| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 710
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 6:31 pm: | 
|
Heck, now I see a bird's head in profile as well.
- Jeff |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 125
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Hey,
I don't know if this is the same thing as Stuart's problem, but I thought I saw a pocket watch with the initials of 5 victims etched into it. At first I thought it was the lighting, but with everything Jeff is now seeing, perhaps I need a second look.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hmmm..hmm... a watch,eh?
Nope..no watch. I just see a pair of boobs.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Man I hope Stuart ain't the alias of good ole Charles Eyton and that he is back messing with us.
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
You know, c.d.,
I was actually beginning to wonder the same thing myself.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 472
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Howie-- That is most certainly a witch,you naughty boy you.
The "swan" is the top of her pointy hat. We see her left profile under the hat with the eye,nose and chin very clear,her hair streaming out behind her (to our right) and her cloak also streaming out.
I won't fight so hard for the serpent that she seems to be flying into since it's not so clear, but I stand firmly behind Griselda there.
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Mags...
Boobs.
Two boobs.
and that ain't no swan...thats a curling stone that our Canadian casebookers completely overlooked...
I see boobs in a bowl of rice,so I know what I'm looking for here.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 775
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Oooh deary deary me...
The eve of Brighton (sorry US folks...) and we have entered the Madhouse.
How many loony tunes can we all spot on this thread, folks? I've seen two, though one is a lovely loon from the past.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5129
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
When I look at the close-up photo of Kelly in the Sourcebook, I sometimes think I can see McCarthy's pickaxe in the background - alternatively, the top part of a chair. But it's just a load of whiteish marks.
Robert |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
This erudite discussion of art has brought a beatific vision on me. I see a self portrait executed in oils by Glenn Andersson, completely in the nude! What a contribution to this web site it would be! Please, Glenn, begin work immediately and post as soon as you can.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 785
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Well at last we have proof that this has all been a load of old time wasting.
Now that the great Robert McLaughlin has had his THE FIRST JACK THE RIPPER VICTIM PHOTOGRAPHS published, and there is a big full page high quality copy of what we are referring to on these boards as MJK3, all is clear.
All those light swooshes etc in which Stuart - and he alone it seems - has seen so much significance are almost certainly painted on to the photograph, just like the bottom left with the 'hand' etc are probably not real.
No doubt because they were painted on it was done by Sickert. The real one, not the fake one.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 951
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Hi Philip,
I hope my copy gets here soon, as I'd like to see what you are basing that conclusion on.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 786
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Basically, Dan, a fair amount of that picture has almost certainly been touched up by hand. All those white patches on the inside of her right leg have brush strokes on them and no grain like the rest of the photo whatsoever.
It does even cast doubts on if her leg really WAS propped up that much as well, but indeed you'll see all this when you get it. I suspect it will give rise to a long and heated debate. Yawwwwwnnn.....
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 1:43 am: |
|
Walton:
I have already inverted the head and it loses its effectiveness.It was meant to be inverted. If you showed it right way up, enlarged, it is easier on the eye.As rough as the skull might be, can you answer me this. There has been hair attached to the skull.(clearly visible). The line which separates this from the skull is unbroken.Can you point this out and say it aint so.That is terrific for a paredolic image.
You asked me what relevance is the image? OK - do you believe that the killer would write his name , adress and phone number. No, he would leave something to ponder.
Belinda from Henmans:
Can you please tell me of the reference where you saw that Sickert said 'Ennui' was his greatest clue. It sounds interesting.
Everyone else: one more thing to consider.Look carefully at the eye on the beast, correctly placed in the forehead. It has 2 parts. Black up top, and white on the bottom half.Let us assume the black is meant to be the pupil, then the white is the white part of the eye. Again, pretty dam good for a random image? |
Sir Lance
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:30 am: |
|
My first impression when I saw this image was that it was a goat. I couldnt see anything initially, but my brain recognised it after about 20 minutes.
I think Ryan lost his argument trying to plug that head he said was human. I dont think it is part of the image.But I think there is almost certainly a goats head there. I can see the snout, mouth, the teeth, its eye and ear clearly.
It is interesting that one post said that the bird was a seagull, which Sickert said was his greatest clue in his painting 'eunni'.With possible reference to W.Gull. I dont know if anyone realises this, but the ancient symbol of the Freemasons was the goats head of Mendes.One thing may be a coincedence, but 2 next to eachother I find extremely suspisious.As Gull was a freemason.
