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

If there is a case where apologies are unnecessary then this one fits the box to shoes, Mr Dale Larner is an bona fide 'idiot'

shameless one at that

not insulting or disrespecting,

on the contrary, Mr Dale Larner is the one being disrespectful to the able and sane members of the literary community

Sounds like you are angry. It's just a theory... I don't think you need to be upset. This book won't put Van Gogh in jail, I promise ;)

There are many books out there in our small world a lot of them tout ideas we don't personally agree with, I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head.

Dale's theory is something he believes in & you don't agree... that has been established, very clearly I might add, but it's harmless. I don't feel disrespected by his theory at all. I don't have any personal stake in it and I don't think you do either.

As a matter of fact, if the book gets published, you are free to not buy it and/or read it.

You seem to know a lot about Van Gogh and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I simply don't care to put any time and effort into doing any research on him. Maybe you can respond to Dale's book by writing your own in defense of vg ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are angry. It's just a theory... I don't think you need to be upset. This book won't put Van Gogh in jail, I promise ;)

There are many books out there in our small world a lot of them tout ideas we don't personally agree with, I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head.

Dale's theory is something he believes in & you don't agree... that has been established, very clearly I might add, but it's harmless. I don't feel disrespected by his theory at all. I don't have any personal stake in it and I don't think you do either.

As a matter of fact, if the book gets published, you are free to not buy it and/or read it.

You seem to know a lot about Van Gogh and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I simply don't care to put any time and effort into doing any research on him. Maybe you can respond to Dale's book by writing your own in defense of vg ;)

I don't have to write my defence, the law provides :

slander

n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

here

defamation

n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

here

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

here

Just to be certain one understands the difference :

fair comment

n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.

here

and what he's doing is not 'harmless'

He is perpetuating a lie for self profit at the expense of someone who is no longer with us.

Yes, he is a liar and is lying and he knows that I know that he is.

Just to quote a few of his recent lies :

A rational mind steps forward from among the encircling hyenas. Thanks for your reasonable attitude. It’s the right way to be, and you’re examples are spot on. History is littered with stories of once-accepted beliefs about some subject or person which were then proven false. Even without bringing up the Ripper connection, the accepted belief of who Van Gogh was is limited and overly sympathetic. He was a rough character, and I show that his roughness was much deeper than his heavy drinking and regular visits to the brothels.

He discards solid available evidences which he knows about and then proposes that because Vincent was a heavy drinker and visits brothels regularly, has a brother that sends him money, that makes Vincent a prime suspect, no Mr Larner says guilty, and he claims to have 'proof and evidence' That is the fine line crossed.

Thanks for being a thinking person and for holding up the banner of a knowledge seeker. It's always about getting to the truth, no matter where that leads.

Its not a matter of where the 'truth' lies, its a matter of where the lies leads and getting to it by virtue of acceptable lies. Harmless ?

KNowledge ? YOu tell me ...

On that note, more lies from Mr Larner :

3. Using those same express trains, Vincent could travel to London in 24 hrs. and travel back to Arles, France in 24 hrs. Things moved quicker than it would seem.

Even if the train was on schedule which was rare, that is station to station, Vincent did not live at a train station nor Jack ever killed anywhere near train stations

2. You’re right about the postal service speeds. It’s not as good as back then. It was more like FedEx then. Sending letters was their internet. Express mail trains were used throughout Europe to get letters and goods to their destination quick. A letter sent just about anywhere in Europe was expected to be delivered to just about anywhere in Europe by the next day—quite fast.

Blatant lies, even if the letters were sent from major cities,from rural areas the due date was much longer

4. It must be understood that Vincent rarely dated his letters, and also that the envelopes were not kept, so no postmarks for dating, and that biographers and researchers have dated the letters based on piecing together the contents and other details. Of course, they’ve done an admirable job, but the dates of the letters aren’t always known absolutely.

Mr LArner reads, he lies, he plays for the fools, he read but he dare not face the truth. He is a liar

5. Even so, the dating and contents of Vincent’s letters match up very well to the murders. For good reason—he was Jack the Ripper.

Please know I’ve read and studied all of Van Gogh’s 800 letters and know the dating. The contents and dating don’t work against what I put forward—it works towards it.

Yes Mr Larner, you are a liar, you have proven that yourself more than adequately.

Vincent has left us more than enough evidence as witness to prove you a most blatant and shameless liar.

Vincent says it ... YOU, Mr Larner is a liar

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... You give tbe op a lot of power but, if you want to be angry then so be you... :)

You should know that just because someone expresses an opinion, it doesn't make it true and again, Vincent will not be upset about this accusation... I promise you that! :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... You give tbe op a lot of power but, if you want to be angry then so be you... :)

You should know that just because someone expresses an opinion, it doesn't make it true and again, Vincent will not be upset about this accusation... I promise you that! :D

I assure you, if I was any where near angry, I would have shown much less restraint, it wasn't just an 'opinion' expressed.

