|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:32 pm: | 
|
These are the 2 pictures ( they are 100% copywrited).
Hi, I can see no letters at all saying 'Piggy'. With my image there is something definate to look at and decide whether or not I am crazy.
I have sent it to a few people. A person said I am seeing it because I wanted to see it. That made me think of how it was said 'Joan of Ark' herd voices from God because she wanted to. Because , in my mind I am 100% sure this image has been skethched by man,and would not recant my belief under torture, I have been wondering if I am suffering from the same thing Joan of Ark did.Am I crazy? I have been asking myself "am I seeing it because I want to". So I will let the public decide - you will be the referee's, and I will accept your decision.I will explain how I came to my conclusion.
Desparate for answers, I launched a massive probe of the Kelly photos.People have been discussing what tools he used on different sections.On the inside of her left knee there was discussion about how he appeared to be scraping at the flesh.There were no signs of mutilation on the knee(check around the image).I zipped over to the old Kelly photo, and could see on close up no signs of mutilation around her left knee.I believe he left it intact to use as a place to scrape this sketch.If you dont know what your looking for, you might as well be looking at a brick wall. But once it hit me I was certian of what I saw.I checked every other section of kelly and could see no similar scrape marks.I took it to a photo specialist who added a bit of colour to help, and took away the yellow so as to enhance the image.
I then took it to an artist under the guise that it was for a uni project.I did NOT mention JtR. I asked her oppinion only, whether this image is a fluke or a sketch.This is what she said.
* The chances of a pareidoliac image having reference to thier subject matter is remote.If someone took a picture in thier tea leaves , or the clouds, of a beast eating a woman's head - you might get it printed in the funny pages , or put on the 'tonight show' as an oddity. It happens to be on a victim who was nearly decapitated by an evil man. I would find this very suspicious.I asked D.Norder, and he said that he didnt think the image was relevant to the case. This , again, is where I doubt my sanity, as I think it is about as close to something you might think the killer would sketch, as you could possibly get?
* Given it is on human flesh, it is not the 'Mona Lisa'.The artist said that she measured all the facial featuers, and details of the sketch - EVERTHING IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE.The question is whether you go with her conclusions or not.You can iether laugh at the image - or take the time to look at everthing she said closely. Here is the technical data.
THE IMAGE: The image is a woman's head about to be eaten by a beast. The woman's head is inverted and slanting towards the beast. Her chin is about to enter it's mouth.Cleverly placed on the nose bridge gap of the beast is what is most likely a bird (possibly a swan). This is most likely a signature of the sketcher.
Womann's head:
* hiar is in correct position outside skull - hint(line separating hair from skull is flawless).
*2 eyes roughly same size in right spot.
*2 nostrils same size in correct position below eyes.
* mouth in correct posit below nostrils.
* chin in correct posit below mouth.
Beast Head:
* ear correct posit behind eye.
* eye in correct posit in head.
* snout perfectly shaped and positined.
* mouth correct below snout.
* 3 front teeth placed with precision in lower front mouth section. hint (this is daming evidence).
Finally she said that there is too much detail for a fluke here.Whoever did it knew how to sketch.
Evreything she sais checks out to me. So I guess I will leave it to the pubic to decide.So you need to decide 2 things here.
1. What are the chances of this image being on Mary Kelly (on the only place on her body with such scrape marks) having a relevance to the case. DO YOU FIND IT SUSPICIOUS?
2. What are the chances of the facial features being correctly positioned?
Anyway, if I am seeing it because I want to - so be it - I guess. |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Stuart
That's the wrong knee!
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 104
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Ryan
When I was little, my brother and I slept in bunkbeds with the door to the hallway open. At times the linen closet door would be open in the hall. It was used to store linen, blankets and towels. The way the folds were positioned made them look like silhouettes of gnomes, trolls, vampires (now you see why I am sick), etc... We wanted to see that stuff because it was fun to be scared. I am positive this is how this stuff works for you. It's the same with stains and blood and people seeing Jesus Christ on their toasted cheese sandwich (sorry, if you don't know that story.)
It just isn't there. You are not crazy to see it. It is human nature.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Stuart Ryan
Hi Stuart,
I must say that I agree with you with respect to the pictures, and the supposed writing on the leg.
