THE JACK THE RIPPER LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS : Dutfield's Yard and the Whitby Collection

[Ally]

Natalie,

AP was not talking about Phil's touch ups. He stated plainly (and this is a approximation but a pretty damn close one) because he thought the buildings in the background were not right that Phil had messed up when he had "inserted" the background of the photo.

That is not a vague allusion or talking about touching up tatty bits. That is a deliberate statement that Phil hoaxed it. The post was deleted when he was asked to provide evidence or withdraw the claim and failed to do so, instead cursing out the admin and getting a little vacation.

He made a deliberate statement that Phil created the photo and therefore until he withdraws that statement, I won't listen to a word he has to say about it.

[Cap'n Jack]

I'll post this again as Ally obviously missed the post:

'For the record again, I have said that the illustration has been through photoshop, simply because it has; and I have said that the background does not match the original line of sight placement, simply because at that time it did not. Since then the author has revised his line of sight placement.'

Let us please get my argument right, it is important, to the subject.

[Ally]

I have gotten it right AP and you are backtracking and scrambling.

You stated that Phil had inserted the background of the Dutfield's photo. That is an accusation of him having created it. Your obfuscation about "line of sight" and other misdirections does not change the basic truth:

You accused Phil of creating the photo, inserting the background and therefore perpetuating a hoax.

That is the truth.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally, I never accused anyone of anything, I simply said that photoshop had been employed in the final image we are shown -it has been employed thus - and that the background did not match the geographical location of Dutfield's Yard according to the line of sight placement originally given by the 'experts' engaged by the author to do so.
I am right on both counts.

[Ally]

You are lying. Again. You said that Phil had inserted the background.

[Ally]

And to prove my point, from the original Dutfield's photo thread:

I do love to flog a dead horse.
This is the photo that I find disturbingly familiar with George's.
'appy new year.

I posted a sarcastic post as the photos were not at all similar and he replied:

Ally, I was merely referring to the fake backgrounds in both photos.
You can buy them at Photoshop.

A couple of weeks later he made the claim that Phil had inserted the background.


Which puts paid to any argument that he might make that he never stated that the photo was faked.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1562&page=57

[Monty]

Ally, I never accused anyone of anything, I simply said that photoshop had been employed in the final image we are shown -it has been employed thus - and that the background did not match the geographical location of Dutfield's Yard according to the line of sight placement originally given by the 'experts' engaged by the author to do so.
I am right on both counts.

Incorrect statement. The background (rooftops of the depot) conclusively support the location as Dutfields Yard. This has been explained here on Casebook (See the relative thread) and in the book.

The photo presented in the book is exactly the same photo as the one shown to us in 2007, ergo the photo has not been altered and there has been no final image.

This means you are quite simply incorrect on all counts.

The yard matches the OS, Goads maps and witness statements. The background, as I have stated, would have been the background a photographer would have seen if taking a photo in that period on that same spot.

The club doors and windows are in alignment. The stones are in alignment. The bam is in alignment.

The building at the back of the yard is the same as those there in 1888 except the stairs differ. They differ from the Furniss drawings. However other images Furniss drew are slightly incorrect as well indicating the artist employed artistic license.

I could go on but the photo really needs no defending.

As for the accusations, they're there for all to read. AP alluded to forgery.

Still, it AP...its what he does.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

No, Ally, I said that his 'experts' had misinterpretated the geographical and line of sight data available in the background of the illustration.
They had, and they later adjusted that to better fit the background, and line of sight placement.
The only thing I accused anyone of around here was wishful thinking... and I still do.

[Ally]

I have quoted you exactly AP and proven, once again, that you are lying.

[Monty]

No, Ally, I said that his 'experts' had misinterpretated the geographical and line of sight data available in the background of the illustration.
They had, and they later adjusted that to better fit the background, and line of sight placement.
The only thing I accused anyone of around here was wishful thinking... and I still do.

There is no misinterpretation AP. And no adjustment.

Im waiting for you to provide the evidence supporting this false accusation.

Will you?

No...thought not.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Ap,
Maybe you did say Philip had "inserted" the background? If you did,don"t you think people are right to assume you meant more.That it can sound like you are accusing them of some "hanky panky"?
I must say it didnt come across to me like you were accusing Philip of a hoax.
But maybe the whole thing has been somewhat "derailed" by using word like "inserted" that can be seen to infer,by connotation, an intention to falsify?
I never,at the time or since though, thought you were accusing Philip of "hoaxing" the picture but rather that you were , at that stage, suggesting to him that he may have been duped.
Moreover,it has to be said that it was extremely difficult at the time to judge whether that picture wasnt just another example of someone outside ripperology having made a false claim[ie the original owner] to a prospective buyer[ie Philip] by selling a bogus picture to someone on the internet---as can and does happen.It was made difficult because Philip had been advised to be cautious about copyright and therefore didnt post the image in full, but behind a sort of black lined stencil, making it difficult to discern several components of the image accurately.
All this was happening, as I recall it ,while the image was still under discussion, a discussion that grew a bit heated it has to be admitted.

But what to do now?

[Cap'n Jack]

But what to do now? You ask, Natalie.
Have a reasonable discussion I would have thought.

Way back then, after posting some well known fake photos of various 'murder sites' supposedly of Whitechapel, but actually made in the 1930's in Germany, I simply said this:

'my opinion is that both photos, one a known fake, the other up for discussion, could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images.
Anyways I'm not prepared to discuss the images from a technical aspect until the image becomes available for study.'

Ally followed this in post number 619 by saying:

'But the fact is that not even AP has claimed anyone has perpetuated a hoax.'

I'll let Ally speak for herself. If she can.

[Ally]

AP,

You are full of crap. You said the background of the Dutfield's photo was fake and then a couple of weeks later you said Phil had screwed up when he had inserted the background. At the time I said that, you hadn't accused Phil and your comment could have been taken as Phil himself had been duped. That supposition was destroyed a week later when you said Phil had inserted the background. You were allowed to speculate right up until the time you accused Phil of having been the one to fake the background. The post was deleted when you refused to provide any evidence for you claim that Phil had inserted the fake background. It was what got you your vacation and you know it.

I think it's clear to everyone now, that AP is not telling the truth. His credibility problem grows with every post.

[John Winsett]

Ally,
I do remember Ap saying the picture had been photoshopped .However,this was discussed,with Philip as I recall and
Philip explained he had had to photoshop bits of it as some bits had faded and presumably he had had to "insert" or "strengthen" bits [probably a better word], to present an image that was not tatty and therefore easier on the eye.To me,this is totally acceptable.

If the above is true and any inserting or strengthening or anything considered beyond normal photographic repair happened, then it would've been in phillip's best interest to show the original un-touched photo. I'm not saying it is or isn't a fake, but this is exactly how photographic hoaxes have been started and exposed. Again I'm not calling anything fake, forged etc. I'm just saying this could explain why 1. The picture is split and 2. why the original was not included in the book. Food for thought.

[Ally]

Oh and of course, the part AP left out....Here's my full quote:

Nice dodge. But the fact is that not even AP has claimed anyone has perpetuated a hoax ( although of course he is alluding to it). But that's because AP is a moron and likes to make wild and outlandish claims.

So it was well known at the time, even though you had not yet outright claimed Phil had done it, exactly what you were alluding to. I notice you left that "though of course he is alluding to it" out of your carefully edited quote, placing a period there to make it seem like a complete sentence. Didn't you? And of course, two weeks later you stopped alluding and made the direct statement.

Once again, pure deceitful lying BS.