Russ Connelly

I am not sure if it is Senator or not. However, the object the man is looking at certainly is the correct colour shape and size for a Minox camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox. Judging by his fascination with the object it looks like Ruby has passed it to him to hold whilst he combed his hair.

Apologies if this has been posted before but I found this short video footage of Jack Ruby from 1960 engrossing. Does anyone know who it is standing with him? Some of the comments are suggesting it is George Senator. https://flashbackdallas.com/2017/12/07/newly-discovered-footage-of-jack-ruby-1960/

Hi Vanessa, I'm sure you are right. There must be someone on here who is competent in the art of upgrading the Prayer man frame. Unfortunately, it's not me. If you haven't read "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T. Phillips, about the computer work of Tom Wilson, i recommend it. (It's available on Amazon.) If, as I believe, Tom's system works as he said it did, then he has shown the problems with the Zap film, the autopsy photos, the Moorman polaroid photo and others. Been working on this for a while and I just don't think there is enough image data to bring out features of this person I'm by no means an expert at enhancement yet I've put a decent amount of time in learning and trying. As you say, maybe a better source image DJ As far as I am aware, if the data isn't present in the original image in the first place then it is my understanding that it can't be brought out or enhanced. Any other 'enhancement' would just be adding data to the existing image and if we are going to do that, we may as well paste Oswald's head directly onto the image. I do however think the figure depicted most certainly 'could' be Oswald, he appears to tbe approx the correct height and build, similar hairline, dark shirt, etc. My first impression also was that the figure was removing or replacing a lid on a bottle...

This is a great thread and very informative. I have always had the same thoughts re the presence of the scope - if it was easier to fire without the scope then any experienced shooter wouldnt have had the thing anywhere near his set up... the presence of the scope however also provides the Commission report with some nice reconstruction close ups of a mock Kennedy (magnified) which makes the shot look much easier than it would have been minus a "quality" scope. Also, from reading about this alleged shooting feat for many years it always appears odd that there can such an apparent divergence of opinion from firearms experts:- On one hand there is the opinion that this would be an extremely difficult feat given the various factors (quality and set up of weapon, firing position, moving target, cross winds, gradient, distance, etc) not to mention the planning, discipline, skill to make the shots, not to mention the cool headedness required to miss completely with your free shot before achieving two almost perfect hits. Then there is the difficulty that the Commission appointed experts had in replicating the shots with the scope as has been pointed out. On the other hand you have others saying that this was an easy shot, from close range, slow moving target, more than capable rifle in the carcano, etc... there doesnt seem to be any middle ground?

Hi John, I also live in the UK and I assume that you recorded this from from the TCM Channel from a couple of weeks ago as I did. I watched the film last week and one of the most interesting scenes, from my point of view, is the sequence at around the hour mark in the movie where the assassination team visit Dealey Plaza. They appear in the film to be given access to a number of locations including the Book Depository, the County Records building and the Dal Tex building. There is a fascianting overhead helicopter shot which pans around Dealey Plaza from above and provides an excellent perspective on the scale of the area for someone who has never been there. I found this whole sequence to be fascinating given that the film was made just 10 years or so after the actual event. One other sequence which stood out was the shooting sequence which portrayed 4 or 5 hits, with rear shots coming from both the Book Depository and the County Records building.

Why not, fishing is fun. Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'. Aren't we talking about two different effects here: 1) That if somehow, enough light was projected down through the rifle scope and projected onto the environment within its path (Dealey Plaza) - that anyone photographing within this environment may have picked up the resulting oval of light projected by the scope somewhere within their photographic image, or at an even bigger stretch onto the film itself within their camera. 2) That a reflection of a camera operators eye may be projected onto a film surface via the camera lens optics (which could only happen using a reflex camera where the eye is actually looking at the same optical lens which is used to project light onto the film). In the first instance, even if we could distinguish any ovals of light, would it not be impossible to distinguish which came from which camera, scope, pair of binoculars, telescope, etc of which there may have been many pointing at the motorcade throughout Dealey Plaza during those few seconds... In the second instance, the camera operators eye might be reflected onto the film if the camera was a reflex camera...but what would that tell us anyway apart from that someone was looking into the camera when they opened the shutter...

