One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Yabs]

I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

Hi Simon.

I was aware that you had suggested there may have been letters in the MK photo years ago, I just don’t know the context.
Was your suggestion publicised anywhere around that time so that the forger may have seen it?
Also, did you suggest what the letters may have been where they were etc?

Apologies if you’ve answered these questions many times before

[The Baron]

Without Simon Wood, we wouldn't be discussing this thread now.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Yabs,

It happened at a City Darts 'Jack the Ripper Seminar' in 1989. I was probably talking to just Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (Paul Begg, living in Leeds at the time, made only occasional visits to London) about turning a black and white photograph into colour. I had seen this demonstrated on TV and thought it might be an idea to experiment with the Kelly photograph. During this, or a subsequent conversation, I pointed out the initials on the wall, reasoning in true Grand Guignol style that Kelly had finger-painted the murderer's initials on the partition wall beside her bed.

"Depending on which printed copy (Rumbelow, Farson, Begg, Knight etc.) of the Kelly photograph is examined, the initials appear more or less indistinct, and I thought the best exposure was in the Sphere paperback edition of Dan Farson's book.

My discovery was pounced upon with enthusiasm, but try as we may none of us could decipher the initials, let alone fit them to a suspect. And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped.

Four years later, in Shirley Harrison's book, this became—

"In 1976 Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" reproduced the picture with enough clarity to show that there appeared to be some initials on the wall partition behind Mary Kelly's bed, although they were not pointed out until 1988. The crime researcher Simon Wood mentioned them to Paul Begg."

Now you know the story of the initials on the wall.

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[Yabs]

That’s a great help Simon, thanks for that.

[The Baron]

Orsam has examined one of the best -if not the best- photos in existence, and there was no letters on the wall, all what we have here on these low quality copies are just artifacts and they don't form the alleged FM either.



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Hi Everyone,

If anyone has any evidence that the 'FM' on Kelly's wall that are so easily seen in countless incarnations of the photograph are not there, can I strongly recommend that they publish the actual evidence of it (not simply talk about having such evidence) so that we can all see that how they aren't there after all?

I don't believe anyone takes seriously so remarkable a claim simply on the strength of the words of the claimant himself?

Ike

[Simon Wood]

You start. Publish irrefutable evidence the FM on Kelly's wall was there.

[The Baron]

The irony!

I wonder then why anyone takes seriously so remarkable a claim simply on the strength of the words of the hoaxer himself?!






The Baron

[The Baron]

Hello Simon, I will start

First the original photo (1,324 × 1,506 pixels, file size: 487 KB) , taken from this site:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Srkelly.jpg

The same photo in grayscale












There is clearly no letters on the wall.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Thank you, Baron.

Simon

[Iconoclast]

And here's me thinking we were about to see some versions of that infamous photograph which didn't contain the letters 'F' and 'M'. What a disappointment for us all.

Mind you, word to the wise, I pointed-out the other day (search on 'Mona Lisa from a Distance') that all detail gets lost when you blow it up so much the definition is lost. It looks as though someone didn't get the memo.

Look, save the theatrics. Give us the pyrotechnics - David, I'm pretty sure you read all this stuff (cough) so show us the mythical original you mention on your one-third website where no shred whatsoever of Florrie's initials are on show. Give us the fireworks - amaze us, bedazzle us, inspire us, convince us!

[Simon Wood]

"And here's me thinking we were about to see some versions of that infamous photograph which didn't contain the letters 'F' and 'M'."

So which of Baron's photographs did contain the letters 'F' and 'M'?

Amaze, bedazzle and inspire us.

[Iconoclast]

"And here's me thinking we were about to see some versions of that infamous photograph which didn't contain the letters 'F' and 'M'."

So which of Baron's photographs did contain the letters 'F' and 'M'?

Amaze, bedazzle and inspire us.

The blown-up one didn’t because it had been blown-up out of all proportion but the other three were exactly the same as all other versions of the photograph. And that’s not really surprising given that that’s what they were.

And I was so excited that we were going to see some evidence for the claim that they aren’t there - something you clearly could never provide Simon as you went out of your way to point them out all those years ago.

[erobitha]

Fascinating debate.

I too see F & M - which may not shock many.

Ike is correct, when an image is "blown up" from a low resolution source then the pixels are stretched and distorted. It does not reflect accurately what is on the original image. Cat Boy's 500kb image is low res. End of debate.

If anyone can provide the original print or even better still, monochrome - I will convert it into colour and we can debate the source image, instead of the various low-res distorted versions flying around the internet.

[The Baron]

First, this is an image that was posted here in this thread by one of the diary defenders, I downloaded it from here, and it was only 233x165 pixels, and only 71 KB, yes, very poor, it is more poor than one can ever imagine, the image of Kellys I posted earlier is 1324×1506 pixels and 487 KB!


Here is the photograph:






Then I will cut two small letters from the image above and will post the smaller image here, it is very small, one can hardly recognise the two letters, it is only 18x15 pixels, and only 1 KB , yes only 1KB!! :





Now, I will blow-up this little thing x100 times!! Yes, one hundred time bigger, it will now become 1800x1500 pixels, and 493 KB!






Can you see the two small letters now or not?!

Did we lost them ?! Did they turn into 2 different things ?!

Of course not, because we have letters here, so we were able to see them clearly, but if you don't have anything, well, you will find nothing!






The Baron