MJK2 & MJK3 Left/right & fake debate

[richardh]

Brilliant, Thanks Steve.

Richard

the link below allowed my to download as a zip I think issues 62-80


http://ripperologist.us10.list-manag...5dd14a5971hope that helps

Steve

[richardh]

I've taken a look at my 3D setup (resultant image below) and I note that the camera height between the two renders (MJK2 & MJK3) hardly changes. I can't give an exact measurement but the difference in height of the camera at the start and end of the animation is no more than 3 inches.

Strangely, the animation does look like the camera drops significantly as it pans from mjk2 to mjk3 but my setup shows this to be an illusion.

As far as I know.. and as far as I know has been checked..The tripod holding this type of camera did NOT have retractable legs. Therefore any photo taken on the other side of the bed must have been taken without a tripod somehow. .because of height of photo shown.

Even the sketch shows a tripod with fixed length legs.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard,

Whilst I appreciate your efforts and set up.. I have to say that in Your set up it MAY appear as an illusion.

It certainly doesnt in the two photos... but whatever.. it still doesnt equate With the fact that the tripod is on fixed length legs.

There is only one way of achieving a lower height.. taking the camera off the tripod..even three inches.. and hand holding it... or getting something to put it on.

By all known inventory.. there was nothing in that room the required height on which to place the camera onto.

So... seems to me that the fixed length tripod legs are a problem.


I dont see an illusion at all. Sorry.

With respect


Phil

[Geddy2112]

Was the floor level?

[Joshua Rogan]

Splaying the tripod legs out would also lower the camera height, wouldn't it?

[Geddy2112]

Splaying the tripod legs out would also lower the camera height, wouldn't it?

Yeah or they could have put it on chocks etc. Or did I read the MJK2 picture was taken from outside through the window or is that bull?

[David Orsam]

Simon Wood's plan shows what I am talking about, how the bed was moved away from the wall to allow the photographer in to take that smaller photo:



See "Room 13 Miller's Court" by Simon D. Wood here on Casebook.

As I understand Simon Wood's 2005 dissertation, Chris, he was saying that the position of the bed in that diagram related to the larger photograph, MJK1. Thus, he said: 'I have tilted the bed 10° away from the partition wall in keeping with its apparent position in MJK 1.'

Probably worth also noting that Simon Wood appears to have disowned his 2005 dissertation, telling Richardh on 24 August 2014 that he was going to send an email to Stephen Ryder 'asking him to remove my 2005 dissertation on Millers Court.' He said on the same day:

'MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.'

He claims that MJK3 was a 'prank'.

As far as I am aware he has not substantiated this assertion. In October 2015 he said he would include discussion of the matter in a second edition of his book but whether this will happen I don't know. Richard's fine work seems to suggest that Simon is wrong.

[richardh]

There would be enough floor space to take MJK2 (the main photo) with a tripod and I would suggest that the act of moving the bed and table away from the partition was so that the photographer could get that reverse view (MJK3) easier than struggling with the removal of the tripod and the balancing act of standing behind/above the 'propped-up' viewfinder.

So IF they moved the bed/table for that reason, they may as well move the bed/table a fair bit from it's original location and keep the camera on the tripod.

[Stephen Thomas]

I conclude that MJK3 is a real crime scene photo of MJK on the bed taken from another angle from MJK2, BUT the bed and table were, in all likelihood, moved between shots. The body, however, or, at least, the LEFT hand, remained in the same position/location across her abdomen, between shots.

Hi Richard

There's a thread here (or maybe it was on jtrforums) that discusses the idea that the bed might have been moved between the two photos, not that it matters a damn whether it was or wasn't. The originator who I believe was called SteveS drew lines between reference points on the two photos which showed that the bed had not been moved between the taking of the photos.

[richardh]

It will always be open to individual interpretation. I don't believe those two photos hold enough information to conclusively ascertain bed/table movement between shots. And like you say, Stephen, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
I will try to dig out that thread you mentioned Stephen. Am curious about those reference lines.

EDIT: Was it this thread Stephen?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480&page=2

Hi Richard

There's a thread here (or maybe it was on jtrforums) that discusses the idea that the bed might have been moved between the two photos, not that it matters a damn whether it was or wasn't. The originator who I believe was called SteveS drew lines between reference points on the two photos which showed that the bed had not been moved between the taking of the photos.

[Stephen Thomas]

It will always be open to individual interpretation. I don't believe those two photos hold enough information to conclusively ascertain bed/table movement between shots. And like you say, Stephen, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
I will try to dig out that thread you mentioned Stephen. Am curious about those reference lines.

EDIT: Was it this thread Stephen?
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480&page=2

No, it was a different thread Richard.

I'll have a look for it tomorrow.

[Stephen Thomas]

It will always be open to individual interpretation. I don't believe those two photos hold enough information to conclusively ascertain bed/table movement between shots. And like you say, Stephen, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
I will try to dig out that thread you mentioned Stephen. Am curious about those reference lines.

Hi Richard

I can't find the thread but the reference points are Kelly's left hand which is being discussed here, her left knee (which is not immediately apparent on the main photo due to the fact that her left thigh is totally obscured with that camera angle) and the rolled up bedding upon which the smaller camera was probably placed. On the big photo if a straight line is made between the bedding and the left hand it ends up at the back of the table. A line from the bedding through the left knee ends up at the front of the table. Now, assuming that the small camera was in the same position as the rolled up bedding, similar straight lines on the reverse photo end up at identical points on the table.

[Michael W Richards]

Its worth noting that MJK3 need not have been taken with a top or rear focus lens.....it could have been remotely activated using a squeeze bulb. Therefore, the space that exists created by the stuffed down bedding is sufficient for the image to have been taken.

[Geddy2112]

Dunno if I'm stating the obvious here but to me it's clear in the main picture (MJK1) the bed is not up against the wall anyway. Eeeek.

[richardh]

Whether it was the bed, the table or the bed & table that were moved, one thing looks likely - something WAS moved because the positions of the bed & table are different from each other between the two photos.

Dunno if I'm stating the obvious here but to me it's clear in the main picture (MJK1) the bed is not up against the wall anyway. Eeeek.