325 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

I have a better theory, it was Albert Einstein.

[wondergirl100]

Rlyeh, on 28 May 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

I have a better theory, it was Albert Einstein.

Hahahaha good one!

[Dale Larner]

Rlyeh, on 25 May 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

If Van Gogh was painting the crime scene, why would he include the breasts? According to you, he got the details right down to the broken thigh. Yet he adds breasts.

Your theory isn't very convincing, you've basically accused Van Gogh of murder based on pareidolia.

Good observation, Rlyeh. There is a reason for that, which I cover in the book. The only answer I can give at this time is that it gave him pleasure to include the breasts in the painting, even though he had cut them off in real life.

As for the theory not being convincing, I admit it is a hard concept to embrace. Van Gogh’s image as a meek and misunderstood painter is so entrenched in the public’s mind, it’s difficult for many to conceive that he could ever have been a serial killer. But the truth must be known and eventually accepted, and in time it will be. Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

FLOMBIE, on 25 May 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

This really leaves me stunned. And this painting would be the only connection? I see nothing. Absolutely nothing but a fine painting.

It is stunning. The Irises painting is just the beginning. Sorry you can’t see the hidden images. Have you watched the videos? I describe the images in detail there. Perhaps that will help bring what’s hidden to life for you.

The Reveal Videos
http://vincentaliasjack.com/wordpress/?page_id=137

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[rashore]

I don't have the notion that Van Gogh was too meek to be a serial killer.. Heck a lot of serial killers could be called meek by neighborly description.
My problem is that Van Gogh was too well documented 600 miles away from London when the commonly accepted Rippers victims were found. Traveling took days each way- even if he just jaunted off for an evening kill, he would likely have to be gone at least a week to do so. Heck, he was supposed to be furnishing his home in September, yet three of the victims were in September.. And it isn't noted he traveled to London to buy furnishings. Gaugin is supposed to have visted during late October and through November.. What did Van Gogh do, step out to kill Ms. Kelly while he had a visitor?

In defence of your theory Mr Larner... He may be well documented as rather far away, but I wouldn't doubt for a second that he had heard about the killings. He had people visiting him and did do some visiting. In a twisted way, yep, I wouldn't doubt if perhaps he did dwell and do some poison pen and hidden graphics in the swirls of his paintings.
I would even go so far as to suggest that perhaps Van Gogh knew who the Ripper was. Like really knew as in someone he knew and learned the person did it. MMM, perhaps Theo was the Ripper.. Surely Van Gogh wouldn't betray his own brother? And that extra messed with him and he tried in his own way to express what he knew without ever really betraying the Ripper.
Nope, got jack diddly to back that notion up, it's just a suggestion.

But unless some sort of reasonable timeline can be given to account for absenses for at least the dates of the commonly accepted victims... I must say I remain firm that Vincent Van Gogh could not possibly be the Ripper.

Edited by rashore, 29 May 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Dale Larner, on 29 May 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Good observation, Rlyeh. There is a reason for that, which I cover in the book. The only answer I can give at this time is that it gave him pleasure to include the breasts in the painting, even though he had cut them off in real life.

As for the theory not being convincing, I admit it is a hard concept to embrace. Van Gogh’s image as a meek and misunderstood painter is so entrenched in the public’s mind, it’s difficult for many to conceive that he could ever have been a serial killer. But the truth must be known and eventually accepted, and in time it will be. Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

Um, no. I just explained why it wasn't convincing, your accusations are built on pareidolia.

I gather you have better evidence than what you see in the paintings?
If this is the best you have, I imagine you'd have no problem if a judge convicted you of unsolved murders because he or someone believed they discovered them in your works?

Edited by Rlyeh, 29 May 2012 - 11:08 PM.

[JonathanVonErich]

Hey Larner

Is it too much to ask for REAL EVIDENCES !???

The fact you don't want to share anything but what you "see" in the painting is highly suspicious, if you were a serious researcher you would have shared a timeline showing Van Gogh was in London when the murders were committed, results from the handwriting analysis, something real and solid.

If you can't prove that Van Gogh was in London at the time the murders were committed, if the handwriting doesn't match then you have nothing, absolutely nothing.

If your book is published ( that's a big if ) and you have nothing more than what is allegedly hidden in the painting, then I think you should be sued for accusing an innocent man of being a serial killer. Accusing somebody of being a murderer without having evidences is a crime, and if I was a relative of Van Gogh I would sue you and your publisher for everything you have.

If indeed you have no evidences against Van Gogh other than what you have allegedly found in the painting then you are an awful researcher and your book should not be published. Accusing somebody of being a murderer without any kind of evidences is a crime, just remember that.

