Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

Optics is physics. It is a science. Poor understanding is a fact of someone who doesn't understand some part of science. For example, young earth creationists have a poor understanding of evolution and a complete inability to scientifically establish their claims.

I subscribed to the Lancet from my early teens, became a keen amateur astronomer, obtained good "A" Levels in Physics, Biology and Chemistry, and have a BSc from University College London. Science was my first love, I remain a scientist by instinct, and I am fully capable of dealing with scientific concepts, methods and data.

That pen-picture ought to tell you that I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to a Young Earth Creationist, nor someone "who doesn't understand some part of science".

You haven't demonstrated you understand optics.

This has nothing to do with optics, but everything to do with anatomy, and in comparing what appears in both the MJK1 and MJK3 photographs and how they map one onto the other.

You can't even draw where her left leg is in your rebuttal. You can't illustrate it.

How on earth can I draw the left leg, when it doesn't even appear in the MJK3 photograph?

As for civil - you have a short memory of things you were saying about me here just a page ago...

Saying that I possess more knowledge of some aspect of the case than you isn't uncivil in the slightest. Baseless accusations of "poor understanding" and "complete inability", on the other hand, are frankly rude.

[packers stem]

I personally don't understand how anyone can claim it's not her left hand.

Perspective ?
For it to be half a little finger that size the camera would have to be right on top of it .
You wouldn't have anything on the near side of the bed .
The finger clearly 'ends' so would have had to have been amputated previously and the curvature displayed would be impossible .
You only have to look at your own little finger to realise this .

Your belief is because you are under the impression you are looking at photos of a body , your logic is telling you it has to be a little finger .
The idea that it isn't means we are looking at a mock up .... and that's where I stand

[Harry D]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

[Sam Flynn]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Yes, but it's not her left thigh and knee that we see.

[Harry D]

Sod the left leg, I've long wondered wtf's going on with the right one?

[packers stem]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Your dummy shows zero fingers so I can't see the point in it .
You are suggesting it's a little finger because you have faith in what you are seeing is a photo of a dead body .
I mean Sam doesn't even believe it's supposed to be the left knee we're looking at .
There are many disagreements ..... why do you think that is ?
It's because it's BS
Try the thumb on those outside of ripperology and see how many would agree
Your overlay shows the rings that some claim to be arteries the size of drainpipes . ...... on the arm !

[packers stem]

At least your dummy overlay will hopefully make a few realise precisely what was going on where some claim to see an imaginary garter

[Batman]

I subscribed to the Lancet from my early teens, became a keen amateur astronomer, obtained good "A" Levels in Physics, Biology and Chemistry, and have a BSc from University College London. Science was my first love, I remain a scientist by instinct, and I am fully capable of dealing with scientific concepts, methods and data.

This is irrelevant. You can get a BSc in Computer Science in the College you referenced and they will never do a lab experiment or understand pure physics, chemistry, biology or optics for that matter, to get that BSc. I would debate if many of the BSc degree should actually be BEng!

That pen-picture ought to tell you that I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to a Young Earth Creationist, nor someone "who doesn't understand some part of science".

It told me you didn't understand optics. It told me you had a very basic understanding of angles. That's all. You don't understand how focal lengths can change the image.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif/330px-Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif

Done. There. Your "lines" easily falsified.

This has nothing to do with optics,

End of story on your understanding of image analysis.

but everything to do with anatomy,

Including anatomy, not only anatomy, because it's image analysis.

and in comparing what appears in both the MJK1 and MJK3 photographs and how they map one onto the other.

You didn't map anything. You drew lines. I mapped it in 3D.

How on earth can I draw the left leg, when it doesn't even appear in the MJK3 photograph?

How can her left leg not be in the photograph? That's her pelvic girdle on the bed. Her left leg is attached to it and in the photograph as is the right leg. You can even see her right knee almost if it wasn't so blurry.

[Batman]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Fantastic!

What I tried to do, got very close with, is right here.

That overlay utterly destroys any other interpretation of that image.

It's her knee.

Everything else a state of extreme denial without a shred of evidence to illustrate the other interpretation.

Harry ended that one fast.

[Sam Flynn]

It isn't her knee.

