Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Dale Larner

Was Vincent van Gogh Jack the Ripper ?

326 posts in this topic

Vincent van Gogh was not as he seems.

I realize the difficulty in believing such a claim, especially for avid Van Gogh admirers, but this is no joke. The day has arrived. The truth must come out. Vincent van Gogh was a serial killer!

Painters are magicians, and Van Gogh was a master magician. Using his masterful skills to fool the eye, I found that Van Gogh had accomplished the great, but wicked, act of painting images related to Jack the Ripper hidden within his paintings, and specifically so in the painting the Irises.

Outlandish! Ridiculous! I know. I thought the same thing when I first made the initial discovery, which was of a face hidden within the irises, and I even set aside the discovery for two years. But when I returned to it, and when I looked deeper into Van Gogh’s life, it was no longer ridiculous.

The face I saw hidden in the flowers was familiar. It was a face I had just seen in a Jack the Ripper book—that of Mary Kelly, the sixth victim of Jack the Ripper. A photo exists of her as she was found on her deathbed with her face and body mutilated, and it was her near skeletal face that jumped out at me from Van Gogh’s flowers.

But it wasn’t just Mary Kelly’s face that was concealed within the blooms and stems. Remarkably, Vincent painted her entire body hidden in the Irises painting, and he painted it in the same position as in the photo. Vincent van Gogh knew how Mary Kelly looked on the night of her murder because he was in her room that night.

After I made the initial discovery, I matched up the details of Van Gogh’s life and 900 letters to Jack the Ripper’s dirty deeds and 245 letters, and I wrote a book about it. It took 3 years to complete the research and another 2 ½ years to write the book, but it is now complete.

I’m currently shopping the book, VINCENT ALIAS JACK, around to agents and publishers, while also getting the word out about Van Gogh's true nature.

See the hidden images and matches and watch the videos, then return to the Unexplained Mysteries forum and say what you think.

www.VincentAliasJack.com

For those on Facebook—LIKE’s appreciated.

www.facebook.com/VincentAliasJack

Enjoy the adventure,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is well documented Van Gogh lived in Arles during the murders in 1888. How did he go to London and each time without being missed?

edit: spelling

Edited by Mr Snuggles
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is well documented Van Gogh lived in Arles during the murders in 1888. How did he go to London and each time without being missed?

edit: spelling

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

Edited by Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He painted a self portrait on his pillow, pushed some more pillows under the covers and made it look like he was in bed all the time. And that didnt take me three years to research :)

Very good Englishgent. Thanks for noting it didn’t take you three years to come up with that. I would have never guessed it only took a few minutes.

:)

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He painted a self portrait on his pillow, pushed some more pillows under the covers and made it look like he was in bed all the time. And that didnt take me three years to research :)

You're a criminal genius!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't you just self-publish via Amazon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant make anything out in the pictures at all....im not disagreeing with your idea but i just cant see them...sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant make anything out in the pictures at all....im not disagreeing with your idea but i just cant see them...sorry.

Same here.

I can kind of make out a skeletal face in the flowers, but what makes you conclude that this Mary Kelly? It just looks like a skeletal face to me. It's not hard to make out faces in patterns or in random things like inkblots or clouds. Our brains are actually wired too..it's called pareidolia.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good Englishgent. Thanks for noting it didn’t take you three years to come up with that. I would have never guessed it only took a few minutes.

:)

Thanks,

Dale Larner

:clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't for a moment believe that Vincent Van Gogh was - or could have been Jack the Ripper...

However, good luck with your book. Getting published is a difficult feat and you are to be commended for 'sticking with it' through the process...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First of all: No disrespect to you mr. Larner, and good luck with the book.

I have to say: the "evidences" you have against your suspect are incredibly weak, and your theory is based on nothing more than speculation and fantasy. Where are the real evidences ?? Show me the evidences. If you were a serious researcher you wouldn't have shared the info about what you "found" in the pictures, you would have shared a timeline of events proving that Van Gogh might have committed the crimes or some kind of SOLID evidences linking him to the crimes. There's nothing in the pictures resembling the face or body of Mary Kelly, absolutely nothing. Wishful thinking on your part ?? probably. You are accusing a man of being a serial killer, you need real evidences to accuse somebody of such a crime.

Instead of sharing with us the thing you "found" in the pictures, again something based on fantasy and whishful thinking in my opinion, why don't you share more about the handwriting analysis you made ?? And you compared Van Gogh's handwriting to which one of the Ripper letters ?? Because now most researchers agree that only 2, maybe 3, of them were authentic.

Of course you'll be able to find a publisher. Why ?? Because your theory is sensational and your suspect is a well-known artist, exactly the type of books that might attract the attention of people who wants nothing more than a good read. I, as a criminology student, wants more than a good read and a sensational theory based on nothing more than speculation and fantasy, therefore I won't buy your book sir. With all my respect, of course. :yes:

If indeed you have REAL, solid evidences against your suspect then share them with us instead of talking about what you allegedly found in the pictures. The fact you talk about the pictures instead of talking about the handwriting, instead of sharing a timeline of events showing that Van gogh might have committed the crimes is highly suspicious to me.

