325 replies to this topic

[BishopRyan]

JonathanVonErich, on 20 July 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Dale

Nothing personal. If I was disrespectful then accept my apologies.

Just ask anybody here: I'm a very nice guy. Integrity ?? I'm full of it. I lost my temper because I've asked you at least 4 time to provide solid evidence that Van Gogh was the Ripper, yet you still haven't provided any evidence yet. You are aware that you need a lot more than handwriting to accuse somebody of being a serial killer, right ?? The handwriting is interesting, I agree, but there's not enough to say that Van Gogh was indeed the Ripper.

You need to offer solid evidence, like a timeline showing that Van Gogh was indeed in the area at the time of the murders. Something solid. Prove that Van Gogh could have been on any of the crime scenes.

I am a very good student ( at Université Laval by the way, one of the finest University in Canada ) and as a student it's simply normal for me to ask you to provide solid evidence to back up your theory.

Again no disrespect, I have my suspicions about you and your theory, that's all.

Jonathan

You have nothing to apologize for here. If anything he owes you an apology for calling you pompous. You were direct and right to the point. He chose to deflect(again) from our demands by making the debate about anything other than his unsubstantiated lies.

Hilarious how a guy can fabricate a bunch of loose lies then redirect the questioning to attack your educational background to avoid the actual topic. We can now add hypocrite to the Dale Larner index.

[mrmorgan]

imagine if a man went to prison for having similar handwriting to someone ha. there be uproar.

[mrmorgan]

Dale must of been put back in his box!!

[JonathanVonErich]

Or maybe he's searching for REAL evidence that Van Gogh could have been the Ripper, something he clearly doesn't have.

[mrmorgan]

JonathanVonErich, on 30 July 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Or maybe he's searching for REAL evidence that Van Gogh could have been the Ripper, something he clearly doesn't have.

ya he has no idea what he is on about. i think i should accuse him of being some serial killer. id have as much evidence as he has!

[232]

I think he has brought up some intriguing points. Maybe not too much for evidence thus far, but you can't really expect a guy to put the entire book out there for free.
At the very least it is an interesting theory. I see posts on this forum all the time making far more ludicrous statements with far less to back them up.
Last I checked, alot of the sections on this forum are dedicated to subjects most people would consider "crazy". So I'm not quite sure why there is so much hostility.

[Abramelin]

Hello Dale,

I think I know what you are doing, because I did it myself...on this board.

In the Cryptozoology forum I posted this post: "Real life dinosaur footage, caught on tape !"

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=231362

The title was a copy of the title of a YouTube video.

The video is an obvious hoax and I showed why;

So why should I not post that as a reply on YouTube itself? Well, that's because since Google/Gmail took over YouTube, I can't access my YT account anymore, and they can go to hell for my sake.

But my point is this: I know for a 100 % people will start googling after they watched that video, and guess where they most certainly will end up? Here, at UM (one of the largest boards on the internet), and the thread I started.

Now you come along, and start promoting your book and discovery. People respond, discuss, bicker, and so on. The thread grows and grows..... and anyone unaware of this site or this thread who starts googling your name... or just Van Gogh's name... or just The Ripper's will end up HERE.

People who would never have made the connection between The Ripper and Van Gogh will now come here, and read about your book.

Very clever way of making your book known, Dale.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 August 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[Slate]

232, on 08 August 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

I think he has brought up some intriguing points.

What intriguing points? He's brought up some of moot points, but nothing intriguing so far.

[E. L. Wisty]

You know what? I think you're being very unfair to Dale. Do I think Vincent was the Ripper? No, of course not - that's just silly! But I'm quite prepared to accept that Dale does, simply because if he was deliberately lying, his theory would be one heck of a lot better than this. He obviously has pretty good literacy skills - better than some of his detractors - and he seems to be fairly intelligent. And I assume that he really has written a probably unpublishable 800-page book, because he wouldn't be going on about it this much if it didn't exist. So in a way, you have to admire the man.