I am of the definate opinion that far too often we see what we want to see, as you mentioned.
I believe it is referred to as "MIND OVER MATTER"
If we consentrate hard enought we can see that which is not actually there.
The power of suggestion is very influential whether we want it to be or not.
It can be very similar to daydreams where we often have control enough to dream what we want to, it's hard to describe in words.
Your points are well founded.
regards
Julie
|
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:09 pm: |
|
If anyone wants to see a good example of weird images,look at the window photo of 13 Miller's Court in Paul Begg's book"Jack the Ripper..The Facts". The bricks next to the door look like faces on the wall.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 756
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Well I think something has been missed.
The cartoony woman's head is going into the lower mandible of a skull. On top of the skull is a beautiful swan.
The swan is an animal. It is white - the diametric opposite of black.
This is clearly another confession by Mr Diddles.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4063
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
I agree with Hutch -- this is another one of Diddles' work, surely.
Seriously, Ryan... I am afraid I have to go along with the first person you approached, namely that we all see what we want to see in a picture. It has nothing to do with insanity, but by the fact that the mind and the eye cooks up things together, based on our personal experiences and preferences.
All I see is a white swan (yes, Hutch, I see it too) and a string of pearls. But again, the textures on the leg could probably make each and every one of us see anything we'd liked to.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Glenn
Well, I see a white swan and a set of teeth on a jawbone, but only on the left-hand image, which I presume is the one that has been coloured in with this interpretation in mind.
On the original I just see a mess. So I'm sorry, but I have to agree that this is just the mind trying making sense of meaningless details.
Chris Phillips
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4064
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
True, Chris,
That was the picture I forgot to refer to. As you say, on the one where no objects are outlined I probably couldn't see anything at all or something completely different.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 757
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
I know some folks on Casebook hate posts that just agree... but... erm... yes.
Nothing on the second one. It is all on the first and what would worry me would be the state of the mind of someone who could make a jawbone eat an upside-down woman's head whilst a swan does nothing. Eerie!!!
PHILIP - who is slave to nothing more ominous than a cabbage.
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 948
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
What is the proposition here - whether the images exist in reality or not:
* that they were "painted on" by the murderer?
* that they are a "sign from God"?
* that they exist and we need to interpret them?
I thought these images were supposed to revolutionise the case? I regret to say, I am lost. I don't for a moment believe that the images exist in any real form - but what are we being asked to assess or debate here?
Have I missed something?
A very puzzled, Phil.
Having re-read the Stuart's post, I see the phrase:
...I think it is about as close to something you might think the killer would sketch, as you could possibly get?
Stuart are you suggesting he "carved" this into that part of the body? If so how deep was it? is there anything in the photography that can be identified as "wounds" ie knife cuts, rather than simple surface texture? On another point, why do it apparently upside down?
In any case, if Jack wanted to leave some sign, why not paint it on the wall with blood? or carve it into the wall with his knife, so it was unmistakeable.
I can, frankly see nothing in the right hand image. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
It looks to me like Abberline's cotton wool fell out of his nose and then he bled all over the place. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 699
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I'm afraid you're seeing shapes in randomness. The visual system does that (like images in TV snow). For example, I've had a quick look at the uncorrected image you post, and have drawn in a few other possible "shapes". One can find a car, possibly the original Bat Mobile from the TV series? (which I'm pretty sure Jack didn't know about), some other faces (faces are easy to find in randomness; just takes 3 dots to give an impression of eyes and a mouth, after that we fill in the rest), some letters (IRD: hmmm, Inland Revenue Department maybe?), VW (with the V sideways, maybe related to the car?), a jumping man (above IRD), the swan could be someone sitting down and working on something, a flower (or 4-leaf clover maybe?), and those were just in a few minutes. In other words, it's pretty hard not to find meaningful shapes when you look for them.
Below indicate the shapes I'm talking about. Pardon my poor sketching ability, but the areas in red on the right indicate the shape, and you can check out the unaltered version on the left to see the original.
- Jeff
 |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 403
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Now, this is even worse than "Piggy"!
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 701
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:10 am: |
|
Hi,
Ooo, it gets better. I see a Christmas tree in there now too! To the left of the "flower/4-leaf clover", above the hood of the car, and just to the right of the point of the "beehive hairdoo" face. It's part of the "hair" in the original tilted face.
