If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
THE JACK THE RIPPER LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS : Dutfield's Yard and the Whitby Collection
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.
He won't show the original because the original isn't subject to copyright laws. Since he "retouched" the photo, I believe by law that he can claim copyright on it and prevent anyone from using it, however if he publishes the original it would be freely available for all to use as they will.
Of course I am wondering if someone can take the two halves, scan them and by virtue of splicing them together claim copyright on their own creation and be able to publish it freely?
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
Ally?
How could anyone know what exactly was what , when, not only was it half hidden from view by a thick black cross over it and we were only allowed to view it for 24 hours and whilst all this was going on we were in the middle of a great damn row with accusations being thrown around at anyone who as much as dared question ,in ANY shape or form the picture"s authenticity?
I am not sure what you are asking Natalie. People might not know what was what in regards to the photo, having not seen it, but no matter what, they surely know that accusing someone of creating a forgery with no evidence is not kosher. And the fact that no one HAD yet seen it is even more cause to be temperate with claims.
At the time all this was going on, I was getting more stick than AP simply because I refused to accept it as genuine before I got a chance to examine it and the evidence with my own eyes and yet even then I would hardly make a claim that Philip had forged it or was involved in faking it.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
He won't show the original because the original isn't subject to copyright laws. Since he "retouched" the photo, I believe by law that he can claim copyright on it and prevent anyone from using it, however if he publishes the original it would be freely available for all to use as they will.
Of course I am wondering if someone can take the two halves, scan them and by virtue of splicing them together claim copyright on their own creation and be able to publish it freely?
That makes perfect sense, but we're still talking about a picture of a yard. Phillip in the ripper community will always be known as the one who brought the picture to light. Beyond that, why would he care? No one other than the ripper community gives a crap about it, that's why we've got this thread going. If he were to visit france right now and go up to anyone on the street and show them this pic and explain what it was they wouldn't care at all. It's just a 5$ pic of a yard that someone may or may not have been murdered in.
On copyright, I don't believe it's enforced worldwide so I think you're right. Anyone can take what he has and make there own.
I am not sure what you are asking Natalie. People might not know what was what in regards to the photo, having not seen it, but no matter what, they surely know that accusing someone of creating a forgery with no evidence is not kosher. And the fact that no one HAD yet seen it is even more cause to be temperate with claims.
At the time all this was going on, I was getting more stick than AP simply because I refused to accept it as genuine before I got a chance to examine it and the evidence with my own eyes and yet even then I would hardly make a claim that Philip had forged it or was involved in faking it.
Yes, Ally,you were getting more stick then than AP and quite rightly,you never accused Philip of forging it.
But what I am trying to explain is that there was a huge amount of dust kicked up,all of a sudden, because of questions that were "perceived" as accusations of forgery.All this as a backdrop to the glimpse we had of a picture that had had big black lines on it due to copyright issues.So it got like two or three camps arguing the toss about different things.And it grew very heated. I honestly cannot recall Ap suggesting Philip had forged it although he jested,as he does, as soon as Philip told us about phtoshopping it.But so would a lot of people have pulled his leg about that.It surely doesnt mean that he really and truly thought Philip had forged it.At least I hope to hell he didnt!Are you there Ap?
I'm here, Natalie, and as I've just demonstrated conclusively,with Ally's full support, I have never accused anyone of 'forging' this image.
I have expressed my sincere doubts about allowing the image to be altered using modern computer techniques; and I have expressed my doubts concerning the true location of this image, for a variety of good and valid reasons.
I should, and would hope, that any normal researcher would not stand in the way of honest research in an endeavour to secure the ultimate accuracy of a historical artifact. Or otherwise.
A small section of the photo is shown in the book before Philip had cleaned it up, to give an idea of the type of damage in the photo. And if you look closely at the full picture you can see parts of the photo that had been cleaned up.
If I had done it, it would be seamless but then I'd claim copyright on it.
I honestly cannot recall Ap suggesting Philip had forged it although he jested,as he does, as soon as Philip told us about phtoshopping it.But so would a lot of people have pulled his leg about that.It surely doesnt mean that he really and truly thought Philip had forged it.At least I hope to hell he didnt!
Hi Norma,
Your devotion to the cause is quite touching, but AP did, in fact, suggest that the image was a fake. The offending post was removed from the original thread, according, I suppose, to the policy of the site, although I remember seeing it at the time. Besides, the meat of the accusation is still there - if we must use Photoshop as a verb, then it's clear that, yes, the image was tidied up, or repaired, or however you might like to put it, using that software. But this is a long way from "creating" an image for the purposes of deceiving a buying public. AP argued that one could "buy" what he described as "fake" backgrounds from Photoshop. When he mentioned this, he made it obvious that he believed that the photograph had been fabricated from discrete components. Plainly, this is not just "jesting".
I refer you back to Ally's post (# 186 in this thread) for further details regarding this. I also refer you back to Chris's post (#116 in this thread) for a tidy synopsis of the sequence of events regarding the identification of the location of the photograph, a process which AP is now imagining that his objections influenced. Plainly, they did not, so his line of reasoning is, here as before, quite fallacious. Lastly, I refer you back to AP's post (#106 in this thread), in which he says this:
If you boys care to go back to the original thread, the one that got me banned yet again, you'll find the experts who helped locate the site seen in the illustration sat on their arses when I carefully explained to them that they were two streets out on their line of sight identification of the location.
Naturally, it was not the thread which got AP banned, but his behaviour and remarks on the thread, along with, I understand, his attitude to the strictures of Admin. I would have thought that anyone examining AP's conduct now with detachment and poise ought to be able to take a view on his need to attribute his banning to anything apart from his own actions. Supposing one does, I think the whole house of cards comes down rather, don't you?
Mark, you can paint the picture with whatever colour you like; and you can give it whatever title you like... but the original location was two streets out, and I'm being generous there.
There are hordes of unaswered questions in regard to this image which we have been asked to take on faith simply because the person who found it is a good friend of many here. Not good enough for me, I'm afraid.
If I wanted friends I'd join a dating agency.
This is casebook, and I come here for the cutting edge in modern research and dissemination of that research.
Instead I have seen a closing of ranks to protect an image that nobody can say is genuine or not.
I stand by my original misgivings about this image, and many support me.
OK, I asked this same question before and no one answered it..
AP, you said the image "could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images."
What exactly do you mean by this?
I am no photography expert, but as far as I know, there are no technical limitations on focal length in old (pre-1920) cameras or lenses, provided that a small aperture is used. A pinhole camera, for example, is very primitive, but has almost infinite focal length. My assumption is that the photo was taken in bright daylight with a small aperture... I don't see the problem.
But then again, I am not an expert so please tell me why I am wrong.
Comment