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

Oh come on now. He's got you all replying to this thread!

He's probably sitting there, laughing away and enjoying himself.

Good on you Dale. Go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is am interesting theory you have here. I don't see the image of Mary Kelly but I'm on my phone so I'll have to look later on my PC.

I've been fascinated with this case for years and did quite a bit of reading from many different authors. There are a lot of theories, a lot of suspects. Your theory is no more ridiculous than anyone elses. I'm sure most of the posters here are aware of the range of suspects Scotland Yard considered; from an anti Semite to royalty to sailors present part time. Personally, I think I would go nuts working on the case without a computer to keep it all organized.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is, since the case is, as of yet, unsolved, I'll probably buy your book because I have an interest. Doesn't mean I will agree with you but I Won't know that until I read the entire book.

I agree that a timeline would be most helpful and I can hardly wait to read the other evidence you have. You must keep me posted as to when your book will be ready.

Until then, why not consider Van Gogh?

Here its a fantastic website on the topic of Jack the ripper: http://www.casebook.org/

If someone had already posted it, sorry! But I didn't want to read through 12 pages of posts...I got to 4 and had to stop due to a narcolepsy attack.

Thanks for sharing your theory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was Spring-healed Jack. I'm not a forensic expert, but I did a few tests and found out that they were both called Jack.

I will be releasing a book and some youtube videos on the subject.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this the same Vincent Van Gogh that painted " Daffodils".

Isn't this the same Vincent Van Gogh who cut his ear off due to excessive absinthe drinking.

Did he also get played by Kirk Douglas in a film adaptation.

And had a role in the worst period of Doctor Who.

Tbh I prefer a cover- up of Prince Albert's infidelity or Tumblety.

But it's plausible for Van Gogh to butcher and mutilate five prostitutes.

You don't know what he's capable of if he cuts his own ear.

It's not like it's some major conspiracy theory.

Edited by Medium Brown
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REALLY REALLY are you serious and famous painter Jack the Ripper. What a load of crap. This so called writer is just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and sell his book of lies.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on the first link and there it was, Dale Larner`s book.

Suppose it saves on paying for advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on the first link and there it was, Dale Larner`s book.

Suppose it saves on paying for advertising.

Well it does look like a shameless plug...

So who do you think did it personally yourself?

Bearing in mind it had to be someone who removes organs with surgical precision.

I know my next piece of logic is based on Hollywood...

But the Queen didn't want a scandal even on the behalf of feeble- minded Albert.

I wasn't suggesting Albert did it himself but his personal physician.

Tumblety has good prospects as well because not only was he a quack but a charlatan too.

But I would keep an open mind on the Vincent Van Gogh theory.

You'll have to admit that there was a bit of artistic flair the way the lungs were arranged on one of the victims.

Edited by Medium Brown
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REALLY REALLY are you serious and famous painter Jack the Ripper. What a load of crap. This so called writer is just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and sell his book of lies.

I think all writers want to be famous, right? :)

Back in the day, there were quite a few "famous" suspects Van Gogh was unknown at the time.

I don't know of there is any validity to this theory but I will reserve judgment until after I get all the information. We all should.

Edited by Lava_Lady
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understandthe hostility some of the posts are expressing... did anyone else do any research? Doe anyone else have credentials to disqualify this theory?

I'm not saying I agree with this idea, especially since I haven't read the authors other points but I'm curious so I read the op.

I don't understand why so much energy is being expended being nasty to a complete stranger. of course he's plugging his book. If you don't like it, don't click on the link or report him to the admins if you think its wrong.

If anyone can disprove this theory than please tell us about it, because if love to read it. The case of Jack the Ripper has been an interest of mine for a long time and if love to hear more fresh ideas on the killer. Let's just be civil to each other.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understandthe hostility some of the posts are expressing... did anyone else do any research? Doe anyone else have credentials to disqualify this theory?

I'm not saying I agree with this idea, especially since I haven't read the authors other points but I'm curious so I read the op.

I don't understand why so much energy is being expended being nasty to a complete stranger. of course he's plugging his book. If you don't like it, don't click on the link or report him to the admins if you think its wrong.

If anyone can disprove this theory than please tell us about it, because if love to read it. The case of Jack the Ripper has been an interest of mine for a long time and if love to hear more fresh ideas on the killer. Let's just be civil to each other.

