Why is that linen so odd? *Graphic Warning*

[Supe]

It has been pointed out to me that the phrase "brown shoe corps" is itself rather obscure. Sorry, but its derivation is interesting and worth explaining.

Originally, there was the U.S. Army Air Corps and the fly boys, as part of the Army, wore olive drab uniforms with brown shoes. In 1947 the U.S. Air Force was created and its members wear blue uniforms with black shoes. Hence, grizzled old vets were "members of the brown show corps."

Don.

[Phil Carter]

ok this is gonna bother me.

If you look at the pile of organs they are clearly pulling up a section of the light part. A part has come free of the table, and there are creases like a linen being dragged. However if it was cloth, it would be soaked in blood. So it isnt cloth. It isn't anything porous. Even looking at the blood part, it is clearly on a nonporous surface.

So what on earth is non porous that at least moves a little like cloth? That isn't plastic?

Hello Errata,

If you believe that this photo is the genuine object, fine, take your guess. If you believe that the photo isn't the genuine article (as I do), anything could be used to make this look like something it isnt. Plastic included.
Looks simply to me as someone putting their right hand and arm over the bed and their head is under a cover whilst they are doing it, with feather-like plant-like things placed on the bed with the front and middle part of the photo painted over. Not a leg to stand on.. So what is on that table is just another piece of the trick.. Looks like a silly game to me. "How many people can I fool with this one"?

1987 and all that. Keeps the ball rolling along...Just an opinion.

best wishes

Phil

[sgh]

Hello Errata,

If you believe that this photo is the genuine object, fine, take your guess. If you believe that the photo isn't the genuine article (as I do), anything could be used to make this look like something it isnt. Plastic included.
Looks simply to me as someone putting their right hand and arm over the bed and their head is under a cover whilst they are doing it, with feather-like plant-like things placed on the bed with the front and middle part of the photo painted over. Not a leg to stand on.. So what is on that table is just another piece of the trick.. Looks like a silly game to me. "How many people can I fool with this one"?

1987 and all that. Keeps the ball rolling along...Just an opinion.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,
I do not know for certain whether the photo is for real or not and for all I know it could be a waxwork model!

Your point of view though is misleading too when viewing that particular photo

'with feather-like plant-like things placed on the bed with the front and middle part of the photo painted over'

I first read similar statement to that in a casebook dissertation by a person whom I assumed had not seen an enhanced copy of the photo, if I remember correctly.

That does not have a leg to stand on either!

If it is a hoax, waxwork or whatever it is a pretty good one in my view.
Here's an 8 point comparison of the two photos for the viewer to consider.

Best Regards
S

[Jane Coram]

Just in case any newcomers are baffled by the comment about the bolster, get yourself a large helping of popcorn and check out this thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=100

Sorry to cut in on the discussion, but I was just certain that someone was going to bring it up.

Having looked at the enhanced image, I do think that is either a repair or damaged veneer on the left (hardly matters which really), but there is a questionmark over the surface on the right. I would hazard a very dubious and tentative guess (with a seriously unsure look on my face) that it might possibly be one of the flaps of skin taken from Mary's abdomen. Logic dictates that would have to have been taken off before the innards were exposed, so it would logically be on the bottom of the pile. Having seen a myriad of photos posted up on the old threads of what the flesh from a dissected abdomen look like, it closely fits the bill. So not plastic, although from the images I've seen, it closely resembles it.

No offence intended Phil, but in my humble opinion, (for what that's worth. Lol) there is no question at all that the photographs are genuine. If anyone can give me solid evidence to the contrary, then, of course I'll reconsider. I'm just going to take a bit of convincing!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Stephen Thomas]

If it is a hoax, waxwork or whatever it is a pretty good one in my view.
Here's an 8 point comparison of the two photos for the viewer to consider.

I was most impressed by your previous demonstration showing that the bed had not been moved between the taking of the two photos but surely here the yellow and green circles don't correspond in that in MJK1 they would seem to be on a sticking up part of the bedsheet and in MJK3 on the knee area of the left leg.

[sgh]

I was most impressed by your previous demonstration showing that the bed had not been moved between the taking of the two photos but surely here the yellow and green circles don't correspond in that in MJK1 they would seem to be on a sticking up part of the bedsheet and in MJK3 on the knee area of the left leg.

Hello Stephen, good to hear from you again!

Yes the 'knee' is cause for confusion in MJK3 because although it looks like a knee it isn't, it's the inner thigh.
The knee is not in view in MJK3 photo!
The curve you can see between the yellow and red circles in mjk3 can't be fully determined in mjk1 photo due to the angle the photo was taken and this is what confuses everybody, and could be one of the reasons some say it's a fake!
As you mentioned, in my previous demonstration, I took great pains using photoshop and autocad for accuracy to project lines from both photographs
and develop a working drawing with dimensions.

