so which do you prefer, guns or knives? the discussion started good, until misunderstanding sets in and never went away. for jose's sake, its a just a discussion of an urban legend. also an open mind might have been entertaining, anyway not everything that are written on history books are always truthful as history is just the story of the winners, their own propaganda. i stumbled upon this item because i was googling for the truth about rizal as i do not totally trust history books. there was also a story about rizal failing a subject in the University of Santo Tomas, stories you wouldnt read from propaganda materials of history books trying to deify a hero with ultra superlatives. im not trying to bring rizal down, im just keeping an open mind. rizal is just human, he should have faults like we all do. you all should know how humans work, you are human too. now i would like to dig deeper in rizals life which had not been covered or tampered by history books. He was not so super as we are being led to believe. so, my question to you guys: would you take the blue pill or the red pill?

Adolf Rizal's right. just because it's in a book doesn0dt mean its 100% rightd

Just thought I'd point out -

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.

very interesting points indeed. though we don't even really know if the other half was catherine eddowes' kidney. It was found to be inconclusive. Some thought the kidney along with the "from hell" note was a hoax or macabre practical joke.

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.

Definitely Dr.JOse Rizal is NOT Jack the ripper!!!!

can we all start our statements with "what i've read"? because surely we all just read our information somewhere. It is funny that we present and defend our information as if it were an absolute fact. Let's have some fun and give credence to this idea if only on this web discussion as it is truly intriguing. Show that you are not a sheep, challenge the purported facts. embrace, welcome, and nurture new preposterous ideas as they may hold the truth.

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?

by the way...i spoke to a worshipful master(the head of a masonic lodge) about jack the ripper and he said that he believes he was a mason. However, his actions were of his sexual preference and not because of masonic preference. The timing of the murders he said had masonic meaning but were mere coincidences.

Please. This is getting tiring already. You think being "open-minded" constitutes not accepting anyhthing at all as true - that's why you're stupid. You say you don't care what I think, yet you keep coming back and responding to me - stop making excuses.
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?"
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.

Suspect: a person who is suspected, esp. one suspected of a crime, offense, or the like.

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.

Well look who finally saved up enough money to go to the net cafe! Your excuse...you can't spend a few minutes outside study time? No immediate internet access is more like it. Come on, i'm 23, I work full time, I go to school, I run my own business, maintain my house, I party and still I have several minutes to spare. It probably takes you an hour or two to reply maybe more. That's why it tires you, because it hurts your brain. Nothing is Absolute. We are trained to believe whatever it is we were taught when we were young. I comply with the teachings but does it make it true? If A makes B move does it mean that A definitely is true? I understand the meaning of being sorry but I also stated that I'm still learning. I say FACTS in order for simpler minds to understand. I'm going by the sources that you would believe to be true; so to you, they are FACTS. You already know I contest everything. You state you are a studious fellow but you don't even know what suspect means. For example, there are 5 suspects, are all 5 guilty of the crime? Babies-if they were intelligent enough to orchestrate such crimes, tell the difference between the liver and the kidney, make incisions to take them out, lived in the vicinity, etc. then yes they would be suspects. Their whereabouts make them a suspect but it's not guaranteed that they did it. Having a suspect suggests further investigation. You didn't vary your words hence why i pointed it out. You use the same adjectives. Maybe you lack the vocabulary repertoire. I never said I didn't name call. I just pointed out that you did after you marked me a name caller making you the hypocrite. This is the second time I said this, do you understand it now? "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" LOL you are such a dork! You would say "thought so" in a face to face conversation when the other party cannot respond to your questions instantaneously. Of course I can't answer your questions as you type them, I won't even see them until you submit your comment. "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." lol I am not 100% but you are so sure of yourself. You are the blind patriot fanatic remember? You have to state the reaction that i'm supposed to get? sounding desperate my friend. "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 called me a name caller, you name called, I pointed out that you name called.(I used your own stuff against you, that

lol money is what makes the world go 'round. do i have to go boiler room on you? you don't think money's that important? that's because you don't have it. money can be bad but it can also be really good. how do you think non profits survive? aiding third world countries? I don't care about the name calling, but I care about the cause. I do believe that no matter how stubborn one person is, they can still change. "If I can change, and you can change, everyone can change!" P.S.

