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

[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

[Ally]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Natalie Severn]

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.
I have met all the people named above and would never dream of accusing any of them of hoaxing----or lying.It has never entered my thinking.
I am aware Ap can be provocative and that in this case in particular it caused a great deal of vitriol.
The JtR case HAS ,ofcourse, been dogged by numerous deceptions,fantasies nonsense,lies and hoaxes,starting with those disappearing police files and artefacts!I was astonished for example to learn that George Sims first saw the Jack the Ripper " Dear Boss"letter in the house of Sir Melville Machnaghten![I think it was George Sims who saw it but anyway somepne did and recorded it!]
However,let me state clearly and unequivocally,that I dont believe for one second that Philip or any one of the other people mentioned would have ever involved themselves in any kind of hoax--- not ever!

[Ally]

Ally,
Do you have to use such abusive language? Ap is a friend of mine.I dont like people being this offensive about someone I like.If you would rather I didnt post on here fine.
But I cant stand by and listen to all this BS,

Norma

There is no BS and you are welcome to post where you see fit, even in defense of AP. However, AP lies. He just lied two minutes ago on this thread. I find it offensive when people make baseless accusations without proof and then claim it never happened.

It's not the first time it's happened either and I can't stand by and listen to him make up BS and slur people undeservedly.

I am glad AP is your friend. Philip is not my friend, but I am still not going to stand by and listen to him be slandered by someone who has been proven time and time again to make up facts to suit his "theories".

[Ally]

Thanks Natalie, you are a good one.
For the record, I have never claimed that there is some kind of 'conspiracy' in regard to this illustration; and I have also never claimed that it is a fake.
What I have said, and I'll say it again, is that I do not believe this to be an illustration of Dutfield's Yard, and I believe it to have been taken some twenty or thirty years after the date claimed.
Now that is my personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

That is yet another flat out lie. You said on the first dutfield's photo thread that it had been Photoshopped and the background "inserted" by Phil.

[Ally]

Oh and one more thing. I am not saying that no one is entitled to argue that the photo is not of Dutfield's yard. If AP wants to come on here and apologize wholeheartedly and retract his baseless accusation that there was a deliberately perpetrated hoax, then I would be willing to listen to what he has to say about it not being the Yard.

But as long as his argument is coming from the completely groundless position that several fine researchers (and several others as well) are involved in some sort of hoax, then as far as I am concerned, I will treat him and his argument with the contempt it deserves.

So if he wants people to actually LISTEN to him for a change and take him seriously, he could start with a retraction and an apology since there is not a single shred of evidence (or even basic common sense) that supports his premise of a hoax.

[Natalie Severn]

Ally,
Do you have to use such abusive language? Ap is a friend of mine.I dont like people being this offensive about someone I like.If you would rather I didnt post on here fine.
But I cant stand by and listen to all this BS,

Norma

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Natalie, you are a good one.
For the record, I have never claimed that there is some kind of 'conspiracy' in regard to this illustration; and I have also never claimed that it is a fake.
What I have said, and I'll say it again, is that I do not believe this to be an illustration of Dutfield's Yard, and I believe it to have been taken some twenty or thirty years after the date claimed.
Now that is my personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

[Monty]

Norma,

So because AP is such a wit, it gives him grace to accuse Philip of forgery and the rest of us of deciet?

I see.

To be honest I personally think his work, his research, to be extremely beneficial to the field. However his crusading damages simply because he has the inability to present his case without an accusation of shenanigans.

Do you think that Rob, John, Jake, Colin and myself would group together deliberately decieve?

Maybe if you were on the recieving end of these lies then you would see more to AP than a jolly old wit who can be a tad annoying when pi$$ed.

He has slurred reputations. And to be honest, Im not prepared to shake my head and look away anymore.

Its damaging....very damaging.

Monty


The

[Ally]

Sorry Natalie, but this is not a popularity contest and it is not about how witty AP is. I don't give a rat's butt if every single person on the site loves AP or hates him or what their personal opinion is of his wit and humor. A lying sack of crap is a lying sack of crap. And quite frankly, AP's propensity to lie and hurl accusations at people without a shred of proof is not compensated by his perceived wit. If he gets booted and people miss him, too damn bad. Maybe instead of posting here how much they adore him ,they ought to be PMing him and telling him how accusations without evidence is a deceitful, despicable and downright disgusting thing to do.

Wit and a sparkling personality is no excuse for his constant attacks on every single person he perceives as having status and making crap up to smear them. If he doesn't have evidence, then he needs to keep his "theories" (read delusions of drunken fantasy) to himself.