This was also a means to locate the positions of the camera for each photo as you'll remember.
I found that it wasn't necessary to move the bed to take mjk3 photo because
my projected lines matched the landmarks in both photos.
To test the validity of what I had drawn, I did several redraws each with a few degrees difference from my datum lines, each time it was not possible to
maintain the parameters or field of view of each photo. In short, if I moved
the bed 2 degrees from the datum on the drawing then I would not have the field of view matching either photo!
Hope that makes sense!

It's still on the MJK boards.

Best Regards

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jane, sgh, Stephen,

I don't wish to derail the thread meaning here, so I will be as brief as possible in answering..hope thats ok by you all.

Jane, never ever is any offence taken from you..as you well know dear lady. The MJK1 photo is the real McCoy alright, but this "newly found" artifact that popped up in 1987, well, for me it is a falsey... just an opinion I have.

sgh, I will explain and try not to mislead. The dark, possibly black artifact that looks feather like, in the centre of the bed between the supposed legs are not at all visible on MJK1, and I am sure, angle wise from the height and bulk of this artifact shown here on this, it would have been visible. On MJK1, it is not there. The bed is clear from between the knees up. On the MJK3 photo, the artifact is so large it actually travels to below the knee. Err...where is it in MJK1? Using your white circle as a guide on MJK1, it is in the centre of the body remains... draw an imaginary "centre line" from that down to between the ankles. Now do the same on MJK3.... the black feather like artifact is right next to the "centre line" and would be seen on MJK1..without a doubt..
Regarding legs, look at the lower portion below the left knee on MJK1. That looks like milky white skin to me. But where is the milky white skin on the MJK3 photo? Thats only two of many discrepancies I can see.
Without a doubt in my mind, that photo contains a right hand not a left hand. With a right thumb. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but it is my honest belief that the inside leg (left) on the MJK3 photo is a paint job, with a easily seen by the "lines of white on the inside of the upper left thigh"..to me anyway.
Finally, the "right leg" in the foreground is almost certainly painted over, to my mind.

Stephen. I totally agree with your comment.

best wishes to you all,

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello sgh,

Additionally, if one looks at your red circle on MJK1, it is directly above the feather -like artifact on MJK3. It is not to be seen on MJK1..it surely would be because the angle of the knee on MJK1 compared to the height of the camera photo taken, showns the bed linen between the legs..

best wishes

Phil

[sgh]

Hello Jane, sgh, Stephen,

I don't wish to derail the thread meaning here, so I will be as brief as possible in answering..hope thats ok by you all.

Jane, never ever is any offence taken from you..as you well know dear lady. The MJK1 photo is the real McCoy alright, but this "newly found" artifact that popped up in 1987, well, for me it is a falsey... just an opinion I have.

sgh, I will explain and try not to mislead. The dark, possibly black artifact that looks feather like, in the centre of the bed between the supposed legs are not at all visible on MJK1, and I am sure, angle wise from the height and bulk of this artifact shown here on this, it would have been visible. On MJK1, it is not there. The bed is clear from between the knees up. On the MJK3 photo, the artifact is so large it actually travels to below the knee. Err...where is it in MJK1? Using your white circle as a guide on MJK1, it is in the centre of the body remains... draw an imaginary "centre line" from that down to between the ankles. Now do the same on MJK3.... the black feather like artifact is right next to the "centre line" and would be seen on MJK1..without a doubt..
Regarding legs, look at the lower portion below the left knee on MJK1. That looks like milky white skin to me. But where is the milky white skin on the MJK3 photo? Thats only two of many discrepancies I can see.
Without a doubt in my mind, that photo contains a right hand not a left hand. With a right thumb. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but it is my honest belief that the inside leg (left) on the MJK3 photo is a paint job, with a easily seen by the "lines of white on the inside of the upper left thigh"..to me anyway.
Finally, the "right leg" in the foreground is almost certainly painted over, to my mind.

Stephen. I totally agree with your comment.

best wishes to you all,

Phil

Thanks for your reply Phil.
I'll try to go point by point with your explanations above.

'The dark, possibly black artifact that looks feather like, in the centre of the bed between the supposed legs are not at all visible on MJK1, and I am sure, angle wise from the height and bulk of this artifact shown here on this, it would have been visible.'

Those feather like objects - (folds/creases in the bedding material) 'appear' on the center line of the bed but they are actually offset to the center line.
Using my marked straight white line on the body as a datum line you will see
the feather like object is to the right on MJK3 and touching the inner thigh.
We cannot see all of those on MJK1 because they are obscured by the real knee in MJK1 - confusing due to the angle of view of that photo.


'Regarding legs, look at the lower portion below the left knee on MJK1. That looks like milky white skin to me. But where is the milky white skin on the MJK3 photo?'

