Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris Bristow

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,505 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Okay if it's a hand where is his head? I'm going to make an assumption that Kennedy's torso and head are down in the foot area of Jackie's portion of the seat. If he was laying on the seat himself Clint Hill's knees would be in his back. And I can't figure out where Clint Hill's lower legs would be anyway folded back underneath him? It looks like his knees would be hitting the seat cushions. I don't think it's fake I just can't figure out where those lower legs are.
  6. I have tested almost every shadow in the yard and found they are all correct. I also modeled the stairs in the back yard to help determine the shadows. I did not do a computer 3d model of Oswald, instead I reproduced the camera angles photographically and was able to determine the actual angles and amount of distortion caused by perspective of angle and the amount of keystone effect from Marina tilting the camera down. The HSCA or the WC did some testing with his camera and photographed grid line which allowed me to also determine the slight distortion inherent in the lens. As to faking the shadows on Oswald I would think it can be manipulated but my analysis of Oswald's stance is not about determining how it would have been faked. I am only concerned with how the stance could or could not be achieved. I get his inseam to be about 2 inches shorter than average but finding the top of the inseam is a guess. I did find his hips sit about two inches higher than mine. One inch due the fact his total height is 2 inches more than me. But why the hips sit higher with a shorter inseam is confusing. If his inseam caused the waistline to sit lower then he would have to lean a bit farther to align the belt buckle over the shin and right knee. A shorter inseam should lower his COG but it also means he has to lean farther so I think the difference could be very minimal. Before I started this I felt that any analysis would fall short in the end because there are too many variables as you said. You could never each a full conclusion because of that. But I found some ways around the problem. I found that just trying to reproduce his stance from the hips down was enough to see that the stance was not stable. if you try to counter balance with the upper body, or move your arms to the left, or hold the arms and rifle closer to move the COG back, the stance is still unstable. The only way to achieve a stable stance with the upper body, arms, etc is to go way beyond what we see in 133a. That means none of the variables above he waist make a difference. When it came to 3d and issues of depth(How far forward is the left leg, arms torso etc) I allowed for anything reasonable that would fix the balance. If for instance you lean the body backward to try and correct the balance it does not work. I have tested the options for depth factors that could not be nailed down and found none of those factors fix the problem. I concluded there was nothing above the waist or below that could correct the balance problem without far exceeding the parameters of his stance. The second way I eliminated the problem of small variables adding up is I allow for a much greater angle of the hip than I measure. I believe the telephone line shadow on his hip prove the hip angle to be well under 11 degrees, closer to 7 degrees max. But for anyone attempting to reproduce the pose I allow up to 20 degrees(I think I said 30 in the original thread but I feel less generous today.) Allowing for 20 degrees when the shadow demonstrates that it is less than 10 removes any ambiguity in that measurement. Below is a photo shop I did to make Oswald stand straight. Check out his feet on the ground, they look pretty normal, not sitting at a weird angle. I guess 5 degrees is not enough to make it stand out because the original 133a looks pretty normal too. I also tweeked his right lower leg a few degrees just to see how it looked. But before that his right foot still looked level to the ground.
  7. Andrej, Did a word search in both threads for the word "whole" but Can't find that quote. We know there are different prints of 133a that sit at slightly different angles, but if I was taking about Oswald I would have meant the whole image of Oswald(Body, head and rifle) is rotated relative to the background. 133a is a cut and paste it could be the separate images were taken 20 to 30 minutes apart and so they had to rotate Oswald to keep the shadow angles matching. I am not really into theorizing about how it was made. I was only looking at evidence of possible forgery, or actually I was just looking for things that don't add up. And maybe someday I will figure out a way for the stance to be plausible. I have had two other people try and duplicate the stance with up to a thirty degree hip angle and It failed. Now I believe the shadow angle proves the hip was no more than 8 degrees angled. I am at a loss as to how a person can stand in that manner without falling over. If you should try and strike this pose according to the parameters I have measured you might want to use a rifle or an 8 pound object. That 8 pounds is more than the umbrella you used before and it will allow you to lean slightly farther than with the umbrella. The center of mass of the rifle is almost exactly were his left hand is. that leaves more of the rifle on his left side than his right and will help a little.
  8. "Mugar would end up with promoting dope fiend Willie Nelson in the Farm Aid front operation of the 1980's." This is such cheap 50's style propaganda. Guilt by association is a typical tactic to smear a person. I guess everyone who associated with Willie Nelson on the Farm Aid concert was a person of low character?
