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

[John Winsett]

Man, you guys are something else! From what I see it is a very high probability that this is Dutfields Yard. I think it is. I Have to apologize to Phillip because I am still pissed about the page splitting but I didn't think it was going to cause such a choatic thread! Relax guys! Incredible!

[Ally]

'But I do fear for some users - perhaps users of the future - who may mistake your provocations for the truth. It would be a pity if they were to be so misled.'

I hope, Mark,that future users of this site will see and take note of my spirited challenge of cosy little sects on this site who always agree with one another regardless of the simple facts, or the simple truth.
I hope that future users of this site can come here in the certain knowledge that they can challenge the status quo, and the preconceived misconceptions of the select few who attempt to dominate and subjucate this intensely interesting subject with their banal back slapping and incredulous support of lost and forgotten argument.
I do sincerely hope that.

What a pile of crap. You are not about challenging the status quo. You are about lobbing a pile of **** at anyone you think has status and seeing how much you can make stick.

There is not a single person on this website or in this field that would ever consider me to be a part of a "cozy little sect" and I take as much aim at the "Names" as I do at the newbies, but the simple fact remains you are absolutely, flat out full of crap when you challenge the authenticity of the Dutfield's photo.

You made up your mind BEFORE YOU EVER EVEN SAW THE PHOTO that it was a fake and made up facts to suit your theory ever since. You've been flat out caught before making up stories that sound good to support what you believe is true (bows to the crowd, thank you, thank you, yes I did love smacking him down) what makes you think YOU are the person who ought to be leading new students to the "truth"? You couldn't find the truth if it was floating in your brandy.

I am as for challenging dogma and phony fraternization that leads some people in the field to think they are a lot more important and right than they are and there is nothing I hate more than academic pomposity when it comes to ideas (spelling is another matter). I agree that the whole back-slapping mentality is sickening especially since the people who slap you on the back in front of you are as liable to stab you in the back the minute you get out of earshot.

But there is a difference between challenging dogma and the dogmatic and just flat out lying to bring someone down.

[Debra A]

I just like the fact that a woman took this pic years before we were even born. Thanks for attempting to tell her story, Philip.

[Cap'n Jack]

'But I do fear for some users - perhaps users of the future - who may mistake your provocations for the truth. It would be a pity if they were to be so misled.'

I hope, Mark,that future users of this site will see and take note of my spirited challenge of cosy little sects on this site who always agree with one another regardless of the simple facts, or the simple truth.
I hope that future users of this site can come here in the certain knowledge that they can challenge the status quo, and the preconceived misconceptions of the select few who attempt to dominate and subjucate this intensely interesting subject with their banal back slapping and incredulous support of lost and forgotten argument.
I do sincerely hope that.

[Monty]

Okay then, they, the 'experts' were wrong, by two streets, now they are right by two streets, and I was wrong to point the two street dilemma out to them, after which they changed their minds, and not before.
After all what are two streets between friends?
I believe this illustration to be closer to the Gizah Pyramid than Berner Street.

Seriously, you taking the pi....

The photo was discussed months, many many months, nigh on a year prior to Philip speaking about it in Knoxville.

Views were exchanged and, quite rightly, some opinions were altered. As is natural with such things, and these things were ironed out fairly rapidly resulting in an argeement by all.

This was done well before your comments on these very boards.

I know Rob Clack better than you do AP, and I feel all those that know him will agree with me when I state that he would not commit to something unless he is certain. His record speaks for itself and is far more consistant than any others here, you and I included.

The bottom line is you have no idea that you are incorrect. As Mark says, that is concerning as you have a responsibilty, as we all do, to stick to the evidence and fact.

You have been found to be telling untruths, unintentionally or not. And not for the first time.

I find that disturbing.

Monty


At least Rob recitfies his own errors.

[John Bennett]

QUOTE: "I believe this illustration to be closer to the Gizah Pyramid than Berner Street."

Well produce your evidence, then for Christ's sake.

