Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The top landing was likely several inches deeper than 3'. The reason is that the three parts of glass door were divided roughly but not perfectly as thirds of the 3.51 m (real world measure) or 3.56  m (my estimate).  Although the middle part was slightly narrower than 117 cm (an ideal third of 3.51 m), it was certainly wider than 91.4 cm (3'). Therefore, the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door. This is how I came to 108 cm (~3'6'') . Of course, it is still only an estimate, and I would be happy for having a figure based on some direct measurement of the original "1963" doorway.   

The small difference of 2'' between the model and the real world measure will be accommodated in the next revision of the model.

This was just posted by Duncan.

quote:

What Depth Was The TSBD Landing On November 22nd 1963?

This is a Gif I made of Dan Rather opening the TSBD glass door exit /entrance, and then walking on to the steps.
Unfortunately, the landing is not in view.
He does however appears to take two similar length strides/footsteps from the door exit/entrance before going down on to the top step.
As the average human stride/footstep, according to most information sources I have researched is approximately 31 inches, that would
make the depth of the landing from the glass door to the top step be approximately 5ft and a bit.
I did a test myself, and I can verify that this estimate is a reasonable calculation.

Rather%20Steps.gif

 

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The current depth of the doorway does not match the one of the 1963 doorway because the door was changed and pushed back into the building during the major refurbishment works. This has extended the depth of the top platform, and the current measurement of the depth does not apply to historic photographs. 

Hi Andrej, just for info, the nice people at the TSDB were unable to tell me how deep the original top landing was, as there didn't appear to be any tangible signs of where the original doors were. Maybe there are some holes or scars that they missed when looking that one of of researchers could find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hi Andrej, just for info, the nice people at the TSDB were unable to tell me how deep the original top landing was, as there didn't appear to be any tangible signs of where the original doors were. Maybe there are some holes or scars that they missed when looking that one of of researchers could find.

 

Earlier on I posted this image...

9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Cheers Robin.

I came across the following from this page... with the text " They discovered that the entrance had been pushed in from approximately 3 feet to slightly over 9 feet, per this image. "

Rosie-measuring-the-doorway.jpg

I personally can not vouch for the veracity of that red line being where the original doorway was (from doing a crude calculation I actually measured that red line as being approx. 4ft from the edge of the top step - hopefully someone else can have a go at measuring it from that photo and see what they come up with ;) )

 

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The top landing was likely several inches deeper than 3'. The reason is that the three parts of glass door were divided roughly but not perfectly as thirds of the 3.51 m (real world measure) or 3.56  m (my estimate).  Although the middle part was slightly narrower than 117 cm (an ideal third of 3.51 m), it was certainly wider than 91.4 cm (3'). Therefore, the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door. This is how I came to 108 cm (~3'6'') . Of course, it is still only an estimate, and I would be happy for having a figure based on some direct measurement of the original "1963" doorway.   

The small difference of 2'' between the model and the real world measure will be accommodated in the next revision of the model.

Andrej, alas I don't think there exists a direct measurement of the original doorway.

Anyroads, you mention that the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door... is that not wholly dependent on how the door opens... like, if the door was a 'hinged' door that measured 3' when it was opened to 'right angles' it would extend 3' on to the landing... but the TSBD glass door wasn't a hinged door and didn't open that way, instead it opened in a way that even if it was 3' wide it would extend a small number of inches shorter than a 3' landing... here is an image to highlight what I am meaning...

tsbd-door-17.jpg

In terms of how close the door, when opened, comes to the edge of the landing, this following image looks to me like it is very very close to it indeed...

tsbd-door-15a1.jpg

Considering the way the door opens it is actually possible that the width of the door is actually wider than what the landing is and yet still wouldn't overhang it when opened...

Robin earlier posted this image...

top_step_1.jpg

... which I think speaks volumes as to the narrowness of the landing. All things considered, somewhere between >3ft and 4ft is about right, and as Robin said in response to Andrej...

1 hour ago, Robin Unger said:

I would say that 3'6" sounds close to the correct dimensions.

I can buy in to that.

