
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Kitty,
"Lots of people find the same problem. Just a cleaky few who stick rigidly to their views"
Well, welcome to the real world. You won't find any Discussion Board where this isn't happening. I have participated in numerous Boards, and my general perception is that there always is a certain click of people are more active than others.
From what I've encountered so far, these Boards on this website is probably the best and the most welcoming I have ever seen. Many Boards are not even moderated and there is absolute chaos.
If you think these Boards are aggressive, then you haven't been on that many.
Your problems, on the other hand, are several:
a) You think you belong to a very exclusive click of people who have -- in contrast to people who have researched this case for years -- discovered extraordinary startling new evidence on the case. Well, I am sorry, Kitty, but you are hardly the first one to claim this.
b) From what I noticed, YOU were the one who started out rather aggressively, calling people who disagreed with you "losers", and idiots. I have encountered many new participants here on these Boards, but very few as aggressive and insultive as you. And your continous ravings, calling people "undereducated" (which I believe is not the case for many of us, if that should be of any importance). I would say your own glass house is one of the more fragile ones. And when this is pointed out to you, you call people "dramatic" and to get a life. I believe that is antisocial to the limit.
c) You are complaining that no one picks up your so called "challenge" but then you refuse to further explain what this rather diffuse "challenge" is or is all about. No one knows or understands what your "challenge" means, so therefore you can't really blame people for not picking up on it.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden, "drama queen"
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi Kitty, Glenn, and all:
Glenn, I don't think that there is another copy of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT around - I saw that still picture version that Turner Network did on Holloween in 2003. They said that the last known copy was destroyed in a fire in the 1960s.
However, one has to be optimistic. In 1924 George Mallory and Andrew Irvine climbed Mt. Everest with the intention of reaching the top of the world. They vanished, and thus entered legend, leaving the question of whether or not they were first or were the luckier Hillary and Norkay the first in 1953. But in 1999 they finally found Mallory's remains. At least we know where he is buried now. That's better than the fact that, although we have known since 1859 when Sir John Franklin died, we still haven't found the cave where he was buried (nor the wreckage of his two ships, Erebus and Terror). There are plenty of things that vanish or seem lost that turn out to be findable again.
I have a habit of keeping tabs in newspapers of scholars who locate such odds and ends. In 1888 Menander, the Greek comic playwrite of the so-called "New Comedy" of the Hellenic period, was only known by some quotes in ancient writers, and in the copies of his plays rewritten by Plautus and Terence. Then in 1905 they started finding that large chunks of his plays were on papyri on mummies or in the arid deserts of Egypt. Now we have several copies of one complete play of his (DYSKOLOS, or THE GROUCH), and ninety percent of a better, later play called THE SAMIAN WOMAN, and enought large fragments of THE ARBITRATION, THE SHIELD, SHE WHO WAS SHORN, and other comedies to see he was a pretty good comic playwrite. The point is time has a habit of revealing things unexpectedly.
So if someone does locate a document (THAT STANDS UP TO CAREFUL STUDY AND INVESTIGATION - I am aware of pitfalls like certain diaries etc) we ought to be prepared to look them over - they may bring us a step closer. But the key word is care. The Maybrick fiasco is an example of the reverse side of this matter.
I have been following the thread on Gull's Conspiracy for the last week. Have you noticed that Kitty's "catalytic" activities have made this one of the most active threads on the Website? I am amazed at how much debate has been going on (minus, of course, the side issues about horror films, or films in general). She should feel quite proud at having had such an effect.
Unfortunately, Kitty, we have to come back to earth again. Although you have stimulated discussion, without trying too pry much into your research, can you discuss some point about the masonic conspiracy theory or Stowell or the Royals that you feel we can assist you on so that you can move your own investigations forward? If you can please ask?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:52 pm: |
|
Jeff, you're a bright guy, and the only one who has seen the point in my vigourous challenges. That's exactly why I threw the cat among the pigeons, to create a catalyst for vigourous discussion. I came here for interesting discussion, not to fight. I am used to serious debating theatres where there are good, strong challenges.
G, I am not an insulter or a drama queen atall! :-) but I have to say I do have a very low opinion of some of the debates and the standard generally on this board.
Jeff and other bright sparks, you might like to contribute to my new thread, you'd be most welcome. It's called 'Evidence for or against a Conspiracy!' |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2549
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:51 am: |
|
Kitty,
Once again, there has to be a basis for a discussion.
