Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

Still fuming...

I was giving you praise... because you allowed for a possible error BKat.

I wasn't allowed the same leeway. Kat says that Jane placed her knee halfway between where she and I placed it, a claim which was as patently untrue as it was disingenuous.

[Blackkat]

Sam that's because of the way you drew your green line and the way you worded it. It made it sound and made it visual as to where you said the knee was at. You said that was her knee and the reason we couldn't see the thigh behind it. Don't get furious

" I'm frankly furious that I'm being painted out to be an imbecile"

Well it doesn't feel very good does it?

[Sam Flynn]

No Sam with everything that you stated you made it seem as though the knee was higher - here let me show you:

I posted my first picture with text in purple and one area said "Upper thigh" you stated that it wasn't her upper thigh it was her knee and you made it sound as if the knee was here:

That's because it is her knee, Kat.

Since it's plain and in front of your face that's fine but as you said to other's it might not be so apparent and I wanted to help out.

You did so by gainsaying every common sense point that I was trying to make. From my POV it didn't feel as if you were being particularly helpful.

Thanks Sam. You're a real nice guy.

So being right on this occasion makes me a baddie, does it? There's no hope for the world if that's the case.

[Stephen Thomas]

Sam

Some things are just not worth persuing.

Like this thing.

[perrymason]

Sam Flynn,

I think youre the only person that I like and respect despite the fact that you seem to believe yourself incapable of error.....thats what I was getting at Sam, and this is far from the first occassion. Its not that youre not being credible, its your opinion that no-ones else might be that irks people. Tell me....is this the first time someone has gotten pissed off being told they are wrong by you? Even when the matter being discussed is opinion based?

You are smart, knowledgable and witty Sam...thats the reason many of us continue to plead with you to acknowledge other peoples opinions with some grace, instead of invariably telling them flat out they are wrong. Like youve done with me, on a few occassions over the years. Its your outstanding qualities that help many of us overcome the insults we are offered with them.

Youve claimed people cant see images properly, they cant tell scale, that they mistake the references and innuendo, and often with a sarcastic comment or some clever wit.

If you think that I, or BlackKat, or anyone here, should sit quietly while their opinions are being treated like doggy doo...opinions that are well thought out, like yours...then I would suggest to you that you are mistaken, and should reacquaint yourself with some humility.

If your pissed off now, then you have a modest understanding of the rage I felt when I was told that 2 news articles supercede any amount of contrary reporting....despite the fact that none of the overwhelming majority of accounts from 8 different sources do not agree with your single source-2 article argument. The fact I even address comments made that infer I am some idiot for my opinions or beliefs is due to my feelings of friendship and respect for you....but when someone whom you offer respect doesnt respond in kind,...then you have issues like this one.

On the contrary, you have been extended the benefit of doubt on many occassions, because you are smart in general...not because you were right on those points. It is not we who treat you with disrespect...it has been, and likely will continue to be, the other way round.

Im sorry to put it bluntly Sam...but as I said, if I didnt think you were worth bringing this issue to the forefront, I would just dismiss any comments that demean my intellect or powers of deduction, and eventually, the poster.

Whether you feel it at the moment or not...I am your friend, and thats why I bother.

Best regards.

[perrymason]

Sam

Some things are just not worth persuing.

Like this thing.

And despite the gentleman quote a few days ago, youve shown us that you seem to feel you own truth too...and have mocked anyone that challenged you or Sam.

Are you freaking children or what....grow some eggs and act like men, accept that you are not always right, and acknowledge that others can be....and no-one will have any issues.

This is just 10% of the ego iceberg here....and both you gents are smart enough to grasp this opinion.

I think The Simpsons are preferable to remaining on here today...at least they know they are asses sometimes.

Cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, Stephen. I don't like bad feeling, and neither do I harbour a grudge, but I do like to see fair play. Unwarranted criticism really winds me up.

