Status: urban legends
An article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer records some Philippine urban legends: the "White Lady" of Balete Drive, Robina Gokongwei's "snake twin" lurking in department store dressing rooms, the elusive "kapre" that lives in an ancient mango tree near the Emilio Aguinaldo house in Kawit town, and Andres Bonifacio's love child from a place aptly named Libog (now Santo Domingo) in Albay province. None of those mean much to me. But most of the article is devoted to discussing two other Philippine legends that are of more general interest. The first one is that Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines,
"was the father of Adolf Hitler, the result of an indiscretion with a prostitute in Vienna." The second one is that Jose Rizal was also Jack the Ripper:
Rizal was in London from May 1888 to January 1889, in the British Library copying "Sucesos de las islas Filipinas" by hand because there were no photocopying machines at the time. Jack the Ripper was active around this time, and since we do not know what Rizal did at night or on the days he was not
in the library, some people would like to believe Rizal is suspect. They argue that when Rizal left London, the Ripper murders stopped. They say that Jack the Ripper must have had some medical training, based on the way his victims were mutilated. Rizal, of course, was a doctor. Jack the Ripper liked women, and so did our own Rizal. And -- this is so obvious that many overlooked it -- Jose Rizal's initials match those of Jack the Ripper!
If Jack the Ripper did turn out to be Filipino, that would throw a wrench in his status as the
Most Evil Brit of all time.
Related Posts:
Nov 9, 2005:
Japanese Urban Legends
Oct 14, 2004:
Iraqi Urban Legends
Comments
No knows if Jack the Ripper was a Mason - that's just one (very far-fetched) theory.
He did keep half a kidney from Catherine Eddowes (he sent the other half to a newspaper office). However, according to his letter, he fried it and ate it (fava beans and a nice chianti weren't mentioned....)
Catherine Eddowes had no children, therefore no DNA to match.
Jack the Ripper was just as likely to be a woman as a man.
All foreigners were suspected of being Jack the Ripper (it was such a very 'un-English' crime!). Therefore, those women would not have gone down dark alleyways with a foreigner - Mary Kelly certainly wouldn't have invited one into her rooms. Whoever he, or she, was, the circumstances of the deaths seems to indicate that the killer was someone the women knew, trusted and believed to be harmless - probably someone they'd known all their lives, not the newly-arrived foreign stranger.
perhaps maybe stating the fact that the other kidney has been eaten would stop detectives from looking for it. dr. rizal could now walk away with a human kidney without suspicion.
Yeah pretty hard to tell who's kidney it is...what was suggested however was to DNA test Rizal's living relative and match it with anything they can get from the kidney that they found along with the "letter of confession" to confirm that it was Rizal's belongings.
Of course...Jack the Ripper could have been a woman.
Whitechapel was a very impoverished section of London. Mary Kelly along with all the other victims were prostitutes. I've seen and heard people do crazier things for money than have sex with a stranger. Even though people were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, the show must go on. They still had to work to survive knowing the risks.
On a side note...Rizal was also extremely intelligent and was a "ladies man." What can I say, he knew what to say to the ladies.
Jen in Cebu: Definitely? hahaha wow that's the most incredible statement i heard so far. only their death is definite about humans. can you present more of what you've read to say definitely?
The whole thing was an "experiment" for you, you say? Oh well, I suppose that would be your tactic - to act like you're so much smarter than me and just playing me to see how I respond. Don't be so arrogant. I'm here because I want to be. As for why it took me a long time to respond, I was studying for my exams. Unlike you, I have to do work. LOL.
You said sorry, then you went and continued it anyway. LOL again. You don't understand the meaning of being apologetic, do you?
"As I have said before, only read what I have posted and the facts that go with them. You counter those FACTS with "it's absurd," "false," or "lies.""
This is where you make a mistake. Funny - you say you never accept anything as a given fact, and yet you say - in caps to boot - that what you said are facts. You are inconsistent, that's why you have lost this argument. Just admit it.
I get it. So basically, you believe a person is a suspect if he was in the same place at the same time as the crime - "same" here meaning the same city and same year as when and where the murders occurred. Well, if this is your definition of a suspect, of course Rizal would be one. Your definition is wrong, of course (do you also think that all the babies born in London at the time were suspects?)