I am not putting you down here for your interest in conspiracies, but certainly you must realise that if you want a discussion about this, you yourself have to deliver some points and then others can join with their views.
A discussion can't derive from nowhere, and especially not concerning a subject that is the oldest one in Ripperology and that has been over-debated in numerous books, articles and discussions already. You must give us something new or definite, if this is going to happen. Why is this so hard to understand?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:37 am: |
|
Once again, anyone genuinely interested in reopening a creative debate about the conspiracy business is welcome on that board.
Kitty. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:19 am: |
|
Glenn - I'm not sure the conspiracy theory can be called the "oldest" in Ripper-studies. I'd have thought Dr "Jack" or "The Toff" pre-date that.
But I take your point.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
I'm not involving any characters in my theorising without evidence to back up my position, but I agree your point on the business of society connaissances. In a domain where everyone knew everyone, singling out diverse activity that existed among the few, is only for the very insightful. It takes considerable research effort.
Talk about jargon!!
Does this claptrap make sense to anyone?? |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Hi Kelly,
Be careful; I fear you may have already said too much.
The Masons influence is still all around us and if they even _think_ you really have found _the_ conclusive connection between them and JtR both they and the Royal Family will hunt you down and you will become the sixth victim in the series.
I myself am typing this only after having turned off all the lights and having covered the screen in tin foil in case they are monitoring me.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that such intellects as we have here dismiss the royal connection out of hand with all this evidence?
Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe. Maybe that reason is cold, dark, unadulterated, FEAR.
Again, be carefull Kelly, trust no-one, believe no-one, always keep on the move, wear a false beard and glasses like I do, and start walking with a limp.
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open for marauding masons and the other one open for marauding royal family members.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:40 am: |
|
...I have to say I do have a very low opinion of some of the debates and the standard generally on this board.
Then go away until you have published your research and can startle us all. No one is forcing you to stay are they?
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Sorry to disappoint, but I take the view that to be understood, history needs to be looked at in the terms of its own time, NOT ours. I dislike intensely the politically correct approach that seeks to reinterpret past times with the values of today.
We will never understand Warren, Anderson, or JtR himself if we do not seek to enter into their language, their values, their outlook and their perceptions.
Criticising a Victorian for making decisions that may seem inhumane to us, but reflected the values of his/her time and the priorities that followed from that, will get us nowhere.
Gladstone may have tried to save them, but he would still have seen the Whitechapel women as the lowest of the low and as belonging to a TOTALLY separate caste to he himself. THAT was the context of my reference to "dregs of society" - to emphasise, by using his terminology, how unlikely it is that Edward VII would have dallied with such women.
Now none of this means that I would make the same decisions they would have done, agree with their world view, or take the same line on issues - but as a historian MY views are irrelevant.
In the short time i have used this site, I have seen a number of posts which make hopeless errors and go off at tangents because they have interpreted C19th attitudes, wording, references orsociology in C21st terms.
In investigating the mystery of JtR, the devil is in the detail and that includes the nuances of C19th behaviour.
My apologies if that approach offends, but I regret you won't be seeing me dressing up my analysis of the period or the case in presently acceptable language.
If you want to see me as an unremitting nasty piece of work, feel free. I'm not - as those who may meet me at some future time will find, I hope, I think I am quite civilised and liberal. But that has no relevance to this particular point.
Sincerely and unapologetically,
Phil |
Mark Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:55 pm: |
|
I've already asked this question on the media forum, but it's had no response, and as it kinda fits in with this very active thread, I thought it might get noticed and answered here.
I recently watched the 'Jack the Ripper' episode of The Veil, a series presented by Boris Karloff in the 1950s, which for some reason was never broadcast at the time. [Warning - spoilers!] It's an interesting and well presented piece of tv, which - unusually for the time - makes some effort to get a number of Ripper details correct; Bucks Row, for example. It features a psychic (Walter Durst, played by Niall MacGuinness - more famously the magician in Night/Curse of the Demon) who has visions of the killings, is arrested on suspicion of committing them, and is freed when a further murder takes place whilst he is in custody. He then takes the police to a house he has 'seen' as the home of the Ripper. It turns out to be the residence of a prominent surgeon, who has, it seems, recently died. However, on further investigation it is revealed that he has actually been committed to a mental institution, and is thus beyond the reach of the law.
OK, this is clearly a recycling of the Lees story, which was first peddled in the 1890s. And, as Stan Russo usefully pointed out earlier in this thread, it was made public knowledge again in 1931 when Lees died. However, nothing more seems to have been heard of it for 30 years. My question is, did anything appear in print recently prior to 1958 which might have prompted the production of this tv drama?