The tiled area of the wall matches exactly with the landing (as can be seen by Robin's colorized photo above), the bricked area matches exactly with the 1st step down. From looking at the Darnell frame PM's relative position is fully and wholly 'enclosed' within the tiled area, and that, coupled with the 'sun plane', could be a very important factor in deciding the location of PM...

... Andrej, on your website you have the following image...

doorways_alignes_lines.jpg?w=697&h=861

If line number 1 was extended all the way down and through the drawing of PM I feel that it highlights that PM's position may be erroneous as it doesn't match the Darnell frame above.

(For illustration purposes here is how it would look if the line was extended)

morelines.jpg

What solution may there be to make it match? ;)

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

If line number 1 was extended all the way down and through the drawing of PM I feel that it highlights that PM's position may be erroneous as it doesn't match the Darnell frame above.

Alistair:

the manikin I used back then when this version of the doorway model was made could not be adjusted accurately. This is the reason for employing Poser11 in the current work as only this program allows for fine modelling of every subtle detail of Prayer Man's posture, including the arms.  

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hi Andrej, just for info, the nice people at the TSDB were unable to tell me how deep the original top landing was, as there didn't appear to be any tangible signs of where the original doors were. Maybe there are some holes or scars that they missed when looking that one of of researchers could find.

Thanks, Ray, your effort is much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

The stone vertical columns in the above, don't line up. It looks like the columns in the sketch are about 10% closer together than in the photo. Does this matter?

Relatively, yeah it would matter... not sure as to what extent in real terms...

...in the other PM thread, Andrej posted the following 'overlay' of the two images...

aligned_doorways.jpg?w=1700

I raised a query about the overlay based on how the words 'Book Depository' don't match up between the two images, and not only do they not match up, the angle seems to be off too... and that is the same when looking at the two images isolated, the 'angle' of the ceiling of the doorway is diiferent in the two images...

... it's not far off though, a little tweak here and there and I feel it would all line up a bit better. ;)

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

the manikin I used back then when this version of the doorway model was made could not be adjusted accurately. This is the reason for employing Poser11 in the current work as only this program allows for fine modelling of every subtle detail of Prayer Man's posture, including the arms.  

I can imagine that there is always going to be a certain limitation in terms of 'accurate' adjustments with computer programmes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin raises a good point. With Altgens and that other dark shot, you'd at least think that Frazier would be seen.  You can see that guy with a tie and hat on in Altgens so he couldn't have been standing too much farther away from Frazier.  But he's not in it at all (Frazier).

How much time had elapsed after Altgens was the image taken that shows Frazier standing at the top?

I'm starting to wonder too, Andrej, if PM was stepping down like your 3D model shows. If Frazier is 6 feet and his body is in sunlight, then he had to have been standing closer to the camera.  Then PM, in the shadows, was standing further back toward the corner. Perhaps this is why he looks smaller. If he had been close enough to have one leg down on the step, then he'd been closer to the sun and been illuminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robin Unger said:

Where is Frazier in Wiegman ?

is he also up against the glass, hidden in the shadows ?

Yeah I would say in Wiegman, Frazier is hidden in the shadows...

wiegman_crop3.jpg

... it's possible that Frazier can just about be seen in that image - if one looks between Lovelady and Shelley there seems to be something there that might just be Frazier. If not, Frazier is likely standing more in the shadows, and presumably closer to the door.

25 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Robin raises a good point. With Altgens and that other dark shot, you'd at least think that Frazier would be seen.  You can see that guy with a tie and hat on in Altgens so he couldn't have been standing too much farther away from Frazier.  But he's not in it at all (Frazier).

How much time had elapsed after Altgens was the image taken that shows Frazier standing at the top?

In Altgens, because of the angle, it is possible that Frazier is hidden basically behind Lovelady and to the side of Shelley...

... the time between Altgens and Darnell (where Frazier is seen standing at the top) is approx 30 seconds.

... in furtherance below is a copy of a comment I posted in the middle of February...

Quote

Here is an image I found on Google of the Altgens 6 (top) and Weigman frame (bottom) on which someone else has put the letters A to G on to  match up those people. One has to consider the difference in perspective of where each image was taken (they were both taken at relatively at the same time).

