325 replies to this topic

[MstrMsn]

Dale Larner, on 06 June 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Ok, here’s some info matching Van Gogh to his murders. For these murders, like a lot of serial killers, Vincent had his mother in mind. Four London murder victims were discovered just before and on his mother's Sept. 10 birthday:

Sept. 5, 1873
At 20, his first murder, just four months after transferring to London.

Sept. 8, 1888
15 yrs. later, his third Jack the Ripper murder.

Sept. 8, 1888
Another murder on the same night, but as himself, as in, not acting as Jack the Ripper.

Sept. 10, 1889
His final murder as both himself and as Jack the Ripper, depositing a woman's headless and legless body in Whitechapel on his mother's 70th birthday!

Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper!

Thanks,
Dale Larner

Time to chime in...

First, what you have just provided here means absolutely nothing. It is not evidence of anything. You don't show factual proof that Van Gogh commited murders. You provide no proof that the so called Van Gogh murders (if they even happened) were commited in London.

Second, when you go to a forum and make any kind of statement, you need to back it up. You have failed to do so, not just here, but other forums I have seen this drivel on.

Third, you don't come to a discussion forum to sell a book. If the site has an advertising section, you can do it there, but not in a True Crime forum, and especially not without having an actual discussion and not telling people to buy the book. BIG NO NO.

Lastly, as a consumer (and a former salesman), you sir, are not selling your product. If anything, you are doing everything to have it placed on a "do not waste your money" list.

Hell, the Vatican was a great sales rep for Dan Brown's "the Da Vinci Code", and they didn't mean to be.

So please, either provide actual evidence as Jonathan and others have requested, or don't and continue the way you are - though I should caution you, someone might ask a mod or admin to lock and or delete this thread, as it is nothing more than a failed sales attempt.

[Mikko-kun]

Dale, you dont need to seek professional help about seeing things in the paintings, no. I doubt people who suggest you this know entirely what they're talking about. I wouldn't know if you've stretched some connections in your research or not, I likely wouldn't be able to say even if I red the book and researched a bit. But I can say that seeing hidden messages in pictures, paintings or in any sceneries or what your eye perceives is not abnormal. It's a very libran skill in terms of astrology, it's no secret. I'm good at telling certain things about people, and I could tell that he had this knack deep within him to see something in pictures and when he told me about this stuff, I couldn't see the same things really, but I could catch a drift of what he was talking about. His interest to paintings and such is similiar to my conspiracies and hidden things-interest, something that's just there. It's been always there in one form or another. You might have similiar tendencies, or might've unknowingly stretched yourself to see it. It's image encrypting. I just wanted to share this to you, because it's something I have first-hand experience about.

[Dale Larner]

Night Walker, on 08 June 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

None of this is evidence that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper. The only tangible evidence you have supplied - the supposed hidden images in the paintings - is proof of pareidolia.

You are aware that crazy people rarely know when they are being crazy, right?

Thanks for describing the hidden images as tangible evidence, even if for something else.

I am aware that crazy people rarely know when they are being crazy. So, since I am aware of this, it could be considered an indicator that I’m not actually crazy. That is unless I’m one of those rare exceptions.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

MstrMsn, on 08 June 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Time to chime in...

First, what you have just provided here means absolutely nothing. It is not evidence of anything. You don't show factual proof that Van Gogh commited murders. You provide no proof that the so called Van Gogh murders (if they even happened) were commited in London.

Second, when you go to a forum and make any kind of statement, you need to back it up. You have failed to do so, not just here, but other forums I have seen this drivel on.

Third, you don't come to a discussion forum to sell a book. If the site has an advertising section, you can do it there, but not in a True Crime forum, and especially not without having an actual discussion and not telling people to buy the book. BIG NO NO.

Lastly, as a consumer (and a former salesman), you sir, are not selling your product. If anything, you are doing everything to have it placed on a "do not waste your money" list.

Hell, the Vatican was a great sales rep for Dan Brown's "the Da Vinci Code", and they didn't mean to be.

