|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through March 25, 2003 | Diana | 25 | 1 | 3-25-03 8:13 pm |
| Archive through November 06, 2003 | Angelins Thomas | 25 | 1 | 11-06-03 7:37 pm |
| Archive through November 15, 2003 | Andrew Spallek | 25 | 1 | 11-15-03 4:57 pm |
| Archive through November 25, 2003 | Robert Charles Linfo | 25 | 1 | 11-25-03 6:07 pm |
| Archive through December 02, 2003 | Andrew Spallek | 25 | 1 | 12-02-03 1:39 pm |
| Archive through November 21, 2005 | Debra J. Arif | 50 | 1 | 11-21-05 9:20 am |
| Archive through November 22, 2005 | Dan Norder | 50 | 1 | 11-22-05 10:14 pm |
| Archive through November 24, 2005 | Howard Brown | 50 | 1 | 11-24-05 7:02 pm |
| Archive through November 29, 2005 | Helge Samuelsen | 50 | 1 | 11-29-05 3:54 pm |
| Archive through December 15, 2005 | Judith A. Stock | 50 | 1 | 12-15-05 10:42 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:27 am: | 
|
Hi RJ,
For some who claims you "don't support misinformation, forgery, or fraud" you certainly are one of the major purveyors of it on these boards lately. Your personal attacks all over the site are just plain old. You know that David Radka is not respected in this field in the slightest, why do you go out of your way to copy his behavior? Do you just get so upset that someone dares to disagree with you (but surely you must be used to it by now?) that you fail to think straight, or what?
People are trying to have real conversations here, they don't want to see you making the exact same personal attacks everywhere.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Judith - Hi. I don't know you, but you do seem to suddenly appear in a supporting role when people get tired of Dan Norder's ill-mannered behavior. Please review this thread. I never revealed Jennifer's name. She did. I merely explained why I was responding to a private email. I never posted on this thread until Mr. Norder decided to slur my name. He still hasn't responded to the specific allegation, and I can only draw the conclusion that you and Don Souden approve of his antics. He now finishes off by accusing me of being a mud-slinger. Take a deep breath and review Norder's posts over the past 12 months to any number of different people, including first-time posters. The man is here for one reason only. Have a good life, and good-bye. RP |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
N. Beresford wrote:
"if we restrict facts to that which we can see with our eyes we'll never get anywhere. There are facts which are based on logic and only become disputable by those who can't see or follow the logic."
>>I basically agree, although I wouldn't necessarily term what we can't see facts. I'd say we were making interpretations based on facts. What you say is right in the spirit of the A?R theory.
Please note this poster effectively is taking a position opposite to Mr. Norder's skeptical empiricism and cynicism.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Rj
clearly i should have counted to at least a hundred!
Whatever, I am not going to get into it. that was the point of emailing you privately in the first place.
Today has been one of those crazy days, which gets more and more crazy,
so im leaving thsi conversation at that in case i go off on one and say something i regret
Jenni
"trala-la-la-lala-la-la-lalal-la!"
|
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
David Radka not being respected in this field doesn't say much for the field. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Mr Radka wrote:-
N. Beresford wrote:
"if we restrict facts to that which we can see with our eyes we'll never get anywhere. There are facts which are based on logic and only become disputable by those who can't see or follow the logic."
>>I basically agree, although I wouldn't necessarily term what we can't see facts. I'd say we were making interpretations based on facts. What you say is right in the spirit of the A?R theory.
it may be a question of semantics - you put facts in inverted commas and people immediately think 'ah, not facts' ie. fiction. Things proved by maths or physics but not observed, maybe they're not facts, i don't know.
That's neither here nor there - people think theory means fiction and this couldn't be further from the truth. have a serious debate with einstein or darwin - give it a go - but you'd be better off just having a pint with him if you're not an ingenious quantum mechanic or eminent anthropologist. |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
N. Beresford wrote:
"...have a serious debate with einstein or darwin - give it a go - but you'd be better off just having a pint with him if you're not an ingenious quantum mechanic or eminent anthropologist."
>>Exactly. Serving as the Einstein or Darwin of Ripperology is the work I've taken on. I aim to be the innovator.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 100
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
“Hi RJ, For some who claims you "don't support misinformation, forgery, or fraud" you certainly are one of the major purveyors of it on these boards lately.”
>>Where specifically, Mr. Norder, does Mr. Palmer commit forgery and fraud? Please cut and paste examples for us right here, right now.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 275
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Although I don't agree with the choice of suspect , my opinion is that the AR theory is a very impressive attempt to come up with a complete and inclusive solution to the Ripper case.
I wish more people would have a go at posting a theory which might explain the case , surely having such theories to examine would be better than quibbling over minor points like ' was the table rectangular or square ? ' for instance ?
I do feel that there are some posters on these boards who think that the case cannot be solved , and therefore pour cold water on any attempt to come up with an answer or link elements of the case into a whole : the result is that we end up examining fragments of information without relating them to anything , and if some great idea did arise it would probably be lost because of this. Creating logical theories to explain the case is the way forward in my opinion.
