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 and the Freemasons ?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Leveller

"Gadfly is a nice guy. But he's a total and utter liar and a hate filled bigot who spews half truths and biased falsities."

Tell me. How does that read?



Kind of sheepish- you sure aren't addressing me or you would have used my screen name. So I surmise you are being deceitful, sneaky and perhaps you are 'shy'?

Are you one of those 'shy-guys' Leveller?

It's probably O.K. and all with some people, maybe even most people but me personally- well I just think 'shy-guys' are punks.

So fess up, are you a 'shy-guy'?

Look up the term 'bigot' dude hehe, hehe




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
---- delete

[edit on 7-9-2004 by LTD602]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
It's probably O.K. and all with some people, maybe even most people but me personally- well I just think 'shy-guys' are punks.
Are you one of those 'shy-guys' Leveller?
Look up the term 'bigot' ?dude? hehe, hehe



You aren't very bright are you?
My example was made to prove how you use innuendo in your accusations against people. You then go and perfectly illustrate that example by doing exactly the same above.

I'm neither a punk nor a bigot as you infer.
But heck, I won't beat about the bush. I don't make cowardly inferences as you do. So I'll just write it down clearly for you so there's no misunderstanding.

You are the one who is acting like the punk and the bigot.

There. I hope that clears up any impression you have of me being a "shy-guy".



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Leveller, don't hold back my brother, tell us how you REALLY feel...



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
Who was Jack the Ripper?


Advertising Blurb:

The identity of the killer has remained one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries, and a wealth of theories have been posited which have pointed the finger at royalty, a barber, a doctor, a woman, and an artist. Using her formidable range of forensic and technical skills, Patricia Cornwell has applied the rigorous discipline of 21st century police investigation to the extant material, and here presents the hard evidence that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel Murders was the world famous artist, Walter Sickert.

By using techniques unknown in the late Victorian era, Patricia Cornwell has exposed Sickert as the author of the infamous Ripper letters to the Metropolitan Police. Her detailed analysis of his paintings show that his art continually depicted his horrific mutilation of his victims, and her examination of this man's birth defects, the consequent genital surgical interventions, and their effects on his upbringing present a casebook example of how a psychopathic killer is created.

With her knowledge of criminal investigation and her consummate skills as a bestselling writer, Patricia Cornwell has produced a book which is as compelling as it is authentic and pays due respect to the people whose early deaths spawned one of the twentieth century's least attractive entertainment industries -- Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly.




i tried to read this book, it is so detailed and dark, I felt like I was inside the rippers head....I couldn't finish it......she makes a great case for sickert being the killer.
One thing I remember is the description of the treatments he got for his disfigured genitalia, remember there was no anesthsia in those days.....more than enough to make a man angry towards women.....


the mason reference comes from the writing on the walls near one of the murders, right ?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by radagast

i tried to read this book, it is so detailed and dark, I felt like I was inside the rippers head....I couldn't finish it......she makes a great case for sickert being the killer.
One thing I remember is the description of the treatments he got for his disfigured genitalia, remember there was no anesthsia in those days.....more than enough to make a man angry towards women.....


the mason reference comes from the writing on the walls near one of the murders, right ?


Actually, I believe that is from the movie. No, the inferences to masons come from masonic critics, not anyone with a clue about the case. Moreover, I believe you are correct in your assessment of Sickerts book. It IS very dark, and takes you inside his head, and I felt she made an EXCELLENT case. More, the murders, same MO, continued in Paris and the United States, years after the "Ripper" vanished.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   
for Leveller


Dictionary.com Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense


I don't know if I resemble that or not- watta ya think?

BIGOT- hmm, that kind of has a nice ring to it.- bi-got or big-ot?

What's masonry's cut on all this?

I like it!

O.K., call me a bigot- I don't care. (I ain't kissing no one's foot!!)

Don't worry, I won't complain outside the posts. (we have both lost points !)

I do think it was a tad 'shy' acting of you (Leveller) to post:


Leveller
You are the one who is acting like the punk and the bigot.

There. I hope that clears up any impression you have of me being a "shy-guy".


If I were to call someone something I wouldn't beat around the bush! is this a close recitation of what you attempted to say and really meant, or was it more masonic mumbo-jumbo?

Weasel words= you are acting like . . . masonry=weasel words, am I right?

I just can't decide, 'sigh' (whoops) sorry /shrug\

Do they (masons) teach this stuff or did you learn it at college?

Sorry, it's yun-ee-verse-ah-tee isn't it?

Anyway, the deliberate side-tracking is duly (get it?) noted.

Back to the thread-

- Was Ol' Jack a mason or what?

The pro-masons are convincing me that I may have been wrong! (side with the masons ~ooh, shiver, shiver~) and Jack was a mason after all! (I have been wrong-)

Have you seen the masonic murder and child-abuse thread? ATS thread- - - masonry murders and abuse

Some really interesting stuff there. The guy that started it should get extra points!

Yuk, yuk

*little mason humor there




[edit on 9/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Your definition defies logic there dude.