[Cap'n Jack]

Okay then, they, the 'experts' were wrong, by two streets, now they are right by two streets, and I was wrong to point the two street dilemma out to them, after which they changed their minds, and not before.
After all what are two streets between friends?
I believe this illustration to be closer to the Gizah Pyramid than Berner Street.

[Monty]

Crunching tackle if ever I saw one Mark.


Monty

[m_w_r]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.

AP,

This is very peculiar, because, if you actually refer to the original thread, Rob said:

And I have no doubts whatsoever about the photos authenticity or that it is Dutfields Yard. The warehouses Neil mentioned are the Commercial Road Goods Depot. and Warehouse, on the Gower Walk side and not as I first thought buildings in Back Church Lane.

And then you, as you put it, "challenged" his interpretation:

I'd certainly like to know from the bevy of experts - gathered here tonight to pronounce on the immortal soul of George's photo - just how the devil one would be able to photograph or view a warehouse or other commercial building in 1900 in Gower Walk side, or the Commercial Road, from Dutfield's Yard when there is a bloody great street full of bloody great warehouses called Back Church Lane in the way?

And then Rob defended the same interpretation he had given in his first post.

If you do a little research yourself instead of spitting out words to see where they land you would come to the conclusion that the tallest building between Dutfields Yard and Gowers Walk was three storeys high and there were no warehouses just shops and dwellings. And also on the West side of Back Church Lane, two houses past Mundys Place there are no buildings at all. The Buildings on the West side from Fairclough Street were three storeyed until you get to the London General Omnibus Co. Depot which is only one. The East side of Gowers Walk were two and three storey dwellings and a tailors shop.
The six storeyed Commercial Road Goods Depot towered over these buildings and you can clearly see it in this 1909 photo from the Berner Street junction of Fairclough Street.

So your "challenge" didn't result in what you are now calling a more reasonable and rational line of sight location. Actually, it just prompted a little more explanation - patiently given, in the circumstances - of the material credentials of the original opinion. Without your "challenge" ... nothing would have changed. If you'll take a little advice, it's probably better not to believe your own publicity; and if you will insist on doing so, it's probably better to check what your own publicity actually consisted of before launching in a second time.

Neither Rob nor Philip nor anybody else connected with this photo and the errant farrago of your "challenge" to it needs me to chirp up in their defence. But I do fear for some users - perhaps users of the future - who may mistake your provocations for the truth. It would be a pity if they were to be so misled.

Regards,

Mark

[Monty]

AP

Again, name the location you believe it is.

As I have mentioned. The maps, contemporary reports and illustrations support the location. If you are stating the location is incorrect then you are stating all of those sources are incorrect.

It that what you are doing?

Veracity, your ignorance shows.

I suggest you buy the book and get up to speed with the work thats been undertaken. Far more intensive research than googling a the Kodak vintage camera site or picking up a Puffin book on Victorian Clothing.

I hope others will make up their own minds based on the facts and evidence, rather than trying to fit New York skylines into East end photographs.

And believe me, utter contempt should not bee mistaken for venom.

Monty

[Chris]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.

Absolutely breathtaking!

As a matter of fact:
(1) Rob's clarification, quoted above by Mark, was posted before you had said anything whatsoever about the matter, and
(2) when you did comment, it was to dispute the correctness of the revised identification, not the original one!

[Rob Clack]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today.

Bollocks.

My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.
This added credibility to the suggested location of the illustration.

So you think it's genuine now???

[Cap'n Jack]

Ho hum, venom does not equal veracity.
There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.
This added credibility to the suggested location of the illustration.
My challenges to the other issues I raise have not been met in a similar and fair fashion, but instead have been dismissed.
The illustration lacks credibility because of its slavish defence.

[Monty]

Thats it?!

Feck me, thats his evidence?

Oh lord, oh lordy lord lord.

Cheers Mark.

When he sobers up we really should point it out. It'll save him making even more of an arse of himself.

Serves you right for being honest Rob.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

He's probably forgotten it.