Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Go back, read the thread, you'll find my serious concerns about this image.

I have done so, and unfortuanely I didn't find any arguments of value. Can't say I'm to blame for it.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Glenn
Norma

[George Hutchinson]

Ally, I did not get a trip to America, hotel and meals out of this. Firstly, I paid for my own flight. Attendance at the Conference, hotel and food were paid for by the organisers. And you know what? They flew me over to talk about The Whitby Collection - which never seemed to undergo the same issues as this image has done. The discovery of this photo came after I was asked to attend, as Judy Stock will attest to before she handed over the reins to Kelly and Dan.

As I have repeated endlessly but seems to go in one ear and out the other, I have no issue with anyone seeing the image and studying it. It is not because I am keeping it back. Everything to do with witholding it is due to the aftermath of the discovery of the AC wedding photo by Neal Shelden. It was immediately in the public domain as soon as he posted it up and the story behind it and credit for his work was lost as almost everyone who reproduced it on sites and in books used it simply as a public domain image. The eventual book is simply following Neal's advice; it is a means to an end to weld my name to its discovery. Unlike The Whitby Collection - taken 48 years ago - I do not hold copyright on the ORIGINAL photograph because of its age. The RESTORED image that you have seen IS my copyright because of the work done on it (improving the contrast, removing the blemishes and scratches and filling in the thin lines at the edges damaged by the photograph on the facing page), but if it was placed where there was common access at this stage, that would be totally ignored

There have certainly been more than two people causing unnecessary issues over this image. I can think of at least three more. As for your own stance it seems to change with almost every post depending on who you're addressing, though I confess it's difficult to cover when I have several people on my ignore list (and what a wonderful function it is). Questioning is fine, but doubting in the face of evidence is just dumb. As for authenticity, you stated at one point that the photo had not been authenticated. What quantifies authentication in your eyes? I would have thought a dozen of the world's leading Ripper historians, many of whom have seen the actual photograph, and several the actual full album might be enough. Or do you mean I must take the photograph and album to a lab for analysis of the ink and paper? I must say, for a photo that cost me $4.95 and has actually not earned me a penny, I and Larry Lingle (the dealer I bought it from) have really hit rock bottom in the financial stakes what with all the hundreds of hours we spent making our own Hitler Diaries.

At the end of the day, I'm presuming your personal issue over the photo (knowing you've seen a better copy) lies entirely with my announcing its existence before I wanted to share it. Well, cat out of the bag because I spent half my lecture talking about it. If I hadn't said it, someone else would and we'd still be in the same position. Because I made that initial post and no one else did, you got the correct story.

Unfortunately, I DID think that people on this board would be OK with that. I'm glad to say that most of them were. But a few weren't. And I really didn't expect that. Though you and I have had issues in the past, because I personally don't like the way you talk to people and always seem to get away with it, there was NO ONE on this board I classed as an adversary. I now know that is not the case and was disappointed at the veracity of some of the posts which did indeed make me lose my rag - and then I decided to use the 'ignore' function and could calm down again.

Some posts that I'm seeing when quoted by other people do not annoy me as they are clearly without foundation and it is obvious, and almost everyone here is treating them with the contempt deserved. I think I'd only get upset about my integrity being questioned if it was from someone who had any.

PHILIP

[Cap'n Jack]

Poor old George, eh?
He hates so much to have found this photo that he's going to have it published in his little booklet; and get a few pies and flights out of it.
I'm just drenched in tears for him.

Book didn't go well, Mungo?

[Khanada]

Poor old George, eh?
He hates so much to have found this photo that he's going to have it published in his little booklet; and get a few pies and flights out of it.
I'm just drenched in tears for him.

Book didn't go well, Mungo?

On the admittedly sporadic occasions I read anything in this thread, there are always posts like this. And I cannot help but wonder what spawns them, beyond the sour grapes they sound like.

Gosh, to have the free time you have, sir -- only without the sour stomach that seems to accompany it!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

only without the sour stomach that seems to accompany it!

Well, that's Spanish brandy for you.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Philip---I couldnt give a flying **** who you ignore---its about you getting real as Ally says.One things for certain-posting on the casebook is no longer the friendly place it once was since all this unpleasantness started up---its quite a divided house now, with people siding over this and that -quite a hostile state of play in all.So thanks for all that too!Discussion is out---taking sides like a football team is in!

[Ally]

Ally, I did not get a trip to America, hotel and meals out of this. Firstly, I paid for my own flight.

I stand corrected on the flight.

As for your own stance it seems to change with almost every post depending on who you're addressing, though I confess it's difficult to cover when I have several people on my ignore list (and what a wonderful function it is).

My stance has not changed a single iota. It remains to this day as it was in the beginning. If you are wondering how I can smack the crap out of AP wolf, and still believe in withholding judgment on the validity of the photo, it's because I believe what I am saying: People should be withholding judgment. AP is not withholding judgment, he's making ludicrous accusations based on no supportable facts, which in my mind is just as wrong as believing with no supportable facts.

Questioning is fine, but doubting in the face of evidence is just dumb. As for authenticity, you stated at one point that the photo had not been authenticated. What quantifies authentication in your eyes?