Why does accusing somebody of "acting like a punk", amount to shyness? I wouldn't have thought that I could have been clearer.
Maybe you actually wanted me to call you "a punk" and that would have sufficed? Or would that still have been "weasel words"?

Anyway, coming from someone such as yourself, whose whole content seems to contain nothing but innuendoes and distortions of the truth, I can't really say that I'm bothered by your accusations. It's not like I'm going to lose any sleep over your words. If you were a nice guy, maybe I would be upset, but being insulted by somebody who seems to be devoid of moral worth doesn't phase me in the least. In fact, I find it kind of funny how you have to go off to a tangent to slur Freemasonry and Freemasons and then have a hard time returning to the thread topic.

My words are here on this forum for all to see. As are yours. I guess if there's a problem the readers here will be able to judge for themselves just exactly who the punk and the bigot actually is. I've got a feeling that it won't be me.


By the way. It says a lot about you when you have to selectively pick and choose a definition from dictionary.com!!! Let me just put up the rest of the definition for you so that there will be no confusion.

bigot

\Big"ot\, a. Bigoted. [Obs.]


\Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.] 1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

As I originally used the word, I get to define which part of the dictionary definition it comes from. The bold shoud suffice in this case.
Of course you're welcome to claim the French meaning of the word for yourself and you can even claim it to be truth. After all, it would be silly of anyone to accuse you of kissing the foot of a French king who has been dead for more than 400 years.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Your definition defies logic there dude.

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

As I originally used the word, I get to define which part of the dictionary definition it comes from. The bold shoud suffice in this case.
Of course you're welcome to claim the French meaning of the word for yourself and you can even claim it to be truth. After all, it would be silly of anyone to accuse you of kissing the foot of a French king who has been dead for more than 400 years.


Be a little more succinct in the future-


You think I'm a mind reader?

Like me pointing to a wall map of the world and saying "I've been there and leaving the room.

-wow-

So exactly (and succinctly) what is there about my 'bigotry' that you forsee as detrimental?

You know, as it relates to masonry and all- let's stay on topic



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Be a little more succinct in the future-


You think I'm a mind reader?


Sorry. I thought that it would have been quite clear that I wasn't referring to you as somebody who doesn't bow to a dead French king and that I was using the word in the context which I later quoted.
But then clarity and understanding doesn't seem to be your forte. I guess that I should have expected the ignorance displayed above.

As for your bigotry? Your accusations and innuendoes are steeped in it. What exactly is the point of quoting or pointing it out? All I need to do is refer any forum reader to your profile button and then ask them to click "Find Posts". Then they can just read any post made by you. They'll find enough bigotry there, to keep a small army of fundamentalists and fools, going for weeks. You would know this if you ever bothered researching any of the drivel that you spew.

So although I don't believe that I need to be more succinct, I would suggest to you that you open your eyes to your own ignorance. Posing questions that can easily be answered by yourself shows a certain laziness.

As for the mind reader question? No. I don't believe that you are a mind reader nor would ever have the capacity to understand what somebody else is thinking. You are too wrapped up in your own blind ignorance to consider anyone else's thoughts if they don't agree with you.
Heck!!! There goes that "bigot" definition again!!!



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
wrapped up in your own blind ignorance to consider anyone else's thoughts if they don't agree with you.
Heck!!! There goes that "bigot" definition again!!!


O.K.- so when you (just as an example) refuse to consider what I (as another example) believe then - - - -

what?

you are open minded and I'm a bigot?


WOW, no that's logic!

I have been wrong~



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Getting back to the Ripper/Masons connection.
We have to consider a few things.
The Masons in the time period we are talking about were a powerful orginisation.As such they wouldnt have been a party to something like this without very good reason.
1) If these Women were some how a direct threat to the Mason orginisation as a whole. I cannot imagine any senario where a group of East End prostitutes would be a threat to an organisation like the Masons.

2) If the Ripper was himself a Mason.A possible senario but i think if this was the case then it would have been at a very low level.As is well known Masons swear to help each other as a Brotherhood but i find it difficult to believe that anyone at the highest levels of Masonic power at the time would have condoned the helping of a killer.More likely he would have been spirited away to some Hospital some where.

3) If the Prostitutes were some how a threat to the British Royal family.If these girls were a threat then there are better ways to get rid of them than to slaughter them in such a way.After all why bring attention to something that you are trying to cover up?

4) If the prostitutes were a treat to the British Government at the time.Again why do something so horrible and draw attention to something you are trying to cover up.

The Mason connection just dosent add up. There was no reason the Masons would be involved in this, unless the perp was a Mason.But i think that rather than help him commit a crime the most likely thing would that the Mason in question would have been quietly commited.The Masons are a secretive Orginisation and as such would have done everything in their power to avoid any connection between themselves and the Ripper.
Just a few ideas i had, im not defending the Masons just trying to be fair to them.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Gadfly,

There's a reason for the little red "warn" symbol below your name.

Is it clear now ? Seems very succinct to me.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by LTD602]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNecros

Originally posted by Leveller
wrapped up in your own blind ignorance to consider anyone else's thoughts if they don't agree with you.
Heck!!! There goes that "bigot" definition again!!!