Anyway, as much fun as this can be, it's probably important to point out that at least two "images" are found in areas that are not part of Mary's knee, but which would be just blurry background I think. The "jumping man" and the "face" in the upper right corner, are in areas that could not possibly be "sketched upon". So, if we can find figures there, why should we think that figures that we happen to find in other places are "intentional"?
- Jeff |
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
I don't see anything either. I think this one is way off. This won't even make it into my X Files.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
I wonder if Sickert painted miniatures? (Actually, the images remind me of Francis Bacon, whose paintings made Sickert's "Camden Town Murder" series look like "The Haywain"). These "etchings" - if that they be - must only be one or two inches square at most. In addition, the entire surface here is wet with blood, wobbly and criss-crossed with glistening sinew. A tricky surface to draw anything on, especially conclusions ;o)
What I suspect we're looking at are the attachments of tendons and/or ligaments - there are loads of them in the pelvic and femoral regions, which is where we are in this picture, although quite where is hard to tell given the mess. But this is some form of fibrous connective tissue alright - if you look at the "tail" of the "monster" you'll see where the tendons/ligaments splay out to meet the muscle/bone.
Sorry, Stuart, but I'm with Baron von Zipper on this one, but thanks for your evident effort nonetheless.
|
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
In (remote) defense of Stu, it's good to keep subjecting the pictures to modern forensic scrutiny all the same. |
rodney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 12:54 am: |
|
I read Stuarts thread somewhere.Where is the connection between the piece of cloth and all that,and the photos supposed images? How is it a clue? Obviously I've missed something.Please summarize it for me Stuart. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Stuart,
The best clue of all time? 100% Copywrited?
I am virtually speechless.
I imagine a lot of us were prepared to challeng you on this,but in revealing it you have saved us all the bother!
Kane
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Hello Jeff Ham,
I can see now that my battle to try and convince is insurmountable.So I will keep it brief.In my initial post, I claimed that this was a needle in a haystack as I already knew there was a million paredoilic images on Mary Kelly. You have gone ahead and rediculously outlined the million other paredoilic images.My reasons for pointing out this were actually solid, which has been ignored.
1. Unlike the other million random images, this one has reference to the death and is something the killer might actually do.
2.It is clear that the artistic analysis has been ignored.The images that you wrote are all over the place and small and obscure.My image is large and smack bang in the middle of the knee.
After the bath I got , I went over every detail with a magnifying glass on high res.I am sorry to have to say this but all of the artistic data about positioning checks out.All of your random imaging is not artisticly correct.
There is only on thing left to do.The question is this? who is qualified to say whether an image is paredoilic or real. Not I, not a police inspector , but a qualified artist. I will endevour to take it to the most qualified person in the land I can find.
Phil Hill: I would say some sort of scraping tool.Your reply made me think hard.You can see nothing in the right hand image. This is how I was before the switch ignited in my mind. I guess my only chance is to somehow find a way of igniting the switch. As I said to Jeff, I will not quit just yet, and take it to higher powers.
I know I said I would except the referees decision - but I am having problems removing the the fact that there still is no doubt in my mind it was purposfully scetched.
*PS - Jeff has inadvertantly pointed out a perfect 'W' smack in the middle of the beast- thanks .
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Howdy
but I have to agree that this is just the mind trying making sense of meaningless details.
Even if it was there, there's not much sense to be made from a killer who scratches into the knee of his mutilated victim a beasty with 3 teeth, wearing a swan eating the head of a woman.
If it was actually there, then #1 its hardly the clue that will solve the case and #2 God help us all because if a torn apron can generate so much discussion then this scratching will be the end of us. Can see it now:
Was it an attempt to frame beasties?
Are three teeth freemason symbols?
Did Sickert ever bite a womans head?
Which suspect was most likely to have a swan on his head?
Lord above.
mr P.
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 769
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Stuart - I was trying to be charitable, but to still maintain you are right when your assertion is the most outrageous and bizarre one since the gem of Lewis Carroll being JTR, I shall have to be blunt - you have clearly convinced yourself, but the rest of the world KNOWS you are talking rot. This really is just comical now.