He not only accused but clearly pronounced Vincent guilty. That is as bad as it gets, especially if it is baseless and founded on lies, which is worse.

You know you are in no position to promise anything such as that.

I on the other hand can and will promise you that these people will be more than just 'angry' or 'upset' :

The Van Gogh Family Tree

http://www.vggallery.com/misc/archives/family_tree.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you, if I was any where near angry, I would have shown much less restraint, it wasn't just an 'opinion' expressed.

He not only accused but clearly pronounced Vincent guilty. That is as bad as it gets, especially if it is baseless and founded on lies, which is worse.

You know you are in no position to promise anything such as that.

I on the other hand can and will promise you that these people will be more than just 'angry' or 'upset' :

The Van Gogh Family Tree

http://www.vggallery.com/misc/archives/family_tree.htm

I can promise you Vincent won't be angry because he's

dead and has been for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can promise you Vincent won't be angry because he's

dead and has been for a long time.

I wouldn't be so sure, dead though Vincent may be. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so sure, dead though Vincent may be. ;)

lol well, that sounds like a different category of posts.. ghosts and hauntings! Another interest of mine :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol well, that sounds like a different category of posts.. ghosts and hauntings! Another interest of mine :D

Maybe I should introduce you to a few of my friends ....

:sk:sk:sk

:sk

~edit : needed another one of those bouncy thingies aesthetically speaking

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should introduce you to a few of my friends ....

:sk:sk:sk

:sk

~edit : needed another one of those bouncy thingies aesthetically speaking

Sure, but let's not hijack this forum. If you would post some of experiences in the proper forum, I would love to read them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Points worth noting:

1. Like others, I don’t count Emma Smith as a Ripper victim. The evidence isn’t there.

2. You’re right about the postal service speeds. It’s not as good as back then. It was more like FedEx then. Sending letters was their internet. Express mail trains were used throughout Europe to get letters and goods to their destination quick. A letter sent just about anywhere in Europe was expected to be delivered to just about anywhere in Europe by the next day—quite fast.

3. Using those same express trains, Vincent could travel to London in 24 hrs. and travel back to Arles, France in 24 hrs. Things moved quicker than it would seem.

4. It must be understood that Vincent rarely dated his letters, and also that the envelopes were not kept, so no postmarks for dating, and that biographers and researchers have dated the letters based on piecing together the contents and other details. Of course, they’ve done an admirable job, but the dates of the letters aren’t always known absolutely.

5. Even so, the dating and contents of Vincent’s letters match up very well to the murders. For good reason—he was Jack the Ripper.

Please know I’ve read and studied all of Van Gogh’s 800 letters and know the dating. The contents and dating don’t work against what I put forward—it works towards it.

Thanks for looking further,

Dale Larner

With all due respect, you are going round the houses now to try to prove your point, and its on very very wobbly wheels. If the facts were so obvious you would not have to push so hard with trying and it is now getting trying indeed!

2 and 3 ? joke right? maybe you should write a book on humour, now that i would buy. (you can include your Jacque Le Ripper theory in it too.

Please note: express trains did not pass through a tunnel in those days and it was necessary to take a boat as part of the journey. So for him to get a train and boat from Arles to London - Victoria station, then to the East end, find a prostitute, kill her without being noticed then return to Victoria station (I can`t believe I am putting this, its just too funny) to catch the train then get a boat to catch another train then get another train to Arles, would be cutting it very fine to say the least!

Edited by freetoroam
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you are going round the houses now to try to prove your point, and its on very very wobbly wheels. If the facts were so obvious you would not have to push so hard with trying and it is now getting trying indeed!

2 and 3 ? joke right? maybe you should write a book on humour, now that i would buy. (you can include your Jacque Le Ripper theory in it too.

Please note: express trains did not pass through a tunnel in those days and it was necessary to take a boat as part of the journey. So for him to get a train and boat from Arles to London - Victoria station, then to the East end, find a prostitute, kill her without being noticed then return to Victoria station (I can`t believe I am putting this, its just too funny) to catch the train then get a boat to catch another train then get another train to Arles, would be cutting it very fine to say the least!

My wheels are steady and I’m driving straight ahead. Not pushing hard, just stating the facts as they are. I’ve done the research. I know the subjects well.

I like humor, but I can’t find why #3 & #4 would seem humorous. Again, I’m simply stating the facts.

