About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.

The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.

Web Hoax Museum

Jack the Ripper, AND Hitler's father, AND the liberator of the Phillipines.
That Jose Rizal was one busy guy. If he could have found somebody else to do his stenography, who knows what else he might have accomplished?

This sounds like it would be a rumor spread not in the Philippenes but by detractors of their nationalism--possibly the Spanish.

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hangmen.html

Look at the part about James Billington of Farnworth near Bolton in Lancashire 1847-1901.
I quote:
"Perhaps his most interesting execution was that of the poisoner, Dr. Thomas Neil Cream, on the 15th of November 1892, again at Newgate. Cream waited till the very last moment as he felt the mechanism under the trap begin to move to utter the words, "I am Jack the...." It is highly unlikely that Cream could have been Jack the Ripper but it certainly caused a stir at the time.
"
but alas it wasn´t to be...

it is also known that jack the ripper was mason...which Jose Rizal was :D

oh my.. my dad lived in england during that time.. and his name is william roy.. could he be the one too?

oops i mean his name is joseph roy. he changed his first name after moving to america.

"oh my.. my dad lived in england during that time.. and his name is william
roy.. could he be the one too?"

I guess...but alas i doubt your father knew how to read or write. Was he a doctor too? Can he speak a number of different languages fluently? Was he a known womanizer? A Mason? Don't compare your father to Jose Rizal.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts.”

FOOL

And any of you people out there actually believe this? Just because Rizal was in London at around the same time, "liked women" (although to be more exact women liked him, he was not a womanizer; the women were the ones who chased him) was a doctor, often worked late hours alone, was a Freemason, and - most ludicrously - had matching initials would prove he is Jack the Ripper? I'd like you to tell me if there is a single court in the world that would convict a person solely on that kind of circumstantial evidence.

Hello

This is new information to us, that Filipino physician Dr. Jose Rizal has been considered to be Jack the Ripper by anybody. There is, as stated, no evidence to prove that he was other than he was in London at the time, which seems to be manifestly weak evidence.

Christopher T. George
Editor, Ripperologist

Does anyone else know that this case has not been solved? UNSOLVED! Everything is a speculation at this point. We cannot interrogate the suspects to find the "truth." Anyways...here's some investigative work done by AmateurSleuth of the casebook forum(forum.casebook.org)...

- In 1888, he was staying with the Beckett family at 37 Chalcot Crescent in Camden
- He was a doctor(opthalmologist)
- He was good with weapons(was called "the swordsman")
- He was a Malay
- He was proficient in the martial arts
- He would have been 27 at the time of the Ripper killings
- He also took up fencing and was quite good
- He was short, had dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes
- He came from a well to do family, was well dressed and looked respectable
- He came to London on May 24, 1888 on the ship City Of Rome
- He left London in January of 1889, and the Ripper killings stopped
- He was multi-talented(could speak many languages, was a writer, poet, author, sculptor, artist)
- He was executed in the Philippines on December 30, 1896 at the age of 35
- Had a romantic relationship with Gertrude Beckett - the daughter of Charles Beckett
- He wrote letters to his friend Blumentritt from London, however there were no letters written to his family or friends from July 1888 - November 14, 1888
- He was working at the British Library at the time
- After he died, his mother tried to procure his assets which consisted of some pretty nice jewelery including gold cuff links and other baubles of diamonds and amethysts(gold chain with a red stone seal?)

upon further investigation...this information was found...similarities noting the f's

http://www.univie.ac.at/Voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/rizal/rizal10.jpg
http://www.univie.ac.at/Voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/rizal/rizal13.jpg

she also found this...

Rizal and his diary:

January 1986, St. Pancras, London

While up in the attic putting away boxes of Christmas ornaments,
the present-day owners of #37 Chalcot Crescent stumble across
a dusty old trunk, which (once the lock is pried open) reveals
some /very interesting/ items once belonging to Dr. Jose Rizal.
In particular, a diary wherein he confesses to the Whitechapel
murders; and a glass jar with half a human kidney preserved in
alcohol.

