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

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.

Thanks for at least wishing me good luck with the book.

Sorry to hear you won’t be buying a copy. Hope you change your mind.

I’m also sorry that you can’t make out the face or body in the painting. Have you watched the videos? I describe in the videos the layout of each of the hidden images in detail. That may bring them to light for you.

I realize you want to see all of the evidence I have so you can truly evaluate what I’ve got, but it’s simply too much information and too detailed to cover in this format, which is why I chose to do a thorough job of it by writing a book.

To give a little extra info, though, I will note that I believe Van Gogh wrote most of the Jack the Ripper letters. This conclusion was drawn from an analysis of the letters based on such criteria as content, location, dates, handwriting, and such.

Being that you are a 2nd year Criminology student who has read Jack the Ripper books, it will be a real shame if you decide not to buy the book.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

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.

The hidden images are just the beginning.

Van Gogh moved to London in 1873 at the age of 20, fifteen years before the Jack the Ripper murders, and I believe he committed his first murder of a prostitute while there. Because of this, and for various other reasons, he then had a strong pull to return to London later for more murder, and he did, many times.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer mr. Larner, I appreciate it. :)

Being that you are a 2nd year Criminology student who has read Jack the Ripper books, it will be a real shame if you decide not to buy the book.

Well I'm gonna buy the book if I know that you have solid evidences proving that your suspect could have committed the crimes, that's all I ( and everybody having an interest in this case ) want. Yourself, as a researcher, must admit that it takes a lot more than what you might "see" in a painting to accuse anybody of being a serial killer, right ?? Therefore it would be great if you could share a little more of what you have found.

Do you have strong evidences that Van Gogh was in London at the time the murders were committed ?? That's the entire case right there, you need to prove that Van Gogh was in London when the crimes were committed.

That's all I want to know, I won't bother you again with my questions. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

irisj.jpg

Vincent wanted to represent himself in the Irises, and he chose to do so by using a Dogman-like image. The Dogman is facing to the left and down, as viewed. The flattened dark area is the nose, and below it is the mouth turned up in a growl.

http://vincentaliasj...cut_dogman.html

Hmmm... this looks like a job for...<wait for it>...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, sounds feasable, hell, somebody was the Ripper.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better theory, it was Albert Einstein.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better theory, it was Albert Einstein.

Hahahaha good one!

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.

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?
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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 'ear' what your trying to convey mate.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 'ear' what your trying to convey mate.

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer mr. Larner, I appreciate it. :)

Well I'm gonna buy the book if I know that you have solid evidences proving that your suspect could have committed the crimes, that's all I ( and everybody having an interest in this case ) want. Yourself, as a researcher, must admit that it takes a lot more than what you might "see" in a painting to accuse anybody of being a serial killer, right ?? Therefore it would be great if you could share a little more of what you have found.

Do you have strong evidences that Van Gogh was in London at the time the murders were committed ?? That's the entire case right there, you need to prove that Van Gogh was in London when the crimes were committed.

That's all I want to know, I won't bother you again with my questions. :D

The answer is—Yes, I have strong evidence Van Gogh was in London at the time the murders were committed.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sorry you can’t see the hidden images. Have you tried the videos? They offer a detailed description.

The Reveal Videos

http://vincentaliasjack.com/wordpress/?page_id=137

I know it’s difficult to set aside the well-established image of Van Gogh, but that image is a false one. Therefore, I’m afraid I’ll have to keep hating on Van Gogh, since he was actually a serial killer.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to say, but i think you might be reaching a bit. i can see how the images are sort of similar but i think you could find all kinds of "clues" like this in many other paintings(not done by van gogh) if you try hard enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is—Yes, I have strong evidence Van Gogh was in London at the time the murders were committed.

Thanks,

Dale Larner

What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it?

You have to buy the book...
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.