A scientist and an “arm chair” detective claim theyve discovered who jack the ripper is via 126 year old dna found on one of the victims shawls. Apparently the boody knife points to on polish jew Aaron Kosminski, who was a suspect at the time. Personally, while it would be nice to know who jack the ripper was in some way, the mystery is just as nice. In general, I despise science and technology because of its degrading action against the human spirit and the incessant need to answer every question that sometimes should remain unanswered… I digress, but heres a link to one of the many articles

http://globalnews.ca/news/1550696/dna-evidence-identifies-jack-the-ripper-claims-amateur-detective/

A scientist and an “arm chair” detective claim theyve discovered who jack the ripper is via 126 year old dna found on one of the victims shawls. Apparently the boody knife points to on polish jew Aaron Kosminski, who was a suspect at the time. Personally, while it would be nice to know who jack the ripper was in some way, the mystery is just as nice. In general, I despise science and technology because of its degrading action against the human spirit and the incessant need to answer every question that sometimes should remain unanswered… I digress, but heres a link to one of the many articles

" I despise science and technology because of its degrading action against the human spirit and the incessant need to answer every question that sometimes should remain unanswered… " Questions are all we have. If you ask me there’s not enough answers. No offense but " science " and " technology " the stuff you " despise " is the reason you and your family can have an average life span passed 30 years old. Among plenty other things

I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait\\_of\\_a\\_Killer:\\_Jack\\_the\\_Ripper—Case\\_Closed years ago, it was a fun read. I think Kosminski is mentioned but isn’t the main suspect.

@cstokes4‌ yes I read that one too. Convincing, but they all are I guess. Lol

@Cigshurtmylungs‌ Indeed, I’ve never doubted the veracity of your side. But I somehow doubt that living as long as possible at all costs is the way to go, as it is, all these great things we have today do have a hidden cost. But I understand and respect how you feel.

If you despise science and technology what are you doing on a computer?

I read a report of this as well, but the author mentioned it is not the “slam dunk” some media outlets are reporting due to the fact that the DNA evidence from Kosminski could have occurred in ways OTHER than being the knife wielder, ie where the knife was stolen or purchased from Kosminski and used later to commit the crimes. I think we will never know the exact chain of events given that everyone involved is long dead, interesting to speculate nonetheless.

@n9inchnails‌ I was wondering when someone would throw out that elderly gem of unoriginality. Im doing what we all must do: getting along somehow. Believe me I’d much prefer a simple house on a remote Greek island with ouzo, snuff, and the sea.

I’ve found medical science does not have all the answers. Ask 4 doctors a question and receive four different answers. I agree about quality verses length of life. Isn’t Oregon the only state with “right to die” laws? We treat pets more humanely. And the game is rigged. After all how will “they” make money if people are healthy? I still don’t own a smart phone and I don’t like answering machines. I do enjoy working on computers. I find it soothing for something in life to be mostly black and white. Technology is a curse when in the hands of the wrong people. People who thrive on power. And those are my rambling, not so cheerful thoughts.

Whether it was Kosminski or not, we have a short list of definite suspects and to me that is enough. I’m not sure that having a single absolute suspect would help anything; if anything it might hurt the legend.

I’ve found medical science does not have all the answers. Ask 4 doctors a question and receive four different answers. I agree about quality verses length of life. Isn’t Oregon the only state with “right to die” laws? We treat pets more humanely. And the game is rigged. After all how will “they” make money if people are healthy? I still don’t own a smart phone and I don’t like answering machines. I do enjoy working on computers. I find it soothing for something in life to be mostly black and white. Technology is a curse when in the hands of the wrong people. People who thrive on power. And those are my rambling, not so cheerful thoughts.

Bad people will always do bad things no matter what. Technology is amazing. In the last 100 years technology has made major advances towards researching the ocean depths, mapping the stars, saving lives or prolonging them, preventing birth defects ( two heads three arm humans can actually exist ) helping those with mental illness and even helping suffering animals, giving us light and power to computers and cellphones. The list goes on forever. Without technology or the need to evolve we would just be Neanderthals. It’s completely pessimistic to ignore the facts. Peoples average life span used to be 30. Without Technology medicine and science none of this would have been possible. Without it we would still be sitting in a candle lit room dying at 30 years old while thinking the world is flat and children dying young from flus and colds.

The average life span has increased not because adults are living past 30 but because less children are dying, when a child dies it brings down the average lifespan. To believe adults didn’t live past 30 is ludicrous. The life expectancy of an adult has not increased all that much in the last 500 years but the life expectancy of a child has increased dramatically and that is why the average lifespan has gone up.

The average life span has increased not because adults are living past 30 but because less children are dying, when a child dies it brings down the average lifespan. To believe adults didn’t live past 30 is ludicrous. The life expectancy of an adult has not increased all that much in the last 500 years but the life expectancy of a child has increased dramatically and that is why the average lifespan has gone up.

