James R Gordon

Thomas, The person standing by the walll - not the one in post 1747 - measures only 5'. As Tom Hume and I have been discussing, if that person is not standing uptight that would make a difference. If the height of the door is between 7' 3" to 8 ' it is clear this man is well below that height. The individual highlighted in the above post appears at least 6' when measured against the height of the door.

And that is the salient point Tom. If that is what we are seeing then PM could be much taller than we see in the image. And if that is the case then it is a totally different situation.

Tom I was referring to this.

Tom, I agree. And if that can be established that may well be a game changer. As you can see there is something not too far from where PM is positioned.

Short answer it might. My problem is that the height of the head to the top of the door - whatever the height of the door is - appears to be somewhere around 2 feet. If he is standing that would tend to eliminate him. But if he is crouching or sitting, that would make a difference.

Thomas, I believe it is a moot point whether the person had long sleeves on. If his height is around 5" then whoever the person is he cannot be Oswald. I have been too busy today to follow it up, but on the wall, just where PM is there is a ledge or something. Is it possible he is not standing? That would make a world of difference. The height of the door has to be around 7' 6" to 8'. There is no way PM is just under 18" from the top of the door. If he is standing then PM cannot be Oswald. If you can establish PM is around 5' 10" then yes this again is an active argument. I mean you have an active argument in my eyes. I do not mean in your eyes - I accept what I have said may not be important to you - though to me it is a critical point. But if you cannot, then whether he is or is not wearing sleeves is a moot point. Like most on this forum I long for most of my life for a valid reason to dismantle the WC, but I am not going to ignore evidence that suggests this is not Oswald.

Maybe Mark, because it was May 8th and they had just over a month to complete the various chapters of the report. Great find Chris, but it is really depressing that although they have the west window pointed out to them, they show not the least bit of interest.

Vanessa, Yes welcome back! I would hope you might engage in what I have done and the calculations I undertook and, of course their conclusion. First:- What was the basis of my calculations? The interior of the building - east to west - is 97' 3". North and South Dimensions are different. The width of the exterior wall is 16" - each side. = 99' 11" I rounded it to 100' I believe the length of the exterior wall is actually slightly longer. I took a high resolution image of the front of the TSBD and used a computer measuring tape to get what the value of 100' would be to that image. With that value I measured the entrance and ratioed the values. Aside from ratioing calculations, there is also the problem of perspective. And so I do not say my calculations are absolutely correct. However, forgetting that from these calculations I could not get past 5', this figure appears to have some validity. Look at the difference between the height of PM head and the top of the door. Also all the people in the main part of the image are standing on the same level. I accept there may be errors in the calculation, but I doubt it is anywhere near 9 - 10 inches. That said, the posture of the body made me wonder whether he was standing upright. I wondered whether he was crouched somewhat. Those were the reasons for my position. Length of arms did not enter into the question. If PM is Oswald - and I am not here to destroy that concept - and if I am right that the door is 7' 3" then this man cannot be 5' 9". That would mean his head is 1' 6" below the top of the door. The image makes clear that whoever this person is his head is a lot lower than 1' 6". James.

I have spent some time on PM, to give him his ascribed title. I cannot get any value for his height beyond 5'1". To begin with I questioned my calculations but soon realised that value had to be right. Having spent time carefully measuring this morning I get the following values. The width of the entrance 12' 3" The height of the entrance is 10' 7" The height of the door is 7" 3" Since I have been rationing there will be some error in the calculations. But they should not be too far out. So:- 1. If the height of the door is 7' 3", then the height of this guy has to be somewhere around 5'. By the RH edge of the door is a man. He has to be around 6' and he is clearly much taller than PM. Even the woman, who is standing in the middle of the door is taller than PM and yet she is shorter than the man at the edge of the door. 2. So, even if there are errors in my calculations, it will only be a couple of inches and therefore whoever PM is he cannot be Oswald.

Mark, I agree, Creating these figures did not mean I was saying it was or was not Oswald. I was simply trying to establish values whereby others can better judge who the figure might be.

Mark, It could also be that the estimated height might be slightly out and and that it could be 5 foot 7 to 9 inches. This was done quickly. I'll go back and be more careful and I should get a more accurate value. It is assumed that line E is actually right and is indeed on the floor of the top step. James

The TSBD is approx. 100 feet wide. Actually it is just slightly above that. But I'll use that as a value. The width of the doorway - edge to edge - I calculate is 12 feet 1 inch wide. I suspect it is 12 feet wide. The height from the top step to ceiling I calculate as 10 foot 6 inches, If you can establish the halfway point, then that width is 6 foot. James Additions:- Assuming Line E is from the base of the top step, then it is likely to be 8 ft high. That suggests the individual is around 6ft tall + or - Using Line E as 8 ft. The height appears around 5ft 6 to 8 inches

Thomas, This is very impressive, especially when using Powerpoint rather than Photoshop and/or AfterEffects. Well done!!! Whoever this person, they clearly have a short sleeve shirt on. Gimp 2.8 suggests this figure cannot be Oswald, the shirt is far too tidy and appears closed from about the upper chest. An excellent piece of image adjustment. James.

Larry, I absolutely agree with your choice ... Jerry Mcknight's book and William Law's book. I believe there is second edition of William Laws book coming soon. In addition can I suggest Sylvia Meager's work and David Lifton. You do not need to agree with David Lifton's conclusions however his research well worth the read. David Wrone's book on the zapruder film has a great essay on photographic alteration. For the Prayer man thread, the documentary " the lost bullet" has the best versions of the films including the 2000+ enhanced versions. That film is on YouTube. With good computer equipment and software you might get a better image. James

bumped

Robert, Greg has reading privileges and he is still visiting, so I'm sure your request will get through to him. I appreciate that Greg and others are extremely knowledgeable and could contribute greatly to the thread you are interested in, but for me this is a red line issue from which I will not budge. I do hope this matter can be resolved, but I cannot and will not allow - those who were until to-day current members of this forum, to treat the present membership and our forum in the manner they have been doing. I am sorry for those members who wish to see them to contribute and hopefully that will indeed still be able to happen. James

Today I have suspended a number of members posting privileges. I have not banned them, but I am very concerned with their attitude towards this forum. On another website these members have made clear the utter contempt they have for this forum, its members and moderators. They have been egging each other on. The portraits and descriptions of members and moderators suggests this is what they really feel about this forum and its members For the moment I have suspended their rights. Hopefully this matter can be resolved and membership returned. But until then the safety and integrity of this forum must come first. James Gordon

On March 18th Robert Prudhomme opened this thread basically asking how members feel about Bill Kelley’s thread on Oswald leaving the TSBD. It was a serious question he was asking and, like other current threads on the forum, was looking for debate and discussion on an issue of real importance. Guys I have read the last three pages and what I have read is truly embarrassing. Carmine there is no question but that you are winding members up. And Lee, and Robert I would prefer you to ignore Carmine’s taunts and not give further food for his taunts. The question Robert raised is an important question and is worthy of serious adult debate. Please lets get our acts together, I have no wish to close this thread and Robert's question does deserve serious debate. However what I read is so embarrassing that if it continues I have to close the thread. James.

Lee, I am not prepared to give you all the details. However I will outline the essentials. An administrative task took place on Friday night that also essentially deleted a member's membership. Although I knew Invision did daily backup's at 10pm ET I was not aware every backup deleted the previous night's backup. Hence the initial request to back up all your essential posts to save them. However when it became known to us that that the restore would not work - because the details that were present on Friday night had now been erased by subsequent backups - we were informed we would have to take another route to repair this matter. That was when I announced that there would be no backup last night. Now regarding two points made in your posts. 1. We made a mistake and we are attempting to remedy it. Members confidential info was never an issue of risk. 2. Although a little embarrassing for this to occur in public, I feel it demonstrates the lengths we will go to repair a situation that is our fault. The member's membership will be restored however public and embarrassing it is to the administration. James

An Update:- I have just heard from Invision that there will be no restoration tonight. Because the problem occurred on Friday night, Invision have realised that the nightly backups - from Friday night to Sunday night - have overwritten the files they need to restore the member's membership. Sorry for the confusion. James.

To be honest, I am not sure Thomas. One way might be to save the entire topic as a PDF. Browsers allow you to do that. You can then extract your own posts and restore them later. That would seem a reasonably easy way. Kathy has also suggested another way. Whatever is more easier for you. James.

I am sorry to say, but we have had a bit of a hiccup. That means that we need to restore the most recent backup. Backup are made every night at 10 ET. That means any posts members have made since 10 ET yesterday will not have been saved and therefore will not be restored. It is suggested that members save their important posts and manually restore them tomorrow. We apologise for this and we are aware it is a real inconvenience and will cause some hardship. However we had no option, a restoration is the only way to correct the problem. James

test

This thread has now been unlocked. Hopefully debate will will be more positive.

I am locking this thread for a day. Carmine Savastano, the criticisms made by other members that you do not engage in the discussion but circumvent the issues with language and opinion, appears – to me – to be valid. I can see that this is very frustrating to fellow members. The purpose of the locking is to give you, Carmine, time to marshal your ideas and proofs together. If after the thread is unlocked the debate continues in its present form then I will close the thread. It is not something I wish to do, but it appears – at present – nothing positive is being achieved from continuing this present debate and fellow members are clearly being irritated. James