Unlike the embarassing "Hitler Diaries" hoax a few years before,
/this/ seems to be genuine. The ink, paper, etc. are from 1888.
The handwriting matches Dr. Rizal's. And (thanks to a surviving
great-granddaughter) a new DNA test makes it almost certain that
the kidney was taken from Catherine Eddowes.


how interesting.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that your ridiculous story is true. Are we supposed to believe that a guy would write that he killed someone? And that kidney, he would keep the kidney of a person he killed? I don't see any problem with Rizal having kept organs. He was a physician, wasn't he?
But of course, what you're saying is false. To be honest, I don't believe any of it. How the HELL can anyone prove that that kidney belonged to one of the victims when wasn't even DNA testing at the time? Wanna tell me? No, of course not.
I don't know what your problem with the Philippines or with Filipinos is, but please, don't try to attack us with such a cowardly tactic. Better, why don't you stop your trolling and just shut up?

Yes, interesting indeed, that annyone would actually believe this nonsense.

i've posted this earlier but I will post it again...

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell

I will also state this again...

Does anyone else know that this case has not been solved? UNSOLVED! Everything is a speculation at this point. We cannot interrogate the suspects to find the "truth."

concerned filipino...it is a THEORY not a proven FACT.

In response to your comment...Catherine Eddowes, a victim of Jack the Ripper had her kidney removed...that is why it would be assumed that it was her Kidney and not because it was of DNA testing. Put two and two together sherlock...Jack the Ripper confession and a kidney...duh. Of course I don't want another one of your ridiculous lashings so I will state once more...in THEORY.

Why would he keep the kidney? who knows. a souvenir perhaps. it's not alien for killers to take something from their victims...hannibal lecter ate his victims...the other guy took their skin off...it's their trip!

Attack filipinos? I am filipino. I am only stating a theory not attacking the philippines or filipinos. Some advice to a fellow filipino...never take anything at face value. If the people of the world were to accept whatever it is that was told to them, then the human race would never progress. If everyting is accepted and thought to be correct, then change will not be needed. We would still think the world was flat.

Another example - White Chocolate...the only "CHOCOLATE" component in it is cocoa butter...sans cocoa liquids therefore it cannot be classified as chocolate. Now they are coming up with a new name for White Chocolate to be more accurate...if people never looked into these things, then we will forever believe that White Chocolate was really chocolate.

One more for good luck...in the olden days people thought that sickness was caused by the devil or evil spirit...until of course they found out about germs and bacteria.

You fit the typical filipino archetype so you are not to blame...pompous fanatic. Don't be so sure of yourself. To find the Truth, you must not look at it from one angle/viewpoint(yours), you must look it from all different angles. Even after doing that you may not find the truth but you will know what it isn't.

LOL. Just LOL. Everything you've said is absurd right from the beginning.
Why don't you stop evading the issue? Instead of always repeating the excuse "It's a theory, why don't you answer this simple question: Do you believe it or not? You say it's only a theory. I already know that; it's only a theory, and a ridiculous one at that; there's no need to try and make yourself look any smarter than you are by pointing that out. My question is, if it's a "theory" or "speculation", then why do you talk as if it's an established fact already?
You talk so arrogantly, telling me to look at things from "different viewpoints" and to keep an open mind... For some reason, I think you need this advice more than I do, since you sound so convinced of the truth of your little idea.
Please, I don't need a lecture from some guy who believes Jose Rizal was Jack the Ripper, on the grounds that - what was that again? - he was a Freemason "like Jack the Ripper was" (and how in the world could anyone find out that he was a Mason since no one even knows his true identity?), he lived in Britain at the same time as the murders, and he had the martial and medical skills necessary to do it, and his initials matched. Wow.
As for your vaunted letter, yes, that might pose a problem if it were true... except it isn't. I don't believe that such a letter ever existed. It's absolute nonsense from beginning to end. You'd think if there were such a letter, we wouldn't even be having this argument anymore, would we?
And btw, most killers do not eat the body parts of their victims. First you say Rizal was a killer, then you imply that he kept kidneys to EAT them... even for someone like you, this is going a bit far.
And of course, since the letter doesn't exist, there's no way to prove who that kidney belonged to, even if it did exist.
And you're missing one of the most critical elements for murder: Motive. Why the hell would he want to kill these people? Remember, this is a guy who believed in nonviolent resistance against the Spaniards who were oppressing him and his people. When the Spaniards exiled him in Dapitan, Andres Bonifacio sent a representative to persuade him to escape and join the armed rebellion they were planning. He refused. Now, if he wouldn't raise his hands against the Spaniards, why would he kill innocent people who didn't even have anything to do with him?
Obviously Rizal wouldn't keep body parts as charms or amulets since he was a scientific person. He already knew about germs and bacteria.
And the last part of your comment... One thing about you, my friend, is that you are too arrogant. "Pompous fanatic." LOL. Made my day. Why don't you look in a mirror?
So again, stop beating around the bush and just tell me if you actually believe this...uh..."theory".

