Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris Bristow

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,190 profile views
  1. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    John, I am not saying that the examples were it bloomed in February and did not bloom by March 21st can tell you what happened March of 63. what it does tell you is that the possibilities of when it bloomed can range from February to after March 21st. So the bushes on 3/31/63 could have been bare or bloomed. That makes it impossible to determine the date by the lack of blooming. If there is a record of when it bloomed in 63' maybe this could be resolved. I could not find records other than daily cloud and rainfall, temp etc. If it bloomed in February or March of 63' you would have an interesting case. But Jack White claiming it does not bloom by March is factually wrong. The Google Earth map showed it blooming in February. "Shadows change their directions simply because they fall on different surfaces. Give me a break!" When a shadow falls on a surface that is slanted it changes the appearance of shadow angles. Anyone can test this very easily. Take a piece of paper and a pen. stand below a light and hold the pen and paper so you see the shadow of the pen on the paper. Now change the angle of the paper a bit. You will see the shadow angle change as you change the angle of the surface it falls on. the photo shows a radical example with angle 90s degrees apart. Here is a photography site that shows this principle. http://www.betterphotography.in/features/shadow-theatre/6222/attachment/bob-smith_us/ Since you believe people are spouting dis information you should test this for yourself with the paper and pen experiment I mentioned above.
  2. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    214 W. Neeley st. is still on google maps. But google Earth shows that in 2001 it bloomed in February and in 2002 it had not bloomed by March. 23! So on 3/31/1963 it could have been blooming or bare. It can't tell us anything about the time of year.
  3. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    Previously I could not reconcile the azimuth with Oswald's shadow length unless the BYP's were taken in mid April. After reconsidering the width of the stairs and angle of Oswald's shadow, I think it comes close enough to a shadow cast from a 47 degree elevation of the Sun. The Azimuth and elevation would match 345pm on March 31st.
  4. Chris Bristow

