Discussion and thoughts on ROOM 13 MILLERS COURT Simon D. Wood dissertation

[richardh]

During my 3D creations of Miller's Court, I frequently refer back to Simon's dissertation (link below) for all sorts of reasons. It was written in 2005 and I remember that Simon, on one of my 3D threads, expressed a desire for casebook to remove the dissertation. I can't remember his reason for wanting it gone.

Is the info in the article still relevant, accurate, standing up to criticism?

What is good and/or bad about the info contained?

I have revisted my 3D creations and I am currently redoing the court and No13 now I have a better PC and full VR facilities. There is a lot wrong with the models I have created over the last 2 years so I am starting over.

Literally, I am beginning from scratch starting with dimensions.

I know there is no real consensus on the floor size of No13 so in this thread, I suppose I'd like to rehash and retread ground already covered in an effort to get a bit closer to an answer. Sort of like a 2018 update on what we know, don't know and our current best guesses.

dissertation link:


http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ers-court.html

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richard,

The 12 x 10 ft floor plan is reasonably accurate, but the rest was mostly guesswork.

All I can tell you for sure in 2018 is that MJK3 is definitely not an alternative view of MJK1/2, and MJK1/2 is not a photograph of what we have been led to believe.

And there were no initials on the wall.

Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Simon's article is great, but I really don't think that the bed or the table were moved for the purpose of taking the photographs. Not that this should affect your reconstructions; just show the bed against the partition wall as per the MJK1 photograph and you'll be fine.

Edit: I notice that Simon has responded, and I'm happy to say that, even if I disagree with him about the bed, I agree 100% about the "initials"

[David Orsam]

All I can tell you for sure in 2018 is that MJK3 is definitely not an alternative view of MJK1/2, and MJK1/2 is not a photograph of what we have been led to believe.

Simon's definition of the word "definitely" must be rather different to the dictionary definition.

[David Orsam]

There's a pretty fundamental factual flaw in Simon's discussion of the source of the "strip of light" in MJK3.

He claims that the photograph was supposedly taken "in the middle of the morning of November 9th 1888".

Well that's obviously wrong for starters. The door of Kelly's room wasn't broken open until 1.30pm on 9th November.

But this error might explain why Simon evidently thinks that at the time the photograph was taken "cloud cover was at 100%".

That might have been true during the middle of the morning but not during the afternoon when the sun did make an appearance, as confirmed in newspaper reports of the Lord Mayor's Show (which commenced at about 12.30pm).

So if one is looking for a possible light source one need not look further than the sun.

Back to the drawing board Simon.

[richardh]

Thanks for the replies.
But can I just make it clear that I didn't start this thread to diss Simon's work. It was written a long time ago and things more on, new evidence emerges and ideas and opinions change. This thread wasn't to disparage Simon's dissertation, it was to ask how things stand in 2018 with the benefit of time and hindsight etc.

The thread is aiming to arrive at a modern (2018) consensus as to the details of No13 - room dimensions, content, positions of content and so forth.
ta

[David Orsam]

Thanks for the replies.
But can I just make it clear that I didn't start this thread to diss Simon's work. It was written a long time ago and things more on, new evidence emerges and ideas and opinions change. This thread wasn't to disparage Simon's dissertation, it was to ask how things stand in 2018 with the benefit of time and hindsight etc.

The thread is aiming to arrive at a modern (2018) consensus as to the details of No13 - room dimensions, content, positions of content and so forth.
ta

Sure but do you understand that Simon's contention is that one of the two known photographs of Kelly's room is not genuine? He's also saying that the other photograph is not "of what we have been led to believe" whatever that means. So using Simon's dissertation as a starting point was probably the worst possible place to start.

As for the layout of the room, he's admitted that it's virtually all "guesswork" so not terribly reliable on that basis.

[richardh]

Yes, David. I did know about the history of Simon's opinion on the MJK photos. I'm assuming that he's not actually revealed the reasons why, for him, it's a certainty that one of the MJKs is not real and why the other isn't what it seems.

I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, which, again, wasn't the intention.

[David Orsam]

No, he's not revealed the reasons.

I do understand your (noble) intentions in trying to understand the layout of Kelly's room but my response to this thread is that you should ignore Simon's 2005 dissertation in its entirety. It's not a good starting point.

[Dr. John Watson]

What's the bottom line?

Bottom line: The photographs are what they are. They show what they show. They haven't changed or been modified as to layout. Only individual interpretation of the photos is open to conjecture, which is what we see here. To create a 3-d version of the two photos, I'd simply stick to what is shown and not guess as to the photographer's position. That isn't necessary.

John