"I am not in the habit of using the same words over and over again. I was taught not to in school.(Like you stating imbecile over
and over again.)"
Again you're wrong, because you do repeat words. And don't insult me, fool. I was aware that I shouldn't repeat my words, so for your benefit, I varied them.
"Though you haven't really responded to my real questions, and instead went ahead and attacked my personal attacks, your argument is null no? Do you agree with what I said then if you are not going to respond?"
"Thick-skinned". That's the only thing I can say about you. How immoral can you get? You have ben caught calling others names, and instead of being sorry, you accuse me of only responding to your personal attacks? How evil can you get, moron? Strange, I remember responding to your "real questions". What "questions" are these that you say I haven't responded to? Why don't you give an example? Are you just making it all up? Thought so.
And how are YOU so sure of this? Did you know him personally? Ever speak to him?
LOL. Just turned you argument back on you. That's gotta hurt.
"I never said I don't name call. I just said you did. How could I be a hypocrite? I never said I didn't do it. You however, labeled me a name caller, ergo, you shouldn't name call back as an anti-hypocrite."
Look, you don't know the meaning of the word "hypocrite" (you know, the English word? Not the word you've got in your imagination?) so just shut up and stop acting like you know something. So what if you said you don't name call, you still do, and you said I do, when you started it, so you're a hypocrite. You can't deny that you name-call and that you started it, and you're not even pretending to be sorry anymore, so this is your next defense. Pathetic.
"You posted the 3 posts again...i'm down to two. lol. Looks like I hit a nerve again."
In your dreams. Actually, you only answered with 2 posts afterwards. Now I've only got 2 posts myself.
"If it were oil, I'd have more money.hahaha"
One of your problems is you care about money too much. Just a hint.
"You take this so seriously."
Isn't this a serious discussion we're having? The problem as I see it is that YOU don't take it seriously. Or, of course, you could always just admit that you're trolling and trying to provoke me. It's obvious anyway.
Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
i.e. concerned Filipino are a hypocrite.
hehehe I forgive you.
I just saw this new comment from museum of hoaxes new comments page and you guys are pretty hardcore on this topic.
I read what you guys have been writing and i have to say anything is possible.
I'm not familiar with this Jose Rizal gentleman but I believe in giving things a chance.
Maybe he did it so what?
It doesn't take anything away from you people.
Charybdis - Moderator
But why do you insult my for how how rich I am? Is it because you've nothing else to say? You poor, poor man.
In the first place, just as you said I know nothing of you personally, you also know nothing about me. How do you know how much money I have? That's why you are so very funny.
"Money makes the world go round?" Do you really believe that? Are you really that maerialistic and greedy a person. I'm sorry. I mean, I just automatically assumed you were a Christian since most Filipinos are, and you know Christianity says you shouldn't care about money too much. But I guess I was wrong.
LOL, you really have no right to criticize me, because you're an archetype yourself - a Filipino who left his country, and now thinks he's superior to his countrymen back home. Well, your belief is wrong, of course, but since when did that stop people from believing the things they do? Personally, I don't think running away is very superior.
And it makes sense that you would focus on wealth in this discussion. I mean, it's the only thing you've got going for you.
"I do believe that no matter how
stubborn one person is, they can still change."
Was that intended for me? I think it should be for you.
As for the typo, I still don't make as many as you. ;P
I really like the part about the net cafe. Why would you say that, considering you don't even know, or have any way of of knowing, where I post from? That proves that you are so desperate you've reached the stage where you just throw any insult you can at me, regardless of whether it's true or not. You're pathetic, you know that?
Same with you saying it takes me hours to respond. You have no way of knowing that. Hurt my brain? Don't kid yourself. I've argued with people who are a lot smarter than you, and unlike you, don't rely on insulting their opponent's person as in arguments.
And then, you spend several paragraphs proving nothing at all. Nice try. You still haven't answered my question - why do you say you don't accept anything as true, and then in the same breath say you are showing me facts?
"Simple minds?" You are too arrogant for your own good. The truth is, you are not as important a person as you think you are.
I know what suspect means. I already said that under your definition, everyone in London at the time would be a suspect. But Rizal didn't do it.
As for the whole next few paragraphs... why don't you stop struggling and just apologize? You say I'm the hypocrite for name calling you after I accused you. But I already said, 3 or more times, that my policy is it's okay to name call people after they do it to me. You started it.
And you didn't give me any examples of your questions that I haven't been able to answer. Wonder why?
Do I remember if I'm a blind patriot fanatic? No... because I'd have to be one before I can remember it right?
And I just thought of another, better word for you. Shameless.
i'm gonna have to agree. just think the crusades.
And I hit on something good when I least expected it..serendi-- what do you call that now?
Postings from eon, concerned Filipino, and Davis have me in stitches. You guys are something. Really. Insults galore. Streaks of brilliance. Humor without intent.History. Tsismis.
This is better than Discovery Channel andNational Geographic combined.
Keep it up guys!
Yes, I enjoyed your banter with Filipino- but only to a point.
Perhaps you guys might want to get back to the subject of Rizal- Did he or didn' he? How did you guys know Jack the R. was a mason? If Jack the R. was a mason, then that rules out women as possible perpetrators because you could not be a mason if you are a woman, right?
Then after some substantial diccussion, you can get right back to firing away at each other and tearing your guts out.
We'd still be in the sidelines-LOL.
As far as Jack being a mason, there are many sites claiming he was. A site you can find such information is http://freemasonrywatch.org/jacktheripper.html
Though I don't condone those sites as a petitioner. It might have slight "truths" in them. As you already know, I believe in hearing everyone's side of the story. The movie "From Hell" points to a masonic conspiracy. Although, the worshipful master(head of the lodge - usually takes at least 12 years to achieve) of the lodge by me, told me that based on his studies, he believes Jack the Ripper was a mason and the masonic timing of everything was just a coincidence. I'll gather more information.
What is that?
Pray ask your WM friend to enlighten us further.
BTW eon, I admire young men who are "working" on certain perceived inadequacies.
And I am not patronizing you, Ok?
Now you go and seek out your WM friend and tell us about what he has to say about masonic timings.
BTW, again. I have been told that 'high noon' is significant to masons. But J the R killed {prowled?} at night. I am told also that lodge meetings are usually late afternoons. So maybe J the R sought out low flying palomas after attending lodge meetings?
Eon, I think your WM friend will have to tell you a lot more if we are to attach some masonic
ties to our 100-year old mystery.
http://www.goodmorals.org/mormons/index.asp?poetlist=ChapterTwo.htm
"The Entered Apprentice's penalty for disclosing his secret grip is to have "the throat cut across from ear to ear, the tongue torn out by the roots, and the body buried up to the neck below the high tide line."
It states the other penalties for other degrees as well. I believe mary kelly suffered most of these penalties according to the autopsy reports.
I was told that in these times masonry is not as severe as before. Those were penalties for betraying such an elite group at the time. Now the society is open to those who inquire.
btw, thanks, knowing the problem is the first step. one of the masonic mottos are..."...make a good man a
Interesting. Perhaps Jack the Ripper was a mormon? If he was, Jose Rizal (not a mormon)should be off the hook.
Maybe a new thread on this possibility?
Curiouser and curiouser, eh?
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/35899
according to this, it was indeed copied from the masons as joseph smith was a mason(translator)
none the less, it is still possible that the perpetrator was a mormon.
I will look more into the actual murders and see if it has anymore masonic meaning. If it has more masonic meaning that mormonistic.
On a side note though...freemasonry was not as wide spread as it is today. It was much more elite. It is possible that these were the consequences for betraying or illegaly acquiring the secrets of the masons. I was told by a mason that during the 1920s...if you wore a ring and were unable to defend it against questioning, your finger bearing the ring will be cutoff on the spot...not really relevant but it shows the seriousness of their members in the past in the matters of secrecy and honor.
So, since all you've done is make allegations based on circumstantial evidence, and you haven't actually proven anything, pretty much all I'm doing here is responding to your personal attacks. Since you've been reduced to making off-topic aspersions on how rich I am, I don't actually have to hang around here any longer; you know that. It's already obvious I've won anyway. So maybe I'll humor you a little while longer, maybe not.
First, you think money is important, you materialistic little boy? I don't think so. And for you to say I don't because I don't have it is completely illogical and well within your character. (You're going to defend yourself by saying you just said that to mock me. And what if I say that mocking others is wrong? What then?) Money is a man-made construct, you idiot; it doesn't even have any value beyond what we attach to it. They're just slips of paper! A person's character is more important than how rich he is, but you wouldn't understand that, now would you?