Well for one thing...evidence. Which does not consist of people saying, I've seen it and I believe it. They say the buildings in the back match. Aces. Can I actually see the photo so that I can see the buildings that are being referred to, or do I just believe it because I have been told it is so? Evidence, things that I can see with my own eyes, and make a judgment on that does not consist of being told it's the truth and you all believe it, so it must be the case.

At the end of the day, I'm presuming your personal issue over the photo (knowing you've seen a better copy) lies entirely with my announcing its existence before I wanted to share it. Well, cat out of the bag because I spent half my lecture talking about it. If I hadn't said it, someone else would and we'd still be in the same position. Because I made that initial post and no one else did, you got the correct story.

Well as I've already said repeatedly and to borrow your phrase, it seems to go in one ear and out the other, by making that initial post, you started a thread, meaning that you should have been willing to answer all questions, and you laid yourself wide open to questions because you engaged in "I have it and you can't see it". When it comes to a photograph, seeing IS believing.

Though you and I have had issues in the past, because I personally don't like the way you talk to people and always seem to get away with it, there was NO ONE on this board I classed as an adversary. I now know that is not the case and was disappointed at the veracity of some of the posts which did indeed make me lose my rag - and then I decided to use the 'ignore' function and could calm down again.

"Get away with it?" Like what, you all need to tie me down and give me the good thrashing I deserve? That could be fun.... In case you haven't noticed, people are pretty free to talk to others anyway they like around here. Like Glenn there.. I mean the man just pissed in everyone's wheaties, and told em all to fry in everlasting hell and those posts remain. The beauty of free speech and all. But as for "adversaries" other than a glaring dick who makes it his mission to be adversarial to everyone, I don't think that there is any adversarial nature here. If you think I am not jumping on the authentic photo wagon because you and I have had issues in the past, can I just say Phil...I don't even remember the issues that you refer to. Call up Stewart Evans and he will tell you, if he says something I object to, I'll call him on it. And I rather like him, most of the time. Same with just about anyone on the boards. Whether I like you or dislike you is immaterial, if I disagree with something, I say so. My position on this matter has nothing to do with you. I realize you have a hard time separating that, and any attack on the authenticity is seen as an attack on you, but that is not always the case. For me, the issue is just the issue, regardless of the people involved and when I am done, I move on to the next.

But I have to ask, to be honest, really, did you just expect people to believe it because you said it was so? I wouldn't have expected that myself, and as previously mentioned, I've got an ego the size of Texas. If I had come on and said "Oh found a photo of something but I am not going to open it up to be scrutinized, but here's some of my friends and co-authors to tell you it's the truth" I would frankly have expected to have been laughed off the planet.

But I am a person who doesn't believe in taking anything on faith, so I would hardly expect anyone else to. It has nothing to do with you, Rob Clack, N. Bell or S. Evans or anyone else. It has to do with, if I can't study it and be presented with the facts, to make up my own mind, I am going to reserve judgment and I think it's only logical that others do the same.

[RJM]

I have seen the Dutfield's Yard photograph before it was cleaned up by Phil. Most of what he fixed was along the top edge and the left hand side. What he did was mostly cosmetic. Nothing in the photo has been moved or taken out. Whether AP apologizes or not, I want people to know that.

Robert

[Shelley]

Ally has made fair comment Glenn

Those are statements exactly in line with what I have said: It is the behavior that is what is important. When you see it, then believe it. Until then, reserve judgment. And I was speaking to the claim that it was defamatory to question it, which it is not. No one should be immune to questions because you like them Glenn. And your history with Phil is NOT shared by everyone on the boards. Not everyone who reads these boards even knows who Phil is. Are they to be prohibited from questioning the veracity because you like him and have a history with him? Your history with him is irrelevant to anyone but you and him. And his standing in your eyes, doesn't make him immune to questioning. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. That's just how it is.

People are going to question the behavior. Period. Phil, in my opinion did a really stupid thing. And I have made no bones about that. Why should anyone believe it, if they haven't seen it? If asked to come down right now, I'd say it's a genuine photo of Dutfields. But I don't demand or even expect that anyone else will believe it just on my say-so. So if people want to question the existence of the album, they have the perfect right to do that. Because it is the logical course of action.

And as I also said, I don't care if it is Stephen Ryder or Stewart Evans, in my opinion, EVERYONE should be held to the same equal standard and to the same burden of proof, which is what those statements were about. That everyone deserves to be treated by their actions, not their name.

If you don't have the goods to show, don't make claims you can't support, because you are then fair game for attacks.

And no, NOT everyone had the chance to see. There was 24 hours notice and it was up for 24 hours. The idea that everyone in teh world checks the message boards religiously and was able and available to see it in that narrow window is patently ridiculous. There are posts on this very threads of people who didn't check the boards for a couple of days and missed it. So the statement that everyone had a chance to see it is false.

NOt to mention, the photo has completely crappy resolution, words written all over it and LINES drawn through it, to the point that nothing could really be made out except for general impressions of people standing in an alley.

