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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[robhouse]

"The camera used had not been invented or introduced in the year claimed for the illustration, the depth of field available in the illustration demonstrates this conclusively."

What the heck is this supposed to mean anyway?

RH

[John Winsett]

I can't see what people are moaning about. The book isn't just about the Dutfields Yard there are loads of other never before seen photographs in the book, if people bought it just for the Dutfields Yard photo than more fool them. And considering Philip's experience with one of his Whitby photos it's not surprising he's being cautious with the Dutfields Yard one. And frankly even if the book didn't contain the Dutfields Yard photo it would have been worth the price just for the Whitby photos.

Rob

That is what the book is about. It's in the title and takes up half the book. I agree the Whitby photos are great but nothing people would miss or else they too would've been split. Fool on you if you think otherwise.

[Rob Clack]

That is what the book is about. It's in the title and takes up half the book. I agree the Whitby photos are great but nothing people would miss or else they too would've been split. Fool on you if you think otherwise.

It's half of what the book is about, and is half of the title.

[John Winsett]

It's half of what the book is about, and is half of the title.

WHAAAAAA! OK it's half the title and half the book. Is that what you do on these threads? Just post to post? If someone has to be that clear to you then maybe you should stay at the children's table and let the adults speak. Everyone here knows the book was written specifically for the DFY pic so trying to nitpick to throw people off the subject is just ridiculous.

[Monty]

John,

It seems to me you just purchased the book for its pictures. Does the text not interest you?

Or is it just a little too taxing? Maybe we can get Mummy to dumb it down for you.

You made your point, and how. Caused a commotion and belittled. So dont come back telling us to relax guys.

Either you like it or you dont. And if not get yer money back.

Monty

[Ally]

You made your point, and how. Caused a commotion and belittled. So dont come back telling us to relax guys.

Monty

Hang on a minute. First of all it was Robert Clack and John Bennett who came on here first and caused a commotion belittling this man for stating his opinion that the book made him feel robbed. Robert Clack called him a fool and John Bennett said bollocks to you and basically told him he wasn't entitled to his opinion. (and I love you Rob and John, but you did).

Well bollocks to that. If people paid money expecting to see an uncorrupted version of the photo (and regardless of what Phil's friends are trying to say, everyone knows damn good and well what the selling feature of this book is) then they have the absolute right to be mad at the dupe.

Did Phil have the RIGHT to do what he did? Absolutely. It's his photo and he could have burned it if he wanted to. But having the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean other people don't have the RIGHT to have an opinion about what you do. And when people pay money for the sole purpose of seeing something and they find out they are NOT getting what they paid for, then they have the absolute RIGHT to say so.

[Monty]

Ally

I have to say that some of the pics in the book were great. It gives a great perspective of what it was like back then. Now of course we all purchased it for the Dutsfied Yard pic. To say the least I'm disappointed on how it was presented. You had the publisher split the pic. The given reason was to prevent scanning to the internet. Personally I think that is a little beyond paranoid as there is only a small portion of the population who gives a damn and out of those most would just give a cursory glance and say, eh, no big deal. But for those of us willing to fork over cash to study this pic, I would be the first to say thanks for screwing us over. Because of your paranoia we cannot judge distance between the gates, we cannot do any accurate measurements, and we can't get a true feel for the murder scene. This should've been the highlight of the book but it's not and that'll be the reason I return this. And if you think you stopped someone's plans from pilfering this to the internet you're wrong. The murder location against the wall is intact so that would be what most would've been interested in not the entire pic. Thanks for close to nothing.

Sorry my dear. You are right as ever. Johns post above didnt belittle Philip at all. His accusation of beyond paranoia was actually a complement. Sure Philip was over the moon to read that. It was absolutely non provokative at all.

Yes, he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants if he has spent his money and didnt get what he expects...just as I said a few posts after the original of the one above.

Just as others have the right to respond likewise to Johns post. Heck Ally, thats all you do here isnt it?

Monty


PS I personally think the text is far more interesting than the images...which is unusual for me.

[Ally]

Tough crap. Phil is a published author and criticism of public figures and their works comes with the territory of being a public figure. And since Phil stated publicly why he chose to split the picture then people thinking it's egomaniacal and paranoid are not belittling, they are drawing conclusions based on the evidence presented.

And whether Phil gets huge money or barely any money, he is getting money from these people who paid him that money for the sole purpose of seeing the Dutfields photo. And they did not get to see the Dutfields photo, they saw two halves of the photo.

And if they are mad at the switcharoo, they have the absolute right to be mad and yes, even to belittle the person they feel defrauded them. Whether you agree with their assessment or not.

How nice would you be to someone you felt had tricked and defrauded you by pulling a switcharoo?

[Monty]

If Im getting my money back Id be fine.

Theres being critical and theres being abusive.

The reason Philip cut the image is born out of advice from another who had a negative experience with a well known photo.

As you acknowledged earlier, Philip is entitled to present the image how he wishes. And John is entitled to complain if he had bought the book and it wasnt what he expected.

However if John forms his complaint provokatively then he has every right to expect the author to respond likewise. Especially as he is getting his money back.

Its not the fact he is displeased, nor how he chose to voice that displeasure, its the fact he dislikes being told others views in the same vein to which he originally place his own.

Monty