Door outside and inside

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Quite right, but it is a different take on essentially the same issue, namely the bed was used as a barricade.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, the hypothesis (H) is the same and here the source (S) I would like to discuss is a new one.

So, the question (Q) is:

Is A = A?

And another question: Can S be used to postulate H (the bed was used to barricade the door)?

And: Is S a relevant independent source for discussing Q?

I think it is interesting to discuss different issues from the perspective of different sources, new and old.

Maybe A is not A. And perhaps S can not be used to postulate H. And maybe S can not even be used to discuss the question (Q) if A is A, since it is not a reliable source? Or maybe it is not relevant at all.

But maybe all this is relevant.

I am just asking questions since I think it will lead the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, the hypothesis (H) is the same and here the source (S) I would like to discuss is a new one.

So, the question (Q) is:

Is A = A?

And another question: Can S be used to postulate H (the bed was used to barricade the door)?

And: Is S a relevant independent source for discussing Q?

I think it is interesting to discuss different issues from the perspective of different sources, new and old.

Maybe A is not A. And perhaps S can not be used to postulate H. And maybe S can not even be used to discuss the question (Q) if A is A, since it is not a reliable source? Or maybe it is not relevant at all.

But maybe all this is relevant.

I am just asking questions since I think it will lead the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

All well and good, but without knowing what "S" actually is?
Have you mentioned it? It does get a little confusing.

Without "S" I fear that the exercise cannot be undertaken.


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

Can you draw out the doorpanel Pierre? i see that your using the chair as the vertical line for your ,panel,. i want to see if you have an indication for the horizontal line (top of the panel); i want to line it up with the height of the pf the table.

[Pierre]

All well and good, but without knowing what "S" actually is?
Have you mentioned it? It does get a little confusing.

Without "S" I fear that the exercise cannot be undertaken.

Steve

Sorry, Steve.

S is the drawing in The Illustrated Police News from 17th November 1888.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;400066]

Here is an estimation of where the panel is (black square). It is a guess.

I have marked with yellow what I think is light coming through the door (with the hinges in white, not coloured) and through the two windows placed on the wall to the right approximately where the blue square is (but of course further to the right).

And also, I have in this case eliminated what some think of as a "doorknob" in the photograph.

[Elamarna]

No I am sorry, bit slow.

Hi Steve,

Yes, the hypothesis (H) is the same and here the source (S) I would like to discuss is a new one.

So, the question (Q) is:

Is A = A?

No, while you may postulate it is the door and hinge in the background of the photo, I feel that the image background is so unclear that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn.

The object to the left in the photo still looks like a real object to me and is either a knob or a coat hook, you will say, and have done before it is just mark on the photo.

Without the plate we cannot know who if either is correct.

And another question: Can S be used to postulate H (the bed was used to barricade the door)?

I do not think so,

however it is an interesting approach, if the wall/door to the right of the strip had panelling that matched the door you may be able to make an argument, however I can see none.
Given that we are working with a copy of a copy, photo enhancement will not I think show much, and my distort things.

Remember the copy with the light strip completely removed?

And: Is S a relevant independent source for discussing Q?

Not in my opinion, because of the above.

If what you think is a hinge could be proved as such, then yes, but that I think is impossible to test.

People will see what they want.

It would be different if we had the original plate.

I think it is interesting to discuss different issues from the perspective of different sources, new and old.

Maybe A is not A. And perhaps S can not be used to postulate H. And maybe S can not even be used to discuss the question (Q) if A is A, since it is not a reliable source? Or maybe it is not relevant at all.

But maybe all this is relevant.

I am just asking questions since I think it will lead the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

I understand, no problem.


Steve

[MsWeatherwax]

No, while you may postulate it is the door and hinge in the background of the photo, I feel that the image background is so unclear that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn.

Bingo. For what it's worth, while I can see Pierre's door panel (particularly when he outlines where he believes it is), if you look on the far side of the picture there is a round 'anomaly' that could be a door knob. If that is what it appears to be, the door is actually on the other side.

[Elamarna]

Bingo. For what it's worth, while I can see Pierre's door panel (particularly when he outlines where he believes it is), if you look on the far side of the picture there is a round 'anomaly' that could be a door knob. If that is what it appears to be, the door is actually on the other side.

Hi MsWeatherwax

The "panelling" in the area he highlights is the chair, photo enhancement in previous posts as shown that. I am sure Pierre is just using the vertical line as a reference point as he is aware of this..

Robert pointed this out in post#18.

In post 20 Pierre estimates the panel to be exactly, as near be, behind the chair, it thus becomes somewhat impossible to tell if there is any panelling there.

Of course there should also be panelling above the Chair to the height of the door. I can see none.

However to really make any judgements on this we need the original plate. We are working with copies or copies.




Pierre,

a bit naughty to cut the Knob, by doing so you give a highly controlled view, abit like the version without the light strip.





steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Pierre,

If you are suggesting that A [right] is the back of the door A [left], then someone had obviously been moving the furniture about in Room 13.

Think about it.

Regards,

Simon

Why??

[Elamarna]

Why??

Hi Abby

If the light strip is the frame of the door with the hinge, to see it as we do in MJK3 the Bed must have been moved, if it were still to the side of the room, that view would not be possible.

It is an interesting move by Pierre, but actually takes us no further forwaed, it the same question.

Unfortunately in post 20 Pierre admits he has removed the "knob" from the view, which gives a skewed view for any not use to the details of the picture.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

thanks El

all I see is a light strip. you cant tell what side of the door it is nor whether its the opening by the doors hinges or the other side.

actually there are no hinges so I would guess its the non hinge side of the door (the one you enter by).

another fantasy by he who will not be named.

[Elamarna]

thanks El

all I see is a light strip. you cant tell what side of the door it is nor whether its the opening by the doors hinges or the other side.

actually there are no hinges so I would guess its the non hinge side of the door (the one you enter by).

another fantasy by he who will not be named.

Abby

the strip is meant according to Pierre to be the hinged side.
actually if you look there is an area in the strip of higher reflectivity which some claim is the hinge, i do not see it as such, the hinge would not be shiny and would certainly in my view block the light more. and it just does not look the right shape to me.


Steve

[Pierre]

Abby

the strip is meant according to Pierre to be the hinged side.
actually if you look there is an area in the strip of higher reflectivity which some claim is the hinge, i do not see it as such, the hinge would not be shiny and would certainly in my view block the light more. and it just does not look the right shape to me.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Example of a typical victorian hinge. Compared to the hinge in the picture.

And the lines on each side of the hinge are extremely straight. Therefore it must be wood and not curtains.

What some people believe is a "doorknob" is a black spot in the picure. The photograph is full of those, and that spot is the largest one.

Regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

Not clear to me how anyone can make a conclusive statement out of nothing. Think again.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Example of a typical victorian hinge. Compared to the hinge in the picture.

And the lines on each side of the hinge are extremely straight. Therefore it must be wood and not curtains.

What some people believe is a "doorknob" is a black spot in the picure. The photograph is full of those, and that spot is the largest one.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

There is seriously no way to compare that hinge to the blurred highlight in the photo, which it is not clear is even an object, that really is wishful thinking.


As for the "knob" that is your opinion, others disagree, it has distinct shape, highlights and shadows, it behaves like a real object.
If it is and what it could be are of course impossible to say , but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to a door knob.

That you do not agree is fine; its just that I find your decision to remove it from the photo in post #20 somewhat at odds with what you posted earlier

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=363442&postcount=177

Steve