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

[robhouse]

"You see no problem because you have no solution.
But you are here."

uhh.... ? ok.

[Ally]

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..

AP, you are such a complete liar that I think you are that special breed who pathologically believes his lies to be truth and cannot tell the difference.

You stated that the image was faked and said Phil did it. You are pathetic and the worst kind of disgrace to research and the advancement of truth in the case. You lie, and you lie and you lie and with people like you lying their asses off every chance they get and refusing to EVER acknowledge their errors, it is no wonder no one ever gets anywhere.

You believe it's the closed ranks that are the problem in Ripperology. You are wrong. It is people like you, who have absolutely NO regard for the truth who lie and invent things that are the true problem.

All you had to do was admit it and apologize. And that would be that but you are too damn arrogant and dishonest to just say you screwed up and make amends.

You say you wanted to help those who come after find the truth. And again I say how can a liar ever lead anyone else to the truth?

[John Bennett]

You believe it's the closed ranks that are the problem in Ripperology. You are wrong.

Yes, I never understood this accusation of 'closed ranks'.

Ripperology is full of little independent areas of research, in that different people or groups of people at least, enjoy researching certain aspects of the case, whether that be the life of a certain suspect, the ins and outs of a certain theory, or even the events around a particular murder. The list is endless.

The people who looked at this photo early on are the ones who are particularly interested in East End locations and known for that interest. And because of that interest, they all know each other and get on rather well - but nobody decided to put together an 'exclusive clique', so these accusations of 'back scratching' etc, do gall somewhat.

If I wanted to get an opinion on new info about Druitt before I went public, for example, there are people here I would certainly consult and it wouldn't be the East End buffs just because they're 'mates'. Horses for courses.

JB

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I haven't ordered Philip's book yet - I am ashamed to say it - because I simply haven't had the money (so much for "money-making" published authors, for you, AP!), but I most certainly will as soon as possible.
GREAT cover! I don't know if Philip had something to do with it or that the idea is the work of some graphic designer at the publisher, but it works extremely well and is most certainly appealing.

Well well, I see that good 'ol AP still does his usual tirades against published authors.
First the complaints concerned that the dating of the Dutfield's Yard photo was incorrect, now the ravings are about an obviously very small piece of the photo landing on the opposite page.
It's so infantile that it goes beyond belief.
So what about the books on the subject where other pictures are divided between pages?

For some reasons, AP and a few others have chosen Philip as a punch bag and in doing so comes up with the most far-fetched, childish excuses. And the reason? Most definitely it's envy and mischief showing its dirty face. Philip found the photo, AP et al didn't, and there's the rub. Go figure.
So much for the friendly Ripper 'community'.

And once again, AP is proudly pounding his chest like a brandy-intoxicated gorilla for releasing his book on the net for free (something he always comes back to and happily throws in the face of others, just like a real humble individual would do).
Well thank you Sir, but hey that was your own decision and you can't expect other authors to be as 'generous'. But thank you kindly for teaching all of us about moral.

So once again we come back to the matter of authors and profit.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me understand what Philip or the publisher would benefit from handling a picture in a certain way. This just blows my mind.

Secondly, let's talk cash. My own Swedish Ripper factual book has sold about 30,000 copies in paperback in one year (2009). For each sold copy I get 2,45 Swedish crows (which is about 20 pence). After taxes I get to keep 1,00 Swedish crown per copy (since you pay almost two thirds in tax in Sweden if you're self-employed).
Which adds up to precisely 30 000 Swedish crowns = 6000 BG Pounds. For one years' sales.

Well, personally I don't despise or look down on 6000 GBP and I am quite pleased with the result, but it won't make me rich or the effort very profitable.
And when it all comes down to it, that's not really why you go through the trouble in the first place - you do it because you want to make a contribution and make your own mark or because there is a gap to fill (in my caee, that there actually existed no factual and objective Ripper book in Swedish).
Anyone who thinks that they can make big bucks from writing non-fiction - unless your a well known, household name - are deluding themselves. if you want to make money and be commercial: write novels or crime fiction - NOT true crime or factual crime history. So why this issue continues to come up never stop to amaze me.