Second, I've had my doubts about whether you're even actually a Filipino from the start, since racists have been known to impersonate Filipinos, but if you are, it's better that you leave here. We don't need people like you here.
Third: You think you're superior to me? Well, you thought wrong. I too, don't think I'm superior to others, but I KNOW that I'm superior to you.
Four: YOU'RE actually lecturing ME about assuming things!? You're the one who assumed I'm poor and don't have home Internet access, you degenerate. Don't you think that's a little hypocritical, even for you?
Five: Yes, that's my policy. You don't like it? Then why did you start name-calling me? You think you can do things and others can't, you conceited little boy?
You know, one of the really amusing things about you is how you think I'm a hypocrite for calling you a name caller while I also do it, while ignoring the greater sin - you STARTED the name-calling. Now why would that be, you think? I'd like to see you slither out of this one, like the snake that you are.
Seven: It is, or should be. Your point being...?
Eight: I could say that, but then I'd be lying. And remind me again why I have to give any of my personal details to you, an insignificant civilian who doesn't have any authority whatsoever over me? And while you're at it, could you explain what my Internet access has to do with the topic? And please answer this one, I know you ignore questions that you can't answer, so I'm making sure you don't have that convenient option available to you.
There's a perfectly valid reason for my taking a long time to reply, but I am under no compulsion to explain it to a nobody like you. Suffice it to say that I have limited Internet time (but not because I go to a cafe) and frankly, I can think of a lot of better things to do with that time than talk to an attention-starved loser like you.
Excuses? Like what? You know, I noticed another of your tactics: you try to provoke me, then when I respond, you say I'm on the defensive. Why don't you go back to grade school, your mind's still at that level.
Nine: So they did. Which proves what, exactly?
I might remind you that some people have insulted you too. I suppose this is yet another example of how you ignore facts that don't agree with your case.
And about keeping an open mind? I've thought seriously about this, and I've concluded that Rizal is not Jack the Ripper. It's not within his character, and there is NO actual evidence. You're confusing open-mindedness with lunacy.
Ten: I've also thought about this, and I've decided that you're the one who doesn't know the meaning of suspect, or hypocrite for that matter. However, you have yet to be enlightened. And stop mentioning the others, you only mention them when they support you, isn't that unfair?
You pointed it out? Others pointed it out? Did you not see my response, you immoral bastard? Or are you ignoring it in the hopes that I won't remember, since you can't answer. I said: I'm not a hypocrite because it's my policy to insult back when others insult me first. If they don't, then I don't. I think that's fair. You are a hypocrite because you have the nerve to criticize me for name-calling when you started it in the first place. How dare you. This is the fourth or so time I've said this, and you have not yet been unable to respond. Now who lost? :D
"As for "not answering your questions""
Here's a thought: Why don't you just go and give an example instead of going into all these contortions? It's getting painful to watch. What's that? You can't?
And you still, after I asked you twice, haven't explained how you can say you don't take anything as a fact, and in the same breath, say you showed me facts. I demand an answer, so you can embarrass yourself further.
And you still haven't explained how you can deny that you're a hypocrite, and even worse that that, call me a hypocrite, I already explained my policy, and you're clearly at fault for starting the name-calling. I hope you'll stop evading the issue, as is your wont, and answer this.
And you still haven't explained to me how you can call yourself someone skilled in the field of debate, or say you're carrying on a serious discussion, when you keep resorting to personal attacks. I know why I'm doing it - it's in response to yours. What's your excuse? s it because you think there's nothing wrong with "mocking" others? Is it because you don't realize it's not even related to the topic, and you're making one fallacy after another? Is it because you're desperate and have nothing else to say, but you have to respond or else you'll be humiliated? Is it because you got so "pikon" from my arguments that you lost control? Yeah, that must be it. Why don't you just admit it? Admit you lost. Admit you were trying to provoke me into a flame war, since that's all you're good at? Admit you're just trolling?
I'm waiting.
"I own you"
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
you do though
Can't your brain cells serve you better? What a pathetic scheme ALEX!
Could Rizal harbour an anger against prostitutes due to a personal experience that damaged him physically and emotionally?
Those are all speculations which is in no way sufficient for a conclussion but taken together with other facts could be intriguing on this issue.