Gareth - THAT is what it reminded me of; well spotted. Bacon!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Stuart,
You said that you would allow us, the casebook Kooks to be the judge. Well, we have judged. Your fortitude is admirable, however it is misplaced on the image. Please do not allow yourself to descend into madness on this issue. Juts let it die. Or am I too late?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 588
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I really am sorry to have to say the same as everyone else here as said, but unfortunately it is kinder for me to tell you the truth here as it will save you wasting any more of your time that could be spent in more profitable research.
You said in the last post about getting a qualified artist to look at them ..... well I am...... I have spent over 30 years as a reconstruction artist,working with photographs much of the time, interpreting what is in them and making sense of them. With due respect, you will not easily find anyone better equiped to give you an honest opinion.
I'm afraid that what you are seeing there are simply what everyone else has been saying here...illusions. There is no hidden message there, and even if there were scratchings there of some kind, then they would in no way be proof of anything. Even if they read 'Walter Sickert was here,' no-one would accept it at face value. It would prove nothing.
So Stuart, research the photos by all means, and look for evidence there, but I can assure you, that there is nothing meaningful scratched on the inside of Mary's leg. Sorry.
Jane |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3005
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Stuart-
At the risk of doing one of those ....I agree with posts.......Sorry, but like Jane I too am well versed as a qualified artist to comment here and Jane has said it all.
I would suggest in the kindest, politest, way that, looking for pictures in the clouds or a flickering fire may produce more conclusive 'evidence' (and also may yet come up with something.)
NOTHING is on the leg, honestly NOTHING ,except what one would expect from a scene of carnage
Best
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4088
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Stuart,
As Mike says, you allowed us to be the judge here and you asked for our opinion, and now when they doesn't fit your expectations, you don't accept them?????
Quite qualified people here, including artists and people with experience in photographing, have tried to give their point of view and I totally concur with Jane, as well as the others.
AS for myself, I have a 20 year experience as a painting artist and I also have an academic degree in Art History from university, which means I do have some experience in the study of how art can be interpreted.
I can only repeat what has been said earlier about Cornwell's idiotic efforts: you CAN NOT use any kind of art, photo or picture interpretation as evidence! Art or picture interpretation is purely subjective and we all base our interpretations on our own personal experiences and preferences. That is how the mind works, especially if you're looking for answers in certain directions to support certain ideas, like Cornwell did.
As an art historian, I can tell you that Cornwell made a complete fool of herself when she tried to interpret the very vague and subjective subjects in Sicker's paintings as 'evidence'.
You can read anything you want in a picture. Unless the photographer or the artist has supplied us with written evidence about the content in a picture, the interpretations is all up to our own personal abilities and subjective impressions.
I am sorry, but there is nothing in there, Stuart, and what you see is nothing but illusions. Accept it.
Not trying to come down on you or anything, but I wouldn't want you to make the same mistakes as others have done. There is no evidence of anything here and it is so easy to get deceived.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 02, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Malso
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Stuart
they're like images you see on a curtain, whilst in bed suffering from a fever; they're simply ghostly mirages!
its the layout of the room, in general; that'll give away any clues |
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Jane, in a nutshell.
Stu, were this even a relevant finding, it is nothing revelatory as per the case. WS deserves much more than meagre implication on a photo.
I don't agree that the image remotely resembles Sickert's handiwork in any shape of form; in fact, the manner in which you banalise serious study of his work is a little insulting. Try to focus on the case, rather than the Sickert-did-it bandwagon. Does anyone else think they've noticed a dispensation on his part to draw skulls with their necks stretched out, and etc? No. He is a serious impressionist painter, who employs subtlety and genius. Listen to the people on this thread. There's no need to take any notice of rudeness, but frankly most of what you've been given is very sound advice. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Hutch,
"Gareth - THAT is what it reminded me of; well spotted. Bacon!"
It did not look like fresh Bacon, but I enjoyed it ... ;o) |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 2:39 am: |
|
It seems the best thing for me to do now is lay down and surrender.Signing off. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Sorry, but I did not think that I would get as ticked off as I am getting now, because I am looking closely and it appears no-one else is.Even though I said I would accept the decision, I am still getting ticked.
JANE COROM AND SUZZI HANNAY:
You have experience as artists - well lets rock and roll then. If you point this out to me I will lie down.I have have studied paredolic images like the face on Mars ect. With all of these, on closer inspection they revealed NO proper detail. With my image, the opposite is true. On closer inspection, the DETAIL IS THERE.