    Too Much Static

    Static is an inherent quality of conspiracy theories. If there is a truth at the center it is surrounded by crazy theories. I found it very frustrating so instead of trying to verify truth I started looking for the false theories based on photographic evidence. It provides satisfaction because this approach finds answers to real questions. It's not as fun as finding the smoking gun but eliminating the false theories brings you closer to the truth. I used to have faith in the theory that the multiple photographs of the Carcano show rifles with different dimensions. But in the end it was just the same rifle photographed from slightly different angles. I also thought the theory about Z frames 380 and 281 where the guy seems to spread his legs apart in a single frame was very good evidence. But it turns out you can take frame 381 where the legs are apart and adding motion blur you can duplicate frame 380 where his legs only appear to be together. Motion blur can take the legs apart image and turn it into the 380 legs together image. turns out his legs were apart the whole time. eliminating theories really clears up the static, especially those I seriously considered may be valid. Other theories require that you go way down a rabbit hole to verify them. There are too many of these rabbit hole theories so you have to find a way to throw some out. If it is about another gunman found in a photo I throw it out. I think that is a safe bet after all these years. After looking at the statements of the Parkland doctors and other witness' who saw the hole in the back of JFK's head I am convinced there was a second shooter and a cover up. After seeing how much the skeptics can lie and mislead regarding that hole in his head my confidence in this theory is bolstered. I am satisfied with this and don't expect a smoking gun. Eliminating static is enough to keep the subject interesting.
  5. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    I never considered Walker. Maybe he did shoot Walker as a covert agent of the intelligence agencys and it was part of the set up as the JFK patsy.
  6. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    The only days that don't have a matching counterpart are on the solstice. June 21st is the longest day and so has no counter day. But the day before solstice and the day after are the same. Likewise two days before solstice is the same as 2 days after. so almost all days have a counterpart ranging from two days part to 6 months apart.
  7. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    I have looked at all the shadows now and was able to reproduce the angles seen. The answer is not short. You have to take into account several factors for each shadow. But as far as when it was taken the shadows greatly limit the time frame. In March the elevation which determines shadow length is a mismatch to the azimuth by a large degree. Now this is based on some calculations that are estimated. But when I consider the error factor it still does not explain the azimuth/elevation mismatch. As an example of shadows that look weird but are correct take the one just right of this guy's head. It is a shadow created by the landing. To test it I used a piece of paper to recreate the landing, the wall behind it, and the azimuth and elevation. The angle of the shadow matched using the azimuth of 240 which matches what I see in the post. To double check I used the end of the treads on the staircase which sit at the same orientation as the south facing part of the landing. The difference is that shadow falls on a South facing surface not a West facing one like the wall behind the landing. This makes for a good test because if I change the wall to face South it should then reproduce the shadow of the tread. It reproduced the tread shadow perfectly which confirms that the shadow by his head is correct for a shadow cast by the southern end of the landing at the top of the stairs. If you want to take all the shadows one at a time we could do that, but if you don't agree with my analysis it won't matter. Do you have any objections to my explanation of the shadow by his head?
  8. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    Tony thanks for the input. The results are the same for the CBS and BYP. Although I think the CBS image may be propaganda to address Oswald's awkward lean and I don't trust either image. On the 31st the azimuth would match the pole shadow at 4:10pm. But the elevation at that time is 43 deg which would make Oswlad's shadow(If he is 5'9") 74" long, but the distance from the post to the fence is only 51". It is not till mid April that both azimuth and shadow length would match.
  9. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    Regarding my last sentence. In your photo it converges toward the Sun but I was talking about when the Sun is at your back and the shadows converge away from the Sun.
  10. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    Joseph the image of the box is mine and may be misleading . I took that photo from a position way to the left of Marina's relative to the Sun. That is mainly why the nose shadow is so much greater than the BYP. Notice the box shadow leans about 20 degrees more than BYP. Also I took it from maybe 10 inches of the ground so the angle to the shadow is far less than Marina's camera height. That lower perspective adds another 10 degrees to the body shadow. The comparison of the two Oswalds has some dissimilarities to consider. In the BYP Oswald is leaning 7 degrees left (His head sits just outside his stance, it lines up vertically to the left of his right shoe. The other Oswalds head sits inside his stance). The 7 degree lean, when you add the distortion of perspective, accounts for about 17 degrees of the shadow. also Marina held the top view camera at chest level. If the other photo was taken at eye level then that photo will show less shadow angle. I have not tested to see just how much less but it is most likely about 5 degrees. another factor is that the BYP Oswald is facing a couple degrees to his left(Towards the Sun) and that takes a couple degrees of nose shadow away. But that is also true in the other Oswald photo and there he is facing about 5 degrees away from the camera and the Sun which adds 5 degrees to the nose shadow. The other Oswald image has a nose angle of about 40 degrees. Take away 17 for the lack of lean, 5 for the head turned to the right, and 5 for a higher camera position and you have 13 degrees. REGARDING THE BYP NOSE SHADOW In the BYP Oswald is facing about 10 degrees away from the Sun and should have 10 degrees angle under his nose. (the angle is determined more by where he is facing relative to the Sun than the elevation of the Sun. You could imagine if he was facing directly towards the Sun the shadow would fall directly below his nose. If he turned 90 degree away from the Sun his nose shadow would match the elevation). But Oswald also has his head turned away from the camera and back towards the Sun by 2 degrees. He also is tilting his head by about 4 degrees and both those cancel out some of the shadow angle, 6 degrees total. The last bit is that because Oswald is looking to his left his nose no longer sits in the center of his face. If you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find the nose shadow is leaning by about 4 degrees. This fully accounts for the ten degrees of nose shadow that we should see in the BYP.