You are indeed a fool...you take everything out of context...you put words in my mouth. I stated "hannibal lecter ate his victims." From this you state, "And btw, most killers do not eat the body parts of their victims." Who said most? I never said Rizal did. Do I have to speak in our native tongue for you to understand this? You know nothing about human behavior. How can you make a statement about the past and expect it to be the same in the future. History repeats itself but nothing is certain in this world. Mental illnesses vary. Understand that not all killers have a motive. Why is it that when there is a serial killer or a person who did ill, people always seem to "be shocked." They would state, "he was a nice fella" or "I never had any problems with him/her" or "We thought everything was okay." Why is it that these very holy people who believe in God and all of it's great miracles kill other people? Why do seemingly happy families sometimes wind up in murder suicides? Do all these people always have motives for killing? I was simply stating an opinion and you immediately discredit it without knowing half of what you're talking about. You fanatics are all the same. You would kill to promote your saviour and not listen to what the others have to say. I do not accept the theory as absolute. I am merely considering it which is the basis for my argument. I consider it as much as I consider that he didn't do it. I accept the fact that it could've been anyone...even Rizal himself. If it seemed like I believed it 100%, I don't. It just so happens that that's the topic of this page.

"As for your vaunted letter, yes, that might pose a problem if it were true... except it isn't. I don't believe that such a letter ever existed."

Is that a fact or an opinion? You state a fact but then right after you hesitate by saying I don't believe. You are quick to turn down an idea without knowing if it's true or not and at the moment no one knows it 100%. Hence another example why you are a pompous fanatic. Arrogant in that you do not wish to listen to others and believe that your opinions alone will do. I understand your views and I never disagreed with them.

As for your accusations, they are void and null. You have no basis for your accusations. You say that I talk as if it is a FACT...show me.

"...a Freemason "like Jack the Ripper was" (and how in the world could anyone find out that he was a Mason since no one even knows his true identity?)" Tell me, is it possible for investigators to know information about the perpetrator before they know his/her identity? Right hand or left hand? Smoker non smoker? Trained swordsman/marksman? Highly intelligent? Male or female? Abused as a child?

You counter viewpoints with VERY WEAK arguments. I didn't even have to think to debunk your accusations. You argue just to argue. You have proved that you know nothing about criminal psychology or human behavior at that...but you rebut as if you were an expert. I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but you must be put in your place. "Pompous fanatic" you utter back...fanatic...certainly not...pompous...only to people who possess a combination of stu bborness and lack of intelligence. No one was born intelligent, we all have the opportunity to excel in life. For this reason I show you no pitty. I enjoy speaking to intelligent people and that is why I must end this debate. Farewell.

P.S. I really am sorry that I responded in such a manner. I really don't know how to respond to your rebuttals without being arrogant. It is something I am still learning and hopefully I can one day be less opinionated of other people's character.

oh yeah...one more piece of advice...

"GOOGLE IT"