If you can go through this with me I will be happy. Lets take the woman's inverted head only. Could one of you please enlarge it and post it on it's own.Lets walk through a few details here.
1. The hair has plainly been attached to the skull.Given the fact the head is inverted, the hair is correct. The frilled end is at the bottom, the flat part at the top.But most importantly. The line separating the hair from the skull is perfect. Not one hair is straying over this line. Thats pretty dam good for a pareadolic image. Enlarge it and outline it and tell me it aint so.Whomever made that mark , sketched it as hair.(there is no doubt).
2. The eyes, nose, mouth and chin, are all the right size AND IN THE CORRECT FACIAL POSITION. Again, thats pretty dam good for a paredolic image. When they zoomed in on the Mars face, they found that these positions were incorrect.
So could you please reply, and point out piece by piece, on the womans face, that all I have said is untrue.If you can say it aint so, I am off to the optomitrist, or the psycologist for help.
Thanks all - not meaning to sound rude or impolite, but slowly turning into Mr Hyde. |
Walton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Sorry, I have to agree that this supposed image is frankly laughable. (The Batmobile one is really good though. )
Could I ask, in reference to this section of the "evidence":
Beast Head:
* ear correct posit behind eye.
* eye in correct posit in head.
* snout perfectly shaped and positined.
* mouth correct below snout.
how can the proportions of an imaginary beast be described as "correct" and "perfectly shaped"?
Of all potential images to be formed from random marks, faces are the number one most likely to be seen. Apparently the image of a face is hard-wired into our brains from the earliest age and we can see them in almost anything.
Here's one:
A perfectly shaped alien profile is growing out of Mary Kelly's knee. Forgive my shaky outline, but you get the idea I hope.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 469
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
I still can't see a woman's head at all.
I clearly see a witch riding a broomstick (or maybe a six string guitar). Granted, the witch has a white duck on her head, but still...
The witch appears to be riding into the open mouth of a serpent.
But, a woman's head? WHERE ??
Mags
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 774
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Actually the beast head looks a bit like an askew Japanese Peace Pagoda now.
I can see a beast eating a head above. 
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4101
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
I see some kind of beast or a bull's head smoking a cigar.
Getting the point, Stuart?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 589
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Stuart,
I am not making fun of you honestly, but I could show you two dozen photos of mummies, where equally convincing pictures can be seen in the body tissue or bandages.......
Just put yourself in the position of Mary's killer....He is in a room which is lit by the most meagre of lights, a fire simmering in the grate for some of the time, but which would have dwindled to practically nothing by the time he had that area of flesh exposed. How do propose that he did work like that in near darkness?
If we have to look at it under a magnifying glass to see it, what did he have to do in that darkness to be able to go to that amount of detail, and why? How long do you think to took them to do them? Who would have put them there?
What could that symbolic image possibly tell us about Mary's killer?
Put aside what your eyes are telling you and listen to what common sense should be telling you. I am sorry to be so blunt, but you have to concede that when enough people, without exception tell you the same thing, it is time to give up. I admire tenacity and your persistence, but if you really want me to give you a very exact breakdown of each of those images from a forensic point of view I will. I just don't want to bore everyone else into a coma.
Not one person agrees with you, and the chances of you finding someone to agree with you are minimal.
You wanted expert opinions......you got them from Suzi who was an art teacher, Glenn, an artist and art historian and from me who spends her life looking at photographs for just such information as you have put forward, not to mention all of the others on this thread that have other qualifications pertinent to this.
We are not saying that you can't see them, but they are not relevant to the case at all. The shapes there are just shredded flesh and body matter. Have another look at the case from another angle and find something that will make a difference.
We all have to do it. I have thought I was onto something quite a few times and then realised I was wrong and had to give up. It is part of good research, run with something by all means, but stop when it is time to move onto something else.
Best wishes,
Jane
|
Judith A. Stock
Detective Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Dear Stuart,
While I'm not willing to say there's nothing there, NOR that there is....I think we see what we want, and ignore what doesn't fit our frame. I really have only one question for you, and so far it seems no one has asked it. Believe me, I AM NOT being confrontational or hard-headed; I simply would like to know what the clue is. Even if there ARE images, as you say, SO WHAT? What does that prove? Whom do the images implicate?