There's also some confusion over the production history of this episode, which seems to not have been made for the series, but to have been bought in from a UK production company. Does anyone have any relevant information here? Was it broadcast in the UK before it was obtained for The Veil?
By the way, I recommend it to anyone who has a liking for old tv anthology series. It's an atmospheric little piece, and MacGuinness is excellent. It's available at a bargain price on Region 1 DVD. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 6:13 pm: |
|
To Phil Hill,
I take your point -very much so in fact-and to a great extent agree with you actually.All those Victorian characters were a product of their time,their upbringing,education and the social position they found themselves in.
However the liberal intelligencia of that day were actually horrified by the likes of Warren-that included people such as George Bernard Shaw and William Morris ,Annie Bessant etc who visited and apparently lectured at the Berner Street Working Men"s Education Club-Morris almost every week.
So in fact Victorian Society even at its most educated level and which also included the likes of Oscar Wilde,Frederick Engels Karl Marx ,Charles Dickens and others was not homogenous in terms of its approach to the vast economic inequalities that existed in those times.It cannot be compared for example to Shakespeares England which divided as it was by religious mistrust and persecution
did not have a well thought through analysis of social inequalities[unless you include Thomas More"s Utopia as a precursor-which could be argued about].And therefore I would totally accept your arguement with regard to say the age of Shakespeare.
But I understand the point you make even though I dont go all the way to accepting its validity for those particular times of Victorian Social unrest.
Also for myself and other women I know of it was partly due to the attitude that the prostitutes were somehow "asking for it" that enabled JtR to evade capture.The murder of a prostitute then was seen as of less consequence then than the murder of a woman from the upper or middle classes[and recocnised as so at the time] and that attitude has persisted [right up to the present day actually]and during the Yorkshire Ripper Terror-which was fairly recent.Indeed all types of women began to organise themselves in Yorkhire and demonstrated over the handling and repeated failures of the police to capture him.I think the slogan from university students,housewives and the prostitutes themselves was along the lines of We are all of equal value.......
I am though in sypathy with your main point of judging people out of the context of their times.
Best Wishes for 2005 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 319
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
MX - In my relatively short time on Casebook, Kitty's are the only posts that I can recall coming close to your's for pointlessness.
Let's examine what you say shall we?
I have something I wish to share with you.
That's nice - fire away then.
I can see you are a very minority with your support of Gull as the ripper.
It's likely to be a minority grouping since theree is no evidence and the motives assigned to Gull are stupid and improbable.
I am also well aware that almost every police official intrinsically rejects this theory as nothing can be prooved.
Are you talking about police officials in 1888 or today? I didn't think Gull was a suspect in 1888. if he was please cite your sources. If you refer to today please tell us which police "officials".
By the way, what precisely IS a police "official"? I have never come across the term before - do you mean a serving police officer? Or an administrator?
...my gut instinct always told me that the royal theory was responsible.
Well that's not susceptible to argument then. Not impressive though and worth precisely nothing.
Gull and other cronies carried the thing out.
Who were the cronies? And how did they do it? You wrote the words now please explain them!!
While all the officials say "it cant be prooved" - it cant be disprooved.
True philosophically perhaps - you cannot easily prove a negative. But UNLIKELY in the extreme. The probablility of the man being culpable given his age and physical health demonstrate that. Moreover there is not one shred of evidence to support your intuition.
The fact is Prince Albert was out of his territory in the East End and got himself into alot of trouble.
Please show that PAV was ever in the east End, then tell us what trouble it was. Evidence would help.
Like an errant child, his mess had to be cleaned up for him.
What mess?
Anyway, I wont go into all the evidence, thats not why I am posting.
Sensible as there isn't any evidence. You are clearly brighter than you make out.
Do you believe in the 'Supernatueral'.
Oh oh!!
I was scanning over the high resolution photos of Mary Kelly and saw what I believed to be ghostly apperitions.Since the picture was taken in 1888, I assume any trickery was utterly impossible.
Wrong - see the Conan Doyle "fairy pics and numerous others of ectoplasmic emanations - all trickery. It was in fact the great age of photographic trickery of that sort.
Going over my find with a magnified glass...
Is that different to a magiFYING glass. A little glass perhaps made larger by trick photography?
...I believe I see a ghostly image of Sir William Gull. At what age pray?
When highlighted , it is obvious.There have been hundreds of apparent ghost images in hundreds of old places in Britains history.