[Steve F]

I can't help but think that Mary's bed was moved away from the wall and towards the door before MJK3 was taken.How did the photographer get in there and line up the shot? Did he just plonk the camera on the mound of bedding and hope for the best? Even then he would've had to use a cable release to fire the shutter and I'm unsure if they were around in 1888.Can anyone clarify this for me?

[Sam Flynn]

Are you freaking children or what....grow some eggs and act like men, accept that you are not always right, and acknowledge that others can be....

The point is, Mike, that this didn't apply in this case - or did it? I put forward reasoned arguments, spell out the facts clearly, and get stonewalled every time. Well, fair enough - I'm not the Delphic oracle, and I know I don't have all the answers. Only some of them

The crux of the matter, however, was that when Jane helpfully posted a picture that just happened to back up my argument, I still don't get any letup - indeed, the consensus seemed to be that Jane's drawing didn't support my argument at all, when it clearly did!

At that point I guess that my place on the scale of learned helplessness fell somewhere between "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque". There's only so much an egg-bearing adult can take, you know

[perrymason]

I can't help but think that Mary's bed was moved away from the wall and towards the door before MJK3 was taken.How did the photographer get in there and line up the shot? Did he just plonk the camera on the mound of bedding and hope for the best? Even then he would've had to use a cable release to fire the shutter and I'm unsure if they were around in 1888.Can anyone clarify this for me?

Hi Steve,

Its a very real possibility that the photographer used the bedding that is wedged down between the bed and partition wall to place a camera he could operate by a remote shutter. He could focus and frame by looking down into the viewfinder, focus and range set the lens, and stand back and squeeze the bulb.

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time, but theres no reason to suspect that something other than old portrait style, "plates" and flash powder, was used.

Sorry for the personal airing Steve...if youve been paying attention this all has been reaching a climactic point recently.

Best regards

[Steve F]

Thanks Michael
That makes it a bit clearer but there is still doubt in my mind over whether the room was moved about during the taking of the photo's

[Blackkat]

If Mjk1 wasn't the first photo do you guys think they moved her leg down to get a better picture?

[Steve F]

I was hoping someone would say that!Yes,I do think the crime scene has been moved about!

[Supe]

Michael,

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time.

Not a reproof by any means, but just a clarification so you don't get pilloried for it some other time. The Instamatic Camera (I can't find a Trademark symbol, so imagine one) was introduced by Eastman0Kodak in the 1960s. It was a relatively simple point-and-shoot affair and may have used flash cubes.

What I think you meant were the first roll-film cameras that were quite new on the market in 1888. That said, I would agree that the various MJK photos were taken using glass plates, probably by then dry plates.

Don.

[perrymason]

Michael,

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time.

Not a reproof by any means, but just a clarification so you don't get pilloried for it some other time. The Instamatic Camera (I can't find a Trademark symbol, so imagine one) was introduced by Eastman0Kodak in the 1960s. It was a relatively simple point-and-shoot affair and may have used flash cubes.

What I think you meant were the first roll-film cameras that were quite new on the market in 1888. That said, I would agree that the various MJK photos were taken using glass plates, probably by then dry plates.

Don.

Hi Don,

Thanks for that, for some reason I didnt key to the recollection that "Instamatic" was tradename specific to Eastman-Kodak when I was typing, so I appreciate the correction. Maybe it was advertised as Instant, and I slipped on the reference. On the plates though, I know that a poster here did some analysis of the crime scene recording and mentioned "flash powder" in that...by its actual name ...which I cant recall exactly, but something like Potassium Chlorate and Aluminum powder.

I think that portraiture was still using that methodology, and I suppose even "still life/non-living" is still portrait photography.

It would be good to know specifically what camera and technology, because that might address the questions as to moving a bit of leg, or furniture, in order to properly frame a subject. I know the remote shutter was available, thats why I thought the placement of the camera to the appropriate POV might not affect the placement of the bed, for example. The photographer need not be staring through the viewfinder.

All the best Don.