Sorry I won't be around for a few days....we're off to Brighton tomorrow...I really DO want to hear your reply. Will check back in when we return.
Cheers to all, and I hope to see a lot of you in Brighton.
Regards,
Judy |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 706
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
What I was trying to point out is that the random shapes one can find can, and are, just as "correct" with respect to the placements of the parts. What's wrong with the placement of the parts of the "batmobile"? or of the letters IRD? Or of the eyes and mouth of the various faces I indicated?
Not only that, but what you see as a "swan" looks more like a coiled rattle snake to me, with a mushroom beside it. And what you see as teeth and a beast's mouth looks more like someone squatting and shaking a sheet of some sort over a basin. (I've attached the side-by-side images to demonstrate; I've also included the Christmas Tree I mentioned earlier).
What we have to remember is that our visual system is designed to identify what we see. Our visual system does not like randomness, rather it extracts and forces consistency from what is basically anarchy; random splotches and poor image quality. Vision works to identify visual input, and that's why we "see shapes" in TV snow.
- Jeff |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 121
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Jeff,
That mushroom you saw wasn't 'magic' by any chance?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
"When you stare into an abyss for a long time, the abyss will stare back into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 2:47 am: |
|
Thanks for your responses.
Glen A.
As strange as it might sound, you have identified part of the image I did not yet mention. The beast has a possible second head pointing to the right. I did not mention this in the initial report, and you have outlined it well.If you know about demonic mythology, most references to hell refer to 2headed bests.(sound a bit sus).
MARIA: Thanks for your reply as you now have totally confirmed to me what the problem is here.You, and most everyone else are not seeing what I am. This is the chalange for me and I will do my homework correctly now. I am waisting my time unless you see exactly what I am.
I am taking it to a graphic designer, who will enlarge and isolate the major parts. I will then spend big bucks and get it coloured pixel by pixel to highlight it.There is no way I am quiting now as you have assured me exactly what I must do, Thanks.
Jane Coram.
The part I read on MK suggested that there was a raging fire going in that room, and it was a miracle nobody found it suspicious.Enough light?
As with what I said to Maria, I am waisting my time with this way of presentation. I will do it completely all over again starting from scratch, using pixel colouring techniques. I will then present it on a knew thread properly. I am being tenacious , yes. Although I have zero support, it is not the issue - the issue is that nobody can percieve what I am, and its my job to make that happen.
|
Walton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Here is the "woman's head" section of the picture, enlarged and rotated.
(Do forgive me using part of your "copywrited" image.)
Working from your description of the image:
* hiar is in correct position outside skull - hint(line separating hair from skull is flawless).
*2 eyes roughly same size in right spot.
*2 nostrils same size in correct position below eyes.
* mouth in correct posit below nostrils.
I have picked out the two eyes, two nostrils and mouth in red to help anyone who has not yet found a face. The hair I believe is what is already shown in your own image so I omitted to colour it. Apologies if this image is not the exact face you see, but there are several possiblities even in that one small area of the photograph. From the description this seems the most likely.
Are you suggesting that the Ripper was skilful enough an artist that he could, in very poor light, scrape a detailed image into flesh so deftly that the hairline is "flawless", yet he could do no better than to get the eyes "roughly" the same size? And they are not even level, one looks considerably higher than the other.
As for your expert witness - "The artist said that she measured all the facial featuers, and details of the sketch - EVERTHING IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE" - well, I'm only a very amateur artist, but that face looks weird to me. Way too long, with the eyes too high. Can it really be described with the phrase "EVERTHING IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE"? I don't think so.
Another of your points - "Unlike the other million random images, this one has reference to the death and is something the killer might actually do." - how does this refer to the death? Was Kelly decapitated? Did a large beast try to eat her head? Was there a swan involved? And is there any reason to believe this is "something the killer might actually do"? If so, why?
In response to Jeff Ham's artwork, you state: "I am sorry to have to say this but all of the artistic data about positioning checks out.All of your random imaging is not artisticly correct." Sorry but if you think that face and beast are more "artistically correct" than the four-leaf clover or jumping man you are mistaken.
On imaginary faces, you state: "I have have studied paredolic images like the face on Mars ect. With all of these, on closer inspection they revealed NO proper detail. With my image, the opposite is true. On closer inspection, the DETAIL IS THERE."
