Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

The left knee has moved.

A. No it hasn't. It's simply out of shot.

B. Why move it anyway, if there's nothing to see?

[DJA]

The left knee has moved.
It became higher in relation to the table's height.
Reckon your "mystery object" is part of Mary's chemise.
Have no idea what this has to do with OP.

[Sam Flynn]

Reckon I'll go along with Paul Begg on the bed being moved after the first photo of Mary Ann Kelly.

The only reason to imagine that the bed was moved is if one interprets the mystery object in MJK3 as the left knee. Once one realises that the "mystery object" is the bolt of cloth viewed head-on, it all makes sense and everything aligns perfectly. There's no reason to have the bed moved - or the left leg, for that matter, because that also would have to have been moved in order to get the knee into that position.

Another thing to consider. If some effort had been expended in order to get the left knee into shot, why do we see such little detail on it, when everything closer to us - and beyond - can be made out so clearly? The answer is simple: there's nothing of interest to see because that object is merely a bland piece of cloth.

Full disclosure. If you look at my early posts (pre-2009 or so), you'll find that I, too, used to think that the "mystery object" was the left knee. Then I thought it through.

[DJA]

Reckon I'll go along with Paul Begg on the bed being moved after the first photo of Mary Ann Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

The wider angle will cover her left knee.

The wider angle would also put the entire front edge of the bedside table in shot, but we don't see any of it.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth
You've made a somewhat schoolboy error with your geometric calculations I fear .
You seem to have forgotten that in order to place the camera and cameraman in a position to take MJK3 the bed and , as consequence , the table , had to be moved .
Comparisons between any assumed 'landmarks' are completely irrelevant

Why did they bother preserving the alignment between garter, mystery (not) object, the bedside table and and the viscera piled on it? To say nothing of moving the puffed up bolt of cloth that rears up so prominently between Kelly's left hand and her knee in MJK1, and which is, no doubt about it, visible from the reverse angle in MJK3.

Fact is, neither the table nor the bed was moved. The camera was almost certainly perched on that rolled up blanket (or whatever it was) behind Kelly's right leg, which would explain why the latter is so much in the foreground and slightly fuzzy in MJK3.

[packers stem]

Gareth
You've made a somewhat schoolboy error with your geometric calculations I fear .
You seem to have forgotten that in order to place the camera and cameraman in a position to take MJK3 the bed and , as consequence , the table , had to be moved .
Comparisons between any assumed 'landmarks' are completely irrelevant

[Batman]

https://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18886&d=1540882928

This can't be right because the opening angle doesn't incorporate all her right leg to her ankle. According to these lines it should be in the image but it is.

The wider angle will cover her left knee.

[Batman]

Never mind optics, have some visuals.

Optics involve visuals.

Also, we have visuals in 3D, which falsified whatever analysis you have tried to do in 2D (without optics). It shows your 2D claim was wrong. Like, say DNA showing the forensic scientist got it wrong with their pre-DNA hair analysis.

Your lines omit focal lengths and therefore can't incorporate perspective. That makes any analysis attempt weaker than one that incorporates perspective.

Also your claim is linear because you only have lines.

Unless there was an intervening mini black hole that gravitationally lensed the light from the knee into shot, the MJK3 photograph could not possibly have included Kelly's left knee.

Here we have more evidence that you don't understand that even Euclid had moved well beyond linear systems for image explanations like that captured by the eye or a drawing. Visual cones with lense curvatures producing curvilinear perspectives are what form on a picture, hence perspective.

https://i.imgur.com/QRlL94h.gif This demonstrates you are wrong. That model is anatomically correct. You haven't shown it is not anatomically correct by placing a model that is anatomically correct over it.

What is anatomically incorrect about the model in this exactly? https://i.imgur.com/QRlL94h.gif

You claim the above can't happen, but clearly, it is.

[Sam Flynn]

Never mind optics, have some visuals.

In MJK3, the "garter", the apex of the "mystery object" and the front part of the viscera on the table line up perfectly well, and this alignment is preserved in MJK1, as shown by the red line in the sepia image below, where the "mystery object" is clearly revealed as that bolt of puffed-up cloth.

However, if one connects the garter to the left knee in MJK1, the resultant (blue) line not only doesn't cut through the viscera, it completely misses the table by a considerable margin. If MJK3 contained the left knee, we should be able to see the entire front of the table and all of the viscera piled on it, but we don't.

Unless there was an intervening mini black hole that gravitationally lensed the light from the knee into shot, the MJK3 photograph could not possibly have included Kelly's left knee.

[Batman]

There are ZERO references in the scientific literature which support the claim that image analysis doesn't use the applied math of optics.

Euclid's Optics IS geometry. He did an entire book on it.

Newtonian Optics developed upon it.

History of perspective in mathematics

EYE = LENS

Even Euclid understood the eye is a lens and this means... optics need to be considered.

[Sam Flynn]

Having worked out how to get around my "no attachments" problem, here's something from page 2 of Euclid's geometry (and, yes, this is a geometric problem - not a pathological one, nor an "optical" one either). The red line indicates the rightmost edge of the MJK3 photograph, taking into account some of the other "landmarks" in both photographs: namely the visible portion of the right calf, the visible portion of the pelvic girdle, the visible part of the flesh and viscera on the bedside table.

And guess what falls approximately half-way along that red line? That's correct - it's the puffed-up bolt of cloth between Kelly's left hand and her knee, which appears precisely where that bolt of cloth appears in relation to the left hand in both MJK1 and MJK3.

Not only is the left knee outside the frame but, because it's barely raised above the mattress and projecting out towards us in MJK1, the left knee is even more out of shot than we think it is.

[Sam Flynn]

Is that what you asked for Harry?

I think not... and you won't be getting it either it seems.

I asked probably ten times already for Sam to even reference the tool/math he is using in his drawing in that link because it just looks like page 1 of Euclids geometry and nothing else. It doesn't even have a focal length. Looks nothing like an optics explanation. A bit of one maybe, at best, but nothing forthcoming there either, just himself referencing... himself.

More mockery? Your attitude stinks.

[Batman]

If you think I'm going to fiddle around on my phone in response to your jibes, you've got another thing coming.
That's untrue. I did so on the 28th October, albeit using a rough drawing I'd made some ten years back.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=520

Is that what you asked for Harry?

I think not... and you won't be getting it either it seems.

I asked probably ten times already for Sam to even reference the tool/math he is using in his drawing in that link because it just looks like page 1 of Euclids geometry and nothing else. It doesn't even have a focal length. Looks nothing like an optics explanation. A bit of one maybe, at best, but nothing forthcoming there either, just himself referencing... himself.

[Sam Flynn]

They could even trace the path on phone software paint tools.

If you think I'm going to fiddle around on my phone in response to your jibes, you've got another thing coming.

If they can post here, they can do it, but won't.

That's untrue. I did so on the 28th October, albeit using a rough drawing I'd made some ten years back.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=461313&postcount=520