O.K.- so when you (just as an example) refuse to consider what I (as another example) believe then - - - -
what?

you are open minded and I'm a bigot?

WOW, no that's logic!
I have been wrong~



There is a difference between believing in a lie and believing in the truth. Maybe you don't understand that concept but others here clearly do. And to tell you the truth, I don't think that even you believe half of the crap that you post. You seem to be doing it just to get a rise out of people a la your coc aine insinuation.

The examples that you give are always distorted. For instance, your constant reference to "Masonic murder" when you are totally aware that murder is intentional and that in this case it was a tragic accident and that the incident took place outside of the boundaries of Freemasonry.
I'm afraid that you're onto yet another loser if you question my logic. The facts and the truth prove you to be wrong. If you do sincerely hold those beliefs, then I am not a bigot for not accepting them, as all I am doing is pointing out the truth to you. Maybe in your book Truth = Bigotry, but heck bud, out here in the real world it equates to the opposite.

You're correct about one thing though - you have been wrong. It's just a pity that you are too arrogant and blind to see the truth.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
Getting back to the Ripper/Masons connection.
We have to consider a few things.
The Masons in the time period we are talking about were a powerful orginisation.As such they wouldnt have been a party to something like this without very good reason.
1) If these Women were some how a direct threat to the Mason orginisation as a whole. I cannot imagine any senario where a group of East End prostitutes would be a threat to an organisation like the Masons.

2) If the Ripper was himself a Mason.A possible senario but i think if this was the case then it would have been at a very low level.As is well known Masons swear to help each other as a Brotherhood but i find it difficult to believe that anyone at the highest levels of Masonic power at the time would have condoned the helping of a killer.More likely he would have been spirited away to some Hospital some where.

3) If the Prostitutes were some how a threat to the British Royal family.If these girls were a threat then there are better ways to get rid of them than to slaughter them in such a way.After all why bring attention to something that you are trying to cover up?

4) If the prostitutes were a treat to the British Government at the time.Again why do something so horrible and draw attention to something you are trying to cover up.

The Mason connection just dosent add up. There was no reason the Masons would be involved in this, unless the perp was a Mason.But i think that rather than help him commit a crime the most likely thing would that the Mason in question would have been quietly commited.The Masons are a secretive Orginisation and as such would have done everything in their power to avoid any connection between themselves and the Ripper.
Just a few ideas i had, im not defending the Masons just trying to be fair to them.


Just to try to stay on point, Janus you are right... the whole "theory" about Jack and masons just doesn't add up... what is the Occams Razor rule?


Occam's Razor

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one.

In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


If konspiracy kooks, and kooks/Trolls in general would simply apply a modicum of logic and stop wishing into the wind, most of the nonsense we see posted about JFK, Jack, masonry would simply vanish...

But it really is too much to expect the konspiracy kooks to use their brains for more than ear spacers...



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I just finished watching From Hell for the very first time. My personal opinion is that Jack the Ripper was a person (notice not a "man") that killed for sport. I do believe that "Jack" was left-handed, but other than that, anything goes.

Was "Jack" a physician? Well, the cuts would have been cleaner then...
Was "Jack" a wealthy man hiding something? Perhaps, but then we wouldn't know what "Jack" was hiding because we never found out who it was...
Was "Jack" sexually abused by his mother? Maybe, but I wouldn't know now would I...
Was "Jack" just a person that loved the smell (and possibly taste) of freshly oxygenated blood? That's my hypothesis...

I wanted to code something, so here it goes...

Jack the Ripper is dead, if you want to know then make it your question when you get There...


[edit on 11/29/2004 by petey_pongo23]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   
If Jack was left handed it wouldn't that count out alot of things.

The noble class were taught everything right handed, and even then, still prevented from developing skills like writing etc with their left.

A butcher up until recent times could only be trained to make the required cut's right handed. Some thing to do with the blades I think.

And as for facts in movies, don't forget that Dr Jeckyl, a Vampire, that bloke with the aging portrait are all in the employ of the freemason's as well



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAGON27
so he could kill agian if needed??????????
nothing like a good hitman

[edit on 5-9-2004 by DRAGON27]


The theory you obtained from this book is really quite ridiculous. Lets pretend for a minute that Freemasons did assassinate people...they wouldn't waste their time or risk their cover by assassinating prostitutes.

You tell me, DRAGON27, what would they gain by sending a man to assassinate prostitutes, and then removing their internal organs?

Jack the Ripper was nothing more than a serial killer. There is no conspiracy going on here.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Anyone see the movie "FROM HELL"? That movie is all about the conspiracy theory behind Jack the Ripper being a Freemason, trying to protect the Prince from scandal. I won't ruin it for you for those who haven't seen it. Go ahead and rent it. There is a reenactment of a 1st degree initiation in there as well! It's very close to the 1st degree of masonry, I was shocked to see that in the movie.

CC



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
saw this article in a paper last week, founde it on net relating to a watch that has been found with an inscription which may shed some light on who the ripper was

heres a link to full story

www.joanandstevesjubilantukjournal.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join