Name a few - go on.
All in all totally worthless MX - people like you get the rest of us a bad name. |
MX
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Phil and Dan
I have consulted my flatmate, who also is a regular poster on this site. He likes the Gull theory aswell, but has told me to withdraw my statement about the ghost photo - which I do.
On closer inspection, I believe the image is that of the photographer as I think I can vaguely make out his hands on the camera. I think maybe the light in the room has refracted somehow to create this image.
However, I still believe that there is lots of evidence from peoples statements. As far as it being unsubstatiated , that is the same for every suspect in this case.There is nothing concrete on anybody here.We are all just stating our oppinion.I see it is a pasttime of lots of people to say about everyone involved in the case that " Oh ,how can you believe what this person sais , its nonsense". When in most instances, you dont actually know that.
Patricia Cornwell is the perfect example. She made an error calling her book 'case closed' , that is definate. But , after reading it , a suspect which didnt exist, was very interesting. I never would have suspected Sickert. Now, he must be considered, and looked at.He certainly cant be ruled out of it.Anyway, I'll stick by my intuition and look for a decisive piece of evidence.
MX |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 604
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Hi Mx,
Hrm... Can't see where you'd make out an image of the photographer holding the camera in the MJK photo, or how such a thing could even be possible.
Regarding Sickert, he was listed as a suspect long before Cornwell wrote about him, so it's not accurate to say he hadn't existed prior to that. And I'd also argue that he probably can be ruled out, based upon the little not even being in the country at the time of the murders thing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 323
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
MX - if Cornwell's ridiculous book achieved one thing, I think it was to demonstrate that Sickert was NOT Jack, even if he he may have written letters and (then and) later been obsessed with the case.
Exactly how does yor reading of her book persuade you otherwise.
However, I still believe that there is lots of evidence from peoples statements.
Which - we can hardly evaluate your view, or discuss them in a meaningful way on the basis of unsubstantiated generalisations like that. Can we?
As far as it being unsubstatiated , that is the same for every suspect in this case.
Not so, unless you are very loose with words. Some suspects must be regarded as more serious than others (for instance because of thinking in 1888 - Druitt, Tumblety, Kosminski - or they arise from the context - Barnett).
Do you really allege that these are in the same category as Barnardo, Carroll etc?
Of course, we don't have the evidence to PROVE the case against any individual, but that's a different thing IMHO.
As for Gull and the conspiracy - you MUST be more precise about which version you mean. Some are clearly based on sand - Knight for instance, with "doctored" evidence; Fairclough (unbelievable diaries); most of Joe Gorman's testimony. So what convinces you to give this "theory" weight?
There is nothing concrete on anybody here.We are all just stating our oppinion.
Again, I disagree strongly. While they might be true of me, your remarks certainly dismiss our researchers, AP, Chris and others too lightly. They make original and substantial contributions to the debate.
Secondly, as I have already said, some suspects carry more "weight" than others because of the way they emerged.
I see it is a pasttime of lots of people to say about everyone involved in the case that " Oh ,how can you believe what this person sais , its nonsense".
Academic training, the instincts of a historian, logic, all suggest that some arguments and some theories are more soundly based on evidence, more strongly reasoned and more likely than others. What's your point?
When in most instances, you dont actually know that.
But the aim of the discussion is to INCREASE our understanding.
Read the Oakley Crescent thread as an example.
Phil |
MX
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I am putting together my report on the man image I see.I will isolate it and juxtapose some informational lines to help. You have got me even more interested now by saying an image of the photographer would not be possible. Then who the in Gods name is it?I only said it was Gull as it was similar to an image of him I saw in his Biographical account. I know if I mention the word 'ghost', than I wont be taken seriously.
I realise too that people will say I am suffering from cloud syndrome, and see faces on Mars ect. I have tried to debunk it myself, but in the process I now think I see both of his hands and fingers holding something - thats why I suggested the photographer.
Thank - the MX man |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:48 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"Regarding Sickert, he was listed as a suspect long before Cornwell wrote about him, so it's not accurate to say he hadn't existed prior to that."
>>Sickert didn't exist as a suspect the way Cornwell sees him as a suspect until Cornwell wrote about him. Can't you see the difference, Mr. Norder? This is matter of discrimination. At least give Cornwell a chance. Let the weakness of her position overall be her downfall, as logically analyzed.
Neither did Levy exist as a possible informant the way the A?R theory thinks of him until the A?R theory was published, despite that he did exist as a posible informant in other ways beforehand, particularly in Begg's work.
