Russ Connelly

13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

It does look like Senator to me.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsenator.htm

I don't know about the Minox camera.  Were they not kind of expensive for the general public.  Isn't that why some have questioned why Oswald had one as he was usually almost broke.  Some have speculated his was provided by an employer for use in work assignments.

The film/pictures are interesting.

I am not sure if it is Senator or not.  However, the object the man is looking at certainly is the correct colour shape and size for a Minox camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox.

Judging by his fascination with the object it looks like Ruby has passed it to him to hold whilst he combed his hair. 

Apologies if this has been posted before but I found this short video footage of Jack Ruby from 1960 engrossing.  Does anyone know who it is standing with him?  Some of the comments are suggesting it is George Senator.

https://flashbackdallas.com/2017/12/07/newly-discovered-footage-of-jack-ruby-1960/

Hi Ray

Is there no-one else at all in the research community that has a computer that could do this? Is it worth posting a thread on Ed Forum asking for someone with that technology to help out?

Hi Vanessa,

I'm sure you are right. There must be someone on here who is competent in the art of upgrading the Prayer man frame. Unfortunately, it's not me. If you haven't read "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T. Phillips, about the computer work of Tom Wilson, i recommend it. (It's available on Amazon.)

If, as I believe, Tom's system works as he said it did, then he has shown the problems with the Zap film, the autopsy photos, the Moorman polaroid photo and others.

Been working on this for a while and I just don't think there is enough image data to bring out features of this person

I'm by no means an expert at enhancement yet I've put a decent amount of time in learning and trying.

As you say, maybe a better source image

DJ

As far as I am aware, if the data isn't present in the original image in the first place then it is my understanding that it can't be brought out or enhanced. Any other 'enhancement' would just be adding data to the existing image and if we are going to do that, we may as well paste Oswald's head directly onto the image.

I do however think the figure depicted most certainly 'could' be Oswald, he appears to tbe approx the correct height and build, similar hairline, dark shirt, etc. My first impression also was that the figure was removing or replacing a lid on a bottle...

This is a great thread and very informative. I have always had the same thoughts re the presence of the scope - if it was easier to fire without the scope then any experienced shooter wouldnt have had the thing anywhere near his set up... the presence of the scope however also provides the Commission report with some nice reconstruction close ups of a mock Kennedy (magnified) which makes the shot look much easier than it would have been minus a "quality" scope.

Also, from reading about this alleged shooting feat for many years it always appears odd that there can such an apparent divergence of opinion from firearms experts:-

On one hand there is the opinion that this would be an extremely difficult feat given the various factors (quality and set up of weapon, firing position, moving target, cross winds, gradient, distance, etc) not to mention the planning, discipline, skill to make the shots, not to mention the cool headedness required to miss completely with your free shot before achieving two almost perfect hits. Then there is the difficulty that the Commission appointed experts had in replicating the shots with the scope as has been pointed out.

On the other hand you have others saying that this was an easy shot, from close range, slow moving target, more than capable rifle in the carcano, etc... there doesnt seem to be any middle ground?

Hi John, I also live in the UK and I assume that you recorded this from from the TCM Channel from a couple of weeks ago as I did.

I watched the film last week and one of the most interesting scenes, from my point of view, is the sequence at around the hour mark in the movie where the assassination team visit Dealey Plaza. They appear in the film to be given access to a number of locations including the Book Depository, the County Records building and the Dal Tex building.

There is a fascianting overhead helicopter shot which pans around Dealey Plaza from above and provides an excellent perspective on the scale of the area for someone who has never been there. I found this whole sequence to be fascinating given that the film was made just 10 years or so after the actual event.

One other sequence which stood out was the shooting sequence which portrayed 4 or 5 hits, with rear shots coming from both the Book Depository and the County Records building.

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

Why not, fishing is fun.

Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'.

Aren't we talking about two different effects here:

1) That if somehow, enough light was projected down through the rifle scope and projected onto the environment within its path (Dealey Plaza) - that anyone photographing within this environment may have picked up the resulting oval of light projected by the scope somewhere within their photographic image, or at an even bigger stretch onto the film itself within their camera.

2) That a reflection of a camera operators eye may be projected onto a film surface via the camera lens optics (which could only happen using a reflex camera where the eye is actually looking at the same optical lens which is used to project light onto the film).

In the first instance, even if we could distinguish any ovals of light, would it not be impossible to distinguish which came from which camera, scope, pair of binoculars, telescope, etc of which there may have been many pointing at the motorcade throughout Dealey Plaza during those few seconds...

In the second instance, the camera operators eye might be reflected onto the film if the camera was a reflex camera...but what would that tell us anyway apart from that someone was looking into the camera when they opened the shutter...

+++++++++++++

With regards to locating the distance from a photographer to an object in a photo, while initially daunting, may possibly, as many such things do, turn out to be simpler than one may think. Still, an objective comprehensive attitude is important and sometimes good comes out of the seemingly impossible. At the moment it's collecting all the variables and analysing them, ascribing them an error margin, then using the worst relevantb error margin to make a statement about whether it is of any value. That process is difficult. Once attained, it may be 'self evident'.[/i][/size]

jd It seems to me that there are three main issues with a number of sub issues

Astronomic - essentially knowables

The Image under scrutiny - largely likely knowables

Lines of sight - knowables

The Camera - largely likely knowables

The formula may be complex, figuring it out may be so too. Once verified (if attainable) very precise and universally applicable. ???.