You’re very incorrect and misinformed. People didn’t even start getting cancer until the last couple hundred years because they weren’t even living long enough for cancer to grow. They would die from rabies or tetanus flus and colds and this included adults, this was not children of the corn. The average life span was much much younger. The most anyone could live was 40 and the average life span was 30. Technology has literally doubled how long we get to live this includes any children you might have or our mothers that are still around. I’d be greatful for technology.

I wanted to add that people may have still had " cancer " before technology in the sense they had a few cancer sells but they didn’t live along enough for it to grow and kill them. It’s been most aggressive in the last 150 years because lifespan has been increasing quite a bit. Average life expectancy for babies born today is 120 years old… This length of life expectancy has never been possible or seen before in humans until today. It amazes me how people sit around bashing technology or the thinkers when those are the people and things who work so hard to help each and everybody on the planet. Science will finally pull humans into a new age of evolution. The age of the end of evolution. We don’t need to evolve anymore ( besides our spines ) because we are no longer hunter and gatherers. From here on out everything is new an exciting. Enjoy it!

The average life span has increased not because adults are living past 30 but because less children are dying, when a child dies it brings down the average lifespan. To believe adults didn’t live past 30 is ludicrous. The life expectancy of an adult has not increased all that much in the last 500 years but the life expectancy of a child has increased dramatically and that is why the average lifespan has gone up.

You’re very incorrect and misinformed. People didn’t even start getting cancer until the last couple hundred years because they weren’t even living long enough for cancer to grow. They would die from rabies or tetanus flus and colds and this included adults, this was not children of the corn. The average life span was much much younger. The most anyone could live was 40 and the average life span was 30. Technology has literally doubled how long we get to live this includes any children you might have or our mothers that are still around. I’d be greatful for technology.

Actually it is you who is VERY incorrect and misinformed, I don’t know where you get your information but I strongly suspect your just making it up as you go along Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\\_expectancy Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live: 1200–1300: to age 64 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69 1500–1550: to age 71 "During the early 1600s in England, life expectancy was only about 35 years, largely because two-thirds of all children died before the age of four." Even during the bubonic plaque adult lived longer than you claim. I repeat the average lifespan has gone up because less children are dying. If you understood how average lifespans are calculated and how averages work you would know this.

The average life span has increased not because adults are living past 30 but because less children are dying, when a child dies it brings down the average lifespan. To believe adults didn’t live past 30 is ludicrous. The life expectancy of an adult has not increased all that much in the last 500 years but the life expectancy of a child has increased dramatically and that is why the average lifespan has gone up.

You’re very incorrect and misinformed. People didn’t even start getting cancer until the last couple hundred years because they weren’t even living long enough for cancer to grow. They would die from rabies or tetanus flus and colds and this included adults, this was not children of the corn. The average life span was much much younger. The most anyone could live was 40 and the average life span was 30. Technology has literally doubled how long we get to live this includes any children you might have or our mothers that are still around. I’d be greatful for technology.

Actually it is you who is VERY incorrect and misinformed, I don’t know where you get your information but I strongly suspect your just making it up as you go along Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\\_expectancy Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live: 1200–1300: to age 64 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69 1500–1550: to age 71 "During the early 1600s in England, life expectancy was only about 35 years, largely because two-thirds of all children died before the age of four." Even during the bubonic plaque adult lived longer than you claim. I repeat the average lifespan has gone up because less children are dying. If you understood how average lifespans are calculated and how averages work you would know this.

It’s time to brawl dude what you got? * Slaps you with a glove I’m well aware how life expectancy rates were calculated and still are today but i don’t think I’m insuring an old lady and her horse back in 1354 so let’s use some common sense in this adventure eh? I’ll start out by saying you’re correct in the sense people did live passed 40 years old in the same sense a dog lives to 21 or the oldest human today is around 125. You’re incorrect in the sense that this was the average and I don’t really care what tiny pathetic data you " wiki " up in a few sentences. The majority of adults died young by our standards today and so did children. * You can’t just use a single life expectancy for hundreds of years worth of time and brush your hands like you even know you’re on the planet earth. A single number each hundred years while may sound fancy to you or your insurance company is nothing close to how scientists methodically calculate life expectancy ( where there is data ) and considering civilization didn’t even know what cells were until the 1800s and considering you aren’t methodical in the slightest I would bet you would be laughed out of any respectable school with this argument. Your cross examination would be failed and you’d go right back where you came from. Your case would not hold up in " court " academic or otherwise it is useless and very lazy. AKA as my teacher once said in math class long ago " show your work. " I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand life expectancy is a constantly evolving matrix that fluctuates but has been going up up up for the last 100 years. You would need far more data ( books worth ) to accurately come up with the life expectancy that isn’t being pulled right from betwixt your buttocks We aren’t an insurance company were looking at pre-technology and life and it’s effect on an individual to individual basis across all of humanity. Following yet? Probably not. In addition to you having no idea what I’ve been trying to say for the last day + You’re completely ignoring the fact that up until 1500 it was still considered " the middle age " ( 1500 = toilet, compound microscope, etc ) so you’re literally proving one of my points being technology = longer life even if your numbers are off. We can argue semantics ( 30 34 49 39 45 55 ) Pick and choose whatever helps you sleep at night. The truth is the majority of the population wasn’t living passed their 40s. Even princes queens and kings died young ( 29, 30, 45 ) Don’t believe me still? Well I suggest you do more research than open up a Wikipedia page considering it’s the most laughable site for informing yourself parallel to Fox News. Life expectancy can’t be summed up as easily as you hope it can. It requires too much data and the data isn’t all there. If you truly don’t believe life expectancy has doubled ( from 40 to 80 ) based off technology very recently then you must be living under a rock. You have also somehow seem to have forgotten that we have been on this planet for 65 million years… Not 2 thousand