Dynamics, discrimination, critical thinking. These are what need be added to Ripperology to make it work.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"OK, actually, the Victorian period was famous for hoaxed ghost photography, so you can't claim it couldn't have been faked back then. But then this is obviously just your imagination at work here. Gull couldn't be a ghost in the photo as he was not dead yet. Nobody else sees Gull there. What you are experiencing is known as pareidolia and it's just the way human brains are set up: to try to see things in ambiguous data."
>>This goes far beyond pareidolia, Mr. Norder. I wouldn't want to blanket label good intuitive people working in the sciences and other disciplines, who posit thoughtful explanations of phenomena, with this term. Seeing ghosts invites a multitude of irrational elements. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 620
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
David, David, David...
Your ability to warp what people actually said never ceases to amaze me.
You wrote:
"Sickert didn't exist as a suspect the way Cornwell sees him as a suspect until Cornwell wrote about him."
That's one (particularly convoluted) way to view it, but that's not what was being discussed. MX said Sickert hadn't existed as a suspect before Cornwell. This is false.
"Let the weakness of her position overall be her downfall, as logically analyzed."
And that's exactly why her theory isn't taken seriously. For you to imply otherwise is to ignore the conversations about her book on this site and other places that have happened over the past several years.
You also said:
"I wouldn't want to blanket label good intuitive people working in the sciences and other disciplines, who posit thoughtful explanations of phenomena, with this term."
Nobody did. I said one person thinking they see Gull in the photo is an example of pareidolia, not anything about people working in the sciences and other disciplines. Of course pareidolia can't be applied to all claims of ghosts and supernatural phenomena, nobody said it could be.
Do you even read the posts you repy to, or do you just skim them hoping to find something you think you can insult?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
MX,
I actually do believe in the supernatural and believe that things like that should not be discounted. I would love to be able to look at your pics and make a statement about this on my own. Do not withdraw your statement about what you believe. Stand by what you say and please continue posting. I am pleased at the response that I have recieved and eager to hear back from you.
As far as Phil's compelling analysis of your post goes, it's my theory that Phill (poor thing) is confused about what he believes and is thus taking out his agressions on you. Perhaps someone should take apart what he says and analyse it.
Thank you for your replies and keep them coming,
Azriel |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
EDITED VERSION
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “David, David, David...Your ability to warp what people actually said never ceases to amaze me. You wrote: "Sickert didn't exist as a suspect the way Cornwell sees him as a suspect until Cornwell wrote about him." That's one (particularly convoluted) way to view it, but that's not what was being discussed. MX said Sickert hadn't existed as a suspect before Cornwell. This is false.”
>>In the above case, you try to pull MX’s comment entirely out of context so that it can be declared false in an absolutist sense. Well, in that sense it can, but that doesn’t mean the underlying point is an absolute one. Rather, if you are going to find a flaw in how MX speaks of Sickert’s candidacy as Cornwell sees it, then you have to acknowledge the context in which Cornwell sees it. It is not a simple game of merely who said what.
2. {Mr. Radka:} "Let the weakness of her position overall be her downfall, as logically analyzed." {Mr. Norder:} And that's exactly why her theory isn't taken seriously. For you to imply otherwise is to ignore the conversations about her book on this site and other places that have happened over the past several years.”
>>I do not imply otherwise. I have posted here repeatedly, and have been extensively quoted in the pages of the journal “Ripper Notes” you now edit, Mr. Norder, pointing out the major weaknesses in Ms Cornwell’s work.
3. {Mr. Norder:} “You also said: {Mr. Radka:} "I wouldn't want to blanket label good intuitive people working in the sciences and other disciplines, who posit thoughtful explanations of phenomena, with this term." {Mr. Norder:} Nobody did. I said one person thinking they see Gull in the photo is an example of pareidolia, not anything about people working in the sciences and other disciplines. Of course pareidolia can't be applied to all claims of ghosts and supernatural phenomena, nobody said it could be.”
>>You wrote: “What you are experiencing is known as pareidolia and it's just the way human brains are set up: to try to see things in ambiguous data.” Attempting to see things in ambiguous data can be a fine thing, and, in fact, is responsible for much of the advance of western culture. It can be a part of logically estimable, critical work. The discovery of penicillin was at bottom in part a case of pareidolia. But to explain phenomena in the sense of its having a supernatural origin is always false, and not a good thing. Thus you miscast the attempt to explain the picture as pareidolia. Supernatural is contrary to logic and science, pareidolia isn’t necessarily. The account of the picture is not flawed because it is pareidoliac, but because it is supernatural. Further, you do not connect your thoughts to one another when you claim “…pareidolia can't be applied to all claims of ghosts and supernatural phenomena, nobody said it could be.” I would think surely it could. Please give us an example of a supernatural account of phenomena that is not pareidoliac in nature.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 641
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
David,
Your arguments would work better if you looked up the words you don't understand instead of trying to bluff your way through.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 384
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Dan, I think that's the best one-line put down I have ever seen on a message board. Well done!!