Judging from comments from some of the characters on these Boards, I am just happy that my own book hasn't been transalted into English (I would most likely refuse to go along with it if the publisher put forward the suggestion) so that it can be scrutinized by malicious pecky asylum inmates as the likes of AP. Serious and intelligent feedback - yes - but not the silliness displayed here.
And it certainly illustrates why I rarely visit these boards anymore (although I still consider Casebook to be the prime research tool and the net's most complete archive concerning the Ripper).

As for myself, I can't wait to order Philip's book. I have no doubt it is amazing and judging from what he's done so far, he should be acknowledged for his efforts.

[Ally]

Yes, I never understood this accusation of 'closed ranks'.

I do understand the problem with the clique mindset that inhabits Ripperology. There are factions and people take up a side and they defend their chosen man regardless of fact or reason. I do believe that is a problem. When any criticism of a behavior, idea or theory is seen as an attack on a person, then loads jump in because people are not capable of separating criticism of action from criticism of person or even that criticism of person can be valid if it is based on a proven action or fact. It's the gang mentality: "don't mess with one of ours". This can be disadvantageous for truthful discussion or progress. Criticism, good and bad, reasoned and unreasoned is part of putting your ideas in the public and while people say that it's only unreasoned criticism that makes them upset, it is really ANY criticism at all that they cannot handle. Look at Glenn's post above he says "AP and others have chosen to use Phil as a punching bag". Who are the others? Who, other than AP, is making unreasoned criticism against Phil's book? No one. It's just criticism, but not unreasoned.

It's because, by and large, people are friends with other people in Ripperology and no one wants to upset their friends.

But this sort of clique-ish behavior also has positives as it happens when a group gets together to do something like validate the photo, form a new enterprise, research avenue or new venture.

So I don't agree that it's the main root of evil in Ripperology. The main root of evil is liars and people who have no respect or regard for the truth. You could call honesty my religion I suppose, because liars really make me mental. So if the choice is between an honest ego-maniacal drama queen or a witty, charming, amusing liar, I have to come down on the side of the truth, always.

[Monty]

Hi Glenn,

Good to see you back.

I have one point of issue with your post.

And once again, AP is proudly pounding his chest like a brandy-intoxicated gorilla for releasing his book on the net for free (something he always comes back to and happily throws in the face of others, just like a real humble individual would do).
Well thank you Sir, but hey that was your own decision and you can't expect other authors to be as 'generous'. But thank you kindly for teaching all of us about moral.

Aps book was not originally issued free on the internet. It was published, as with any regular book, and sold in book stores.

I myself bought a copy.

And there lies the hypocrosy.

As for cliques, thats probably true. However they are many and no one truely stands alone in this field.

Doesnt mean they are 'evil' driven.

Monty

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Aps book was not originally issued free on the internet. It was published, as with any regular book, and sold in book stores.

I myself bought a copy.

And there lies the hypocrosy.

Hi Monty,

Nice to see you too. My 'comeback' is just temporary, however.

True indeed. You're absolutely right.
Yes, I know it once was a published book but apparently it sold out and then AP decided to release it on the net for free. As for myself, I actually downloaded it for free several years after the book was off the market. I would willingly had paid for it, though.

As for cliques, I don't mind them - cliques exists in most research fields (which goes for friendly connections as well) - it's the silliness and the dishonest and bitter campaigns against certain individuals (whom I personally think deserves better) I can't accept.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

You're quite right, Rob, and AP is talking uninformed nonsense here.

Everything was in focus with old point and shoot cameras from 6ft to infinity.

The only difference was the 'resolution' of the lens and the quality of the film stock which both determined the sharpness of the image.

[Mike Covell]

The concept of the telephoto lens, in reflecting form, was first described by Johannes Kepler in his Dioptrice of 1611, and re-invented by Peter Barlow in 1834. (not the same guy as him from Corrie!) Histories of photography usually credit Thomas Rudolphus Dallmeyer with the invention of the photographic telephoto lens in 1891, though it was independently invented by others about the same time; some credit his father John Henry Dallmeyer in 1860.