I also doubt very much if Van Gogh's descendants could possibly sue. Given the amount of nonsense that has been written in this context about numerous people with living descendants, including members of the British royal family, I assume that it's legally impossible to sue somebody for claiming that some long-dead guy was a serial killer on the shakiest of evidence. I mean. somebody wrote a whole book (that was less obviously a symptom of mental illness than this one and therefore actually found a publisher) proving that Jack the Ripper was Lewis Carroll! He even admits it in his published writings - you just have to rearrange the letters. Rather a lot. But hey, at least he was in the right country!

However, I don't think we need feel too guilty about continuing to be profoundly skeptical of this theory. Dale Larner may not be lying to us, but he's certainly lying to himself. As he explains on his website, he spent several years trying to teach himself to paint like Vincent by copying his paintings (sometimes with added pink cartoon *****-cats). Then, just it was starting to dawn on him that he would mysteriously never be anywhere near as good as one of the best painters who ever lived, he suddenly had an amazing epiphany that proved he was better than VVG after all, just in a different way.

It's no good asking him for proof - he hasn't got any, apart from subjective impressions that in his own unshakeable opinion make him smarter and more observant than anybody else in over a century, That, and the fact that Vincent, like virtually every other person in Europe, could theoretically have been in London at the correct times. What it comes down to is a pretty clear case of some sort of mental illness on the part of the author. Which is a shame, but it does mean that nobody will ever publish an 800-page book with numerous colour plates - how much is a copy going to cost if they do? - with no argument at all beyond "it's true because I say so on account of I don't like Vincent any more so yar boo sucks!" Unless he's crazy enough to self-publish. In which case, good luck, Dale, but I hope you aren't too fond of your house or your car or not being poor.

Oh, and Dale, you do know, don't you, that if it had been Picasso you'd tried unsuccessfully to emulate, you'd currently be trying to flog an 800-page book "proving" that because Guernica includes a lot of violent imagery, including bullet-wounds, Pablo P wasn't really a very nice guy, and he could theoretically have taken a plane to America at any time, he was obviously Zodiac?

[Dr. D]

Dale Larner, on 25 May 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Good question. Vincent could come and go as he pleased in Arles. He had no job and was accountable to no one. His younger brother, Theo, who lived in Paris, paid all of his bills.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

And there is nothing in the records of Vincent or Theo that enough money was given for trips to London.

[Dr. D]

Dale Larner, on 19 July 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Van Gogh had previously lived in London, and I believe he committed his first murder while living there. He then returned to London fifteen years later to kill more prostitutes as a mature serial killer using the name Jack the Ripper. He was highly motivated to make the trips from Arles to London.

He didn’t murder in Arles because it was too small a town and would attract attention to him. Arles was his safe place.

Not rubbish and not slanderous.

Did you see the handwriting comparison? It looks like evidence to me.

http://vincentaliasjack.com/wordpress/vangogh_ripper_matches/

Dale Larner

I live where people find the face of Jesus in a tortilla.  Your work would be far more marketable if you would drop the Vincent thing (you never attack an endeared person, it just doesn't sell books or attract publishers) so why not prove that the ripper was a woman?  How about Eleanor Marx, daughter of Karl?  Lived in London, committed suicide at a young age . . . . all the ingredients and they you have something an editor would think again about.

[Dale Larner]

Dr. D, on 24 August 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

And there is nothing in the records of Vincent or Theo that enough money was given for trips to London.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Vincent routinely thanked Theo in his letters for the money he received, noting the amounts. Vincent's own words reveal that he received enough money for each of the trips, and the railway guide of the time provides the fares. Vincent had the means, and he made the trips, and he committed the Jack the Ripper murders.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

For those who wish to join in the fun and help break the story, please send an email TODAY to *Snip* Thanks.

*Snip*

Edited by Still Waters, 29 August 2012 - 08:51 PM.
Rule1e. Participation requests: Do not ask members to take part in offsite surveys, petitions, contests, campaigns or fundraisers.

[starchild1976]

[list] [*]Well, I've never heard anything of this nature about Van Goghe before.. Very unusual and interesting. At the very least I think this theory could sell books.

[Danutribe7]

This is just...silly. But, hey, gotta make your money from something. Hope you're able to.