(NB: the C in the Altgens 6 should probably be placed more to the right hand side as we look at it and more to 'beneath' the A).

normal_16832.jpg

A = Molina
B = Williams
C = Dean
D = Reese
E = Shelley
F = Lovelady
G = Jones
(NB: Frazier is not seen in these images because he is too much in the 'shade')

As we move on let us say that;
H = Frazier
I = Davis
J = McCully

At this junction here is the Couch/Darnell sync from which the 'Darnell frame' comes from. It is approx 30 seconds after the time of the 'Altgens6/Weigman frame' picture.

darnellcouchsync24fpsa6kkb.gif

Couple of things to look out for there. First the two people walking away are claimed to be Shelley and Lovelady (*although there is some doubt about that) and secondly the man that arrives at the 'traffic light pole' is Jones.

Here is a quick image I knocked up of the Darnell frame on which I have put the letters on to match the people from the 'Altgens 6/Weigman frame' picture.

identification1.jpg

A (Molina), B (Williams), C (Dean) and D (Reese) haven't really moved that much in the previous 30 seconds. As mentioned above* E (Shelley) and F (Lovelady) have moved away from the steps and G (Jones) has made his way across to the 'traffic lights pole'. H (Frazier) has now 'come out of the shadows'.

Based on the location that Davis said she stood (on the lower steps) with McCully, and McCully said she was with Davis, I have I as Davis and J as McCully (but it might be the other way round to be honest).

Michael, you have previously mentioned about how it looks as if none of the people have moved between the shots and that picture. In the approx. 30 seconds that has taken place Jones has left the steps and moved across to the traffic light pole (as seen in the Couch/Darnell sync), Lovelady and Shelley have certainly moved. Molina has moved back up the stairs to what appears to be partly behind Frazier (and thus close to the door). Reese has also moved back up the stairs... so there is quite a bit of movement...

... from looking at the Couch/Darnell sync above it shows that a lot of people are static but also shows a lot of people running... that sync ties in with what Frazier said in his WC testimony about that time...

Quote

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, just right after he went by he hadn't hardly got by, I heard a sound and if you have ever been around motorcycles you know how they backfire, and so I thought one of them motorcycles backfired because right before his car came down, now there were several of these motorcycle policemen, and they took off down toward the underpass down there, and so I thought, you know, that one of them motorcycles backfired, but it wasn't just a few seconds that, you know, I heard two more of the same type of, you know, sounds, and by that time people was running everywhere, and falling down and screaming, and naturally then I knew something was wrong, and so I come to the conclusion somebody else, somebody was shooting at somebody and I figured it was him.
Mr. BALL - You figured it was who?
Mr. FRAZIER - I figured it was somebody shooting at President Kennedy because people were running and hollering so I just stood still. I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough.

 

54 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm starting to wonder too, Andrej, if PM was stepping down like your 3D model shows. If Frazier is 6 feet and his body is in sunlight, then he had to have been standing closer to the camera.  Then PM, in the shadows, was standing further back toward the corner. Perhaps this is why he looks smaller. If he had been close enough to have one leg down on the step, then he'd been closer to the sun and been illuminated.

Considering the relative closeness of PM and Frazier and considering that the landing is not a big space depth wise, when compared to the distance from which the 'picture' was taken any relative differential in heights due to being 'closer to the camera' is somewhat negligible... especially if both are standing as close to the edge of the landing as each other...

... in essence what Andrej is trying to show with his graphic is that PM is 5ft9, and the only way to do that is to make PM have one foot one step lower, because if PM had both feet one step down then PM's body would be more illuminated by the sun (and that doesn't match the extant photographs), the alternative is that PM has both feet on the top landing, and if that is the case then PM has to be approx. 7 inches less than 5ft 9...