  11. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    I think the format we use here prevents us from reaching mutual conclusions. If we asked one question at a time it would be more like real time conversations. "Do you think a or b?". "I think b with this caveat.". If the conversation proceeded along these lines we would resolve some issues rather than go round and round . Josephs statement "the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image...." has been taken to mean that the post shadow and body shadows diverge back towards the Sun and that that is impossible. If this is what Joseph's intended meaning is, then Ray's response regarding vanishing point causing shadows to converge behind Oswald and diverge toward the Sun is relative to this point at hand. His response was not an unwarranted diversion from the main topic, it was a slight diversion addressing Joseph's sub topic. I believe we all agree that shadows converging is a matter of perspective. the question is do shadows appear to converge away from the Sun or phrased differently do shadows appear to diverge towards the Sun? This super simple question is something that we should not debate in multiple thread. So lets make a real effort to resolve this issue. It takes almost no effort to walk outside and place two objects on the ground and see if shadows APPEAR to converge away from the Sun(diverge towards the Sun). Or if you have a chain link fence just look at two poles. It is amazing that we could argue over this in many threads when we could resolve it and MOVE ON. For anyone that believes that the post and body shadows diverging towards the Sun is wrong, Please please go outside and check this claim before weighing in on it. Please don't respond with "I don't need to cause I no better". If you go outside and find you are correct then I will get a major education that is crucial to my understanding of perspective. If I am wrong I will welcome the new knowledge, but when I go outside I find shadows do diverge back to the Sun.
  12. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    One thing I can't resolve is the date the BYP's were taken. On 3/31 the azimuth from 3pm to 4pm went from 194 to 220 and the elevation 61 to 55. Looking at the post shadow it sure looks like the azimuth was about 240. At 5pm the azimuth was around 240 but the elevation was so low that Oswald's shadow would be about 6 feet long. It isn't until about April 15th at 430pm that you get a 240 azimuth with an elevation of 51 which matches the BYP's. The HSCA determined Marina's line of sight was 70 degrees East of North. An azimuth of 220 translates to 40 degrees East of North. This means from Marina's pov Oswald was standing 30 degrees away from the post. For that to be true she would have to be standing only 4 feet from Oswald which seems impossible, it should be more like 13 feet. (Azimuth can be determined by using North or South as the starting point and you can go clockwise or counterclockwise. for Neeley st. they use a clockwise movement starting with North as the starting point of zero azimuth). To test how many degrees away from the post Oswald is, take Marina's distance to Oswald as 4 feet(Radius) x 2 = 8 feet(diameter) x 3.14 = a 25 foot circle based on a 4 foot camera distance. 360 degrees divided by a 25 foot circle results is 14.4 degrees per foot. Oswald is about 2 feet from the post so he would be about 29 degrees away from the post. If that were possible then Marina's pov at 70 degrees East of North(Per the HSCA) would be 29 degrees away from the post and everything would be fine. But Marina can't be just 4 feet away from Oswald so Oswald can't be 29 degrees away from the azimuth. This means the azimuth of 220 on 3/31 at 330pm can't be right or Marina's line of sight as 70 degrees East of North can't be right. If Marina is 13 from Oswald then he would be about 9 degrees away from the post. If this is the case and the HSCA is correct about Marina's 70 degree line of sight to Oswald then the post's shadow represents an azimuth of about 240 or 60 degrees East of North. Oswald would be at 70 East of North, 9 or 10 degrees away from the post shadow. The post shadow points almost directly to the post under the landing at the top of the stairs( The post under the NorthWest corner of the landing). You could determine the azimuth if you know the distance from the post to the NorthWest landing post and the width between them. I measure the stairway to be from 30 to 36 inches wide. To get the distance from post to post I use the steps which I measure to be 10.28 inches each( 12 foot long stairway divided by 14 steps = 10.28 inches per step) the landing post is 51 inches East of Oswald's post. If you draw a box with the proportions based on 36' width and 51 inch length and draw a line from the lower left corner to the upper right corner it shows the angle of the post shadow which aligns with an azimuth of around 235 to 240. to make the azimuth come out to 220 the stairs would have to be 6 feet wide or 42 inches long from post to post. The width obviously is no more than 3 feet and the length can't be 42 inches or each step would be only 8 inches long, shorter than the average foot. So I can't see the photos being done before April 15th. I wish some person in Dallas could take a picture of the yard this March 31st. That would solve a lot.
  13. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    I just looked at Neeley St with the Google Earth time slider. Some years it was green by February and other years there were no leaves in march. September was very green in one image. The green image in February of 2001 was before climate change started causing things to bloom early. Someone is going to have to look up the record for 1963 and see exactly when the bloom started that year. Crap I have been dropping the 'r' from February for years!
  14. Chris Bristow

    Backyard Photo Observation

    The front and side of the post are each 3 1/4 but because each are viewed from an angle neither show the full 3 1/4. Together they add up to 4 1/4 inches. Since the post shadow falls almost directly behind the post you can assume the camera was viewing the post from the same angle as the azimuth which was around 223. So you can look at a 4x4 from the same angle and measure what you see. Another thing I don't get is Brown said he cut himself from the image but the cutout is not his silhouette but Oswald's in 133c. The rest of it is still a mystery to me.
×