[Dale Larner]

rashore, on 29 May 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I don't have the notion that Van Gogh was too meek to be a serial killer.. Heck a lot of serial killers could be called meek by neighborly description.
My problem is that Van Gogh was too well documented 600 miles away from London when the commonly accepted Rippers victims were found. Traveling took days each way- even if he just jaunted off for an evening kill, he would likely have to be gone at least a week to do so. Heck, he was supposed to be furnishing his home in September, yet three of the victims were in September.. And it isn't noted he traveled to London to buy furnishings. Gaugin is supposed to have visted during late October and through November.. What did Van Gogh do, step out to kill Ms. Kelly while he had a visitor?

In defence of your theory Mr Larner... He may be well documented as rather far away, but I wouldn't doubt for a second that he had heard about the killings. He had people visiting him and did do some visiting. In a twisted way, yep, I wouldn't doubt if perhaps he did dwell and do some poison pen and hidden graphics in the swirls of his paintings.
I would even go so far as to suggest that perhaps Van Gogh knew who the Ripper was. Like really knew as in someone he knew and learned the person did it. MMM, perhaps Theo was the Ripper.. Surely Van Gogh wouldn't betray his own brother? And that extra messed with him and he tried in his own way to express what he knew without ever really betraying the Ripper.
Nope, got jack diddly to back that notion up, it's just a suggestion.

But unless some sort of reasonable timeline can be given to account for absenses for at least the dates of the commonly accepted victims... I must say I remain firm that Vincent Van Gogh could not possibly be the Ripper.

According to Bradshaw’s Continental Railway Guide of March 1888 (a prized possession of mine) a traveler could make it from London down to the South of France to Arles in as little as 24 hrs., by taking the express mail trains. This was a well-oiled system, operating between major cities, timed well with the steamers crossing the channel.

So, for instance, if Vincent left on a Thursday at 3:00 p.m., he could be in London on Friday at approx. 3:00 p.m., commit a murder that night, leave London early Saturday morning, and arrive back in Arles Sunday morning, hardly missed by anyone, and definitely not suspected of having traveled to London for a murder.

As for timelines and such, that’s handled in detail throughout the book. Vincent’s life matches up very well to Jack’s, and for good reason—they were one in the same.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

Rlyeh, on 29 May 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Um, no. I just explained why it wasn't convincing, your accusations are built on pareidolia.

I gather you have better evidence than what you see in the paintings?
If this is the best you have, I imagine you'd have no problem if a judge convicted you of unsolved murders because he or someone believed they discovered them in your works?

The hidden images are just the beginning. Uncovering them unlocked the hidden life of Van Gogh. The significance of the hidden images is greater than you know, and they present an awesome piece of evidence.

However, because you think I’m suffering from delusions and seeing things that are not there, I must let you know that the book is jam packed with evidence of Van Gogh’s guilt and matches between his life and Jack the Ripper’s. The hidden images are just one piece of the larger puzzle.

I can only hope that some day I’ll be cured of my condition. Thanks for pointing it out again. Perhaps I should seek professional help.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Rlyeh]

Dale Larner, on 30 May 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

The hidden images are just the beginning. Uncovering them unlocked the hidden life of Van Gogh. The significance of the hidden images is greater than you know, and they present an awesome piece of evidence.

So you're finally admitting your entire case hinges on pareidolia?

Quote

However, because you think I’m suffering from delusions and seeing things that are not there, I must let you know that the book is jam packed with evidence of Van Gogh’s guilt and matches between his life and Jack the Ripper’s. The hidden images are just one piece of the larger puzzle.

I can only hope that some day I’ll be cured of my condition. Thanks for pointing it out again. Perhaps I should seek professional help.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

Good to hear, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Edited by Rlyeh, 30 May 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[csspwns]

all i see is a pretty flower:) stop hating on van gogh

[xCrimsonx]

Van Gogh was fighting his own demons most of his life, he didn't have the capacity, time or persona to pull it off. He painted beauty.,. Like a poet his fears, woes and experience shone through in his paintings a perfect  balance of reality, beautiful but potentially ugly. We see what our minds manifest, and not always what the artist visioned as he was creating it.

[Belial]

I 'ear' what your trying to convey mate.

[Englishgent]

1629 to be precise (at time of printing). That's 1629 people who think you have a bad case of pareidolia and an over active imagination.

edit....oooops, added to wrong thread.   Oh well, just forget I was ever here lol

Edited by Englishgent, 31 May 2012 - 02:41 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Belial, on 31 May 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

I 'ear' what your trying to convey mate.

if the evidence is there, then it's an ear-ie coincidence.