So please, either provide actual evidence as Jonathan and others have requested, or don't and continue the way you are - though I should caution you, someone might ask a mod or admin to lock and or delete this thread, as it is nothing more than a failed sales attempt.

I have provided some actual evidence, but only a few pieces of a larger puzzle.

I don’t mind negative comments, and I can deal with personal attacks, but I can do without the threats to shutdown my freedom of speech. You don’t like the concept of my book or the information that I present, fine, make your comments or don’t comment at all, but being a free American, I’ll always stand up against bullies who think they can shutdown other people’s speech simply because they don’t agree with it.

If you think you wield such mighty power, then you do what you think is right. I’ll continue to stand on freedom.

Dale Larner

[Night Walker]

Dale Larner, on 11 June 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

I am aware that crazy people rarely know when they are being crazy. So, since I am aware of this, it could be considered an indicator that I’m not actually crazy. That is unless I’m one of those rare exceptions.

No. You are to be aware of "craziness" in others but seem incapable of applying it to your own situation. That is exactly what I was referring to...

All people on this and other forums where you have been spruiking your product have asked for is some actual documented evidence to support your claims - that would get people talking and thinking and provide positive hype for your book. All that you have provided are examples of pareidolia (ie tangible evidence that you are mistaken). Other than you, nobody has reason to get behind this claim. Any luck getting a publisher yet?

The only conclusions that can be made are that you are either grossly mistaken (reading way more into things that the evidence actually warrants - not an uncommon phenomenon) or that you are a charlatan.

[Slate]

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You're dismissed.

[BishopRyan]

Why is this kind of pandering allowed on the forum?

[Dale Larner]

Slate, on 13 June 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You're dismissed.

I see you really like using that quote. Have you visited the website, or are you one of those who just gets caught up in using a cute quote and tries to find every opportunity to use it?

If it’s the lesser offense, I would suggest looking at what is presented on the website first. Then you can accept or dismiss the subject from the position of having evaluated the information. Christopher Hitchens would have been proud of someone who made an effort instead of whimsically dismissing things simply for the fun of dismissing things.

Cheers,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

BishopRyan, on 14 June 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Why is this kind of pandering allowed on the forum?

Perhaps for the same reason you are allowed to make rude comments--freedom to speak.

Have you looked at the evidence presented on the website?

Dale Larner

[BishopRyan]

Dale Larner, on 14 June 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

Perhaps for the same reason you are allowed to make rude comments--freedom to speak.

Have you looked at the evidence presented on the website?

Dale Larner

I don't know what in the world would make you think freedom of speech is ever reaching. There are polices here in the forum. By all accounts this thread is nothing more than self serving propoganda with no actual intellectual relevance. You're promoting for fiscal gain and nothing more. Lets not act as if I'm the only one who came to this conclusion after entering this thread.

I sincerely doubt the freedoms of speech extended to you via this forum include product promotion and pandering without prior consent. Particluarly for something so abusurdly unfounded.

Edited by BishopRyan, 14 June 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[Slate]

Dale Larner, on 14 June 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

...Have you visited the website, or are you one of those who just gets caught up in using a cute quote and tries to find every opportunity to use it?

...

You have not provided one shred of evidence on this forum, on casebook, on wetcanvas, or facebook (am I missing one?), not even on your dedicated website. Nothing you have stated anywhere even rises to the level of  circumstantial evidence, let alone credible evidence implicating van Gogh in these murders. Just suppositions, innuendos and outright delusions, that's all you've presented so far. I admit I'm not a ripperologist and don't know all the nuances of that case, but every ripperologist at casebook dismisses your theory out-of-hand and has a good laugh doing it. Except for a few brown nosers on facebook nobody gives your theory any credibility at all.

I noticed on the publishersmarketplace website you said you were trying to come up with a story for a new book because the novel you were working on didn't work out. Remembering the image you thought you saw in the Irises painting you then built up your story around that, looking for evidence to support that story. You thought van Gogh was guilty before you had even looked for the evidence. Real investigators find evidence first and then build the story around that, not the other way around, you got it backwards. It's a known fact that anybody can take any theory and find "evidence" to support it as long as they overlook the real facts. That's how most fiction is composed, which I suspect is what you have written. I suggest you do a rewrite, repackage your presentation and pitch this book as pure fiction, because that's obviously what it is.