Wow, when your that full of shit how do you keep the flies off you?

Wow, when that full of shit how do you keep the flies off you?

Very insightful

Come on guys, lets keep it civil.

Come on guys, lets keep it civil.

Ok ok. * Ill put my glove back on.

Cancer was known in ancient Egypt… so what’s this only in last 2 - 300 years thing?

^ don’t waste your breathe this guy just makes shit up as he goes along, until he shows us exactly where he is getting all this bullshit he’s flinging at us you can just assume that that is exactly what it is, total bullshit

http://snuffhouse.org/discussion/comment/335649/

Cancer was known in ancient Egypt… so what’s this only in last 2 - 300 years thing?

Show me 1 death registered before 1700 of a cancer death. I’m not saying cancer didn’t exist. I’m saying people didn’t live long enough for it to grow.

^ don’t waste your breathe this guy just makes shit up as he goes along, until he shows us exactly where he is getting all this bullshit he’s flinging at us you can just assume that that is exactly what it is, total bullshit

In regards to " 9 inch nails " you have completely ignored the fact we have been here 65 million years… You can’t go back 1000 years out of 65 million, technology isn’t just lights and whistles in a computer it takes many forms. You can’t just say " we should stop with technology because it suits my wants " We would never have evolved from Neanderthals. You keep nit picking because it’s obvious you have no idea what " technology " even means Technology: Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, “art, skill, cunning of hand” ) refers to the collection of tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures used by humans. It doesn’t just mean game boys or ps3s without technology we would have evolved much differently. You have provided me a 500 year span out of 65 million years ( with no data at all ) and I’m the one who’s bullshit? I think not. I suggest you take lunes advice because frankly I don’t have the time to repeat myself for you " 9 inch nails " daily

I honestly think 9 inch nails is trolling me. I wanted to say this. We can respectfully agree to disagree. I’m not a drama seeker trust me. And if you can prove me wrong please try. Respectfully try. I’m trying to really not have an attitude. So instead of call me bullshit how about you prove me wrong? According to you we are either 2000 years old or technology is 2000 years old. This would explain how I’m wrong. However unless you can disprove a fossil… Or disprove the archeologists who constantly dig up ancient " technology " I would refrain from calling anyone else " bullshit " besides whatever history books have have read. This isn’t a fight room and I’m sure everyone thinks I’m instigating this but I’m not. We can argue semantics over the last 500 - 1000 years but you would need far more data then you’ve provided for the 500 year span and I promise you even though the date counts back to 0 we were living here for millions and millions of years prior. I know I’m right and I want someone to prove me wrong.

@Cigshurtmylungs how can you ‘respectfully agree to disagree’ yet ask someone to prove you wrong? Can we please just leave it at that? There really is no need for any more of this back-and-forth. @Lunecat has asked for no more bickering and I suggest everybody listens and figuratively walks away.

¿

YES. Anymore bickering involving Cigs & he will be banned. Cigs is already on a yellow card as far as the Mod team is concerned, & this has been communicated to him by myself. Either Cigs learns to get along or he will no longer be a member here. It has happened too many times in the past with several different members - fact! And I’m just about getting sick of it.

You know what I’m sick of? Everyone grouping against a person just because they don’t agree with them or because they don’t like them in the first place. I’m not bickering I’m defending myself. I’ve even said " let’s agree to disagree respectfully " before you came here to pretty much instigate me more after I already said I had enough. I gave him a chance to explain I even read through his whole explanation and stated why I didn’t agree with it. He replied with an instigating " bullshit " without even considering what I wrote. So go ahead ban me. It’s disappointing but I don’t want to be on a fourm I’m not allowed to voice myself on even in the off topic section. If people don’t want to or simply can’t intelligently debate a topic without the use of force, nit picking, or mob mentality then go ahead. Do what you have to

YES. Anymore bickering involving Cigs & he will be banned. Cigs is already on a yellow card as far as the Mod team is concerned, & this has been communicated to him by myself. Either Cigs learns to get along or he will no longer be a member here. It has happened too many times in the past with several different members - fact! And I’m just about getting sick of it.