Glenn,
You must understand that Ally is speaking for all those that read & post here, there have been other findings, some valid and some which have been assumed to not be valid and it is beggars choice unless an expert in the field says otherwise. It might feel that a person is being attacked by just mere given choice of words, however when experts have deemed that items are not authentic it is often the buyer that has also been hookwinked, not just those who have been led to believe, this being the case the one who is let down the most is the owner and more of a blow to him or her. Just think of those that have been involved with faked scriptures of religion from a black market. It happens unfortunately and i am not saying that the photo that Philip has is a fake. I'll reserve judgement in the fact that i haven't seen it as of yet in any case. It would have been nice to have seen the photo, but still hoping i'll get to see it at some point. Ally is quite reasonable in saying a 24 hour period is not enough time for everyone to have seen it, as it can be some length of time beyond 24 hours that person may decide to come on the boards. people do have other things to be getting on with. So just let be and see a little later on.
Best Wishes
Shelley

[Shelley]

Poor old George, eh?
He hates so much to have found this photo that he's going to have it published in his little booklet; and get a few pies and flights out of it.
I'm just drenched in tears for him.

Book didn't go well, Mungo?

I think this is a deville of ill choosen words given the light of the heat of the thread............More fire anyone on the frying pan!!!

[Shelley]

I stand corrected on the flight.



My stance has not changed a single iota. It remains to this day as it was in the beginning. If you are wondering how I can smack the crap out of AP wolf, and still believe in withholding judgment on the validity of the photo, it's because I believe what I am saying: People should be withholding judgment. AP is not withholding judgment, he's making ludicrous accusations based on no supportable facts, which in my mind is just as wrong as believing with no supportable facts.



Well for one thing...evidence. Which does not consist of people saying, I've seen it and I believe it. They say the buildings in the back match. Aces. Can I actually see the photo so that I can see the buildings that are being referred to, or do I just believe it because I have been told it is so? Evidence, things that I can see with my own eyes, and make a judgment on that does not consist of being told it's the truth and you all believe it, so it must be the case.



Well as I've already said repeatedly and to borrow your phrase, it seems to go in one ear and out the other, by making that initial post, you started a thread, meaning that you should have been willing to answer all questions, and you laid yourself wide open to questions because you engaged in "I have it and you can't see it". When it comes to a photograph, seeing IS believing.



"Get away with it?" Like what, you all need to tie me down and give me the good thrashing I deserve? That could be fun.... In case you haven't noticed, people are pretty free to talk to others anyway they like around here. Like Glenn there.. I mean the man just pissed in everyone's wheaties, and told em all to fry in everlasting hell and those posts remain. The beauty of free speech and all. But as for "adversaries" other than a glaring dick who makes it his mission to be adversarial to everyone, I don't think that there is any adversarial nature here. If you think I am not jumping on the authentic photo wagon because you and I have had issues in the past, can I just say Phil...I don't even remember the issues that you refer to. Call up Stewart Evans and he will tell you, if he says something I object to, I'll call him on it. And I rather like him, most of the time. Same with just about anyone on the boards. Whether I like you or dislike you is immaterial, if I disagree with something, I say so. My position on this matter has nothing to do with you. I realize you have a hard time separating that, and any attack on the authenticity is seen as an attack on you, but that is not always the case. For me, the issue is just the issue, regardless of the people involved and when I am done, I move on to the next.

But I have to ask, to be honest, really, did you just expect people to believe it because you said it was so? I wouldn't have expected that myself, and as previously mentioned, I've got an ego the size of Texas. If I had come on and said "Oh found a photo of something but I am not going to open it up to be scrutinized, but here's some of my friends and co-authors to tell you it's the truth" I would frankly have expected to have been laughed off the planet.

But I am a person who doesn't believe in taking anything on faith, so I would hardly expect anyone else to. It has nothing to do with you, Rob Clack, N. Bell or S. Evans or anyone else. It has to do with, if I can't study it and be presented with the facts, to make up my own mind, I am going to reserve judgment and I think it's only logical that others do the same.

Oh, come now Ally...Free speech, i make an opinionated comment and you tell me i should give no less than evidence for the privilege, i wouldn't have mind that much but i wasn't addressing it to you in the first place. And you don't take anything on faith...ha ha...Right you are Ally not even free speech of an opinion too!

[George Hutchinson]

Shelley, you are entitled to your opinions but that is just what your statements are - opinions - and opinions based on little or no knowledge of the image. As for making things worse, well I don't know if you noticed but the person responsible for the most outlandish accusations no longer posts on Casebook and by bringing up this thread simply to make that observation, it is YOU who is starting the ball rolling again.

The intention is to have the book ready for the October Conference.

PHILIP

[cappuccina]

Wow...just....wow...

Not having followed all of this in depth, and not on any particular "side" or another...

I just have this observation...

Could this be a case of the "Emperor's New (or perhaps....old....) Photograph"??

[Tom_Wescott]

I haven't seen the photo, so am withholding judgement, as Ally so wisely advises. However, seeing how jealous AP is of Philip right now, I'm inclined to believe Philip must be onto something good here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott