The new Wall Writing photo discovery – a joint statement

[DGB]

Toynbee

I do believe you could've handled the situation better, but you've acknowledged that.

I think it's important for the community that the photo (or at least information about it) is shared, so we can understand what it means for the field.

[toynbee]

You wanted a little interest in a photo that no one knew existed? How precisely was that going to work? You came on and said "hey has anyone heard about this photo" Clearly no one had! It was in your private collection! How were they supposed to know about it? people tried to help you and assumed that you had confused it with the Richard photo of the buildings. Since there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could have possibly heard of this photo, they assumed you had mistaken it for another one, which is a reasonable conclusion, since you basically lied about it.

How can people be interested in a photo that YOU POSSESS when you are pretending you know nothing about it?

They presumed you were confused, and you didn't give them the information they needed in order to make them interested.

You played games. And now you are mad, because no one danced to the tune you wanted to set.

As soon as you were honest on this thread, and stated you had a photo, people showed interest.

Up until that time, no one knew what you were talking about! How could they? You were playing games.

Ally,

Some people did know about it on here.

The photo I originally asked about was the one mentioned on a website 1890 GYB. Not mine.

Anyway it doesn't matter, its over...

[Ally]

Ally,
All I wanted was a little interest in the photo, that was all. As you know I got none. I did ask for help.
I wont talk about it on here ever again.

You wanted a little interest in a photo that no one knew existed? How precisely was that going to work? You came on and said "hey has anyone heard about this photo" Clearly no one had! It was in your private collection! How were they supposed to know about it? people tried to help you and assumed that you had confused it with the Richard photo of the buildings. Since there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could have possibly heard of this photo, they assumed you had mistaken it for another one, which is a reasonable conclusion, since you basically lied about it.

How can people be interested in a photo that YOU POSSESS when you are pretending you know nothing about it?

They presumed you were confused, and you didn't give them the information they needed in order to make them interested.

You played games. And now you are mad, because no one danced to the tune you wanted to set.

As soon as you were honest on this thread, and stated you had a photo, people showed interest.

Up until that time, no one knew what you were talking about! How could they? You were playing games.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Hall,

That must have been quite a PM! Don't take it all so personally. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that Monty or the rest of us are curious to see a photograph you have. While I found your response to Monty hilarious and personally gratifying, and I admire that you won't be intimidated, the truth is that Monty and Rob Clack have a pretty good history with photographic finds in this field and we have all benefited from their work and will no doubt continue to do so. I must admit that if I had a photo in my possession that I thought was something significant, I would want to get it researched and verified, and I would probably reach out to Monty and Rob for that purpose.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[toynbee]

I have had a look through your posting history. About a year ago you came on the site and tried to get people interested in a 1890 GYB photo. No one knew what you were talking about and assumed you were confused. Now it appears you are saying you owned this photo the entire time, and were merely playing games??

So you come on the forums, attempting to stir people's interest in this photo, that, for all we know, does not exist? How precisely could we know it exists if it is in your private collection? Then you get mad, because no one shows any interest in a photo that for all they know does not exist and you are merely confusing with another.

Yes, you have gone about it all wrong. If you had a photo, rather than playing games, you should have just stated that you had a photo and people would have been happy to help. You have gone about this in a completely confusing bass-ackward way and are mad at the results.

If you wanted help identifying a photo or wanted people to be interested in it, you should have just state straight out what you were talking about, rather than trying this completely round-about and confusing method of getting the word out there.

Ally,
All I wanted was a little interest in the photo, that was all. As you know I got none. I did ask for help.
I wont talk about it on here ever again.

[Ally]

Hi David,

Thank you for showing interest in the photo that I mention.

To be honest I was really exited and looking forward to announcing and sharing the discovery of these images with those interested but realise I have done it all wrong!

For the moment I have been put off chatting and need some time.

The unpublished images do exist in my collection.

Kindest regards.