  9. I HAVE ADDED SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON A SEPARATE THREAD REGARDING THE SHADOW ISSUE. I am not claiming anything about his hips or feet being distorted. I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far. You said I should let others evaluate all my steps. My case was based on measuring the shadow of the telephone lines across his hips. I explained how the shadow across Oswald's hips reflect his angle toward the camera. I provided a recreation of the factors in a physical model and reproduced the 9 degree angle on his hips that occurs when a persons hips are rotated 22 degrees away from the North South alignment of the telephone shadows(When he is facing Marina). The case I presented was not an unsubstantiated Hypothesis. I laid out facts and hard measurements that can be tested. The premise is based on several facts that are basic optical principles. First, a shadow at approx a 45 degree angle will drop one inch for every inch it as moves from the source to the ground. Second, A telephone line that runs North/South will cause it's shadow to also lay in the North south line.(slightly off the North/South because the telephone line is not perfectly level, it droops.) Third, any object like Oswald's hips, will display a shadow that is parallel to the shadow on the ground when the hips also lay on a North South plane.(That is when he would be facing directly West) The findings are that only when Oswald's hips are facing the camera(At 22 degrees south of West) does it cause the telephone line shadow to take that 9 degree angle relative to the shadow on the ground. It is important to note that regardless of how much he leaned or tilted his hips upward the angle of the shadow does not change relative to the shadow on the ground. Only turning his hips toward or away from the camera effect a change. Because the only way to change the angle is to rotate his hips toward or away from the camera we can say with confidence that the angle on Oswald tells us where his hips are facing. This is because as he rotated his right hip around to face the camera that hip moves several inches closer to the source of the shadow. for every inch he moves forward the shadow on his right hip moves up an inch (The BYP have it closer to 49/52 degrees elevation so the shadow climbs up slightly more.) First anyone can check to see that the principles of light and shadow I stated above are correct. Once you have that you can draw a conclusion just based on those facts and the conclusion will validate my theory. To further test it you could reproduce all the parameters and create photographic evidence that validate my theory. But I already did the physical model in the original thread. It demonstrates and proves the angle of Oswald's hips. The conclusion is his hips have to be facing the camera in order to create a shadow that is 9 degrees from the shadow on the ground. One of the photos shows both Oswald and Mr Cappel. The shadow on Cappel is a bit clearer. I should have offered a more contrasted image so people could see the shadow better, but I assume most everyone here knows the case very well and is aware of the telephone line shadows already.
  10. I am not claiming anything about his hips or feet being distorted. I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far. You said I should let others evaluate all my steps. My case was based on measuring the shadow of the telephone lines across his hips. I explained how the shadow across Oswald's hips reflect his angle toward the camera. I provided a recreation of the factors in a physical model and reproduced the 9 degree angle on his hips that occurs when a persons hips are rotated 22 degrees away from the North South alignment of the telephone shadows(When he is facing Marina). The case I presented was not an unsubstantiated Hypothesis. I laid out facts and hard measurements that can be tested. The premise is based on several facts that are basic optical principles. First, a shadow at approx a 45 degree angle will drop one inch for every inch it as moves from the source to the ground. Second, A telephone line that runs North/South will cause it's shadow to also lay in the North south line.(slightly off the North/South because the telephone line is not perfectly level, it droops.) Third, any object like Oswald's hips, will display a shadow that is parallel to the shadow on the ground when the hips also lay on a North South plane.(That is when he would be facing directly West) The findings are that only when Oswald's hips are facing the camera(At 22 degrees south of West) does it cause the telephone line shadow to take that 9 degree angle relative to the shadow on the ground. It is important to note that regardless of how much he leaned or tilted his hips upward the angle of the shadow does not change relative to the shadow on the ground. Only turning his hips toward or away from the camera effect a change. Because the only way to change the angle is to rotate his hips toward or away from the camera we can say with confidence that the angle on Oswald tells us where his hips are facing. This is because as he rotated his right hip around to face the camera that hip moves several inches closer to the source of the shadow. for every inch he moves forward the shadow on his right hip moves up an inch (The BYP have it closer to 49/52 degrees elevation so the shadow climbs up slightly more.) First anyone can check to see that the principles of light and shadow I stated above are correct. Once you have that you can draw a conclusion just based on those facts and the conclusion will validate my theory. To further test it you could reproduce all the parameters and create photographic evidence that validate my theory. But I already did the physical model in the original thread. It demonstrates and proves the angle of Oswald's hips. The conclusion is his hips have to be facing the camera in order to create a shadow that is 9 degrees from the shadow on the ground. One of the photos shows both Oswald and Mr Cappel. The shadow on Cappel is a bit clearer. I should have offered a more contrasted image so people could see the shadow better, but I assume most everyone here knows the case very well and is aware of the telephone line shadows already.
  11. I have never taken the time to unpack the possible issues with the cutouts, it is all a bit cloudy to me. But looking at your last photo I do see it is rotated farr to the right. Is Oswald's image a cut and paste you did based on the feet or is this an original image from the Dallas PD?
  12. Yes I know you said the model is not anatomically correct. Because a humans COG starts and inch or two forward of the base of the spine(rifle and arms move it farther) your model's COG would be well past the right foot. So there does not seem to be anything we can infer from your BYP model. ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially and from only one angle?"". How can we do that? Maybe I should just repeat myself for maybe the 4th time?? I offered two proofs that the hips face almost straight forward in the original post that his thread is based on. You replied to it with a image of you with your hips angled way back as proof the stance is possible. So I guess you missed the point of the thread or just ignored it. So I restated it in this thread and you still ask ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph". If you disagree with my two proofs, fine, then make your case. We are way past anyone asking that question because an answer has been offered up for discussion.
  13. Not sure what you mean. The fence sits between 2 and 4 degrees right depending on the photo. Rotating it 2 to 4 degrees makes the fence posts vertical. You said rotating it till 'horizontal', but I think there is a vanishing point distortion in the horizontal aspect. But vanishing point aside if I rotate even 10 degrees the entire yard is leaning over, so not sure what you meant here.
  14. John, the hips being angled back causes his right hip to show the inside and the left to show us an edge on view. The right shows the inside of the disc and the left shows a bit of the outside of the disc.
×
×
  • Create New...