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 645
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Thanks. Yeah, there's not much else one really has to say in reply to someone who claims, "The discovery of penicillin was at bottom in part a case of pareidolia." I could have pulled out the standard Inigo Montoya line from The Princess Bride, but I think it would have been lost on David. I may start calling him Vizzini though.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 387
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
I'm pleased to find another fan of "The Princess Bride". Inigo is one of my all time fictional heroes.
Phil |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Phil and Dan,
Is there any way that we could possibly get back to the conspiracy instead of "The Princess Bride"? I mean this is a conspiracy thread.
Azriel |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
Hello if anyone is listening.
I have been researching alot on Sir William Gull lately. From where I am standing, it seems he shot to prominance as a suspect when the Royal theory emerged.But of late ,he has been discredited , in my oppinion erroneously, as a suspect.I still believe him to be a top suspect and I would like to rebut some of the points that have emerged to discredit his status as a suspect for the WM.
1. The case around him is based on mainly hearsay.
* Thats fine.Most of the big suspects in this mystery come from hearsay. The thing is with Gull, from what I have read, there seems to be a hell of alot of hearsay associated with him.With other suspects, say Druitt for example, the only thing putting him in the frame is two sources - A family member and M. Macnaughten.There is nil evidence against him.So discrediting Gull on those grounds is hypocritical. You must then wipe out Druitt, Barnett, Kosminski, Ostrogg, Chapman, the Lodger,RDS,Sickert ect.
2. His age was factor.
* CRUD. Firstly, the thoery relating to him states he did not pick up the pros, but did the killing.So witness reports are not a factor. Secondly, I have worked as a fitness instructor in a gym, and still do a bit part time. We regularly get men, and woman in thier 70s and 80s who go for hours.Not just in the cardio section, but in the weights as well.I saw an article the other day of a 90 year old who ran an ultra marathon - 100kms.Even though he suffered a stroke, it did not stop him from working. He could easily have perfomed the mutilations.
3. He was not mentally stable after his stroke.
* Are we saying the ripper was sane? If his sanity was on the way out, and he was asked to help hunt this traitor Mary Kelly, he would have been more inclined to do so.
So I will reinstate him in my frame.If anyone out there wishes to start taking him seriously again I will be glad to disscuss him.
Thanks, Stuart. " I am that meaning, I am that energy"
|
Ian Biles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Inetersting stuff Stuart.
I read one post from the archive stating that Gull must be the worst suspect ever. I don't know how anyone can say that about any suspect since no one has been PROVEN to be the ripper thus ruling only out only the impossible.
The Gull theory comes down to whether or not you believe the conspiracy theory. I realise it's much more entertaining to do so but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If there was a conspiracy it means one of two things - royal involvement or political. Throughout the centuries we've learned of all sorts of underhand and controversial cases particularly involving the royals but what about the stuff we don't know? The stuff that hasn't been leaked or discovered. It would be naive to believe there aren't still a number of skeletons in royal and political cupboards.
There are at least three incidents from the very first attributed ripper murder that point to a possible cover up.
1) Why was Abberline put on the case in the first place. At the time seemingly simply a case of a killed shilling whore? It wasn't as if this type of crime was uncommon.
2) Why did Dr Llewellyn not see the full extent of Nicholls' injuries to begin with? Incompetance? Maybe but it's worth asking the question. Seems incredible that he'd fail to spot the mutilations.
3) Why was the inquest the next day?
These are just three questions and as you go through the case there are literally tens more "incidents / circumstances" that just don't add up. I'm sure most of you will be aware of them, it's my bed time so I'm not going to list them all. There may be valid answers to some of the questions but by no means all.
Of course this doesn't mean for certain that there was a cover up but in my humble opinion you certainly can't dismiss the idea on the grounds that it's too sensational or unrealistic. If there was a cover up, there is still no guarantee that Gull was involved but again he can't be dismissed on the unproven and unlikely presumption that he wasn't in a fit enough state to commit the crimes. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