+++++++++++++ With regards to locating the distance from a photographer to an object in a photo, while initially daunting, may possibly, as many such things do, turn out to be simpler than one may think. Still, an objective comprehensive attitude is important and sometimes good comes out of the seemingly impossible. At the moment it's collecting all the variables and analysing them, ascribing them an error margin, then using the worst relevantb error margin to make a statement about whether it is of any value. That process is difficult. Once attained, it may be 'self evident'.[/i][/size] jd It seems to me that there are three main issues with a number of sub issues Astronomic - essentially knowables The Image under scrutiny - largely likely knowables Lines of sight - knowables The Camera - largely likely knowables The formula may be complex, figuring it out may be so too. Once verified (if attainable) very precise and universally applicable. ???. +++++++++++++++ I agree that sometimes things are more simple than they seem and would endorse the view that potential problems should be tackled and explored rather than ignored. As you say, once verified, such data would be very precise and universally applicable. But to point out one example, in terms of solar calculations, the NOAA website states that its solar calculator is based on the algorithms of Jean Meeus which are accurate to within 1 minute for locations +/- 72 degrees latitude and within 10 minutes outside of these latitudes - these error margins being due to atmospheric conditions which are local and constantly changing... http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/calcdetails.html Whilst this may make it more difficult to reconcile 'absolute' timings, perhaps the overall approach could point out any discrepancies in the claimed positions of cameras...such as Altgens for example...

I have to concur with your view Frank...I have limited experience with photogrammetry but getting back to the topic point - any attempt to try and calculate with any degree of accuracy, the exact time (to the nearest 10 - 30secs) in November 1963 when the sun shone on a given surface (the Nix camera lens) will definitely introduce error margins which may render the effort redundant... What we know - to the nearest 60 secs or so - is when the shots where fired and when certain other events occurred ...but what we can't ever nail down, is the relative timings of said events to each other (i.e. the first shot, LHO exit from the TSBD, the time on the TSBD roof clock, LHO hailing taxi, etc, etc)... The accuracy we require is probably beyond us - for example, the earths orbit around the sun is not consistent and is subject to slight fluctuations which could introduce certain error margins which cannot be rounded down to a degree which can challenge currently proposed timings...

You may be on to something here... I need to ponder a bit on what you've written, but I find the ideas intriguing. Thinking out loud for a moment: Motion blur is tricky, because we don't have all three axis of motion available to us. Rotation might prove to be more revealing. Also -- we need to look for variances in the shutter speed as well as the frame rate. Frame rate has been used to "timestamp" the events. Time also passed while the frame was held open. I'm sure there is some variability to this -- after all, it is a mechanical contraption at work. It may, however, be more regular than frame rate. I don't know if anyone has researched this aspect of the film cameras involved... (my italics, let's see) The three axis issue may not be as elusive as you reasonably suggest. Back to it later. _ What's your thoughts on this (musings derived from a tangent of the convo Craig and I were having yesterday) : In the Towner film there is an excised frame. If one looks at the preceding and following frames one sees a reflection that increases in luminosity and then decreases and it seems reasonable to me to assume that this frame was excised because at that moment in time the sun (which is in a known, particular position at any time, anywhere) overexposed the frame. Therefore using standard astronomical, survey, navigational techniques one may be able to say exactly, perhaps even to the second (give or take a reasonable error margin) when that frame was exposed. Then the implications are enormous. Just think about it. Exactly what time lets say 12.33 is. 12.33? is it 12.33.01 or 12.33.59?. Step that through the timing of events such as the time it takes to get to the lower floor issue, or in this case use it as a bencmark to step through all synched films??? The factors to consider is trangulations to determine the exact position of the film surface at that moment, the exact position of the Limo, and then working out where the sun must have been. Then a reference to the appropriate sun tables... Could this be the primera? This is an interesting idea John, I have read about computer models which can calculate the suns position in the sky relative to an observer, for any location and date (including the creation of sunlight and shadow patterns). This sort of thing is often used in automobile accident investigations when a driver claims that he was blinded by the sun or that a pedestrian stepped out from a area of deep shadow... It is also used in building design to show the impact a building will have on neighbouring buildings in terms of shadows cast, etc... The unknown for me would be the relative degree of accuracy...will this be accurate within 1 second or 10 seconds, and if so, can we then rely upon the benchmark used for the recorded times for the Hertz sign, the timings of the descent to the 1st floor, etc, etc...in relation to this calculation of 'sun' time as it were.