You know what I’m sick of? Everyone grouping against a person just because they don’t agree with them or because they don’t like them in the first place.

This is exactly what you do to people.

Well, it wasn’t my intent to start a war with this thread. I had gotten over his initial run in with myself, but what can you do?

You wouldn’t think that discussion over the identity of a criminal who’s been dead for well over a 100 years could be so contentious, would you? I deleted my earlier comment about life expectancy, it’s an interesting topic, but it just didn’t seem like the right moment, tempers were flaring. Actually, @n9inchnails, it’s not entirely true that life expectancy for adults hasn’t changed over the centuries. If you look at the big development agencies, like UNICEF, they use two measures: life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at 18, just to rule out childhood mortality factors. There’s still a big gap between rich countries and poor with the second measure, although not nearly as big as with the first. But another interesting thing is that in developed countries, while life expectancy has been going up quite a bit, the average age at which people have their first heart attack or stroke has stayed pretty much the same. We’ve got a lot better at keeping people alive, but not that much better at keeping people healthy. I’m not an expert in this area, but my brother is a public health researcher, this is his field, all about how much it’s going to cost the health care system to have people around for an extra five or ten years after they’ve had “cardiovascular events”. @n9inchnails, interesting statistic about the aristocrats’ life expectancy – but I read somewhere about the big gap in England even in Victorian times, when kids at expensive public (private) schools were on average four inches taller than kids in poor state schools at the same time, and all sorts of other glaring differences besides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#History I just wanted to drop this here, against both the “no time for cancers to grow” and “wikipedia is a laughable and unreliable source of info” claims. The presence of that engraving proves the first point clearly grown and makes the second one at least controversial. Perhaps, if dropped a bit earlier, it could have save us some difficult situations, but maybe it was all unavoidable. Though @n9inchnails points were open for discussion, the cancer argument is wrong: we’ve not created mortal cancer out of nowhere by living more (some children die of cancer), though perhaps it is one of the few illnesses we actually hear of being lethal in the “civilized” world because there are no more mortality by infections and parasites, and AIDS is on a frank demise. When the flu could kill you, when malaria was widespread in Southern Europe and swampy areas all around, when the pox killed or marked for life an important share of the population (and gout and heart illnesses made the lives of many a knight or king worse because of excessive eating) cancer was a fairly marginal disease, as were the various chronic and degenerative diseases (like Alzheimer or sclerosis) that now give us the shakes. Besides, it was all the will of God to take us, or to release plagues on us, so our judgement was reserved to transcendent planes. Now, everybody fears getting cancer, it has turned omnipresent because it “comes from the inside”, it’s the inner danger, there’s usually none to blame unless you were near Chernobyl or Iroshima. Victim blaming was (and to a lesser extent, still is) widespread because, “What the heck, he deserved it, right?.. He was sad, he exposed himself to carcinogenics… He… damn, I… I’m not going to get cancer, EVER! I’m happy, I’m healthy, I will die of old age! I’m not like him, I tell you!”, which in most cases is quite sad and terrible, like blaming myself instead of the virus for getting the flu last year. We’ve to face it, it’s just another illness. It could be lethal or not. It can be cured in most cases, though it’s the one that kills us most lately. @JakartaBoy : I agree with you, in fact, and for many centuries, being tall and fat was the exclusive privilege of the higher, warring classes, which effectively set them apart from the laboring serfdom. Aristocracy was there to protect “little folk” (in the most literal of senses) by riding high horses and using heavy weapons, which served as a basis for discrimination that began to lose any reason during the Renaissance and later (not because serfdom got any healthier, but because a gunshot pierces through a tall man too). In fact, I think that Western paternalism (instead of empowering politics) towards the less privileged countries is kind of a contemporary repetition of these old tropes. It’s the good, fat, healthy western man who has to save the African blacks with its science and food, because that poor people can’t do it themselves. To me it sounds like bullshit, they’re as capable as we are of making their lives better, but they lack the tools to do so. Anyway, this is another debate… And I don’t see how any of these related to Jack the Ripper, to begin with!

Perhaps Jack the Ripper died from cancer?

@MarvinLapsus‌, of course cancer has been killing people for millenia! That’s why it has such a good, old classic name - the crab, with its pincers.

Okay, okay. I confess. It was me. I am Jack the Ripper. I’m getting too old for that old hobby and had to find a new one here in America.

@chefdaniel‌ well youre knockin’ 'em dead with that snuff of yours. :))