MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

Debra,
that thumb is in a position easily manageable by a real hand. I've been siting here positioning my own hands into all sort of odd tangents. I think both as you can those renders (left and right) show that either hand could very easily fall into those positions.

Stick your left arm out, palm up. bring your fingers in towards the palm, bend your wrist as close to 90% to your arm as you can, raise your arm bending at the elbow towards your face, mouth level is best, have look.

[richardh]

Debra,
that thumb is in a position easily manageable by a real hand. I've been siting here positioning my own hands into all sort of odd tangents. I think both those renders (left and right) show that either hand could very easily fall into those positions.

The trouble with Poser and all the other software that lets you manipulate figures and claims to be anatomically correct is that they don't have realistic limitations on the kind of positions someone can place a digit, limb or body in. Can a thumb really present like that? I once broke five fingers and bent them backwards on a model...just to be spiteful you understand.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Amanda/Richardh,

Just out of curiosity- that's a very clear triangle on the hand on the last photo put up (by richardh)

Would one of you be so kind and zoom in on it and show me the results?

Thank you kindly

best wishes

Phil

[richardh]

Thanks Amanda,
Unfortunately, the renders do not help the argument either way apart from showing that both opinions are equally valid.

[Debra A]

The trouble with Poser and all the other software that lets you manipulate figures and claims to be anatomically correct is that they don't have realistic limitations on the kind of positions someone can place a digit, limb or body in. Can a thumb really present like that? I once broke five fingers and bent them backwards on a model...just to be spiteful you understand.

[Amanda Sumner]

And here's the right hand in position:





Both the left and right hand can be manipulated to fit. But I'm still on the left hand side of the fence.

Thanks for that Richard. It was really clever.
So it could be either a right or a left hand.
We don't know.
I'm on the right hand side of the fence.

I find your work fascinating.

Amanda

[richardh]

And here's the right hand in position:





Both the left and right hand can be manipulated to fit. But I'm still on the left hand side of the fence.

[Debra A]

#356
A camera placed at the left would only capture the part down to the first joint and that arc of ? is also obscuring part of the little finger.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

That is low and spiteful.

Regards,

Simon

Yes, that's me. Utterly spiteful.

[Debra A]

There's this one that Stephen Ryder did too.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

That is low and spiteful.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 is hardly a replica of MJK1.

MJK3 simply took its physical coordinates from MJK1.

No, it's not just Phil and Amanda. There is absolutely no similarity between the two photographs.

Ask Monty to forward the PM I sent him. And please respect its privacy.

Regards,

Simon

You can't send it me? You never had any trouble contacting me when you wanted paswords for Gale!

[richardh]

Okay then,
Here's what all of us on the 'left hand' side of the fence are seeing. It's not the most accurate render and my shadowing could be better but it demonstrates the 'left hand' argument well.





And in the interest of fairness, I am now going to do the same using the right hand.
(it'll be on later - further on down the thread!)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 is hardly a replica of MJK1.

MJK3 simply took its physical coordinates from MJK1.

No, it's not just Phil and Amanda. There is absolutely no similarity between the two photographs.

Ask Monty to forward the PM I sent him. And please respect its privacy.

Regards,

Simon

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi All,

Here's a thought. And it's merely a thought.

The person[s] who produced MJK3 must have had sight of MJK1.

MJK1 first became public in 1894, when André Lamoureux published "De l'Éventration au point-de-vue medico-legal." It appeared again in public in 1899, when Alexandre Lacassagne published "Vacher l'Eventreur et les Crimes Sadiques".

MJK1 next appeared in public seventy years later, in 1969, in the Police Journal.

Most importantly—

MJK3 would mean nothing to anyone who had not seen MJK1.

So, aside from the unlikely idea that MJK3 was the brainchild of some jocular French medical students, it strikes me that it may have been something of an in-joke amongst those who knew the full strength of Millers Court and were on the official MJK1 circulation list.

Regards,

Simon

I think that is an interesting theory, and yes, one would have had to have known MJK1 to produce MJK3.

The in-joke among a certain group makes sense, or some re -enactment of some kind.
It fooled many, but as a serious forgery it seems very amateurish.
Have you any idea what the square box is...it looks a bit like an electric switch....

Amanda