... from this previous gif;

anigif1_zpsi4vjjlg4.gif

... I knocked up a couple of 'graphs' to test a simplistic height comparison...

heightcomparisonblpm.jpg

heightcomparisonblpm2.jpg

As overly simplistic as they may be, it basically reveals that the only way for the apparent height differential between PM and BL shown in the gif (that BL is approx half a head taller than PM when BL is on the top step and approx half a head shorter than PM when BL takes one step down) to match up would be if PM was standing wholly on the top landing and was either 5ft3 or 5ft4.

Regards

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

[...]

t's possible that Frazier can just about be seen in that [Couch-Darnell] image [,above]- if one looks between Lovelady and Shelley there seems to be something there that might just be Frazier. If not, Frazier is likely standing more in the shadows, and presumably closer to the door.

[...]

In the approx. 30 seconds that has taken place [between Altgens6 and the Weigman frame, above, and this Couch-Darnell frame], Jones has left the steps and moved across to the traffic light pole (as seen in the Couch/Darnell sync), Lovelady and Shelley have certainly moved.

[...]

Alistair,

How certain are you that "E" was Shelley?

Shelly was slender, but "E" looks to me to be pretty broad-shouldered, thick-necked, and "beefy".

I don't believe Shelley was wearing a tie clip that day, but "E" appears to be wearing one.

It's hard to tell, but isn't "E" also wearing a hat?

normal_16832.jpg

 

I don't see a tie clip in these other-day photos, which suggests to me that he wasn't in the habit of wearing one.

AfU01BW.jpg

Related image

--  Tommy :sun

Also, if Shelley was "E", shouldn't we see that white thingy that's in or above Shelley's jacket pocket on "E", too?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Alistair,

How certain are you that "E" was Shelley?

Shelly was slender, but "E" looks to me to be pretty broad-shouldered, thick-necked, and "beefy".

I don't believe Shelley was wearing a tie clip that day, but "E" appears to be wearing one.

It's hard to tell, but isn't "E" also wearing a hat?

Also, if Shelley was "E", shouldn't we see that white thingy that's in or above Shelley's jacket pocket on "E", too?

Thomas, I don't necessarily disagree that the "E' looks 'beefy' (in comparison to other, better, photos of Shelley). As for a 'tie clip', after zooming in to that image as much as possible I still don't see a 'tie clip' - if you are meaning some kind of 'white' thing that appears across the tie and thinking that is a 'tie clip' then there appears to be a heck of a lot of tie clips on the glass doors too. lol As for the wearing of a hat, nah I can't see it. Regards the white thing in the jacket pocket, considering the angle of "E" why would it be necessarily be seen...

... how certain am I that "E" was Shelley? Oh quite certain (one can't be 100% sure of course). Based on the attire he is later (more clearly) photographed wearing and based on where he said he was on the steps and whom he was beside (Frazier & Lovelady) it ties in quite nicely, imo... The position of B (Williams) in Altgens6 ties in with where he said he was -  top step against the railing on the east side of the steps in front of the building. The one labelled A (Molina) isn't wearing a suit and tie. The only other males on the steps were Lovelady, Frazier and Jones and none of them can be 'E'... there is a chance that maybe A, B & E are 'interchangable' (Jeremy Bojcuk raises a similar point on his page here)

... I have to say though that, in terms of the discussion of PM's height/location of stance, the figures labelled Molina, Williams and Shelley, regardless of if they are labelled the wrong way round, are of no particular real importance, in much the same way that Dean, Reese, Jones, Davis and McCully are of no real importance in determining the height/location of stance of PM...

Setting aside the 'accuracy' of the labelled names... in the Altgens6/Weigman picture there are 7 people being pointed to, the Darnell frame points out 3 others, so 10 people in total... yet there are 12 who claimed to be on the steps... the two outstanding (pardon the pun ;) ) are Pauline Sanders and Sarah Stanton (neither of whom, to the best of my knowledge, have been identified in the photos)... and what did Frazier say about who he was beside at the time of the shots - he said he was pretty close to Shelley and Lovelady and that "there was a lady there, a heavy–set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something". Just throwing that out there. ;)

Anyway, Thomas, the  points you raised about the identification of Shelley are good points. Personally, even though I do feel that Shelley has been labelled correct, I have no real problem with it not being correct. No real biggy as far as I'm concerned.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...