The so called "evidence" that you claim to have provided so far on these forums is so vague that it can be applied to thousands, if not millions of other people who were alive at that time in England and France. So what if there were fast routes from France to England, it was accessible to thousands of other people besides Vincent van Gogh. So what if van Gogh's mother's birthday was near or on the same day as some of the murders, thousand's of other people's moms were born on the exact same day too. So what if you see a mirage in a painting, you're probably hallucinating, because nobody else sees the same image in the Irises painting, even with your highlighting. Your so called "matches" are merely coincidences. You attribute almost all of the ripper letters to van Gogh, even though ripperologists dismiss most of the ripper letters as fakes. etc, etc. It just goes on and on, everything you've presented so far is bogus.

Have you spent any time at all in the archives at the Vincent van Gogh museum? They have all the available tangible ephemera from van Gogh's life, and a lot more evidence establishing his whereabouts and activities besides just the stack of letters everyone is so familiar with. There are literally multitudes of scholars who have poured over every facet of van Gogh's life and work, and not one of them has come up with even an inkling of the craziness you are implying. As soon as your theory is published it will be shot down very fast, if you aren't outright sued by the museum for libelous defamation. But I'm hoping for your sake that it will be such a laugh, and you'll get such a beating in the reviews, that they will just shrug you off, because they are actually pretty nice people over there and don't seem like the litigious type (unless you try to sell a fake painting, they don't like that at all).

I'm not even a fan of van Gogh's paintings, but it just irks me to witness phony defamation like this.

Dale, if you really believe that you have the goods, but can't present them until the book is published, then please stop posting in these forums until after it's published.

Until then, case dismissed.

[BishopRyan]

The fact is that he has nothing. He's fabricated a BS story to promote his BS book. The worst part about this guy isn't his yarn of a tale or lack of credible evidence its the desperation for relevance and the reckless pandering for money. He doesn't care one way or the other if you believe him or not...just so long as you're talking about him. All publicity is good publicity right Dale?

People like this feel no shame, they have no character. Dale Larner has taken one of the most influential painters of modern history and insulted his legacy, his work and his relevance so he can capitiaize on his not so famous 15 minutes of fame by promoting a fictitious and slanderous book. You're an embarassment.

[Dale Larner]

Slate, on 14 June 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

You have not provided one shred of evidence on this forum, on casebook, on wetcanvas, or facebook (am I missing one?), not even on your dedicated website. Nothing you have stated anywhere even rises to the level of  circumstantial evidence, let alone credible evidence implicating van Gogh in these murders. Just suppositions, innuendos and outright delusions, that's all you've presented so far. I admit I'm not a ripperologist and don't know all the nuances of that case, but every ripperologist at casebook dismisses your theory out-of-hand and has a good laugh doing it. Except for a few brown nosers on facebook nobody gives your theory any credibility at all.

I noticed on the publishersmarketplace website you said you were trying to come up with a story for a new book because the novel you were working on didn't work out. Remembering the image you thought you saw in the Irises painting you then built up your story around that, looking for evidence to support that story. You thought van Gogh was guilty before you had even looked for the evidence. Real investigators find evidence first and then build the story around that, not the other way around, you got it backwards. It's a known fact that anybody can take any theory and find "evidence" to support it as long as they overlook the real facts. That's how most fiction is composed, which I suspect is what you have written. I suggest you do a rewrite, repackage your presentation and pitch this book as pure fiction, because that's obviously what it is.

The so called "evidence" that you claim to have provided so far on these forums is so vague that it can be applied to thousands, if not millions of other people who were alive at that time in England and France. So what if there were fast routes from France to England, it was accessible to thousands of other people besides Vincent van Gogh. So what if van Gogh's mother's birthday was near or on the same day as some of the murders, thousand's of other people's moms were born on the exact same day too. So what if you see a mirage in a painting, you're probably hallucinating, because nobody else sees the same image in the Irises painting, even with your highlighting. Your so called "matches" are merely coincidences. You attribute almost all of the ripper letters to van Gogh, even though ripperologists dismiss most of the ripper letters as fakes. etc, etc. It just goes on and on, everything you've presented so far is bogus.

