MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

My apologies. I confused Sam's muddy thinking for yours; but as you both seem to agree all I will say is that in MJK1 and MJK3 we are dealing with a camera to subject distance of six feet [maximum] and not interstellar light years.

So come on, where is Mister Bolster/Crocodile in MJK1?

Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

Hi Steve,

The "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

What's all this got to do with MJK1 and 3?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
I think you have Sam's post in mind but addressed your reply to me !!!
Anyway, what Sam is saying using his metaphore "Big Dipper" is correct in describing what you see and depending on the angle you see it in both MJK crime scene photos.
Photo interpretation is not easy.

Best, Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

The "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

What's all this got to do with MJK1 and 3?

Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

I don't think Victorian cameras were over-endowed with f-stops, Steve, or much in the way of focussing ability either.

Some cameras avaiable in the 1880's had a lens with wheel-set stops.
Focusing by way of rack and pinion, others had scale focusing facilities.
If you can tell me the exact camera used that would be most interesting!

Best, Steve

[Sam Flynn]

If Mister Bolster/Crocodile was on the table [but out of frame] in MJK1, then the tip of his snout would have been close to the bed-head [and thus out of frame in MJK3]; not nestling by the victim's left elbow [fully visible in MJK3].

A metaphor: the "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view. From a different standpoint, you might see a straight line, a cube, or a celestial crocodile with a zig-zag back.

I await your learned discourse on camera angles and lens distortion.

Nothing as complicated required, I'm afraid. It's simply about lines of sight.

[Stephen Thomas]

it's simply a matter of measuring the distance from intended position to subject - set and focus the lens to that distance - reposition camera to desired position without tripod - confirm measurements - use a small aperture to gain greatest depth of field (as insurance for front to back sharpness within limits of lens)

I don't think Victorian cameras were over-endowed with f-stops, Steve, or much in the way of focussing ability either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

If Mister Bolster/Crocodile was on the table [but out of frame] in MJK1, then the tip of his snout would have been close to the bed-head [and thus out of frame in MJK3]; not nestling by the victim's left elbow [fully visible in MJK3].

I await your learned discourse on camera angles and lens distortion.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I know this is a stupid question, but do you have any red and green lines to back this up?

No need for lines, Simon - all you have to do is look at MJK1 and MJK3 to see why. Specifically, we only see the front edge of the bedside table in MJK1, and the pile of flesh on the table ends just before the edge of the photograph. In MJK3 we see see that pile of flesh from behind, as well as being able to see more of the bedside table. Because of this, it's evident that a clear gap of several inches exists between the edge of the pile of flesh and the bolster.

Ergo, there was plenty of room towards the rear of the bedside table to accommodate the bolster, but as we cannot see that part of the table in MJK1, we don't see the bolster either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I know this is a stupid question, but do you have any red and green lines to back this up?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi All,

Let's start with the most obvious discrepancy.

Where in MJK1 is Mister Bolster/Crocodile as seen in MJK3?

He's out of frame, Simon.

And please don't say he's out of frame.

Too late!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Let's start with the most obvious discrepancy.

Where in MJK1 is Mister Bolster/Crocodile as seen in MJK3?

And please don't say he's out of frame.

Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

Hi Steve and Gareth,

With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?

Regards,

Simon

Perhaps you could outline these 'contradictions' so that I can try to address!

Best, Steve

[Sam Flynn]

With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?

Indeed, Simon. Furthermore, I see no contradictions at all.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve and Gareth,

With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

use a small aperture to gain greatest depth of field (as insurance for front to back sharpness within limits of lens) then either **** the shutter and fire...

... presumably, the asterisks should be read as "c0ck", Steve? The letters "****" get filtered out by the rude-word detector in the message-board software.