The quote is 'If I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!'
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.

I received a comment in my e-mail with a guy going berserk. It's not showing up here guess someone reported it.

It was a one-off flamer so I deleted the comment.

Charybdis - Moderator

that's cool it's good to know MOH is being somewhat monitored.

LOL. A whole paragraph just talking about money. It isn't even related to the topic. Just admit you're wrong already. It'll make things much easier.
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.

You don't care about name-calling do you? Well, I suppose, for someone of your moral caliber, that makes sense. But, since you say that you value serious discussion so much - do you think name-calling has any place in a serious discussion? (As I said before, I can do it because you started it. And you haven't stopped yet.
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.

First, no matter what you say money is important. Second, it wasn't my choice to come here but even if I were in the philippines, I'd still be well off. Three, I don't feel superior over filipinos, I feel superior over you. Four, you assume too much. You know what they say, when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me...but in this case...just yourself. Five, your policy to name call...who are you again? Six, you going to a net cafe of course is a hypothesis, an educated guess. I say it to mock you. Did you not know that? Seven, you stated this was a serious discussion. Eight, just admit it, you don't have immediate internet access that's why it takes you forever to reply. Stop making excuses, you're always on the defensive. Nine, people already comment on how idiotic you are, and how people should have an open mind and challenge the textbooks. Ten, You didn't know what suspect means nor did you know what hypocrite means before the people in this blog enlightened you. I was able to point it out, and other people pointed it out as well. Who lost? :D As for "not answering your questions" just REREAD the whole blog and you will see, I need not repeat myself and become as redundant as you.

PeOpLe wHo ThiNk peOpLe wIths DIfFeReNcE OpInIonS iS eViL R rEaL fAnATix

"PeOpLe wHo ThiNk peOpLe wIths DIfFeReNcE OpInIonS iS eViL R rEaL fAnATix"


i'm gonna have to agree. just think the crusades.

I stumbled on this thread by accident. Thought I'd read up on Rizal while all my relatives are out somewhere getting themselves tired -5-day holiday, lent season and all that.

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!

haha thanks wallawalla, glad you're not taking it as seriously as some people do.

Hey, eon.

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.

haha but you should join! 2 or more brains are better than one! i agree that it is getting out of hand...and I do say mean things, but i know my problem and i'm working on it hehe...i'm only 23...I still have lots to learn.

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.

Your friend the worshipful master, what did he mean by "masonic timing?" Are there special "masonic times?" Like a time to eat, a time to die, a time to kill? Masonic coincidence?
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.

actually, the meetings are at night or maybe they vary from lodge to lodge or jurisdiction. At the lodge I visit, they start their meetings between 7:45pm-8:00pm. I was talking about it last night and I was told that slicing from ear to ear would be masonic relating more to the secrecy of the group. I searched it and found this site.

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

Opened the site you suggested and it appeared to be insights into mormonism and their rituals which suggests that it (mormonisn} was a take-off from masonry or at least its rituals were akin to those of masons.

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?

it's quite possible that it could've been a mormon...i'm not sure about their history and how long they have had this pre-1990 blood oath

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.

This is really getting boring. I mean, it was amusing at first, but it gets tiring talking to you. Don't blame me for it. So before I refute your arguments again, I'd like to point out something: As far as the actual topic of this board is concerned, I've already said everything I have to say. You haven't proven Jose Rizal did it, and you never will. I've said that yes, under your definition of suspect, Rizal would be one, but your definition is wrong, not mine. I'm sorry, but when the police are looking for a killer, do they investigate everyone living near or associated with the victim? No, it's more specific than that. And since the police are the experts at solving crimes, and not you, I presume they're right.
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.

Comments: Page 2 of 7 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›