Have you spent any time at all in the archives at the Vincent van Gogh museum? They have all the available tangible ephemera from van Gogh's life, and a lot more evidence establishing his whereabouts and activities besides just the stack of letters everyone is so familiar with. There are literally multitudes of scholars who have poured over every facet of van Gogh's life and work, and not one of them has come up with even an inkling of the craziness you are implying. As soon as your theory is published it will be shot down very fast, if you aren't outright sued by the museum for libelous defamation. But I'm hoping for your sake that it will be such a laugh, and you'll get such a beating in the reviews, that they will just shrug you off, because they are actually pretty nice people over there and don't seem like the litigious type (unless you try to sell a fake painting, they don't like that at all).

I'm not even a fan of van Gogh's paintings, but it just irks me to witness phony defamation like this.

Dale, if you really believe that you have the goods, but can't present them until the book is published, then please stop posting in these forums until after it's published.

Until then, case dismissed.

Thanks for a more detailed response. You’re wrong about the evidence, though. I’ve provided many shreds. I realize you don’t view any of it as evidence, since you don’t believe the hidden images are real, and I can accept that. It’s not an easy concept to believe. It’s such an outrageous claim. Van Gogh was a genius and created unique and powerful paintings. There’s no way he could have been a serial killer, and especially not Jack the Ripper. Ridiculous. Right?

But how much do you really know about Van Gogh? Have you read his 900 letters and the biographies and studied his life? You admit you don’t know much about the Ripper cases. I can only say that I’ve done the work. I’ve studied the details of both lives, and the conclusion is clear—Vincent van Gogh was a murderer, and Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper.

I have no worries about the Van Gogh museum suing me for libelous defamation. Van Gogh was a serial killer. I don’t apologize for saying that.

All the best in following your dreams.

Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

BishopRyan, on 14 June 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

The fact is that he has nothing. He's fabricated a BS story to promote his BS book. The worst part about this guy isn't his yarn of a tale or lack of credible evidence its the desperation for relevance and the reckless pandering for money. He doesn't care one way or the other if you believe him or not...just so long as you're talking about him. All publicity is good publicity right Dale?

People like this feel no shame, they have no character. Dale Larner has taken one of the most influential painters of modern history and insulted his legacy, his work and his relevance so he can capitiaize on his not so famous 15 minutes of fame by promoting a fictitious and slanderous book. You're an embarassment.

There’s no fabrication here.

You’ve got me all wrong. Character is important to me, along with honesty and following after truth.

Whether an influential painter with a legacy or a no-name artist who nobody remembers, if the painter murdered prostitutes, should he not be held accountable for his actions? Or should the well known and admired among us be allowed to get away with murder, simply because they have a great talent?

I do care whether or not people believe what I’ve put forward. I want everyone to see the truth of Van Gogh’s true nature. But I understand that many feel strongly about who they believe Van Gogh was, and that makes calling the man a murderer a difficult concept to accept. I also admired him greatly before I discovered he was not as he seems.

I have no reason to feel shame about my work. I’ve kept my integrity.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Night Walker]

Dale Larner, on 15 June 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

I do care whether or not people believe what I’ve put forward. I want everyone to see the truth of Van Gogh’s true nature.

If those were indeed true and accurate statements then you would have simply provided tangible evidence to back up your claims. Not "shreds", not examples of pareidolia - actual tangible evidence positively linking Van Gogh to murders in England (and you don't just limit yourself to the Ripper murders). Instead, you encourage us to purchase your non-existant book in order to see the truth (no publisher yet, right?). Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain is defined as fraud, you know...

Dale Larner, on 15 June 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

I understand that many feel strongly about who they believe Van Gogh was, and that makes calling the man a murderer a difficult concept to accept.

Anyone who cuts off his ear is obviously missing a few kangaroos in the top paddock. It is not any pre-conceived notions of who Van Gogh was that is causing resistance to your claims - it is you and your complete lack of supporting evidence...