[Michael W Richards]

I like Debs , she's a fantastic researcher but there are points over which we will disagree .
This will be one .
If you look again at the pic the 'digit' comes to an end (complete with nail ) an enormous ,bent little finger doesn't cut it at all .
The little finger can not bend the way you want it to and there are no intervening objects

This is an interesting point, and I think I agree with the perspective that it may be a thumb. And not Marys of course. I could see a photographer lining up his camera for a shot across the bed from that small space between the bed and the partition wall..the space that has bedding packed down ..to make a stand for a camera?...and using his right hand to steady himself, he could be crouching out of sight, and using a bulb mechanism to take the shot.

He sightlines his angle, and ducks.

[Sam Flynn]

I'll skip over your belittling of my education, but it has been noted.

You don't understand how focal lengths can change the image.

Oh, I do! I also understand that focal lengths can't magic away the sizeable bolt of cloth that intervenes by quite some margin between the bottom of Kelly's left hand and her knee, and that changing focal length won't wrench her leg from the position it occupies in MJK1 such that it's only a few inches away from her left hand in MJK3.

End of story on your understanding of image analysis.

Belittling my capability to analyse, eh? Charming.

Including anatomy, not only anatomy, because it's image analysis.

Anatomy is very important, not least because one has to understand how her body parts are arranged in the two photographs. As to image analysis, I refer you again to the cheap and cheerful Gimp (not MS Paint) diagram I posted yesterday, which shows the "landmarks" in MJK1 that correlate precisely with the corresponding landmarks in the MJK3 image.

You didn't map anything. You drew lines. I mapped it in 3D.

You mapped it based on the belief that it is her knee we see in MJK3. That, in visual terms, is a circular argument.

How can her left leg not be in the photograph?

What little part of her left leg (specifically her thigh, not her knee) might conceivably be in MJK3 cannot be seen because it's partly or wholly obscured by cloth.

[Sam Flynn]

This is an interesting point, and I think I agree with the perspective that it may be a thumb. And not Marys of course.

The hand is in precisely the same configuration as Kelly's left hand in MJK1; the sizes, the angles, the disposition of the wrist and little finger are fully congruent in both photographs. Inasmuch as it can be ascertained, the hand in MJK3 appears graceful and feminine, to boot.

[J6123]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Exactly. It is her left hand, so there is no other conclusion to arrive at. It is the best illusion of a thumb I have ever seen, granted, but that's what it is, an illusion.

[Batman]

I'll skip over your belittling of my education, but it has been noted.

I didn't belittle it unless you mean I was right about some BSc degrees being more like a BEng and that's what you have. I suspect that because you didn't say what your BSc is. Anyway, I pointed out it was irrelevant to your argument and even BSc's can be something like computer science with no experimental lab work done at all. Instead of referencing yourself you should be referencing the sources of your ''lines''... and, no, invoking 'common sense' as an answer doesn't earn people a BSc., if you decide to go there. References are others!

Oh, I do! I also understand that focal lengths can't magic away the sizeable bolt of cloth that intervenes by quite some margin between the bottom of Kelly's left hand and her knee, and that changing focal length won't wrench her leg from the position it occupies in MJK1 such that it's only a few inches away from her left hand in MJK3.

Nobody can follow this. Nobody can even draw YOUR argument for you, including yourself apparently.

Belittling my capability to analyse, eh?

You 'belittled' you own analysis by claiming optics has nothing to do with image analysis and only anatomy. That is flat out wrong.

Anatomy is very important, not least because one has to understand how her body parts are arranged in the two photographs.

Nobody said it wasn't important. The overlays and mapping which we did and you didn't, incorporated female skeletons/body models in 3D and are all the corresponding points of interest in both photos. A single 2D (your lines) can't even begin to compete when we have enough data to do 3D.

As to image analysis, I refer you again to the cheap and cheerful Gimp (not MS Paint) diagram I posted yesterday, which shows the "landmarks" in MJK1 that correlate precisely with the corresponding landmarks in the MJK3 image.

We have seen your lines. Source for us a reference that uses your method for image analysis. You have not incorporated any perspective.

You mapped it based on the belief that it is her knee we see in MJK3. That, in visual terms, is a circular argument.

False. Demonstrably so. Her pelvic girdle and several points of it can be lined up with a female human skeleton/body. Pelvic girdles aren't knees are they.

When the 3D skeleton/body spreads it's legs, as referenced in the first MJK photograph, some perspective adjustment of focal length matches the image. Her knee appears in the exact spot we are pointing out is her left knee.

The fact other people are showing me others repeating what I did yesterday says plenty. That's called corroboration. You have none.