No one can disprove it because no one knows who Jack the Ripper was. But that doesn't make it true. I could say it was Zippy from Rainbow and ask people to prove it wasn't for all the good it would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even us amateurs can tell there's certain things that limit the range of suspects. A) someone with money or otherwise access to tools to perform such cuts. B) Someone who lived back then and was neither an infant, smalll child (unless extremely talented and taking his victims by surprise) nor anyone too old or with a serious moving disability, unless had help in moving oneself. And then there's of course the surgical precision and hint of artistry all over there, letters and the way people were executed and left to be there. Artistry might not shut down ordinary people and narrow down it into artists, but the surgical precision would narrow down certain areas. It's not just a matter of being able or unable to prove in a black-and-white perspective, but in how strong case can you build compared to others. Of course strong cases mean nothing before truth, but they can be pretty enlightening. As an astrologer, I wouldn't judge Van Goch only because of how his art feels like, even if the feeling-vibrations matched really well, not just the ways some paintings or things behind them are portrayed, because the thing about artistry is that when you're good at it, you can mimic and create illusions out of almost anything, like the best actors, dancers, painters and others do. Perhaps painting gruesome work like corpses and death and such was considered a taboo or something inproper at least in those times, that why we might not see too many succesful Scorpio-oriented artists from past eras, and while Van Goch's surreal and line-twisting style is more Piscean and Neptunian to me at least (breaking borders), I think you could discern Scorpioish and Plutoistic elements from there, especially if you have an eye for art.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the minimum and maximum birth time ranges of any alleged killers? Assuming they couldn't be too old nor too young during the time murders occurred, especially not too young since even in a twisted world it usually takes some time to develop both such good surgical skills as well as such a gruesome way to use them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can disprove it because no one knows who Jack the Ripper was. But that doesn't make it true. I could say it was Zippy from Rainbow and ask people to prove it wasn't for all the good it would do.

Not exactly, if one really wanted to disprove the theory all you have to do is work on a timeline for the murders and Van Gogh's whereabouts.

But why so much hostility? It's just a theory. If you think it's bunk well, thank you for you're opinion, no need to get angry and start name calling.

I don't get that.

I don't understand why some people are getting so defensive over the mere thought that the artist could have been the Ripper. Who knows? Stranger things have happened on this planet. And I, for one, do not know enough about the artist to make a statement as to whether he is guilty our innocent. But it's interesting and when I'm done reading about it then I'll decide if it's bunk or not.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REALLY REALLY are you serious and famous painter Jack the Ripper. What a load of crap. This so called writer is just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and sell his book of lies.

Yes, very serious. Three years of research & 2 ½ years to write. Committed my life to it.

Yes, Jack the Ripper was a famous painter, but when doing his work, he painted in flesh and blood. Jack would write, “Ha! Ha!” to that.

Yes, once it’s available, I do want to sell the book and have lots of readers—naturally.

No, no lies. Prefer only the truth, and I really do try to avoid creating things that stink, but the readers will be the judge of that.

Yes, thanks for your comment,

Dale Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture that supposedly shows the Mary Kelly hidden within the flowers doesn't hold much water with me, and it's the main selling point. If he was jack the ripper, and he did kill her, why did he make his representation of her from the same place the police took their picture of her? That's quite a coincidence, considering there were a hundred other places he could of of been standing when he made that mental picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know a great deal about Van Gogh and have never researched the information available on Jack The Ripper either. Based on what the author has posted in this thread, I would say that it is no way enough to accuse someone of being a serial killer.

The writing similarities have not been verified by someone with sufficient qualification to say any likeness gives a good probability of being the same person. Pulling out a skull figure from a painting of flowers is not particularly impressive either. I used to do it all the time when I was a child with the flower patterns on my wall paper and really freak myself out as the more I looked, the more I could only see skulls or scary faces!

Saying that someone COULD have travelled to London in sufficient time does not mean that Van Gough actually DID travel there. If he could do it, then so could thousands of other people.

So far what I have read in this thread is just speculation and not edvidence or proof. I hope that the book goes in to much more detail of actual evidence. You know, showing that he actually DID travel to London on these particular dates or something else that actually does place him in the same locations. Still doesn't mean he did it, but if you could prove he was there and that the handwriting matched then it would increase the chances.

It's unlikely I will buy the book as I don't have too much interest in this but if I did I would probably buy it, even if it was just to put a review on Amazon saying if there was real evidence in the book or just more speculation.

Mr Larner, I do wish you luck in getting your book published and "out there" and hope as you say, there is loads more real solid evidence in the book than you mention on here (can see why you wouldn't post everything as then why would anyone buy the book? lol)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but with regards to the ripper letters that you were matching up to the Van Gough letters, is there no post mark on letters in those days? I just wondered with regards to the timing of the letters being received in London and when Van Gough would have had to post them. Does the timing of the letters and how much time Van Gough would have had to spend travelling tie up?

And is there no doubt in your mind Mr Larner that maybe Van Gough may have had an unhealthy facination with the Ripper murders? He was seen as quite an unstable chap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it does look like a shameless plug...

So who do you think did it personally yourself?

Bearing in mind it had to be someone who removes organs with surgical precision.

I know my next piece of logic is based on Hollywood...

But the Queen didn't want a scandal even on the behalf of feeble- minded Albert.

I wasn't suggesting Albert did it himself but his personal physician.