That was my first impression as well. The man in the Dealey Plaza photograph looks older and heavier than the man in the 1961 photo...regardless of the hat and glasses... However, when I look closely at the other known photograph of Robertson (on Spartacus), I can see a resemblance with the 1961 photo...particularly when looking at the ears and the nose which appears to be broken from right to left as it were in both photographs. I do have to stretch my imagination and add some brylcream and glasses but I can see that it might possibly be the same man...

Good find John Even in this short stand up routine, Bill is able to capture the very essence of the problem behind the publics perception of the JFK assassination...the techniques used to comatose the public into accepting the official (WC) line...mainly a combination of repeating the offical "facts" year after year after year, marrying said "facts" with technical jargon and scientific analysis...and promoting said facts on a variety of websites, tv specials, etc, etc...whilst ignoring (or discrediting) other pertinent information and witness testimony... However, even with these "facts" firmly established, the majority of the public are not convinced that Oswald acted alone... Why is this... To me, there are a number of "basic" issues which have not been (or cannot be) adequately explained...namely 1) The exact timing of the three 3 known shots (this is still up for debate) 2) The exact path of each of the bullets...(this is still up for debate) 3) The true relations between LHO and a) the FBI the CIA, and c) the anti-castro community If these three aspects can be fully explained then I will be more likely to feel comfortable in coming to a conclusion about the events that day... At least number 2 should have been put to bed in 1963 when the presidents body was on the autopsy table...I cannot accept that this was not done and dusted then...

Rich Something I came across today on Ed Parsons' blog site which might interest you. Ed is the former CTO of Ordnance Survey and is now the Geospatial Technologist at Google. http://www.edparsons.com/?p=493 Regards Russ

Tom, for all the various 'disagreements', or whatever, to date, whether based on ignorance on my part, or lack of proper understanding or whatever. This post is quite thought provoking. "This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions. Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)" ............ "Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities...have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process." As someone (myself) who has no problem with being regarded as a nut or even an uninformed nut, deluded fruitcake, or whatever, (still lots to learn and research) I see a clear statement on your part that the evidence as researched by you indicates a conspiracy. The exact nature of the conspiracy continues to elude me. Nevertheless, much gratitude for all the info posted to date. At least I think I'm sitting on the same branch, though, for reasons resulting from my own stream of research, not quite that far from the trunk as yet. The comments about truly understanding New Orleans (and the Southern States) of the time are importnat IMO. Therein persons, as yourself, have been, and can continue to be a valued source of info. Keep it coming... My thoughts exactly John...your post sums up my feelings to a tee. I am very grateful for Tom's input and will take his advice to try and come to a conclusion myself, based on the evidence available....even if it does take some considerable time and effort...

Just in case people thought he was the guy sitting down on the left :D Thanks, Gary. BTW, thanks to all who have have responded to this thread. Nineteen years difference between the images used below. James James I took the liberty of flipping your young Morales photo to make further comparison...

That looks fantastic Chris, the match looks to be very good on both survey overlays. We are lucky that the camera appears to have been almost directly overhead Elm Street when the photograph was taken so the camera angle is less of a factor. These particular images from Google Earth appear to be aerial photographs, and although they have not been orthorectified (go back along Main Street and look at the Plaza Bank building for example), they are a superb reference tool. Of course, nothing will be as accurate as the original survey carried out by a qualified surveyor. For info, see attached links to US Geological Survey images of Dealey Plaza, the black and white one is orthorectified and the other is an aerial photograph. http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/sk...bucket/96-1.png http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/skeeto_bucket/96.png