There appears to be an arrow pointing inwards to a 'W' on the goats head. I dont wish to stir the pot up, but I am thinking of the idea that Sickert may have been in that room that night with other man/men. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
Thanks again everyone.
I have finally had the time on this weekend to sit down and read all posts thouroughly, so I will summize this way.
All who ask what relevance:
I dont mention any suspect yet - allthough the 'W' is good for those who support Sickert.
Well there has been nothing solid in 117 years. If he sketched anything at all for us, than it is gold as far as I am concerned.Possible matches could be made with other imagery and a link eventually found.
Finally: I am 100% sure about this.Not one of 59 posts is seeing anything like I am seeing. The first person to say the world was round was also rideculed. So, although I said I would graciously concede, it will only be after I get the image across so that all eyes see what mine see.
Going away for a while, but will eventually put it together again. Cheers. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Stuart,
You think you see a the head of beast about to swallow an inverted female head?
Laughable though that is,you haven't even explained how it represents "The best clue of all time".How does all this get us any closer to discovering the identity of the perpetrator of these crimes?
Kane
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 719
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Stuart,
The fact that you see "hair separated from the skull" with no "gap" is not remarkable. All it means is that there is one line. The fact that you percieve this "one line" as a separation between "hair" and "a skull" doesn't make the fact that one line has no gap; by definition one line has no gap because a gap requires two lines. I don't think I'm putting this very clearly, so I apologise for that.
One thing I've not mentioned, and clearly should, is that I do see the shape you've pointed out. Your initial presentation, especially once you've coloured in the bits, makes it easy to find the shapes you see. It's like cloud shapes though. If I point out a cloud that "looks like an elephant", and can point it out fast enough before it changes shape, others will see the elephant as well. Since photo's don't move, that's not a problem here. However, what everyone is trying to point out is that in the photo there are all sorts of shapes one can see, and if one points them out, others will see them too. But just because we can percieve these shapes does not mean they were intentially put there. More likely, what we are seeing in these photos is the results of poor quality photography distorting the image, combined with computer scanning (adding even more distortion), combined with magnification (more distortion and loss of context), combined with our perceptual system that looks for meaningful objects and shapes.
You are convinced you see certain shapes. I believe you do percieve them. I can see the shapes you point out. I also can see a lot of shapes that you do not point out, and I can see alternative shapes that use parts of your shapes, and so on. If the bits of the image you use to form one shape can just as easily be used to form a different shape (snake and mushroom, rather than swan etc), then this is a pretty good indication that neither shape is the "intended shape", rather both shapes are a result of our perceptual system trying to make sense of a chaotic display.
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4153
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Stuart,
"Not one of 59 posts is seeing anything like I am seeing. "
I think that actually should tell you something.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 806
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
By nature of the fact that Robert McLaughlin's book has the first large and high resolution copy of what we refer to as MJK3 and gives us the opportunity of seeing that those white streaks in which Stuart sees so much are almost certainly later touch-ups on the original image, surely we should consider this as case closed?
And I don't mean you-know-who here!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
George Hutchinson,
I think you have vindicated me a little. In my initial post, I claimed that those marks were made by the hand of man, which is why I made the fuss.If they were painted on the photo, than my instincts have served me well.Someone has purposefully painted those marks on.I recognised that it was the work of man, where no-one else has. So I am going to claim a moral victory, that I was onto something.
O.K. It means that if it is a sketch, it was not Jack the Ripper who made those marks. But there is still one burning question.The photo was sent in anomanously to Scotland Yard.Why does the owner wish to remain anonanous?Why did he paint onto the photo? What was he painting?
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 961
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Stuart,
Philip says that the part you claim to see strange images in is actually brush strokes put on the image to touch it up... not that it was intended to look like anything even close to what you are saying. Nobody was sketching anything, nobody was doing it anonymously, the photo being returned to Scotland Yard was not turned into a canvas for a painter while it was gone...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 809
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Thanks Dan.
Sorry I didn't answer... I was yawning far too much to put my hands on the keyboard.
Yes, Stuart. I was wrong. I can clearly see Walter Sickert's face reflected in one of the window panes on the exterior shot of #13 now.
I'm glad you claim a moral victory. Maybe we can put all this to bed now then.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Hi all
I was holding this back because we are working on some great stuff. But the kids demanded that I put this little teaser on the boards.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 850
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Awww... fluffy white clouds. With Satan in them.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 612
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
Me when I first wake up in the morning.
Janie
xxx |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 497
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
A baby seal imploring for his life.
Too sad!!
Mags
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
I Got It !! The Ripper is still alive !! He's in "Flogging Molly" !!
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page