Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

Members
  • Content Count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris Bristow

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,581 profile views
  1. David, been trying to sort this issue out but I was never really clear on what the issue is. So I am throwing out some observations. First the two cutout images are using two of the Dallas PD backyard photos as the backgrounds. Below I posted the Dallas backyard photos 91-001/140 and 91-001/141 next to their matching cutout images. The camera position is correct in both and the shadows on the bottom of the door behind the stairs are perfect matches. I used to think the cutouts may be related to the forging of the original backyard photos. But because the background in the cutouts was taken after they found the original backyard photos, the cutouts must be an attempt to fulfill the SS request to duplicate the BYP's. This attempt must have been a half hearted endeavor, maybe a first draft, because the shadows in the backyard are nowhere near a correct match for the shadows on Oswald. Secondly Oswald in the cutout is placed several inches too low. Roscoe, I assume, lined up the roof line in the background to Oswald's head which comes close to matching 133a and 133c. But if you compare Oswald's height to the post on his right it is obvious that he was placed about 4 inches too low. The camera in the Dallas PD images is positioned very low like maybe 18 to 24 inches off the ground. That caused objects like the roof line in the background to drop when compared to objects in the foreground like the post to Oswald's right. Lowering the cutout created some big perspective problems because when lowered Oswald's feet appear lower in the image. When the feet get lowered they land on a spot of grass that is closer to the camera. Creating the effect of Oswald being closer to the camera means you would have to increase his size as you move him closer. But his head is lower in relation to the post. Moving forward would have increased his size relative to the pole. So the perspective is all messed up. Regarding Oswald's lean it seems Roscoe did a decent job on the cutout that matches 91-001/140. But in the other he tilted the cutout about 6 degrees too far. Because of the perspective problems and misaligned shadows I am inclined to think that Roscoe may have just made a sloppy mistake when he leaned the cutout 6 degrees too far left. He did much better on the other cutout and it is interesting that he cropped the feet off. Maybe he was trying to hide the perspective problem he created by placing it too low. I had considered that Roscoe may have stolen 133c before it got into evidence. But I know now that the copy found by his wife in the 70's was a first generation copy not the original. I also read that copies were made of the BYP's for some of the cops involved. Roscoe White and Stoval (maybe wrong spelling) both received copies of 133c. I can only guess that the original 133c somehow got lost in the shuffle before the rest were entered into evidence. Roscoe white had his own copy of 133c and would have been able to pose LT Brown to match 133c. And he would have used it to trace out the same pose in the cutouts. I guess if 133c was lost or misplaced before being entered into evidence Roscoe may not have known that until the BYP's were made public some time later.
  2. I'm going to guess it's Frazier demonstrating how Oswald was carrying the curtain rods, maybe in front of 214 Neeley Street. He does have his hips shifted over his right foot but his upper body is not leaning. To me the 133 a posture is a problem but the posture in this photo looks doable.
  3. Craig, you make several interesting points about the stance. He would have to be pretty tall. What exactly do you see in terms of a person's movement behind the fence? Are you seeing a dark outline or the light through the trees changing?
  4. I don't know if the shooter had to boost himself up above the fence because the fence from the inside is only 4 ft 10 inches high. I think he may have had to scrunch down a bit. Because there was a breeze going on I can't really tell if leaves are moving slightly and changing the reflection coming off the leaf. That position does line up with the shooter though. 10 seconds after the headshot the shooter may have been exiting along the fence heading east which also puts him in the position in question.
  5. Well to me it looks like light coming through the trees or reflecting off the leaves.
  6. What is the original unzoomed image, a Zapruder frame?
  7. Great, yes the newer version of his arm makes sense. And I do think the highlights on the forearm and Knuckles is due to him being in the direct light not the ambient light. I was just making the point that the light on his body seems to be coming up from Below. In one of the other films there is a reflection coming off his wrist for a moment. It looks like prayer man has a wrist watch on and for a moment the crystal reflects outward. But also in the Darnell photo we've been working with it looks like a shadow on his wrist and a small highlight it also looks like a wrist watch.
  8. Andrej, I re posted your overhead view from the Prayerman thread. To have sunlight on both the hand and forearm would he have to have the forearm at almost the same angle the Sun is coming in at? Ray, in this overhead the light hitting the East wall is very low. But the light reflecting off it at 39 degrees(The Sun's elevation) would hit the floor at around 54 degrees and bounce back up at 54 degrees towards the entrance doors but some would also go to his face. I think the East wall would add some light. Overall I think most of the light on the subject is coming up from the street and everything else in front of the TSBD. Regardless of the azimuth Every object visible from the alcove is reflecting some light into the alcove. That adds up. If you stood in the alcove on a very bright sunny day you might feel the need to squint as you looked out, that illustrates just how much ambient light makes its way into the alcove from every object in your view. There seems to be some shadow from the subject on the wall behind him. It is raised up above his right shoulder which indicates it is coming from below. The light reflecting off the cement floor and everything outside of the alcove is lighting the subject. The ceiling looks like it is getting a lot of reflected light which is coming up from the floor, sidewalk etc. The ceiling must also be reflecting a bit of light down to the subject.
  9. Here is a photo shop with the vanishing point perspective removed. It simulates a view that is looking straight at the TSBD's front face, as if the camera lens was perpendicular to the front of the building. You still can't see straight into the recess of the doorway but the lines of the front of the building are squared off.
  10. If I was an assassin the idea of 20 to 25 minutes to escape the tunnels would scare the hell out of me. What if someone in the plaza catches a glimpse of me or sees a puff of smoke? They may be focused on the tunnels within seconds. A police officer could pop the manhole cover up and give Chase.
  11. Yeah it's definitely possible that she was coerced to say she took the photos. But I have to take her bad memory with a grain of salt. It would be very easy to combine memories you took later in life with the first time you ever took a photograph. I have done this myself.
  12. Rich, Have you ever run film through it or have you measured the field of view through the viewfinder? Knowing the field of view would be another way to verify Marina's location. It is no big deal because the HSCA, Dartmouth and the WC all pretty much come to similar conclusions. Marina was about 11"4' away and at 22 south of west. But if you ever measure the width of the view at a given distance it would be of interest to me. As far as the reliability of the image vs distortions Oswald's camera has an advantage. The distortions of that very camera have been well documented. I think it was the WC that photographed a chart with a grey scale at the bottom and grid lines similar to the old famous indian chief image used to burn it video cameras in the 50's So we can make accurate predictions about the distortion at particular points in the image. Although the test with the dummy heads does show a stretching the way they did it about doubled the amount of distortion. The distortion is due to a keystone effect from tilting the camera. There is a misconception that it is just the top of the image that stretches but the tilt is the main factor. In 133a there is 4 degrees of camera tilt which moves Oswald's head up in the frame a bit. But the dummy test takes the head from mid frame and compares it with a head at the top of the screen. That is more like 8 degrees of tilt rather than 4 degrees. They stacked the deck on that test.
  13. I would think because JFK is the star of the show they would put extra distance in front and behind with the exception of his security detail. I don't know if it would make a big difference to a gunman if he was shooting from off to the side. YouTube has other parades JFK was in, it might be worth a look to see if the extra distance occurred in those parades or if Dallas is an outlier. If this post has a bunch of underlines ignore them, speech to text is going nuts.
×
×
  • Create New...