It’s understandable that some might jump to the conclusion that train travel was slow and unreliable back then. This could be true for local trains, but not for the express mail trains. They made few stops and sped along from Marseille to Paris and Paris to Calais and Dover to London, and back. The steamers were timed to meet the trains on their arrival at places like Calais and Dover, and the steamers could get across the 21 miles in 90 minutes.

This is not guesswork or speculation. It’s the way it was, and I put the work in to get to the truth. I prefer to work in facts. Bradshaw’s Continental Railway Guide of March 1888 is my source for the train and steamer schedules. Can’t get better than that.

I don’t see why it would be so difficult to imagine a man catching trains and steamer and murdering and then catching a train and steamer and trains to return home. It wasn’t such a hard thing to do. The trains and steamers were on a schedule. As for the murdering, well, most would find that hard to do, but not Vincent. Ha!

Having lots of good clean fun,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe it was this theory, because the markings on the women `s bodies were the same markings on the women`s bodies from England.At least he got the electic chair

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14207581

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wheels are steady and I’m driving straight ahead. Not pushing hard, just stating the facts as they are. I’ve done the research. I know the subjects well.

I like humor, but I can’t find why #3 & #4 would seem humorous. Again, I’m simply stating the facts.

It’s understandable that some might jump to the conclusion that train travel was slow and unreliable back then. This could be true for local trains, but not for the express mail trains. They made few stops and sped along from Marseille to Paris and Paris to Calais and Dover to London, and back. The steamers were timed to meet the trains on their arrival at places like Calais and Dover, and the steamers could get across the 21 miles in 90 minutes.

This is not guesswork or speculation. It’s the way it was, and I put the work in to get to the truth. I prefer to work in facts. Bradshaw’s Continental Railway Guide of March 1888 is my source for the train and steamer schedules. Can’t get better than that.

I don’t see why it would be so difficult to imagine a man catching trains and steamer and murdering and then catching a train and steamer and trains to return home. It wasn’t such a hard thing to do. The trains and steamers were on a schedule. As for the murdering, well, most would find that hard to do, but not Vincent. Ha!

Having lots of good clean fun,

Dale Larner

Hell after hearing everything from all over this topic i think i am going to buy it.If i read it and debunk it well written or not,enjoy it or not,i will personally send you so many messages demanding a refund you will regret ever writing it :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what the naysayers and criticizers do, they bring attention to something that many may not have known about.

Any press is good press!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a case where apologies are unnecessary then this one fits the box to shoes, Mr Dale Larner is an bona fide 'idiot'

shameless one at that

not insulting or disrespecting,

on the contrary, Mr Dale Larner is the one being disrespectful to the able and sane members of the literary community

no I believe it was this theory, because the markings on the women `s bodies were the same markings on the women`s bodies from England.At least he got the electic chair

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14207581

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opps Was Vincent van Gogh Jack the Ripper ? No I believe it was this theory, Carl Feigenbaum because the markings on the women `s bodies were the same markings on the women`s bodies from England.At least he got the electic chair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll entertain your theories,

August 7, 1888 - Martha Tabram murdered in George Yard Buildings.

August 31, 1888 - Polly Nichols killed in Bucks Row.

September 8, 1888 - Annie Chapman killed in Hanbury Street.

September 30, 1888 - Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes killed at 1:00 and 1:45 am, respectively.

November 9, 1888 - Mary Kelly killed in Miller's Court.

Dale, what online evidence of Van Gogh's movements between early August and early November, 1888 can you direct me to?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh well do go on :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh well do go on :whistle:

Dale will and that's why this thread is good reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Despite my feelings of self promotion, and individuals seeking attention for something, this person has what many scientists call a possible theory.

Name one scientist who would call this bunch of baseless excuses a theory. Oh wait, you do know what a theory is don't you?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

We once thought the earth was flat, did not believe in the possibility of flight, etc.
You might have, I never did. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We, as humanity, once did think these things. I was trying to ,are a point regarding the fact that until something is proven or disproven, it can only be an idea or theory.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We, as humanity, once did think these things. I was trying to ,are a point regarding the fact that until something is proven or disproven, it can only be an idea or theory.

The OP from the get go has shown he cherry picks the evidence to support his "theory". Even a hypothesis in science holds more weight.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame Jamie and his '15 minute' meals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dale will and that's why this thread is good reading.

Was Vincent van Gogh Jack the Ripper ? The reason I disagree, did any one see the documentery of the theory that that Jack the ripper was Carl Feigenbaum , the markings on the women `s bodies were the same markings on the women`s bodies from England. By the markings it shows a pattern of same symbol on all the bodies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14207581

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I bought a copy of your book and was left unconvinced would you provide a 10,000% refund?

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.