On the other side of the world, in New Zealand, Alexander McKay was taking photographs of exceptional quality using home-made telephoto lenses, ground from the bottoms of whisky bottles, probably as early as 1883 or 1884. Some of his photographs are preserved in the holdings of the Turnbull Library in Wellington, and two of these can be unequivocally dated as having been taken during May 1886. One of McKay’s photographs shows the Russian warship Vjestnik anchored in Wellington harbour about two and a half kilometres away, with its rigging lines and gun ports clearly visible. The other, taken from the same point, is of a local hotel, the Shepherds Arms, about 100 metres distant from the camera. The masts of the Vjestnik are visible in the background. McKay's other photographic achievements include photo-micrographs, and a ‘shadow-less technique’ for photographing fossils.McKay presented his work to the Wellington Philosophical Society (the precursor of the Royal Society of New Zealand) in 1890.

Some of the photographic experts, Firth, Clack, Bailey, Observer, et al might be able to add more details to what is known.

[Cap'n Jack]

Go back to the original thread, boys, where I vented my opinion that the image displayed does not reflect the technical ability of the camera used.
As for Glenn, he should really get a Booth all to himself, just to reflect his depth of field... about two left feet.

[Magpie]

:Just finished reading the entire thread--and here I was worried that you guys might have mellowed during my absence....2thumbsup:

[Septic Blue]

... I am just happy that my own book hasn't been transalted into English (I would most likely refuse to go along with it if the publisher put forward the suggestion)

As for Glenn, he should really get a Booth all to himself, ...

Well, he could certainly use one named "William"!

And, he could definitely use one named "Charles"!

But surely, he shouldn't get one named …

[Hunter]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but on the capability of the camera to take such a picture I refer to the Kodak website.
The newly formed Kodak company made available, in 1888, a portable camera based on rolled film. The camera held film for 100 exposures, which, after the photographs were taken the entire camera would be sent to Kodak for processing and prints. The camera and prints were then returned to the owner with fresh film. With no viewfinder it was held at waist height to take the picture. It had a large lens with a small aperture and was capable of clear focused pictures from 4 feet out to infinity. It was so popular that it was nicknamed " the tourist camera". Later improvements in the 1890's included a reduced weight and removable film.

I believe this lady took these pictures in 1900 instead of 1909 as some earlier post have suggested. There are numerous photographs displayed on the web taken by this camera around the turn of the century and they show remarkable depth and clarity.


While I'm here-

Posted by Ally-

"...believe me if I were, dickheads who make unwarranted accusations would be banned right out of the gate..."
"...his valid complaints are somehow the equivalent of sh*t stirring merely for the sake of commotion..."
"... who the fu@ck do you think you are ..."

Ally, I love it when you talk dirty. Are you married? If not, I would make a good husband. I can cook. I make a mean squirrel stew. I keep fresh buckets of corn cobs in the outhouse. I know every word to the song "Goober Peas" and I'm saving up for a gold tooth. I'd even get ya a new pair of work boots every winter. So... how 'bout it?

Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to discuss matramony on this forum. Sorry... Ya'll go on back to yer insults and accusations. Some day it'll make some good histerical... I mean historical reading.

Best Wishes,
Hunter
__________________________________________________ _______________

Looesy! Get that dish rag and clean that baby's bottom. There's one thing I caint stand is nastiness.- Snuffy Smith

[John Winsett]

On the other hand...

The other pics in the book are pretty good though. I probably wouldn't have been so pissed if such a big deal and half the book hadn't been devoted to the DFY pic in the condition it was presented. I would've loved to see the original untouched one. That's alot more historical to me than a bastardized version.

[Tom_Wescott]

Glenn,

Good to see you, I've wondered where you (and Gavin Bromley) were at for some time. I hope all is well, and personally, I think selling 30,000 copies of your book is fantastic. That probably puts your book in the top 10% of Ripper books!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott