Backyard Photo Observation

[Chris Bristow]

15 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Right, so in effect, if the CBS photo was actually taken around April 15th, the same photo could be replicated around August 28th. 

According to your calculations, if the CBS photo crew turned up at Neely St on the 31st March, they would not have been able to shadow match the BYP. But if they turned up in mid April, they could.

But at some point, they wanted the date the photos were taken to be before the April 10th Walker shooting.

The question is, when did they decide to incorporate the Walker incident into the script? If it was after the Neely BYPs had already been taken, the shadows make sense in regards to August 28th & April 15th

 

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.

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

There are 6 sets of shadows in the CBS March 31, 1967 reproduction photo.  They are marked by arrows and numbers.  Shadows are made from a light source projecting light onto an opague object.  This casts a shadow of the same shape as the object in the direction the light source is shining.  In this single moment captured by this photo there should be one light source which is the sun in the sky since the scene is outside.

The red arrows and numbers show different groups of related shadows moving in the same direction.

Shadow group 1:  These are the step shadows and they move in direction from picture left to the right.  This is a morning shadow of about 9:00 to 10:00.  They appear to be moving in a related direction.

 1: HOW COULD A MORNING SUN PLACE A SHDOW ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE POST OR THE FENCE? THE SUN HAS TO BE IN THE WEST. IT HAS TO BE PAST THE AZIMUTH OF 180 WHICH IS DIRECTLY SOUTH.  
   THE UPWARD ANGLE OF THE STAIRS CREATES THE ANGLE YOU SEE ON THE FENCE AND POST. AS THE STAIRS GO HIGHER THE SHADOW LENGTH TO THE POST OR FENCE GETS LONGER AND SINCE THE SHADOW IS MOVING AT AN ANGLE THE LONGER SHADOW FALLS FARTHER LEFT IN THE PHOTO. 

Shadow group 2:  The shadows here are strange for step shadows.  They move in an opposite  direction from the other shadows.  They move down and to the right.  There is probably a natural explanation for the direction.  If natural the would be about the same time I would guess.

2: THESE SHADOWS ARE CAST BY A HORIZONTAL OBJECT ON AN SOUTH FACING SURFACE. THEY APPEAR TO MOVE DOWN AND RIGHT IN THE 2D IMAGE BUT IN THE 3D REALITY THEY MOVED  EASTWARD.  

Shadow group 3:  These shadows are from the nose and neck of the figure.  And, there is a similar shadow under the eave of the structure in the back ground.  These are from a sun directly overhead at about noon or 12:00.  The shadow moves in a downward direction.

3: IF YOU DRAW A LINE FROM THE TIP OF HIS NOSE TO THE TIP OF THE SHADOW YOU GET 5 DEGREES OF ANGLE. BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING TO HIS LEFT THE TIP OF HIS NOSE IS NOT CENTERED AND THAT IS WHY IT MEASURES 5 DEGREES OF ANGLE. IT SHOULD BE AROUND 10 JUDGING FROM HIS DISTANCE FROM THE POST BUT BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING TO HIS LEFT(TOWARDS THE SUN) IT CANCELS OUT ABOUT 4 DEGREES(2 MORE THAN THE BYP BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING FURTHER LEFT WHICH YOU CAN MEASURE BY COMPARING THE DISTANCE OF EACH EAR TO THE BRIDGE OF THE NOSE.
THE SHADOWS UNDER THE FENCE  AND THE HOUSE IN THE BACKGROUND BOTH HAVE HORIZONTAL SHADOWS UNDER THEM . SIMILAR TO THE SOUTH FACING SHADOWS UNDER THE STAIR TREADS THE BOTTOM IS HORIZONTAL AND THE SIDES SHOW THE ANGLE. BUT THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE SHADOWS IN THE BACKGROUND  ARE HIDDEN BY THE POST AND THE GUY'S HEAD. THE EDGE OF THE FENCE SHADOW LOOKS LIKE IT FALLS ON THAT ENDPIECE WHICH APPEARS NOT TO BE FLUSH WITH THE FENCE. I THINK THAT RUINS THAT MEASUREMENT. THE HORIZONTAL SHADOWS DO NOT REFLECT THE TIME OF DAY, IT IS THE VERTICAL SHADOWS ON THE SIDES THAT DO THAT.

 

Shadow group 4:  Is one shadow that moves from left to right in a flatter angle than the step shadows.  This shadow appears to be from a power line and somewhat problematic to assign a numerical value and time.

4:  THE TELEPHONE LINES ARE LEVEL WHILE THE STAIRS RISE AT AROUND AROUND 38 DEGREES. USING AN OLD PHOTO I PLACE THE TELEPHONE LINES AT 18 FEET HIGH AND 20 FEET AWAY. OR VISA VERSA , CAN'T REMEMBER.

Shadow group 5:  Are shadows that move from the right side of the photo towards the left.  The shadows are the shadow of the human figure, the shadow of the shrub, and a shadow on the fence.  The sun is high in the sky and moved from the noon position to about 1:00-2:00.

5: WHAT I HAVE FOUND WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC TESTING IS THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA TO THE OBJECT CHANGES THE APPEARANCE OF ANGLE GREATLY. THE FARTHR AWAY FROM THE CAMERA THE MORE SHALLOW THE ANGLE TO THE OBJECT. THIS MAKES ANGLED  SHADOWS INCREASE WITH DISTANCE. AN OBLECT  13 FEET AWAY WILL BE DISTOTED BY ALMOST A FACTOR OF THREE. AT 9 FEET IT ONLY DISTORTS BY A FACTOR OF ABOUT TWO TIMES. I.E. AN ANGLE OF 30 WILL APPEAR TO BE 60 DEGREES!!. SO THE SHADOWS AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM THE CAMERA WILL NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME EVEN WHEN THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. 

Shadow group 6:  It is apparent these shadows are moving from right to left.  They are supposed to be post shadows outside of the scene.  They are at about 4:00-5:00.  They are so out of tune with the rest of the picture they are extremely noticeable.

6: ALL I SEE THERE IS THE TELEPHONE LINE SHADOWS. 

There are 6 different shadows going in 6 different directions.  5 directions if you consider 1?-4? as the same direction.  This gives us 6 different light sources or 6 suns in the sky at the same time.  Or, 5 directions if 1? – 4? are the same.  Which one would you pick to determine the time of the day much less the season?

5 or 6 light sources, the sun, tells one that this photo is a composite photo made at different times of the day.  The season is still determined by the condition of the shrub and the vegetation in the photo.

Jack White said he was a life-long resident of Dallas.  In March there is no foliage or blooming.  That occurs in the middle of April.

The Warren Commission determined the date of the BYPs to be March 31, 1963.  They did this based on Marina Oswald and scientific measures.  One can imagine an early bloom at about March 31 to April 15 to account for the foliage on the shrub in the BYPs. 

One can not do that for the shrub in the CBS 1967 reproduction.  There is no foliage on the shrub indicating a time of pre-April in the spring.

Regardless of this or that argument the different times in the photo indicate a composite photo.  This would be a must to produce if you wanted to get close in appearance to the original BYPs.  The original BYPs are composites also. 

ALL THE DIFFERENT DIRECTION ARE EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT SOME SHADOWS FALL ON A SOUTH FACING SURFACE, OTHERS ON A WEST FACING SURFACE. STILL OTHERS FALL ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE LIKE THE GROUND AND OTHERS ON A VERTICAL SURFACE. SOME THAT FALL ON A  WEST FACING VERTICAL SURFACE  LIKE THE POST OR HIS PHILTRUM, OTHERS ON A SOUTH FACING VERTICAL SURFACE. OTHERS APPEAR TO BE MOVING LEFT TO RIGHT IN THE 2D IMAGE BUT ARE ACTUALLY MOVING WEST TO EAST. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THESE VARIABLES ALL THE SHADOWS MAKE SENSE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO DISCOUNT JACK WHITES OBSERVATION ABOUT THE BLOOMING SEASON IN TEXAS. I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT IF YOU GO INTO GOOGLE EARTH AND USE THE HISTORY DATE/TIME SLIDER YOU WILL FIND YEARS WHEN  214 NEELY ST WAS FULL BLOOMED IN FEBRUARY AND OTHER YEARS WHEN IT WAS BARON IN MARCH. THAT IS FACTUAL INFO THAT PROVES WE CANNOT RELY ON THE LOOK OF THE PHOTO TO DETERMINE THE DATE. 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

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. 

[Adam Johnson]

That shrub, if still there needs to be water boarded until it talks.

[Tony Krome]

1 minute ago, Adam Johnson said:

That shrub, if still there needs to be water boarded until it talks.

haha

Don't ask me how many hours I've spent looking for a shrub like it online. 

Maybe I'll write a letter to the neighbour and ask them to reply with a sample and I'll get it identified

[Adam Johnson]

Google maps shows the place is still there Tony???

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/214+W+Neely+St,+Dallas,+TX+75208,+USA/@32.7505917,-96.8281096,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9984ebdc3dcd:0x6381e3c7f353cb2b!8m2!3d32.7505917!4d-96.8259209?hl=en

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[John Butler]

I wasn't going to post here again since I thought this thread would die after Bristow's gobbledygook response to my last post.  Let the readers decide has always been my motivation to such nonsense.

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

But, then he comes up with this.  What kind of disinformation nonsense are we expected to believe here?  Does whatever happened in 2001 and 2002 have anything to do with what happened in the Spring of 1963?  There is no way to generalize that based on the information given.  If you remember during the 1970's we were in a global cooling era and a new Ice Age was soon to begin.  Then we were in a global warming era during the 1990s until the present if some are to be believed.  According to some we have 12 years to live as life on earth dies from climate change.  And, to others the earth has been cooling since 2006 when people begin to be reported as freezing to death in China.  This is the time when cold record temperatures on all of the continents were beginning to be being set.  You figure it out.

It is my opinion you can not link current weather patterns or early 2000s weather patterns to the 1960s on such a minute scale for prediction of the weather in the spring of 1963.

I take Jack White at his word about how things were in Dallas during the springs of his life time.  He said March is not the blooming month.  April is.  I agree for the year 1969 for the time I was in Texas.

OBTW, I think more than a 1963 shrub should be water boarded.  There are other things around in 63 that should be included.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I wasn't going to post here again since I thought this thread would die after Bristow's gobbledygook response to my last post.  Let the readers decide has always been my motivation to such nonsense.

But, then he comes up with this.  ".  If you remember during the 1970's we were in a global cooling era and a new Ice Age was soon to begin.  Then we were in a global warming era during the 1990s until the present if some are to be believed.  According to some we have 12 years to live as life on earth dies from climate change.  And, to others the earth has been cooling since 2006 when people begin to be reported as freezing to death in China.  This is the time when cold record temperatures on all of the continents were beginning to be being set.  You figure it out.

It is my opinion you can not link current weather patterns or early 2000s weather patterns to the 1960s on such a minute scale for prediction of the weather in the spring of 1963.

I take Jack White at his word about how things were in Dallas during the springs of his life time.  He said March is not the blooming month.  April is.  I agree for the year 1969 for the time I was in Texas.

OBTW, I think more than a 1963 shrub should be water boarded.  There are other things around in 63 that should be included.

 

Butler. "Does whatever happened in 2001 and 2002 have anything to do with what happened in the Spring of 1963?"

Chris "But google Earth shows that in 2001 it bloomed in February and in 2002 it had not bloomed  by March. 23! "

It wasn't gobbledygook (except maybe just to you.)Chris was just showing you that the growth in 1961 was different to the growth in 1962, and means it could be different in 1963. Seems you disagree.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Ray,

You are just adding to the nonsense of Chris'.  You fellows need to get a life and stop trolling with disinformation.  There is not enough data to scientifically rationalize what happens in 2001 and 2002 to what happened in 1961, 1962, and particularly to the single year 1963.

When I first entered the forum a few years back I posted the notion that in a photo, I don't really remember whether it was a Bond, a Bothun, or a Altgens photo, on the different directions the shadows of people going up the Grassy Knoll.  There were several different directions.  I was told that the shadows went in different directions because the people were going up the hill.  Unbelievable.  It was a moron response.  Sounds like the same thing below.  Shadows change their directions simply because they fall on different surfaces.  Give me a break! 

I'll pay attention to such foolishness when you can provide me with a reputable scientific source saying something like that.  Provide a source from a scientist, preferably one in optical physics.

"ALL THE DIFFERENT DIRECTION ARE EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT SOME SHADOWS FALL ON A SOUTH FACING SURFACE, OTHERS ON A WEST FACING SURFACE. STILL OTHERS FALL ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE LIKE THE GROUND AND OTHERS ON A VERTICAL SURFACE. SOME THAT FALL ON A  WEST FACING VERTICAL SURFACE  LIKE THE POST OR HIS PHILTRUM, OTHERS ON A SOUTH FACING VERTICAL SURFACE. OTHERS APPEAR TO BE MOVING LEFT TO RIGHT IN THE 2D IMAGE BUT ARE ACTUALLY MOVING WEST TO EAST. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THESE VARIABLES ALL THE SHADOWS MAKE SENSE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO DISCOUNT JACK WHITES OBSERVATION ABOUT THE BLOOMING SEASON IN TEXAS. I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT IF YOU GO INTO GOOGLE EARTH AND USE THE HISTORY DATE/TIME SLIDER YOU WILL FIND YEARS WHEN  214 NEELY ST WAS FULL BLOOMED IN FEBRUARY AND OTHER YEARS WHEN IT WAS BARON IN MARCH. THAT IS FACTUAL INFO THAT PROVES WE CANNOT RELY ON THE LOOK OF THE PHOTO TO DETERMINE THE DATE."

Edited February 15, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

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. 

EDIT:
Also the telephone line shadow on the post demonstrates how it changes it's 'apparent angle from West face to it's South face. But if you suspect it or any of the images I posted are shopped you can just look at your own image in your member photo. The shadow of your face that lands below your right shoulder changes angles as it travels across the fold in your shirt.  

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Ray Mitcham]

On 2/15/2019 at 10:11 PM, Chris Bristow said:

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. 

EDIT:
Also the telephone line shadow on the post demonstrates how it changes it's 'apparent angle from West face to it's South face. But if you suspect it or any of the images I posted are shopped you can just look at your own image in your member photo. The shadow of your face that lands below your right shoulder changes angles as it travels across the fold in your shirt.  

John doesn't believe in tests. He never tried the post shadow experiment which was suggested to him.

[John Butler]

Your shadows are consistent.  They move away from the light source.  That is what shadows do.

Once again in the simplest part of the argument.  The step shadows move from the left side of the photo towards the right.  The shadow of the Oswald figure moves in a different direction.  It moves from the right side of the photo to the left side of the photo.  This gives you two light sources (suns) in the photo.  It is a clear fraud.

None of your warped reasoning is going to convince me otherwise.  You are wasting your time and mine.

[John Butler]

One last comment.  My id photo has multiple light sources.  The photo was taken in a restaurant in Savannah, GA several years ago.  Lights over head in different places.  A strong light from the windows at the front of the restaurant. Multiple light sources = multiple shadow directions.

[Guest]

From the Blunt Archives

Digitals by moi