I have had a look through your posting history. About a year ago you came on the site and tried to get people interested in a 1890 GYB photo. No one knew what you were talking about and assumed you were confused. Now it appears you are saying you owned this photo the entire time, and were merely playing games??

So you come on the forums, attempting to stir people's interest in this photo, that, for all we know, does not exist? How precisely could we know it exists if it is in your private collection? Then you get mad, because no one shows any interest in a photo that for all they know does not exist and you are merely confusing with another.

Yes, you have gone about it all wrong. If you had a photo, rather than playing games, you should have just stated that you had a photo and people would have been happy to help. You have gone about this in a completely confusing bass-ackward way and are mad at the results.

If you wanted help identifying a photo or wanted people to be interested in it, you should have just state straight out what you were talking about, rather than trying this completely round-about and confusing method of getting the word out there.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am intruiged. An announcement of a collection, previously publically unknown, with content that is certainly unknown, yet to be made public but under consideration for public viewing.

Just how many secret 'collections' containing potential historically important knowledge exist? The underground unknown to only a few.

Perhaps someone who has contact with this undergound network can persuade those holding other material to let it see the light of day?

No doubt this pie-in-the-sky simple request is just too hard for the secret collection mob to comprehend. Its simple.

Keeping stuff back serves no purpose, however it was obtained or how much it cost. REAL contribution to history can ONLY be made through openess, without any form of deception or playing keepsie.

Neil, Rob, I thank you for your open attitude. It is a breath of well-timed fresh air in this ever so secret genre. Despite my (imo) innocent questions, I will look forward to your revelations in their entirety. The alternative, example herewith above in this post, is FAR less palatable.

Best wishes

Phil

[toynbee]

Hi Toynbee

It seems that you're saying that you own a photo, that's not the new picture that we're discussing here, but that has never been seen before.

Obviously we all know why Neil's and Rob's can't yet be opened up to the boards, if I've read correctly, yours can't either. I wondered why that is. Can you enlighten us?

Regardless, two new photos is exciting for all. Well done on your discoveries.

Cheers

DavidGB

Hi David,

Thank you for showing interest in the photo that I mention.

For the moment I have been put off chatting and need some time.

Kindest regards.

[DGB]

I can confirm that I own the photo I mentioned and it is part of a collection.

Kind regards
T.

Hi Toynbee

It seems that you're saying that you own a photo, that's not the new picture that we're discussing here, but that has never been seen before.

Obviously we all know why Neil's and Rob's can't yet be opened up to the boards, if I've read correctly, yours can't either. I wondered why that is. Can you enlighten us?

Regardless, two new photos is exciting for all. Well done on your discoveries.

Cheers

DavidGB

[Magpie]

Hi Magpie,

If we give everything away, you wont have anything get all swooney over.

Seriously, we cannot clarify that at the moment.

Monty

Fair enough. I shall bide my swooniness to the appropriate juncture...

[Monty]

Neil,

Thanks. I hate being in the know about everything.

Mike

The point is that a Private Message is entirely that. James broke that.

Its dissapointing.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

Yeah, youre missing something Michael.

Monty

Neil,

Thanks. I hate being in the know about everything.

Mike

[Monty]

Monty or Robert.

If I could ask a quick question without trying to weasel anything out of you that you've promised not to disclose. You mentioned that the graffito picture was found in tandem with another picture of one of the murder sites--is this other picture one that has been previously published?

If you can answer, great, if not, that's okay too.

Thanks.

Hi Magpie,

If we give everything away, you wont have anything get all swooney over.

Seriously, we cannot clarify that at the moment.

Monty

[Magpie]

Monty or Robert.

If I could ask a quick question without trying to weasel anything out of you that you've promised not to disclose. You mentioned that the graffito picture was found in tandem with another picture of one of the murder sites--is this other picture one that has been previously published?

If you can answer, great, if not, that's okay too.

Thanks.

[Monty]

Yeah, youre missing something Michael.

Monty