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.

 

From Hell

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I watched a movie last night called "From Hell" Starring Jonny Depp. It was about Jack the Ripper, but with a twist.

It seems the lead star, Jonny Depp found out that ol Jack was part of the Royal Family, and a Mason to boot.

Good movie, I think its based in fact.




posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally post All Seeing Eye
I think its based in fact.

(Censored).

Because just the last year through DNA analysis they traced Jack the Ripper to a prominent artist, whom had nothing to do with Masons nor the Royal family.

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ummmmmm, I wonder where they got a sample of his DNA from?

You like calling people names?



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Are you refering to the theory put forward by Patricia Cornwall regarding Sickert. Actualy, just remembering off the top of my head, the DNA evidence although compelling was not entirely conclusive. Most of the evidence she quotes, his paintings seeming to echo or refer to the whitechapel murders, his disturbed early life and sexual dysfunction certainly wouldn't rule him out as a suspect but my money is still on the American self styled Dr, Tumblety sic, who fled Whitechapel for New York after coming under police suspicion and was followed over by two British detectives but managed to disappear. He was named as prime suspect in a recently released letter from that era by one of the men involved in the case.


arc

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 12:58 AM
link   
This is an interesting (if somewhat long) article about the Ripper and the history of the case

www.casebook.org...

[Edited on 24-3-2003 by arc]



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Very interesting roadghost, where ever the needle points it no longer points towards a mason or member of the royal family.

Which was really just a proposition put forth for the express purpose of being distributed as a book.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 02:31 AM
link   
I read an article in the paper today that the guy who made the film Withnail and I became interested in this subject when approached to write a script for a Hollywood studio(the idea fell through). However he continued to research this and is about to release a book about his findings claiming he knows the id of the ripper and also that it involves a conspiricy amidst the highest members of the then establishment.


We shall wait and see...



posted on May, 12 2003 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Well; did the Duke really have a child with a "profane" woman?



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Too bad the movie is just fiction lol.



posted on May, 28 2003 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadghost
Are you refering to the theory put forward by Patricia Cornwall regarding Sickert. Actualy, just remembering off the top of my head, the DNA evidence although compelling was not entirely conclusive. Most of the evidence she quotes, his paintings seeming to echo or refer to the whitechapel murders, his disturbed early life and sexual dysfunction certainly wouldn't rule him out as a suspect but my money is still on the American self styled Dr, Tumblety sic, who fled Whitechapel for New York after coming under police suspicion and was followed over by two British detectives but managed to disappear. He was named as prime suspect in a recently released letter from that era by one of the men involved in the case.


This is actually true.
But they made this discovery a couple of months after the movie was filmed I beleive.

[Edited on 28-5-2003 by mazon]



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   
mason or no, Jack knew their rites as shown by the way he killed. he was probly royalty, cos theyre screwy enough to produce such an inbred specimen. is it just me, or are guys cracking down on your censorship???



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 11:21 AM
link   
What a load of absolute crap some of you have just spouted.
I'm a Brit. Jack the Ripper is our most notorious serial killer.
Nobody knows who he was or where he went. There is lots of speculation, but NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY, knows.
There is no proof he was a mason. No proof that he was a royal. No proof of anything.
Even the suggestion that he had medical training is pure speculation.

To suggest that he was a royal or a mason is very, very ghey. Thousands of researchers haven't been able to pin a single thing on him, yet you claim this bold statement here.

Either show me the facts or think before posting something that you so boldly assert to be true.



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller


What a load of absolute crap some of you have just spouted.
I'm a Brit. Jack the Ripper is our most notorious serial killer.
Nobody knows who he was or where he went. There is lots of speculation, but NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY, knows.
There is no proof he was a mason. No proof that he was a royal. No proof of anything.
Even the suggestion that he had medical training is pure speculation.

To suggest that he was a royal or a mason is very, very ghey. Thousands of researchers haven't been able to pin a single thing on him, yet you claim this bold statement here.

Either show me the facts or think before posting something that you so boldly assert to be true.


HAVE YOU READ THE POST?!?!?!

They do know who Jack the Ripper is, He WAS NOT a freemason.
Nobody assumed he was..
He was a german artist..
they have proof of it.
aswell as some paintings of the dead prostitutes, he knew exactly how and where they were cut & sliced.
Plus he painted a picture of his room and titled it "jack the rippers room" wich i think is hillarious.

[Edited on 31-5-2003 by mazon]



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 01:07 PM
link   
www.echonews.com...
you can also find it somewhere on npr.



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Yeah and I can also find another thousand theories elsewhere on the net that claim to offer the same standard of proof.

By the way, I did read the thread and there was a reference to masonry and royalty. Maybe you need to read up too before advising others.



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 03:58 PM
link   
No duh. Ive also watched the movie..
but there is something seriously wrong with you if you honestly dont beleive the artist is "Jack the Ripper"

Theres dna evidence, check out npr, if that doesnt convince you then im sorry for you



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It was originally "Murder By Decree" that suggested the killings were by Freemasons. "From Hell" is somewhat of a ripoff of it, except the original used Sherlock Holmes as the investigator. The killings might well have been committed by Freemasons, but probably minus the rituals. The bloody natures of the killings would suggest that a single serial killer had committed the murders, rather than a group of people, which is exactly what the Freemasons would want the public to think.



posted on May, 31 2003 @ 06:53 PM
link   
wasn't the movie "From Hell" based on the graphic novel of the same name? afaik, it doesn't purport to be anything but a work of fiction.

on a more general Ripper note, though, the Sickert theory as put forth in Cornwell's book is extremely compelling, although not without its faults. it at least seems to be the theory with the most forensic might behind it. calling the case solved, however, seems premature. the evidence surrounding Sickert's behavior, while odd, isn't damning, and the DNA evidence is rather scant and collected from the so-called Ripper Letters, which are widely believed to be hoaxes anyway. facinating affair overall, though.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Yes but the point still stands, trying to pinpoint the Ripper murders on the Freemasons is utterly rediculous.

There's better chances that the Lacy-Peterson case was due to Satanists, than the Ripper murders.

There was not even any sign of "ritual" at all...if masons wanted to kill someone "ritually" don't you think they'd stick to the several imprecations that were given that lead to the "tounge torn out, heart and vitals taken thence, and with the body burned to ashes" type of penalties?

Of which none were ever enacted.

The man who was killing them, might have been a mason, just as the man down the street might be a mason, but what he was doing had NOTHING to do with masonry, and neither masonry nor the "royalty" plotted, nor protected the murderer.

More likely than not however, the murderer was not a mason.



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWanderer
Yes but the point still stands, trying to pinpoint the Ripper murders on the Freemasons is utterly rediculous.


Exactly my point. I think some people failed to see that when I posted.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join