Idiot. You truly are an idiot. I kept up this pointless argument because I thought that you were an intelligent person, but I was wrong.
And I must have really struck a nerve back there, for you to use 3 posts to respond. Sheesh... don't get so worked up just because someone shows your idiocy - I'm just trying to help. And don't resort to name-calling just because you've got nothing else to say. Don't blame me for calling you names, you started it. You say I'm a fool, but because I know I'm not a fool, I don't care.
How stupid can you get? Sure, you say that you were not directly saying that Rizal ate body parts, but you are proposing a theory that Rizal was Jack the Ripper, and as evidence you say that a victim's kidney was found in his possession. In response to what I said, that he would need a motive for doing so, you then say that some murderers eat the body parts of their victims (although you only gave fictional examples). In other words, you are implying that Rizal was an organ-eater too, which is why he kept a kidney. If you're not, then why mention it in the first place?
"I do not accept the theory
as absolute. I am merely considering it which is the basis for my argument."
And up to now, you're still evading the question. Do you believe this theory or don't you? Having seen all sides of the issue, shouldn't you now have an opinion on it?
You know, I notice you use this "It's only a theory" defense a lot. This is invalid. If it is a theory, why are you even mentioning it? What do you actually believe? I get it... maybe you just want to slander Rizal, but don't want to be thought to believe such a ridiculous "theory" so this is your solution. So simple-minded. And please... don't call me a fool. I don't think idiots have the right to call others idiots.
Then, you say that "not all killers have to have a motive", which again, implies that Rizal was the killer and he didn't have a motive. Nice. What a convenient way for you to evade giving a motive.
It's not true that not all killers have a motive. There is always a motive, or a reason, for killing. For lack of any motive for him to kill, there's still mental illness. But then again, there's no proof of that, either. That's your fundamental mistake - you don't seem to realize that the burden is on YOU to prove your theory, not ME to disprove it. That's how the judicial system works, or have you never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty", moron?

"You fanatics are all the same. You would kill to promote your saviour and not listen to what the others have to say."
Blah, blah, blah. "Fanatic". I suppose that all patriotism would look like fanaticism to you, because you are a mere coward who left the hardships of this country to pursue an easy life in a rich country, and now doesn't even respect his national heroes. But wouldn't "not listening to what the other has to say" also apply to you? Aren't you also not litening to what I'm saying, hypocrite?
I've listened to what you said. The thing is, it's just utter garbage. That's the reason I can't believe it. Blame yourself.
As for the letter, it's a complete untruth. That is the fact of the matter.
"You counter viewpoints with VERY WEAK arguments."
According to you, anyway. But you're an idiot.
"I didn't even have to think to debunk your accusations."
Well, you really don't think anyway. And where did you debunk them? I haven't seen you actually debunk what I said in my previous post.
"You argue just to argue."
Actually, that's you. I've been starting to wonder if you're just a troll. You see, no one who wanted a serious argument would choose such an absurd notion to argue about. So it's pssoble you're just doing this to get attention. But because I have some spare time, I can deal with morons like you. This is just amusement for me anyway. I'm eagerly waiting to see what the next nonsense you'll put here will be.
"You have proved that you know nothing about criminal psychology or human behavior at
that."
And I suppose you do? You're the most arrogant imbecile I've ever met. Actually, no. I've met more arrogant imbeciles than you. You can't even win at that.
"...but you rebut as if you were an expert."
Unlike you, hypocrite, I don't pretend to be an expert on this case. It's simply common sense, which I guess you are devoid of, because you spend so much time trying (and failing) to look like an expert.
"I'm sorry if I seem arrogant,"
LOL. Saying sorry, but then still doing it anyway. The whole attitude of "magnanimous superiority" isn't working, you know.
"but you must be put in your place."
And you're the one to do it? Who do you think you are? I don't exactly think I should be put in my place by an immature fool like yourself.

"Pompous fanatic" you
utter back...fanatic...certainly not"
You are a fanatic because you continue to defend, against all evidence, your stupid theory.
"...pompous...only to people who possess a
combination of stu bborness and lack of intelligence."
You are pompous because you can make statements like that. You are proving what I'm saying even as you try to disprove it.
"No one was born intelligent, we all have the opportunity to excel in life. For this
reason I show you no pitty."
Maybe you should try improving your spelling before you imply that you're intelligent and I'm not, no?
"I enjoy speaking to intelligent people and that is why I must end this debate. Farewell."
Don't make excuses. Just admit you lost the debate. Then you'll keep your honor at least. As it is you've got nothing.
Re your piece of "advice", I've already done that. I've found nothing. And of course, for some reason, you're not showing sources. Having lost, and humiliatingly at that, you're in no position to give me advice, retard.
I first heard of Jose Rizal as Jack the Ripper thing from Filipinos - not from this site. But no one who said it actually believed it.
"it is also known that jack the ripper was mason...which Jose Rizal was :D"
And finally, a last pice of proof that you're only trolling. If you were interested in sreious discussion, would you have put that smiley face?