Again, that is not the knee on MJK3, it is the carved up inner thigh, so you won't see any milky white skin, it's out of shot.

'Without a doubt in my mind, that photo contains a right hand not a left hand. With a right thumb. '

And I am in no doubt whatsoever that it is her left hand.
Look closer at MJK1 and you will note that her little finger on her left hand
is curled under.
When you view the hand on mjk3 you are viewing the bend
at the joint of the little finger and the shadow on that bended joint.
It does look like a thumb on first glance - granted, but please study again
and if you still think it's a thumb on her right hand can you tell me where the thumbnail went to!
(In a previous post on these boards I have a point for point photo example to clarify this left hand right hand error).


'I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but it is my honest belief that the inside leg (left) on the MJK3 photo is a paint job, with a easily seen by the "lines of white on the inside of the upper left thigh"..to me anyway.
Finally, the "right leg" in the foreground is almost certainly painted over, to my mind.'

Regarding the inside leg (left) on mjk3 photo, those lines of white
on the inside of the upper left thigh are on the actual body as far as I can discern. A close up view indicates dark areas on the lines, so I go for scrapings of the flesh

'Finally, the "right leg" in the foreground is almost certainly painted over, to my mind.'

I'm happy to say I agree with you there - well almost anyway!
That is her right leg for sure. I wouldn't say 'painted' but I would say scratched or etched away for some reason.
The damage lines here show constant white in a close up view - hence damage to the surface of the photo.
That's why (above) I go for skin scrapings on the body due to the difference in appearances of those lines.

I hope I have helped to shed some light on these matters.
I use Adobe Photoshop and Autocad to assist in my studies as far as photos
and plan drawings are concerned.
These tools may put me at an advantage to what you maybe using - I don't know, I can only suggest a close look using the proper tools.

Again, Many Thanks
Best Regards
Steve

[sgh]

Hello sgh,

Additionally, if one looks at your red circle on MJK1, it is directly above the feather -like artifact on MJK3. It is not to be seen on MJK1..it surely would be because the angle of the knee on MJK1 compared to the height of the camera photo taken, showns the bed linen between the legs..

best wishes

Phil

Hi again Phil,
I think I've answered it in my last post but anyway, some of the folds can be seen but the remainder are tucked up tight to the inner thigh and mostly out of view.

All the best Phil,
Steve

[Hunter]

Hi Steve,

Some of your comparison markings on the two photos appear to be out of place to me. The small yellow circle in MJK1 should be where the large red circle is in MJK2. That would correspond to the hand - the object being bed linen or her garment.

The object circled yellow in MJK3 being her left knee... which may appear more pronounced because of the more downward angle of the photo.

Just tossing this out.

[Jane Coram]

Thanks to both Steve and Phil for putting both sides of the argument (I use that term in the nicest possible way of course ) I will watch the rest of the discussion with interest. I know it's not directly related to the surface of the table, but I suppose that if some think that particular photograph is a fake, then it's relevant. Hopefully the rest of the discussion can carry on around it and included in it.

I've been looking again, and I'm getting more and more convinced that plasticy looking thing at the bottom on the pile might be flesh from the abdomen. I can't think what else it could be. (Assuming the photo is genuine. Lol) I do have the casebook CD and will have a look tomorrow and see if I can find the photos on that old thread. They were really fairly horrific, but the thread has a warning on it and they have been up before. They are quite enlightening. Of course I'll credit the original poster.

Anyone else got any other ideas? Jerry?

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Errata]

ok.. here's a question.

and it pertains to both authenticity and trying to figure out angles

If the bed wasn't moved (and in MJK1 it certainly appears to be against the wall) where the heck is the photographer standing? and zoom options weren't to be had back then so he had have been holding the camera essentially in the ruins of her pelvis... do they pay police photographers enough for that?

But really. I'm curious as to where the camera guy was standing.

[Stephen Thomas]

If the bed wasn't moved (and in MJK1 it certainly appears to be against the wall) where the heck is the photographer standing? and zoom options weren't to be had back then so he had have been holding the camera essentially in the ruins of her pelvis... do they pay police photographers enough for that?

But really. I'm curious as to where the camera guy was standing.

Errata,
It would seem that the camera was placed on what looks like some rolled up bedding behind the right leg and the photo was taken blind as it were. Steve (sgh) has successfully demonstrated elsewhere that the bed was not moved between the taking of the two photos.

Steve,
And nice to talk to you again, though I stand by what I said earlier.

Phil,
As I told you when we met recently, I admire your approach to stuff here but no way is MJK3 faked. Retouched certainly but not painted or faked.

[miss marple]

American cloth

The table could have been covered in american cloth which was a glazed cotton used on kitchen tables and areas prone to spillage, much as vinyl tablecloths are used today. It could be canvas lined but the glazing or varnishing of the cotton would prevent seepage or spreading.
Miss Marple