Surely the only true value of such micro-examination of objects such as the Kelly photographs is to provide substance for a logical theory of the case , a solution to the matter ? If we don't relate our examinations to trying to provide an overarching meta-narrative of events then we'll still be quarreling over the same points in 20 years time !!! This may be fun for some , but I fear it will drive many of the most talented amateurs away out of sheer boredom and irritation. |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Simon,
Thanks so much for an excellent post, right on target concerning the state of Ripperology today. It is so good I'm going to re-post it on the "A?R M&R" thread for the sake of inspiration. You may want to have a look at that thread yourself sometime.
Happy holidays,
David
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Simon,
I just want to say that I am in complete agreement with your post! It is too bad that not everyone adheres to this idea. Quarrelling over fragments and trying to shut down people who bring forth theories that may (or may not) bring things to light does seem to get tedious, and will probably also guarantee that this case will never be solved. If people are able to feel free to put forth theories of their own for examination, even if we were to find out something that wouldn't "work", that in and of itself is still something. Don't police detectives sometimes have to work with theories in order to pull out the possible from the impossible? Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your post. You made some very good points. Thank you.
Sandy |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 480
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Simon Owen! I'll be damned. Long time no see.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 482
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
I have yet to come across a serious researcher who does not want the case to be solved. This is just a sound-byte used by the general media for dramatic effect. Who are these people? Give me names!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Yes, I understand - or at least I think I do - what you were trying to say: you argue that because of optics it is perfectly possible to have different horizons in a photograph, that, in fact, it is "actually only under some circumstances that we have only one horizon in a photograph."
I am afraid, however, that I must disagree.
There can only be one horizon in a picture and it is always located at eyelevel (or lenslevel). It doesn't matter whether it is a painting or a photograph, for there is no such thing as an artistic "standard" perspective. Now it's true that a photographer's wrong choice of lens and distance from his subject could result in an awkward and distorted looking picture. But although a photo may look distorted and unnatural, it is subject to the same laws of perspective as a more natural looking picture: all receding level lines end on the horizon and if they are parallel they will meet at the same point of the horizon. So in this sense the term "perspective distortion" is a bit of a misnomer.
Or to quote Wikipedia's entry on "perspective distortion in photography" {emphasis below is mine):
"In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion describes the appearance of a part of the subject as abnormally large, relative to the rest of the scene. This is especially noticeable when that part of the scene extends towards the camera. It is affected solely by the distance between the camera and subject , and the smaller this distance the greater the perspective distortion. Because it is necessary to use a wider-angle (and hence shorter focal length) lens as this distance decreases in order to preserve a full view of the subject, the effect is frequently thought to be caused by lens focal length or angle of view, and is often referred to in those terms."
The notion that optics defy the laws of perspective can be disproved in a more visual way by comparing two photos that were shot with radical different focal lengths. We will then see that in both photos the horizon as well as the different vanishing points can be depicted with reasonble accuracy. The first photo was shot from below with a 200mm telelens, the second with a 35mm wide angle lens. I think the result speaks for itself.
So perhaps you can understand that I am rather puzzled by the result that Mr. Vedel sent to you and even more by his remarks about "two horizons".
Because, from what I learned from his website, Jens Vedel is an architect and an authority in the field of photogammetric measurement who, for example, assisted the police in the Anna Lindh case, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who was fatally stabbed in a Stockholm department store in september 2003.
So if anyone could say some sensible things about this photo, it would be him.
But, so far, as I said, I am at a loss, for his findings seem to defy everything I know about this subject.
Are we talking about the same Jens Vedel, Helge?
For if so, it might be a better idea for me to adress him personally about my questions, instead of boring everyone here to death with my ramblings.
Regards,
Martin |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hello everyone; This post is about stripes.
For TonyHallam: Thank you for the picture of the mini blinds' shadows. It shows clearly how the shadow follows the contours of the object, and not the source.
For Caz; May I suggest a cause for the "shadows and stripes" effect on the object on the table;
The picture was taken by long exposure of the negative to compensate for the dark room. When some light was filtering through the larger window, which had several crossbars and panes, then the camera captured several phases of the shadow as the light moved toward the west.
I have been trying to see if there is a repeated pattern on the object, such as maybe 4 or 5 stripes, then repeated but overlapping the first shadow, causing the appearance of many different stripes, when it is actually a repeated sequence.
The shadow goes even beyond the object itself and is projected onto the dark area a bit, something like the way a sunbeam can be seen in thin air if there is smoke or steam in the air.
Another possibility is that the glass in the window was very old glass, and the old glass had wavy patterns in it, especially cheap glass. This type of window would cast striped or wavy patterns.
Just because stripes are visible doesn't prove that this object is material.
Thanks for your time.
Joan |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Sorry, Joan - I've only just caught up with this thread and seen your post.
Thanks for your suggested causes of the stripes. To me, it is so clear that they carry on beyond the lumpy stuff on the table, that the explanation is probably contained in your post. I particularly like the one about old cheap glass being rather wavy and distorted and therefore able to cast patterns that can be deceptive.
Of course this doesn't prove that the object was not a pillow; only that the stripes, if an illusion, don't help the 'material' argument.
Love,
Caz
X |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Caz and all; Since my last post, I have also read that in some conditions of heavy fog in the atmosphere, the police had been unable to take pictures indoors as the fog even invaded the interior of the room.
This was not in relation to this case, but reports do say that there was a "poor atmosphere" to obtain pictures, but that the photographer was finally able to secure several negatives that they hoped would be helpful.
So we also have the possibility of fog in the air that could carry the shadow over the edge of the actual object and project onto the air.
Take care
Joan |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