Closer inspection of the MJK pictures is not possible. Studying them with a magnifying glass won't help much, it can't add detail to the shot, which is how the face on Mars was disproved. Would looking at a magnified image of the original Mars picture have made it possible to detect that it was not actually a face? No - it would just look like a bigger face!
|
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Stu does have a point about the images etc. being more resolent than others. At least, in respect of two of them. The swan shape, actually rather more a gull shape, and a vivid W. It survives modern testing. Stu, that's not proof in itself that the image isn't an accident. OK 'ducky?'
Or is it a gull above that W ?
It is, actually. A gull and a W. true, that's more than absolutley nothing, and Sickert did say 'ennui' was the greates clue- at least to Joseph Sickert, apparently.
The gull and the W are more prominent than the others. But I think the skull's head reference is silly. ;-)
Ok Mr Ryder, please copyright this observation (the gull and the w as connected with Sickert and Gull) for me. Not that I set much store by it!  |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 707
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi,
After Walton rotated the image, and drew in the "bits" for the face, I agree with Walton that the face is too elongated to be considered "human". However, it looks very much like a monkey's face in proportion! Perhaps my "large monkey" theory needs re-evaluation?
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 708
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Hi Baron,
I was worried about including the mushroom, because if the snake is really the killer cleverly referencing a caterpiller (you know, snakes are long and squirmy, caterpillars are long and squirmy - so one could symbolise the other right?), then we're back to implementing Louis Carrol!
- Jeff |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 471
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
.....just as long as nobody brings up the Elephant Man!
OK, now I see the face but I agree that it's not proportioned corrctly to be human--looks like a baboon to me.Poe, anyone?
Stuart, I'm sorry that my post has insprired you to spend more time and money on this. Please read up on the human brain's ABSOLUTE NEED to make order out of visual chaos (and especially to see faces). I can see three different faces in the wood panelling in my kitchen.
The witch is a lock,though. 
Mags
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 935
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
If you are really paying a graphic artist "big bucks" to color pixels here and there this image for you, it sounds like someone is taking you for a ride.
You earlier (in the other thread) talked about paying someone a lot of money for photo "enhancement," but that's not at all what this is. This is just someone doodling atop an old photo.
I don't know whether you are talking about the idea of having paid an expert for this stuff to try to give it more credence than it deserves or if someone is getting money off of you for telling you what you want to hear and performing very amateurish work. Either way I can't see how continuing on down the same path is going to convince anyone (except those who are desperate and pick and choose what they want to believe to support their own wacky ideas, like the person above who thinks it implicates Sickert).
There is no anatomical precision in these figures you think you see. Your claim that anyone who knows about "demonic mythology" can talk about two-headed beings falls down when it's noted that anyone who knows anything about that area can just as equally (and, frankly, more capably) cite references to one- or three-headed beings. You are picking and choosing little trivial nothings and trying to blow them up into something that might maybe mean something if you let them.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
I see a pair of boobs..a nice set o'legs...a cute derriere...and a Vesica Pisces,the universal symbol of Lord Joe Bob Beelzebub,the Obergruppenfuhrer of The Dark Side...beware !
I kid..I kid...
I didn't see any Vesica Pisces.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 709
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Hmmm,
If the snake represents the catepillar from Alice in Wonderland, meaning this implicates Louis Carrol, then really, the snake should be sitting on top of the mushroom. So, I decided to prove this was the case. Obviously, if I'm wrong, then no mushroom would be found in the exactly correct position (immediately underneath the snake).
Well, looking hard for a mushroom in that location, was I ever surprised to find out there it was. I've added it in, and if you look at the original unaltered image, you will see I'm not just faking it. I've used real lines from that original image, and they form a mushroom if you just know where to look and what to look for!
Now, removing tounge from cheek, what I really want to demonstrate is the fact that one can pretty much find whatever they want when you present the visual system with what amounts to chaos. Faces are the easiest, and without looking too hard, I've drawn in grey some more faces. It's certainly easy if you are looking for "scary demonic faces".
In other words Stuart, being able to find faces, with eyes above nose about mouth, with an outline representing a head or hair, etc, is almost hard not to do. Look hard enough, and you could probably find just about anything.
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
