"Art in the blood is liable to take the strangest forms" said a famous detective once. Did it ever occur to readers of this thread that this may have been what the killer considered his "art form"
(apologies if this is on the wrong thread, if it is please let me know)
Regards
Mr Holmes
MJK3: Is that a knife? or ???
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostBit like art,poetry,wine tasting....all nonsense if you're not attuned to it really
Mike
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Good Michael View PostI don't have a TV. Thankfully, all these old photos can create whatever the viewer wants them to without logic ever coming into play.
Mike
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostYou're right Mike,you shouldn't zoom on everything .
It's all down to pixels.When 42" televisions were first introduced manufacturers recommended a viewing distance of 17' to avoid seeing to much pixelation and 'blocking'
The emergence of HD has improved things considerably.
Find a comfortable viewing distance and you may see what others see
Alternatively sit 6 inches from your tv with a magnifying glass and you'll see that there's nothing there but dots
Mike
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Good Michael View PostYeah, impossible to see a knife from the regular photo and of course it was never mentioned as being found, but when we bring the image closer with the same poor resolution, inanity kicks in for some reason. I thought it was a group of ants forming an oblong shape before they were going to break out into showtunes and dance numbers.
Mike
It's all down to pixels.When 42" televisions were first introduced manufacturers recommended a viewing distance of 17' to avoid seeing to much pixelation and 'blocking'
The emergence of HD has improved things considerably.
Find a comfortable viewing distance and you may see what others see
Alternatively sit 6 inches from your tv with a magnifying glass and you'll see that there's nothing there but dots
Leave a comment:
-
Yeah, impossible to see a knife from the regular photo and of course it was never mentioned as being found, but when we bring the image closer with the same poor resolution, inanity kicks in for some reason. I thought it was a group of ants forming an oblong shape before they were going to break out into showtunes and dance numbers.
Mike
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostHi Dane_F,
Thank you.
Mr. Evans made a case for Tumblety being out of jail on 9th November, but we won't go there.
I wish I could tell you right now what I've got, but that would make a second edition of my book pointless.
Anyway, thank you for your respect. It is much appreciated.
Regards,
Simon
I also understand needing to hold your findings for the book.
I wish you the best Mr. Wood. I find your theories fascinating and enjoyable to read. Things are so serious around here that when a book comes along (like yours and Tom's) and has such a unique take I can't help but appreciate it, even if everything doesn't line up 100% with my own take.
- Dane
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostIt would prove the unreliability of the official records and the need to take them with an extremely large pinch of salt for failing to mention a potential murder weapon
However this does present an interesting question why did the members of the official detective force who were at Kelly's crime scene not take it into evidence, assuming of course it is actually a knife?
Surely they should have and would have been reprimanded for not having done so. If it were a knife we have found the most vital piece of evidence at this scene and some stupid policeman has left it behind. To an 1800s police officer was the single most important bit of evidence at scene, so if it is a knife I do not see the logic in leaving it behind.
Regards
Mr Holmes
P.S It's good to be back
Leave a comment:
-
Purkis:
"It's a hand mirror, partly covered by the entrails."
Magnificent sentences like that are the reason I got interested in Ripperology
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Dane_F,
Thank you.
Mr. Evans made a case for Tumblety being out of jail on 9th November, but we won't go there.
I wish I could tell you right now what I've got, but that would make a second edition of my book pointless.
Anyway, thank you for your respect. It is much appreciated.
Regards,
Simon
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostHi Dane_F,
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since I wrote my Enigmas of Millers Court article in December 2005.
Almost ten years on I can tell you two things—
MJK3 is not the obverse of MJK1.
MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 on 9th November 1888.
This and other matters will be discussed in the second edition of "Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders."
Regards,
Simon
Unfortunately with nothing more to go on than basically "Im telling you it's fake" Mr Evans made a stronger argument for its validity. Do not take this as any slight against you however, I'm fully open to nearly any possibilities as far as this case goes. I look forward to hearing about the evidence you present in your updated edition.
With nothing but the upmost respect,
Dane
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by spyglass View PostHi Simon,
Ha! It was supposed to say " second " how did scone get in there ?
Regards
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: