|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 507
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:17 pm: | 
|
Caz, I just saw your post. I have been very busy lately, and have not followed this thread for a while.
(Besides, as Janie said, its officially twilight zone by now anyway)
Let me see if I can explain this thing about the measuring unit in a simple way. It is actually very difficult to understand, so I do see where you are coming from. (I needed to mull this over for some time myself!)
I establish a reference on MJK's face. That is my unit of measurement. If I use this same unit of measurement anywhere else in the picture, I must make it larger or smaller according to the foreshortening in the image. At the table that unit of measurement actually would appear larger, so I must make it larger. What I am doing is to create and use a ruler that I need to make bigger or smaller according to where I am in the picture!
If the head was on the table, it would look bigger, and my measuring unit based on that would then have to be made smaller if I was to use it on the bed. If not, then obviously the bed would measure as much larger than it actually is.
Did that make sense?
Imagine a ruler present in the picture. To use it anywhere else than where it actually lies would necessitate making it bigger if moved towards us and smaller if moved further into the picture.
Because that is how it would have looked to us if it was in those places!
Once I have the measurement amended for the foreshortening I then have to calculate what this unit ON THE COPY would amount to in real life.
So what is important here is the measuring unit and real size, not apparent size!
Hope this was to some help.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 29, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Glenn, you know I think the world of you, but unless you were there, you cannot know for certain what the object is. Your shrill insistence that those of us who can't see things the way you and others do are just plain wrong is not only getting old, but it's growing increasingly insulting. I am truly, truly sorry that I was not born with your eyes, but please, at least make some semblance of an effort at showing a little respect for someone else's point of view. I have tried to do so for you and the others with whom I disagree here and I would appreciate the same in return. Unless you happen to have become a deity without telling us, simply declaring something to be true does not make it so. Implying that people like Dan and I are fools because we cannot see things your way is not going to suddenly convert us to your point of view. In fact, it's quite likely to achieve the opposite effect. I'm not trying to be difficult and I still think you are a wonderful person and a real asset to Ripperology. I would just appreciate a little common courtesy when my views differ from yours.  |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Could the image resembling rolled-up blankets or cloths in the first image (behind the bed) actually be the "bolster" pillow (???) shown on the front of the table in the second shot. In other words, Bond was correct in describing the table as containing only flesh when he made initial observations. But when it came time to take the second photograph, the cloth object is removed to make room for the camera and is placed on the table. This does seem rather improbable, though. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
"Bond was correct in describing the table as containing only flesh when he made initial observations."
I don't believe that was the observation that was made, was it? All the postmortem report says is that "the flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table." There's nothing saying that's all that was on the table, unless I've missed something.
Dave |
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 512
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Dave,
You have not got it wrong. Some people argue as if Bond was describing everything in detail. He did not.
He misses some key features on the dissaray of the bedclothes for instance. Why? Because he is talking about the body and the body parts. He is not doing an inventory!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:10 am: |
|
Hi Antonio,
Why do you think the object is too big to be flesh? Where did this come from? Again, the second photo has an entire width from knee to knee... thus the flesh from knee to knee can be expected to be roughly the same size. If anything, the item on the table looks a little too small to be the flesh in question, but then we can expect that because items farther back in the photo will naturally look smaller, not to mention that the flesh is at a different angle on the table then the angle of the legs so takes up less space. To claim that the item is way too big is simply not accurate.
Furthermore, you claim: "Unfortunately, Dr. Bond notes are inaccurate and there are some gaps in them." What makes you think his notes are inaccurate? There's nothing about them that has been shown to be inaccurate.
Helge,
You claimed that "The table is large enought to make that pile of "flesh" so massive that it it will not fit on any woman". This simply is not true in the slightest. Your own measurements make the size of the object fit with the size of what the flesh would be.
You tell me to do some research, but so far all you've done is made some bad math calculations and ignored posts by a number of people telling you exactly what size the flesh area would be and how it lines up with the table size quite well. People using exactly your estimates have shown that the flesh would fit that area. Someone even got a table of that size and stood next to it and mentioned that it fits really well. I have a table right here about the same size and I can see the same thing. And you are telling other people to do research? Draw a rectangle with the dimensions you yourself came up with and then sit on it with your legs out to the sides. You'll quickly see that your claims that the item on the table is too massively large to be a person is simply preposterous. The one way for it to be "way too big" is if you think Mary was only three feet tall or shorter. The calculations you yourself gave simply do not support your claims.
You also said "Also, remember, if it is indeed flesh, what holds it all up?" Nothing holds it up other than itself. It's a slab of flesh, like meat you'd get from a store just from a different animal. It doesn't turn into a puddle of liquid and seep all over the place, it stays like meat. It's not propped up, it's just sitting there on top of itself. It's not stretched out and jutting high into the sky (again, this is a problem with your understanding of the dimensions involved), it's resting as a squat little lump... just like flesh would sit.
Furthermore, your claims of determining the amount of foreshortening in the photo and being able to calculate sizes of other things in the picture in comparison simply have not been supported with real math. Math is pretty simple. I did really well at math. If you have real math behind you, you should be able to explain it so that other people will follow. You'll excuse me if it still just looks like you are making things up out of thin air again.
Hi Glenn,
Stewart sent me the high resolution image. There is nothing on the object that looks like "stitches and seams" to me. What I do see, again, is a clear pattern of musculature in Mary's right thigh tissue that is obviously something organic and not how a pillow or bolster would look in that position. This musculature is not at all subtle, it is quite pronounced... and it appears exactly where the muscle tissue would be bent from hanging off the side of the table. Stuffed fabric doesn't do that that way.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4284
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Yes, I know you've received a high resolution copy and I must say I am amazed if you still interpret that as flesh or tissue.
I am sorry, but if you can't see the object is shaped as and wrinkles in exactly the same way a stuffed piece of fabric does, then I am lost. That is all I can say, and it is not a matter of personal interpretation. It is a bolster or a part of a large pillow. that's been tucked away over the table. It looks like any bolster does. Surely as a guy into graphic you must know what a bolster or stuffed fabric looks like? No offense, I am just perplex.
I don't quite get what you mean with the second part of your post, though. Why are you talking about Mar's right leg and the stuff hanging from the side of the table all of a sudden? What has this got to do with the particular object we are discussing? Or am I missing something? Or do you mean that the object we are discussing is supposed to derive from Mary's right thrigh? Because there sure aren't any muscles on the object in question. Please elaborate.
Hi Erin,
Usually I accept things to be results of personal interpretations but this is not such a case and it is not a matter of opinion - it is a bolster and it can not be anything else.
You see, when I talk about seams and stitches, I mean the object in the front, closest to us in the cut-out section, where you can clearly see the seams and the linear pattern following the folds and the angles, but the stuff lying on the table is clearly of the same material and wrinkles in the exact same way. They hang together and are one and the same.
As for Bond, people are trying to read things into his report that aren't there, and as both Dave and Helge have pointed out, we don't know exactly what it is he describes. The doctors were not as exact as they are in modern times. Take Killeen, for example, who counts all the stab wounds on Martha Tabram, for example, but fails to describe where all of them are - something that would have been seen as extraordinary conduct today. I know that Bond was more detailed and probably more correct than Killeen in many ways, but still.
There is nothing in Bond's report that in any way indicates that he refers to the particular object we are discussing, especially since there are other parts of flesh on the table anyway. And it was NOT his task to describe other things in the room, only the medical stuff and the physical nature of the dead woman.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 30, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Mike, Jenn
Yes inane.
Extremely inane.
I guess I am fortunate. My life is far from inane, maybe due to the fact I taking little if any part at all in this thread.
And for what it is worth, ITS A DAMN BOLSTER/PILLOW/NOT FLESH !
Monty
It begins.....
|
john wright
Sergeant
Username: Ohnjay
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
I can't for the life of me see what it matters whether it's a bolster or flesh, will it add anything to the understanding of who/why or what for. no-- so therefore this 2 year old argument is totally pointless.
so please, put your dummies back in and climb back into your prams and lets discuss something more germane to the case.
pissed off ohnjay |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Hi,
The relevence to the strong possibility that the object in question is kellys bed bolster is simply it would mean that when Mary was discovered her head was not resting on the item, and was draped over the table.
That would imply that Kelly did not customary use the head rest so the logical use for that item would be as a draught excluder.either to stuff into the broken window pane, or place across the base of the door.
The very fact that the object was placed across the table when photographed could indicate that kelly herself placed it there, but why would she if killed at night when the draught element would be needed.
But just consider that if she was killed in the daylight hours upon rising it is conceivable she removed the bolster from its night time use and placed it on the table before venturing out to be seen by the various witnesses, especially if used as a door draught excluder, and on returning to her room it was still placed on the table just before she was killed, that being in the position it was found.
A explanation for the relevance of a item that could be her bed bolster..
Regards Richard. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4285
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
That's true, Richard, but then there also is a possibility that it's been moved by either the killer or the police, more likely the former. After all, the killer did arrange some of the stuff on that bed anyway, so he might as well have been moving it during the process.
I guess we will never know. The crime scene is a strange mixture of organisation and disorganisation.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Mr. Samuelson wrote: “Dan, I would like to see where you have proved that my calculations are "completely false regarding the size". So far I have only seen an obvious failure to understand the principles involved on your part.”
>>Mr. Samuelson is at this point the 7th person pointing out that Mr. Norder makes false claims to have debunked or disproved other people’s propositions elsewhere on the web site, joining Mr. Nelson, Mr. Palmer, Ms Severn, Mr. Phillips, Mephisto and myself. Mr. Norder arrogantly demands respect from those of whom he has done nothing to earn it.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
Well Monty,
i'd stay well away from this thread then if I were you
I'd say more but this thread isnt the place for it
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Nope, I still don't get it.
You wrote:
I establish a reference on MJK's face. That is my unit of measurement. If I use this same unit of measurement anywhere else in the picture, I must make it larger or smaller according to the foreshortening in the image. At the table that unit of measurement actually would appear larger, so I must make it larger.
Since the table only appears larger, because it's in the foreground, and the head is further back, you must make it smaller to compensate for its artificially large appearance.
I was hoping for an explanation I could follow, for why you think you must make it even larger. But I doubt I will get one now.
I'll try once more and then I'll give it a rest.
Imagine if Mary's feet were right at the front of the photo, with her head right at the back.
You measure her head on the photo and establish your unit of measurement. You know the approximate size of her head from her reported height. Now because her feet are right up close to the camera lens, they measure on the photo, say, a whacking five times the size of her head on the photo.
Are you seriously telling me that you would have to adjust for the perspective by making the poor woman's feet even larger than they appear already? She wasn't Coco the Clown!
Hi All,
Regarding Stewart's photo, as it appears on Ivor's site, I really tried hard not to see them, but I have to tell you, those stripes continue on down, beyond the alleged bolster and into the dark area of the photo underneath and slightly to the left.
Love,
Caz
X |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Well obviously what you are seeing is a matter of personal interpretation or else we'd all be seeing the same thing.
As far as not following the talk about Kelly's right leg, I was explaining what the part hanging off the table is. It was quite straightforward.
Furthermore, your claims that Dr, Bond's report doesn't matter because there is other flesh on the table makes no sense. For like the umpteenth time here, the dimension of that table clearly show that the other items on it are nowhere near large enough to be the flesh that Dr. Bond clearly states is on the table. We're talking about the top of both legs, groin, buttock and abdomen. What you see on the right side of the table is not even a third of the size it would have to be, and some of it there is clearly not that kind of flesh at all, as it's long and stringy like interior guts instead.
David,
Proof was provided. Helge says the table is 20 inches but falsely claims that that means it's too big for the item to be the flesh from the thighs and the groin, when previously I had posted the dimensions of the length of a thigh and show that the object is not only clearly not too big but perfectly fine, while other posters have also done their own measurements by standing next to a table of the size in question and showing that things lined up quite well. This is yet another case of you ignoring clear evidence posted by multiple people in a misguided attempt to try to build up your reputation by tearing other people down. It doesn't work. People see right through it, and you just look desperate and pathetic. I mean, come on, what is this, grade school? You're old enough that you ought to be able to support your ideas with resaoned arguments instead of just calling people names.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Glenn,
"there also is a possibility that it's been moved by either the killer or the police, more likely the former"
Presumably, therefore, the killer removed it before the assault. If a "bolster" was under Mary's head during the attack, then would it not also have been "saturated with blood" as were the bedsheets? Given the ample evidence of haemorrhage on and around the bed, it would have taken a miracle for Mary's "pillow" to have escaped the deluge.
Even if Jack (or the Police) turned it upside down before placing it on the table, the "bolster's" underside would in all likelihood have also shown some sign of blood seeping across the fabric.
The only conclusions I can draw are that, either the "bolster" was nowhere near Mary's person during the murder, or it was a bolster made of some mysterious blood-repellent material (!), or it was not a bolster at all. I know which explanation I favour ;o)
Regards, Gareth |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hello Stan,
Even before my post appeared I could see that my initial estimate of 12 to 13 inches was wrong.
The fact is that in the picture the side of the table and Mary's head are pointing to different directions: they have different vanishing points.
After playing around for a while with 3d perspective charts I found that there was no easy way of calculating the head/table ratio so I have tried to solve this problem differently.
With some 3d software I tried to construct a perspective grid that has the same point of view and angle as the photograph. I used the headboard and the side of the bed as reference lines for my vanishing points.
Below the result:
So in this picture all squares are the same size. In order to find the size of a square I drew a straight (yellow) line from the top of Mary's head to her crotch, which would be equal to half her body length or 85 cm. This number divided by 16 (the number of squares from head to crotch) gives 5.3 cm for a single square. As the side of the table counts 13 squares, this would make it almost 69 cm or 2 foot 3 inches in length.
Kindest regards,
Martin |
Antonio Sironi
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Hi Dan!
Thank you for your reply. Let’s try to answer to your questions. In my own opinion, but I’m not a medical man, the object looks too big to be flesh. It’s simply a sensation. Its size looks incomparable to a human body. The same can be said about the shape of it. In addiction, by looking at the photo that kindly Stewart Evans share with us (and it is a first generation one) the object looks like a pillow of something of that kind.
About Dr. Bond’s note:
I do not know if you have read Scott’s book, but in his great book he pointed out that the doctor didn’t account for all the organs and some of them are not included in the list. The bladder (taken away in the case of Chapman) was not accounted for and this is only an example. I’m using this simple example just to explain that Dr. Bond was not exhaustive in his notes. In fact they are mere notes and not a complete post mortem examination.
Antonio |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi Martin,
Now I understood your 'square' system perfectly!
So, while your estimate for the table is larger than Helge's, I'm happier with it because it was calculated to take account of the perspective in a way I find logical, ie the squares only appear larger in the foreground, but represent the same dimensions as the squares in the background.
Thanks. I thought I was going gaga. 
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 299
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Martin,
That was a nice job!
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 683
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Martin,
I agree, great job........
Hugs
Janie
xxx |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 77
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
I'm not calling you names or ignoring evidence, Mr. Norder. I've made no comment on the material under discussion here. I'm merely pointing out what Mr. Samuelson said, and that it is the same as six other posters. Seven people have now indicated that you make false claims that you've provided evidence elsewhere when you haven't. More will likely do so in the future, I think.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Hi Martin,
Now, see, there's an effort that might get somewhere... I think you have the perspective off, as, again, the headboard doesn't appear to be lined up right with the rest of the bed, and the body orientation on the bed as you outline it doesn't quite match what Bond described, but I am not sure how much those would affect the overall measurements. Getting the perspective lines right would be a tough job either way. It's unfortunate the end of the bed and the line where the floor meets the wall aren't visible.
One problem with your measurements though is that if we use your grid to determine the depth of the room from the table to the wall using the figures you've come up with, it comes out only leaving about 2 feet for the entire rest of the width of the room, which needs to include the doorway into the room on the wall by the table and also any amount of gap between the table and door (which we know from the report that the door hit it when opened was not extensive, but I don't think it was nonexistent either) and also the distance from the door to the opposite wall (and the fact that they could reach in and unhook the latch means it was not extensive, but it also was not nonexistent either).
From that I think your calculation of the sizes of those squares must be off and too large. How much larger than reality they are I am not sure, and I doubt that we really can be sure without more details on the exact layout of the room.
Hi Antonio,
Well, I can't do much for your sensation that it's too big to be human flesh or not shaped right... I do think that second photo is rather confusing to people because it is such a close up and only somewhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the other photo that people get their scale off and misjudge the sizes... But, again, the pic is from roughly knee to knee taking up the entire width of the image, and that's also the size of the missing flesh, so I would argue that if anything the item on the table appears a bit smaller than it should be to be the flesh and not way too huge. What parts of that argument do you disagree with? Do you think that picture isn't a close up, or that it's not showing the space from knee to knee, or that knee to knee isn't the amount of flesh that was being discussed, or what?
And, yes, I will agree with you that Bond's report looks incomplete (and S. Gouriet Ryan makes, I think, a strong argument that it is not the whole report at all), but that's not the same thing as containing errors, as you originally stated. Nor is the missing info all that important to what we are talking about here because the info on the thighs, groin and abdomen flesh is not missing but spelled out fairly well.
Hi David,
So, what, you're keeping a list of people who falsely claim that I made false claims? I don't recall any reason why Natalie would be on it, but if you look hard enough I'm sure you can dig up quite a few more from the list of people who have been banned from this site. For example, you forgot that one guy from like four years back who said that "Dan Norder" was obviously a fake name for some other person who was out to get him (though I'm still kind of upset about not learning who he thought I really was), the ever cordial and gentlemanly Ivor Edwards and the lovable Mark Starr with his undeniable proof that Walter Sickert was a Satanist and so forth and so on. Whenever I think the board have gotten a little loopy and unfriendly lately I can just look back on that crowd and realize things aren't so bad right now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
N, Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
http://www2.evansville.edu/drawinglab/body.html
i just wanted to show that Helge's method was not flawed - according to this url he took the wrong denominator for the no. of heads per body height which should actually be 7 not 8 - this would gove a figure of 26 inches for table width which could go up to 28 if she had 6.5 head lengths to her body height. Helge can try and explain how he worked it out but i think 7 or sthg akin is the no. you need.
Bezzer. |
Helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Splendid job, Martin.
I still think my estimate are more accurate, though.(But then I am biased)  All in all, the principle we both use are actually pretty similar, only that I apparently never managed to explain my method as well as you did
The next logical step would be to transfer the known values to MJK2.
Helge
(and I really don't know why I'm still here) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
But Martin did the opposite of what you did, in terms of adjusting for the perspective. He made a larger square - where the table is - represent the same actual size as a smaller square where the head is. If you translated your method into squares, you'd end up with smaller ones in the foreground and larger at the back.
And no one has yet commented on my observation that the stripes are not confined to the alleged bolster, but continue beyond it, down into the darker area of the photo.
In other words, whatever it is, it isn't striped material.
Love,
Caz
X |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 655
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Actually, my method is far more accurate. HeeHee; just trying to goad you into coming back to argue with me. Wasn't that fun? You can't BS a BSer!
Stan |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Well you know what they say: a picture is worth a thousand words, so the best thing for me to do seemed to visualize the whole thing.
Anyway, I am glad that I gave you some peace of mind regarding this matter.
Hi Mike & Jane,
Thank you for your kind words. Even though it took me some time to find the right angle and distance of the grid in order to merge it as closely as possible with the photo, I would lie if I said I didn't enjoy playing around with this 3D stuff. I also noticed things in the photo that I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise. I had, for example, always assumed that the bed was against the wall, until I noticed that the horizontal lines in the partition (of the panels and the boards) were almost level and actually making quite an angle with the side of the bed. So it was quite instructive as well.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your reply. I'll try to adress some of your remarks concerning the position of the grid and the size of the squares.
First the size of the squares .Yes, I agree the position of Mary's body could be a problem, for Bond notices that the body is inclined to the left while I measured in a straight line from the crotch to the headboard. The same goes for the measurements of the room, although my own calculations suggest (assuming that the room is 10 feet wide) there would be almost 3 feet left rather than 2 feet. But I feel this still would be pretty small for both the door and the wall to fit.
I've less doubts, though, about the merging of the grid with the photograph. You mentioned the headboard. While I agree that the headboard is tilted backwards, it is not, in my opinion, tilted in any other direction. Let me explain why. Every line in this grid is either parallel or a right angle. So when trying to position my grid I had to find three lines in the photograph that could reasonably be suspected to be at a right angle with each other. At the same time these lines had be clear and long enough to notice any deviation from the lines of my grid. So for the horizontal plane I chose 2 lines: the top of the headboard under the railing and the lower side of the bed that seperates the bed from the floor and for the vertical plane the long split in the partition (where, judging from the panels nearby, there once must have been a door).
Now if all these lines would closely match those of my grid - and personally I think they do - than this would mean that they were necessarily at a right angle, for, as I said, every line in the grid is either parallel or at a right angle. Or to put it differently: if the headboard had been crooked or tilted (anyway other than backwards) it would have made a visible angle with the lines of my grid (like for example the red line of the bedside table, which is not quite parallel to the bed).
Hi Helge,
Thanks for the compliment.
Estimating the size of the table is of course always dependent on certain assumptions you have make about the size of things you compare it with and the accuracy of your measurements. So, of course, there is always a margin of error.
As to MJK2, yes that would be interesting. However, due to the tremendous amount of foreshortening it may be much harder to come up with reasonably accurate results. But if I have some spare time, I might give it a try.
Regards,
Martin |
Helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Caz,
Oh, how I wished you would see it my way!
No, I have been trying to tell everyone that my units was in fact made larger at the table to adjust for the perspective. This does not make the table (or feet!) larger than actual life, which is where you make your mistake. It only adjust for the fact that a ruler (and its units of measurements) would actually LOOK bigger on the table, while in fact my real physical ruler (that I use to measure things with!) stays the same!
It sounds as if I'm thinking backwards, but I'm not. If I did, my table would have been much smaller than it was in real life and I would have ended up with something like 30 cm's. Which it is not (a simple cut and paste of the head on the table will show that it must at least be larger than that). My result of 55 cm's is actually closer to Martin's, so that should be indicative.
The principle involved is the same, only Martins method is much more visual, and easier to follow. But one thing I noticed is that it does not follow the actual wall of the room (there is some space between the wall and the bed), and, as Dan correctly points out, it kind of "uses up" too much of the known dimensions of the room.
That is indicative that the actual values should be somewhat smaller, closer to my result, IMO.
In fact, I still think my estimate is just about right. But I have given up explaining why
Helge |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
And I have given up trying to understand your explanation. 
But Martin seemed to understand and agree with my concerns, and produced his own figure that adjusted for the perspective in exactly the way I was expecting.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Now what about those stripes, people?
(Message edited by caz on December 09, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
The "item" seen on page 133 of Robt.McLaughlin's book is displayed in a manner in two ways which would appear to support the "pillow/bolster" theory...with my two eyeballs.
This item is seen hanging off the table with the "tip" slightly pointing forward, and not straight down. This indicates that material or matter within the item was sufficient to suspend it slightly without "sagging" because the mass of the material was equally proportioned throughout the "item".
The other factor is the rear of the "item". Look at the line on the table. Its contoured on the edge as it sits without gore and blood and straggly matter hanging off of it.
Zarathustra:
Of course, not everyone agress with Dan on matters. You don't need to go to Alcorn A&M or Hartford C.C. to figure that out. I don't agree with some of his conclusions either...in fact more than a few. Not that that matters,but he and I are usually found in the same sentence when you go on a tangent wailing in the wind.....
Your increasing reliance on "using" people's differences of opinion as some sort of salvo against Dan is pretty lame...rather whiny..and somewhat feminine [ no offense,chicks ]. If Dan feels or YOU feel it is flesh or a duffelbag full of cats....then thats your opinion. I think we can live with it.
You continue to live up to the low expectations,character wise,one would expect from a frustrated theorist... You want people to be part of your "jihad" [ or "ji-hardon" ] against Dan. All Dan would have to do to get you off his back is mention A?R in a remotely positive way....and then we would have Pax Radkonia. He'd be removed from your list-of-people and things-to annoy today....and you know it.
And besides...what the hell do you care anyway? Isn't it a Nietzchean maxim that "the greatest folly in life is to try to help others that won't help themselves .."? What a waste of time and 40 grand,when you didn't pay enough attention to old Freddy's teachings in the first place.
You've already solved the case....back to the cave Zara..and subscribe to Ripper Notes.
A public service message for the benefit of people that come to the Casebook site and are given the impression that Dan Norder speaks for everyone or that Dave Radka speaks for anyone other than himself. |
Helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm not staying up to date on any thread here anymore, nor do I participate in any discussion as such. I simply do not have the time nor health to do that. Just for the record
I just wanted to mention that I have submitted MJK1 to analysis by forensic software, and that the preliminary results are quite promising (for me that is, wink wink, nod nod, know what I mean?).
What I thought might be interesting to know is the following result I got from Mr Jens Vedel from 3D Photo (Denmark) Below is a representation of his interpretation of paralell lines in the photo.
I need not remind you that two of these lines were in fact used in my calculations, and that I was challenged upon whether they were paralell or not.
For the record I did not reveal any of my methods or any reference lines I used to 3D Photo. So this is in fact an independent opinion.
Well, I trust the professional opinion of the people of 3D Photo, so I guess the lines are indeed paralell! And that should prove the validity of my method at least this far.
Caz,
I still maintain that in principle mine and Martins methods (if done correctly) are quite similar, even though my math is harder to follow. The reason is that I use only the barest of necessities to come to my result, in order to be as accurate as possible. My method is dependent on only four things.
1) The identification of two parallel lines within the image.
2) The measuring of relative sizes in the photo using the parallel lines as reference.
3) Establishing a reference lenght of a known object (I used the head)
4) Understanding how to use basic math to translate the relative sizes into real sizes.
I have spoken to several people better versed in math than I am, and all agree on my method. That is not to say I am correct, but so far I cannot see why I should not be.
The counter arguments are based on thinking I make things even bigger than they appear, while I still think I am getting the real measurement of the real thing, taking the perspective into account.
Neither you nor I am stupid, Caz. I just don't know how to explain things better than I allready have! Sorry about that.
Martin,
I think you are wrong in placing the corner of the room where you did. There is actually some room between the bed and wall.
Also, your method introduces the need to understand exactly such subtleties of the room. My method "does not care" where the walls are. Neither does it care how the perspective changes because of the focal length of the lens used. It cares only about what is directly in the vicinity of my reference lines.
This was why I chose that method.
I still think your effort had much going for it, though!
Helge |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
But according to me in this photo no corner of the room can be seen at all! Look at the horizontal lines of the panel and the boards of the partition, left and right of the bedpole. They are level or almost level, which suggests, to me at least, two things.
One, that the photographer had positioned his camera a right angle (or almost so) with the partition, and, two, that the bed made an angle with the wall of approximately ten degrees (measuring the degree that the lines of my grid make with those on the wall).
As I explained to Dan, for the horizontal plane, I used the bed, not the wall as my reference, so my grid is lined up with the bed. This is what I wrote.
Every line in this grid is either parallel or a right angle. So when trying to position my grid I had to find three lines in the photograph that could reasonably be suspected to be at a right angle with each other. At the same time these lines had be clear and long enough to notice any deviation from the lines of my grid. So for the horizontal plane I chose 2 lines: the top of the headboard under the railing and the lower side of the bed that seperates the bed from the floor and for the vertical plane the long split in the partition (where, judging from the panels nearby, there once must have been a door).
Now as to your photo, I think you have a problem.
I was so bold as to trace your lines leading to the right vanishing point all the way to the horizon and this is what I found.
So not only do you have different vanishing points, you have different horizons as well. This would, of course, be impossible in a single picture.
So what is the cause?
My grid suggests that none of these lines, and in particularly those leading to the right VP are entirely parallel to each other and that the right VP would have be located much further to the right (in my estimate probably three times as much).
Regards,
Martin |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
I have no problem with your maths, only the way you used your figures to arrive at a real life measurement for the table.
You measured the head and table on the actual photo and used those figures in your calculations. Am I right so far?
If so, imagine the table had been at the back of the photo and the head where it is now, and your table measurement correspondingly smaller than at present.
Would you have reduced the factor used for the head in order to calculate the table's actual size, taking the perspective into account?
Bear in mind that in both cases your final table size must be exactly the same, wherever it had been in the photo.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 13, 2005) |
an interested bystander
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
The lines used in the picture above to find the vanishing points are not parallel. The mattress is obviously not parallel to the frame of the bed and nobody knows if the table was absolutely parallel to the bed. The same goes for the head of the bed and the table. It's no wonder there are two horizons. |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Hi,
I never like to get into arguments but Dan Norder's assertion that the 'second' Mary Kelly photo was taken with the bed against the wall as in the 'first' photo is totally ludicrous. That he believes that Bow is 'several miles' from Whitechapel (William Bury) or that Dieppe is in the South of France (Sickert) I can live with, but as an experienced photographer I will say that the only way that the photo could have been taken as he says would have been for the photographer to have been a cartoon character who was run over by a steamroller, camera and tripod and all, on Dorset Street who was then carried into Miller's Court and stuck in the gap between Mary's bed and the wall to take the photo. Please read the 'sister' thread here regarding Simon Wood's dissertation, particularly the posts by RJ Palmer which help explain the true sequence of events regarding the movement of the bed. As to what else the 'second' photo shows, it shows without a doubt that the 'bedside table' is oblong and not square as it appears on the main photo and therefore may have been the 'dining' table in Kelly's room. As to the pillow/vagina and surrounding areas controversy I might just have to do a Photoshop cut and paste merge if no-one else is brave enough to try.
Best Wishes. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Hi Stephen,
Hrm... So you start out by bringing up unrelated errors in two out of thousands of my posts (yes, the count currently there is just over a thousand, but prior to that I was registered on the old boards and posted unregistered on the new ones for a while), ones which I already admitted and that came from simply taking some other people's words for things when I (again, admittedly) shouldn't have. But as you know from those threads, I accepted those two mistakes and am grateful for having them pointed out to me, which is uncharacteristic of many who post here who fear being contradicted. To claim that I believe them now after I already said that I don't is highly deceptive, especially as they don't relate to this thread at all... other than a rather transparent attempt to try to get people on your side under false pretenses.
So, yeah... already you're off to a great start...
As far as to the idea that you as an "experienced photographer" know that the bed had to have been moved, that opinion is directly contradicted by any number of professional photographers consulted for articles both in old issues of Ripper Notes (long before I had anything to do with the publication, by the way) and Ripperologist (as one example, I just read John Stedman's article "Rediscovering Room 13" in the June 1997 issue last night).
You mention the photographer and his camera and tripod having to be run over with a steamroller to fit behind the bed. Indications are that the camera used in that shot was a smaller, handheld one that did not require a tripod and was just sat on the edge of the bed (right where the bundled fabric is visible in the other photo) supported by leaning up against the wall. This is supported by the fact that the second photo is physically about a third or so of the size of the other photo -- clearly either from a different format camera or an image that was cropped quite severely for unknown reasons. This is also covered in the articles I mentioned previously and in Rob McLaughlin's book The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but if you are trying to claim certainty there and insult anyone who disagrees with you, you are contradicted by several professionals in the field.
And, yes, I read both Simon Wood's totally bizarre dissertation (one which was thoroughly disputed by those responding to the thread about it) as well as RJ Palmer's response. RJ once again seemed to have been pulling things completely out of nowhere in his arguments, with conclusions that are not just unsupported but directly contradicted by the evidence.
Also, I'm not sure why you are arguing that the table was not square. Of course it's not square, it's a rectangle. It doesn't even look remotely square-shaped in the photo. If someone in this thread was arguing it had equal dimensions on all sides, I missed it, and they would be obviously wrong.
By the way, for someone who claims he doesn't like to get into arguments, you sure have gotten in some rather rude jabs in your short posting period here on these boards. You had a couple elsewhere I didn't bother to respond to as they were jumping in to lend support to RJ and that little gang of posters who are strongly against anyone who dares to try to reign in their fllights of fancy when they don't fit the facts. Normally I recommend that guests who want to stick around as respected posters spend a little time reading prior threads and, yes, books and magazine articles before jumping in to state things as fact that contradict pretty much all the respected sources on the topic.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
"Normally I recommend that guests who want to stick around as respected posters ..."
These posts by Dan Norder are becoming more and more common, as he tries to drive away opposition to his barmy ideas. Is Dan Norder now the self-appointed guardian of what deserves respect? Are the people posting here (many of them who have been here longer than Dan Norder) happy to allow him to make this forum an extension of himself and Ripper Notes?
I recommend that anyone who wishes to see a good example of how Dan operates, merely take a scroll through the recent "A Little Help With the Time of the Murders" thread, paying close attention to Dan's ever-increasingly shrill responses to another poster who won't bend to bullying, and dares to question the reality of a Ripper Notes article. But don't take my word for it. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Also, I have seen no indication that Dan Norder is out for "the truth." I see him as a fellow with a strange and unhealthy zeal for debunking, and he will twist reality any which way but loose in order to achieve it. I will give an example down on the Tumblety thread in a moment.
RP |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
I have received an email asking me what about Dan Norder's above post has 'narked' me. Here it is.
In response to Mr. Thomas' post, referring to the Simon Wood thread, Mr. Norder wrote:
" RJ once again seemed to have been pulling things completely out of nowhere in his arguments..."
This is complete dishonesty on the part of Dan Norder. Go back and see for yourself. This is precisely the sort of ugly slur that is threatening to ruin the integrity of these message boards.
As a matter of fact, I based my suggestion that the foot of the bed was pulled away from the wall based on the eye-witness testimony of Walter Dew. I gave my citation in full:
"On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman..." --Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen.
oblique, a. 1. Having a slanting direction or position; declined from the verticle, or from the horizontal. (OED)
Not that it matters in the bigger scheme of things, but Dew said quite plainly that the bed was originally angled. We don't know in what order the photographs were taken. Whether I'm right or wrong is of no consequence. I can live with that. What's more important is the intellectual atmosphere of this forum, and whether healthy discussion can exist without these sorts of shenanigans. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
I need to go and count to ten
or maybe twenty now.
or lie in a darkend room
or have a pint
or all of the above.
then i will email you back.
Like i say count to ten, darkened room, pint, email you back.....
1...
"Does your granny always tell ya that the old songs are the best? Then she's up and rock 'n' rollin' with the rest?"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 901
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
RJ,
Whatever the merits of the arguments batted around on this thread, basing a point on Dew's memoirs is always a dodgy thing. His account of the Ripper investigation is full of errors (e.g. that Thomas Bowyer was a young man) and we don't have anyone's word but his (50 years after the event) that he was even in Millers Court that day.
Don.
PS: Make it 10 pints Jenni and then count to 1.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
10,
Now RJ,
you know I like you don't you? So i will keep this brief.
So let me just say this even if that was what I was asking you - or was what I meant, when I ask someone something in a private email I expect the response to come back in the same format.
that is the point of asking something privately.
Should this need to be spelt out.
mainly things happen in certain ways because i have thought about it.
Geez
Jenni
"trala-la-la-lala-la-la-lalal-la!"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
maybe i should have counted to a hundred.
"trala-la-la-lala-la-la-lalal-la!"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Jennifer- No offense, but I don't take public squabbles to private email; I prefer everything out in the open so what is actually stated can be verified.
Don - Lovely. But might you also recall that Dew's memoirs are also full of confirmable accuracies? (Squibby, etc.) Or doesn't that matter? The 'garbled memory' card (one of the 10 Maledictions of the Cynical?) will always be pulled out one's sleeve on these sorts of occasions, no? To my knowledge Dew is the sole eyewitness who bothered to mention the position of the bed, and he tells me it was at an oblique angle. If a man tells me the flower pot was balanced on the lampshade, I tend to believe him pending further information. My grandfather told me of a polar bear he saw standing on an iceberg while crossing the ocean to fight in Word War One. He told me this in around 1990, so the memory was over 70 years old. I rather thought it might have stuck in his mind, but no doubt he was going senile.
I might merely note with interest that Dew's undoubtedly garbled memory of the unsual position of the bed just happens to bolster (dare I use that word?) the "unsupportable" belief that the photographer standing by the wall didn't own a Spiderman suit.
But of course, whatever citations I chose to use was hardly the point, was it? I was accused by your friend Dan of "pulling things completely out of nowhere." Such is the low view of eye-witness testimony in this day and age, eh, that it is now relegated to "nowhere land?"
You see, that's one of my problems with the cynical, Don. I don't support misinformation, forgery, or fraud. Correcting such things even serves it purpose...though I think its purpose tends to be a lowly one. It just that the Cynical tend to become increasingly indiscriminate about about what constitutes "nonsense", and the extreme examples of the type (such as Dan Norder) seem to be even utterly incapable of seeing the difference between out and out lying, and what others call inference, hypothesis, and just plain ol' fashion healthy speculation. RP |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 902
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
RP,
If you have a problem with Dan Norder then address him directly, as indeed you did previously.
Regardless of the participants, I would have made the same point. As far as the Squibby story is concerned, that has been discussed at length on another thread, but to my mind there remain curious differences between the newspaper accounts and Dew's. That Squibby was chased by a mob is undeniable, much as is the fact that someone was found dead in number 13 Millers Court. It is the possibly gratuitous embellishments to both accounts in the memoirs that must be approached with caution.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Judith A. Stock
Detective Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
RJ, whether you like things in the open or not, Jennifer obviously expected her e-mail to you to be treated in confidence, and, by answering her on these boards, you failed her trust. Failures of that sort tend to be remembered long after the actual missive is forgotten. A shame, but pertinent, I think.
Actually, though, following this thread has been a major hoot for me......sort of reminds me of the argument about angels and pin heads........not only does no one know what all this sturm and drang is about, but no one cares, either!
Guess I'm in my Scrooge mode again, so I apologise for this in advance. I apologise to any and all who will write to tell me "butt out", "you have your head lodged", "you're missing the point" or any other thing.......I probably should butt out, I probably do have my head lodged, and I probably am missing the point! BUT... Stephen kindly lets us use these boards to voice our opinions, and you've just gotten mine. So save your finger muscles, have a pint, and go read a good book. Or maybe you could just all agree to diagree??? Nah......
Cheers to all......Caz, Jenni and Dan...especially to you three; have a very happy Christmas and a great new year.
Judy |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
just a helpful little snippet of information:-
1888 - The name "Kodak" was born and the KODAK camera was placed on the market, with the slogan, "You press the button - we do the rest." This was the birth of snapshot photography, as millions of amateur picture–takers know it today.
Yours, etc, etc.. |
Helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Dan,
I absolutely agree that the second photograph was taken as you describe. I have tested that, and it works just fine. I also have talked to several photographers, and they also interpret it this way.
Interested bystander,
It is actually quite possible to have two horizons in a picture, actually Dan proved that in one of his illustrations in an attempt to disprove my calculations.
Martin,
Your observation is astute. I was, however, fully aware of the fact that we have two horizons and different vanishing points here. That is not impossible, however. Obviously. Because that is clearly what we have
It is not a problem (and certainly not mine!), because this is what we got. The difficult part is to understand why.
The people at 3D Photo also commented on that. And yet that last image was theirs, not mine. And they still talk about parallel lines. Actually it was stated specifically that the two horizons was NOT due to any of the lines NOT being paralell.
(And just to clarify, they are parallel IN PAIRS only)
And herein lies one misunderstanding. It does not actually matter. It is actually only under some circumstances that we have only one horizon in a photograph. Those circumstances are obviously not met in this photograph.
Cameras use optics. Those optics distorts perspective in a calculable way. But obviously this can only be calculated if the optics are a known factor. Here it is not.
Thus we cannot assume the photograph follows the optics of normal human vision, or some specific artistic (as in painting) "standard" perspective.
Although, of course, the human eye is also optical, and if you hold two cubes up in front of your eyes you will notice that there in most cases (depending on orientation) in fact are NOT only one vanishing point!
We could clearly calculate this effect if we knew the optical characteristics involved. But, as I said, we don't know the camera used. We don't know the focal lenght of the lens, and we don't know the aperture.
The trick to overcome these unknown factors is to use only parallel lines lining up into the SAME horizon to determine the relative difference in size. Because such paralell lines will show the actual perspective involved regardless of the parameters that gave that perspective.
That sounds more complicated than it is, I know.
Thus if we know the size of the front board of the bed at one spot, we can calculate the size at another spot (obviously we know it is the same, but you get the point) by measuring the relative (on photo) difference between the top and bottom lines (edges) of the board. This is the same as I did only I used the table and bedhead "lines".
Since such paralell lines "automatically" incorporate the combined effects of all possible variables, we are on safe ground.
However, if we MIX measurements from different lines that are NOT paralell to EACHOTHER, we're in a fix.
Did that make sense?
Caz,
Thanks for your persistence! Yes, you are right. Going "the other way" means dividing (or reducing). This does not reduce the size of anything in "reality", it only takes into account that my "internal ruler" becomes (appears) smaller or larger in different "places" in the photo.
I'm sorry that I am so clumsy explaining this, but it is pretty contrary to intuition, I admit!
Helge |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Many thanks for your long and rather graceful dissection of my ill-mannered post earlier. My comments about you were completely uncalled for and I apologise sincerely and unreservedly. I was as they say over here 'bang out of order' and I stand corrected.
Best Wishes. |
N.Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
if we restrict facts to that which we can see with our eyes we'll never get anywhere. There are facts which are based on logic and only become disputable by those who can't see or follow the logic. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
