It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jack the Ripper : The Art of Conspiracy

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I would like to set a challenge to any so called "Ripperologist" out there who doubts that Patricia Cornwell was correct in her opinion that Walter Richard Sickert was in fact Jack the Ripper. Why else would so many of the victims, murder scenes and Jack the Ripper himself appear in several of the artist's most famous portraits. To give an example of this, let's take a look at Ennui. Before doing so please arm yourself with a magnifying glass and a copy of Cornwell's book- "Jack The Ripper- Portrait Of A Killer- Case Closed".
Step 1- Turn to the page which presents a photographic picture of the painting Ennui.
Step 2- Turn the book upside down.
Step 3- With your magnifying glass concentrate on the area within the man's left sleave/cuff. (Hide/mask his the man's fingers if you can). Behold! Jack the Ripper- complete with top hat. An arm is outstretched upwards from the hat and has what appears to be a knife in it's hand. Immediately look to the right and a female face appears on a bed with pillows.
If you can't obtain a copy of the book, here's a picture of what can be seen:



If you have managed to identify the above image and that of Jack the Ripper, then why not try to see this scene:
Step 1- Turn the book back to it's original position.
Step 2- Mask off/hide the top half of the picture if possible.
Step 3- Look to the left and upwards of the glass. There is what appears to be the outline of a severed breast on a table (The corner of the table and it's leg are parallel to the glass). The breast itself is seeping blood downwards. Could this image be connected to the death of Mary Kelly?

Once again, here is that picture if you don't have the book:



The breast itself forms part of a bigger image which is hidden within the shading close-by and is without doubt related to the death of Catherine Eddows. In conclusion, can I ask why so many murder scenes are incoporated within the portrait, by Sickert: "Putana a Casa" which is owned by the acclaimed auther, Patricia Cornwell? Additionally, in loose Latin terms 'Ennui' not only means 'boredom' but another translation of it says 'I hate, I dislike'. Sickert himself, hated and disliked women and his secrets have remained hidden within in his paintings for well over a century. Isn't about time his darkest secret was revealed to the world and the case was finally closed?

I have found over 20 other scenes in only two of Sickert's paintings and really think this could be it. Here's the painting 'Ennui' by the way:



[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Jackdaw]
edit on 1-24-2012 by Springer because: Edited title per author's request.




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
fascinating analysis of the painting. I have no opinion on who Jack the Ripper is, but as an artist, I can vouch for hidden messages and pictures in some of paintings. It's fun to see what you can hide in an overall picture...but was this guy really the Ripper? I don't know.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Thanks. The question you have to ask yourself though, is why would Sickert put these in his paintings and so many at that? He would have been hung, drawn and quartered if someone had seen what he'd done whilst he was alive.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Sorry, but I don't see a single thing here.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Fascinating!

A man moved by his guilt to make a covert confession, or a man gaining a thrill from an audacious stunt?

Either that, or it's entirely coincidental. Hmmmm.

Sadly, it's not compelling evidence, but it is an interesting factor to consider. Perhaps some of the artistic types here at ATS could conduct their own survey of the painting?



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
They are, but they can't be there by mistake, there's whay too many.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Sorry about double post.
Here's one more image that I've found that I thought you might like to see.



The darker part in the upper left hand corner is without doubt a deerstalker hat. Below this hat is a mans face intwined with a woman's face on the right hand side. His nose is slightly darker than his face and his nostrils are much darker. Below his chin, there is a small dark area which portray the woman's lips. Below these, piercing her neck, is a sharp object.
(This is not the only deerstalker hat within Sickert's paintings)



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
you are a victim of BRAIN ILLUSSIONS !

the humane brain is soooo kind to help you identifie what you see that with just a few streaks and lines it offers you something out of your memory that resembles closest !!

please do this test too:

write a text and just make sur the 1ST and the last letter of each word are at the right place in the word and all other letters in the word just place them at random !!
believe it or not but you and other people will be able to read that text without a problem !!
===>>
example:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
When I look at that painting I think, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Even if you were 100% right about the paintings, that would still only leave one piece of evidence that Sickert was Saucy Jack.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Yes, I totally agree that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. However, I have studied several of Sickert's colourful paintings and when the same are examined in a purely black and white state, certain macabre & sinister images appear. The question to be asked is why? Does anybody out there know why Sickert would include such scenes within his paintings and by way of both colour and dubious shading, attempt to hide the same?



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
very interesting analysis. sometimes we see what we want to see, but I think this is a case of the opposite.

good work jd



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I love art, but I don't see a thing. Maybe I'm looking for it, instead of just letting it appear.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Thanks for the thumbs up JD. It's nice to know that somebody else can also SEE the truth!
My research is almost complete. All I wish for now is for some form of media( be it newspaper, magazine, book publisher etc etc ) to believe that this story is worth airing.
Once again, many thanks, Jackdaw.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Intersting,but I don't see a damned thing.Why can't I ever see these things



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Wow, did you just see that invisible guy walk across your room?



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I didn't see a thing but then again if you stare at anything long enough you'll "see" what you want, just like Christians always seem to find the answers to their questions in the Bible...if you "look" long enough and hard enough you can justify anything.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Can I apologise to some ATS viewers who appear unable to see the images outlined. Please remember that the e-mailed pictures are only a fragmented portion of a much larger picture.(For instance, the first picture-Jack the Ripper/Woman's face on pillow. When one looks at this segment of the picture as a whole,one can definately see the outline of a bed complete with sheets!) Although I personally do not advocate that those who are unconvinced go out and buy the book or even obtain a black/white copy of ENNUI in order to see what is obvious to myself and others, I can understand their frustration. Over the next week I will attempt to send images to this site that they will be able to comprehend. (I haven't even got to the vase yet.Now that is mind blowing)
Keep Watching!



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
So when are the next pics coming? I might not be able to see them but I'm still interested



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Dear viewers, before I reveal anymore images can I give your learned selves some background facts. The photograph of ENNUI as depicted in CORNWELL'S book has been the subject of much of my research. (Under a magnifying lens!). However, are you aware that SICKERT himself painted five ever so slightly different versions of the painting. Some are owned by private collectors, one hangs in the TATE GALLERY and another is owned by the ROYAL FAMILY! I personally wonder if such paintings were reduced to pure black & white what macabre/murderous images would come to light. Question? Is an image of Jack the Ripper within the sleeve of the other paintings. If not, why not? My critics harp on about a DEERSTALKER HAT. They say that this item of headwear featured in several of the murders. I have already shown one such image (Taken from Putuna a Casa ).Here is another such image, however taken from ENNUI.

What must be born in mind when viewing the image is the fact that on October 2nd 1888 a female torso was discovered under the foundations of SCOTLAND YARD POLICE HEADQUARTERS.(The body recovered had no head /arms). If you cannot see this picture, try this one. A prostate victim whom I believe may well be CATHERINE EDDOWS

The obvious questions
to be asked after over 115yrs, is why are the images hidden within the paintings? Why did Sickert paint 5 versions of ENNUI?(Are the images of Jack the Ripper's supposed 5 murders contained within such portraits?).
The ultimate question is this
id SICKERT paint his so called masterpeices from imagination, photographs,memory or guilt? Did he paint such images before, during or after the fact. WHO KNOWS?

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jackdaw]



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I see the face there... pretty creepy, but can't make out anything more.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join