Tumblety has good prospects as well because not only was he a quack but a charlatan too.

But I would keep an open mind on the Vincent Van Gogh theory.

You'll have to admit that there was a bit of artistic flair the way the lungs were arranged on one of the victims.

There are a few theories but Van Gogh? No, not IMO.

Artistic flair to how the lungs were arranged maybe but it was not done with a paintbrush flair.

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1888 - 1889

He moved from the Hôtel Carrel to the Café de la Gare on 7 May,[94] where he became friends with the proprietors, Joseph and Marie Ginoux. Although the Yellow House had to be furnished before he could fully move in, van Gogh was able to utilize it as a studio.[95] Hoping to have a gallery to display his work, his project at this time was a series of paintings including Van Gogh's Chair (1888), Bedroom in Arles (1888), The Night Café (1888), Cafe Terrace at Night (September 1888), Starry Night Over the Rhone (1888), Still Life: Vase with Twelve Sunflowers (1888), all intended to form the décoration for the Yellow House.[96] van Gogh wrote about The Night Café: "I have tried to express the idea that the café is a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad, or commit a crime."

===================================================================

he was pretty painting in 1888 and just because he mentions 'or commit a crime" does not indicate he was going to England killing women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rooms were unfurnished and uninhabited for some time. He was still at the Hôtel Restaurant Carrel, but the rate charged by the hotel was 5 francs a week, which he found excessive. He disputed the price, took the case to a local arbitrator and was awarded a twelve franc reduction on the total bill

=========================================================

Does not sound like a man who had enough money to travel back and forth to England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread takes me back to when i was a young man, living in London i visited all the crime sites, it is extremely unlikely we will ever be able to prove who Jack the Ripper was, a likely suspect is Tumblety, but there is perhaps another that is a new suspect being Robert Mann who worked in a mortuary near all crime scenes, obviously we all have our own take on this, thats what makes it interesting, link to Robert Mann below:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-jack-the-ripper-suspect-unveiled-1798095.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as good a theory as any that's around but

The timeline of Van G's life has been mentioned many times in this thread.

It wasn't Vincent.

Starry, starry night....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as good a theory as any that's around but

The timeline of Van G's life has been mentioned many times in this thread.

It wasn't Vincent.

Starry, starry night....

Agree it was not him, but there are far better theories than this one. This one has to be at the bottom of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree it was not him, but there are far better theories than this one. This one has to be at the bottom of the list.

Tbh none of these theories dovetail completely with Jack The Ripper.

So in a strange kind of way that makes them all equally valid.

I could be right about either Tumblety or the Prince Albert conspiracy.

The Monkster could be right about Robert Mann.

The OP could be right about Vincent Van Gogh.

But we could all be wrong because it could be something we havn't conceived between ourselves.

It's just like peeling an onion it's that multi- layered.

It isn't like an UFO sighting where you either believe it or not.

But you have to say I'm not buying Spring- Heeled Jack.

Threre's no way it's going to be a Victorian bogeyman.

Somebody killed those women which is something I'm sure we all agree on.

However what bugs me is people attacking the OP without presenting their own counter- theory.

Tbh I would put Van Gogh at the bottom of my list also.

But that's no reflection on the OP because he's been admirable throughout.

The perfect host.

Edited by Medium Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh none of these theories dovetail completely with Jack The Ripper.

So in a strange kind of way that makes them all equally valid.

I could be right about either Tumblety or the Prince Albert conspiracy.

The Monkster could be right about Robert Mann.

The OP could be right about Vincent Van Gogh.

But we could all be wrong because it could be something we havn't conceived between ourselves.

It's just like peeling an onion it's that multi- layered.

It isn't like an UFO sighting where you either believe it or not.

But you have to say I'm not buying Spring- Heeled Jack.

Threre's no way it's going to be a Victorian bogeyman.

Somebody killed those women which is something I'm sure we all agree on.

However what bugs me is people attacking the OP without presenting their own counter- theory.

Tbh I would put Van Gogh at the bottom of my list also.

But that's no reflection on the OP because he's been admirable throughout.

The perfect host.

There are far more reason to not suspect Van Gogh.

yes the OP has been admirable, I would also be too if i wanted people to buy my book.

I think it would have been much more admirable to ask peoples opinions before writing a book, than trying to convince them that his theory is the right one.

I have my own theories, but this is not the thread to do that on, this is about Van Gogh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are far more reason to not suspect Van Gogh.

yes the OP has been admirable, I would also be too if i wanted people to buy my book.

I think it would have been much more admirable to ask peoples opinions before writing a book, than trying to convince them that his theory is the right one.

I have my own theories, but this is not the thread to do that on, this is about Van Gogh.

If only we could have our own particular views on Jack The Ripper.

Anyway I'm bowing out now because the footie's starting soon.

But I'll have to say this subject is absolutely riveting.

Edited by Medium Brown
3 people like 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.