Last thing: I've seen that you used the tag "Case solved" for this thread; no, the case is not solved, we need real solid evidences to close a case.

Edited by JonathanVonErich
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depressingly stupid. 10 OUT OF 10 from HNAY

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I'm pretty leery of the notion that Van Gogh was the Ripper just because some of his paintings got some weirdness going on.

What would he motive have been? He would have had to have some serious motive going on for him to decide to nip out the hundreds of miles and days of travel between the south of France and London just to knock off some, er, ladies of the night.

And besides, Van Gogh may not really have been accountable to anyone in Arles, but to my understanding it's pretty well documented that he was there and painting when the commonly accepted murders happened. If some of the other alleged victims were indeed the Rippers work, it becomes even more difficult to imagine that Van Gogh did it.

I too would be interested to know if there was any sort of handwriting analysis between what may be the Rippers handwriting and Van Gogh... Unlike the Ripper, there are several known examples of Van Goghs writing, especially during the Arles era.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the face the OP is talking about. How on earth he can tell its a human face and who it belongs to, I have no idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the face the OP is talking about. How on earth he can tell its a human face and who it belongs to, I have no idea.

I agree 100%, this is probably the worst theory we have seen yet.

Mr. Larner: You want to be taken seriously ?? Then please share:

- A timeline of events showing that Van Gogh could have committed the crimes.

- Handwriting analysis showing the similarities between Van Gogh's handwriting and the authentic Ripper letters.

- A motive for the crimes, anything showing why Van Gogh would have committed the crimes.

In other words please share some REAL evidences and not something based on speculation and fantasy. The fact that in your opening post you only shared information on what you allegedly found in the pictures and shared nothing on the timeline or handwriting is highly suspicious to me. Seems like you have absolutely nothing solid connecting Van Gogh to the case. Nothing,

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant make anything out in the pictures at all....im not disagreeing with your idea but i just cant see them...sorry.

Thanks for your honesty. Have you tried watching the videos? I describe the position and shape of the images in detail. Perhaps watching will help bring the images to life.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here.

I can kind of make out a skeletal face in the flowers, but what makes you conclude that this Mary Kelly? It just looks like a skeletal face to me. It's not hard to make out faces in patterns or in random things like inkblots or clouds. Our brains are actually wired too..it's called pareidolia.

I love looking at clouds and such and making out images, but that isn’t what’s happening with the Irises painting. The lines and tones and colors are too distinct and purposeful, and the images are to complex to be happenstance. Van Gogh created the hidden images with the intent of concealing them.

It’s a good first step if you can make out the skeletal-like face. Seeing this face in the flowers was the first hidden image I saw, and I saw it because I first saw the photo of Mary Kelly not too long beforehand. The image jumped to life because I recognized it as Mary Kelly’s face, and this broke the spell of the magician, and the other hidden images then also came to life, and so did Van Gogh’s hidden life.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly a.... unique hypothesis, to say the least.

I will, however, have to agree with the others that you will need more than an interpretation of a painting to convince anyone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's lucky that nobody noticed this alleged link with the Ripper murders at the time Van Gogh painted his picture. Can you imagine poor old Van Gogh standing in the dock saying ''But m'Lord, it's only a painting!'' and the judge saying ''Yeah yeah, pull the other one. I can see Mary Kelly in those flowers. Guilty as charged. I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you die!'' :unsure2:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't for a moment believe that Vincent Van Gogh was - or could have been Jack the Ripper...

However, good luck with your book. Getting published is a difficult feat and you are to be commended for 'sticking with it' through the process...

Thanks. That’s very kind of you.

I understand your difficulty in believing the concept. I was a big admirer of Van Gogh before I made the discovery and started the book. As a painter, it was his painting style that I wanted most to emulate. But when I read his letters, I realized he wasn’t the poor, misunderstood artist that the popular image of him portrays. And when I dug deeper, I found he was a much darker character than I could have imagined.

All the best,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mr. Larner

I am a 2nd year student in Criminology and I've read numerous books about this case, so please answer my post.

I seriously hope that what you "see" in the painting is not the only "evidences" against your suspect, because quite frankly it's really weak. What you allegedly found in the painting is not solid proof of Van Gogh's guilt. Again you are accusing somebody of being a serial killer, you need REAL and SOLID evidences to convince anybody that your theory might be true.

You need to share :

- A timeline of events showing that Van Gogh could have committed the crimes.

- Handwriting analysis showing the similarities between Van Gogh's handwriting and the authentic Ripper letters.

- A motive for the crimes, anything showing why Van Gogh would have committed the crimes.

Thank you for your time.

Edited by JonathanVonErich
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating the whole Ripper subject, like did they ever discover if he ever had any background in the medical field or whether or not that was all just hokum. I do find it extremly hard to believe that Van Gogh was the Ripper though. Iv been extremely interested in his case for a while now though and any new theories are always refreshing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.