Sunday, February 22, 2015

Almost the entirety of this article is supposed data. It’s not even good supposed data. Most of the things he states is illogical. He has very little proof and makes a lot of assumptions off of other people works. Most of his article is based on a book which eventually was turned into a movie, because we all know that if a book was turned into a movie then it must be logical and true. Stupid…
Presumptions: the normal
Like stated above the author uses reference text to base his entire paper. Nothing is based off of facts that he found himself.
The author basically chose the royal conspiracy because he wanted it to be something special. Of course his idea must be right because it is so much better then everyone else’s idea. Also who better to have committed a crime then the royal family?
So in order to make his point the author, uses two movies, two books, and Masons in order to sound more logical. He thinks if he uses more sources then he will sound like he is right, BUT HE IS SO WRONG. He just sounds like a loon. You cannot base your argument off of a movie. Also he needs to take some lessons in grammar because this boy cannot write. He doesn’t even use complete sentences.
So his argument is that this group of strippers decided to blackmail the royal family. The main son got really mad and decided he was going to kill these chicks and be done with the problem. So this crazy dude goes on a mini killing spree and kills these chicks. Of course he was a free mason so he had to go all hardcore on these chicks. Also he had a bunch of people that know how to kill help him cover it up. Also since they were prostitutes they weren't smart enough to keep a backup of whatever they had on him so no one knew that he was to blame. This is the little cog in the entire conspiracy of evil rulers.


  1. Through your fallacy analysis and Perelman analysis I think that you're pretty much establishing that the author makes a lot of illogical and baseless claims to support his ideas. If that is the case then you could say that his argument is made to be sold to people that don't know much about the Ripper. That is, if the reader did know a lot about the ripper, or even if they just analyzed the argument at a deeper level, they would, like you, realize that a lot of the claims don't hold water. Conversely, based on your analysis, experts at diagnosing and uncovering serial killers would more quickly dismiss a lot of the claims the author makes, and as such aren't the target audience.

  2. Your fallacies tell me exactly why this guy is full of it, and I think you pilled out enough common ideas to make into a beautiful thesis.

  3. I think you are an amazing person and you constructed these arguments very well. Just put a few more fallacies and you'll be fine