+++++++++++++++

I agree that sometimes things are more simple than they seem and would endorse the view that potential problems should be tackled and explored rather than ignored. As you say, once verified, such data would be very precise and universally applicable. But to point out one example, in terms of solar calculations, the NOAA website states that its solar calculator is based on the algorithms of Jean Meeus which are accurate to within 1 minute for locations +/- 72 degrees latitude and within 10 minutes outside of these latitudes - these error margins being due to atmospheric conditions which are local and constantly changing...

http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/calcdetails.html

Whilst this may make it more difficult to reconcile 'absolute' timings, perhaps the overall approach could point out any discrepancies in the claimed positions of cameras...such as Altgens for example...

John,

The more I think about this, the more I think this is a tough nut to crack.

I think one thing that would be helpful -- that we probably don't have and may never have available -- are comparative photographs made with the same optics under controlled conditions.

My lack of posts on this topic should not be interpreted as a lack of interest. At this point I've got more questions than answers; more variables than equations. To make matters worse, I'm a little rusty on a couple of related concepts that would probably be helpful here. As they say, I need to hit the books a bit.

I have to concur with your view Frank...I have limited experience with photogrammetry but getting back to the topic point - any attempt to try and calculate with any degree of accuracy, the exact time (to the nearest 10 - 30secs) in November 1963 when the sun shone on a given surface (the Nix camera lens) will definitely introduce error margins which may render the effort redundant...

What we know - to the nearest 60 secs or so - is when the shots where fired and when certain other events occurred ...but what we can't ever nail down, is the relative timings of said events to each other (i.e. the first shot, LHO exit from the TSBD, the time on the TSBD roof clock, LHO hailing taxi, etc, etc)...

The accuracy we require is probably beyond us - for example, the earths orbit around the sun is not consistent and is subject to slight fluctuations which could introduce certain error margins which cannot be rounded down to a degree which can challenge currently proposed timings...

Thirdly, I hypothesise that a great deal of accuracy can be achieved as far as frame rate reduction goes by delving deeper into some matters. Apart from what you correctly (IMO) say re. unwind rates, there may be other approaches as well, for example you may remember my odd postings re deducing the speed of an object in relation to camera movement, static background, object movement, from an analysis of the various blurs and knowing the exposure time, form a SINGLE frame or photo. Also, the wheels of the Limo has a specific dameter, and if one can identify any point on this wheel and deducing how far it has moved in an arc during the frame exosure then one may have a very accurate speed. I wonder to what extent, if any, the windown, framerate in anyway changes the exposure rate. I imagine that it is a good idea to have it built so that the frame rate mechanism trips a frame shutter opening time that remains to all intents and purposes constant.

You may be on to something here... I need to ponder a bit on what you've written, but I find the ideas intriguing.

Thinking out loud for a moment:

Motion blur is tricky, because we don't have all three axis of motion available to us. Rotation might prove to be more revealing. Also -- we need to look for variances in the shutter speed as well as the frame rate. Frame rate has been used to "timestamp" the events. Time also passed while the frame was held open. I'm sure there is some variability to this -- after all, it is a mechanical contraption at work. It may, however, be more regular than frame rate. I don't know if anyone has researched this aspect of the film cameras involved... (my italics, let's see)

The three axis issue may not be as elusive as you reasonably suggest. Back to it later.

_

What's your thoughts on this (musings derived from a tangent of the convo Craig and I were having yesterday) : In the Towner film there is an excised frame.

If one looks at the preceding and following frames one sees a reflection that increases in luminosity and then decreases and it seems reasonable to me to assume that this frame was excised because at that moment in time the sun (which is in a known, particular position at any time, anywhere) overexposed the frame. Therefore using standard astronomical, survey, navigational techniques one may be able to say exactly, perhaps even to the second (give or take a reasonable error margin) when that frame was exposed. Then the implications are enormous. Just think about it. Exactly what time lets say 12.33 is. 12.33? is it 12.33.01 or 12.33.59?. Step that through the timing of events such as the time it takes to get to the lower floor issue, or in this case use it as a bencmark to step through all synched films???

The factors to consider is trangulations to determine the exact position of the film surface at that moment, the exact position of the Limo, and then working out where the sun must have been. Then a reference to the appropriate sun tables...

Could this be the primera?

This is an interesting idea John, I have read about computer models which can calculate the suns position in the sky relative to an observer, for any location and date (including the creation of sunlight and shadow patterns). This sort of thing is often used in automobile accident investigations when a driver claims that he was blinded by the sun or that a pedestrian stepped out from a area of deep shadow... It is also used in building design to show the impact a building will have on neighbouring buildings in terms of shadows cast, etc...

The unknown for me would be the relative degree of accuracy...will this be accurate within 1 second or 10 seconds, and if so, can we then rely upon the benchmark used for the recorded times for the Hertz sign, the timings of the descent to the 1st floor, etc, etc...in relation to this calculation of 'sun' time as it were.

The point I was trying to make is that Rip Robertson in 1961 does not look like the man in the Dealey Plaza photograph.

That was my first impression as well. The man in the Dealey Plaza photograph looks older and heavier than the man in the 1961 photo...regardless of the hat and glasses...

However, when I look closely at the other known photograph of Robertson (on Spartacus), I can see a resemblance with the 1961 photo...particularly when looking at the ears and the nose which appears to be broken from right to left as it were in both photographs. I do have to stretch my imagination and add some brylcream and glasses but I can see that it might possibly be the same man...

Bill Hicks on the assassination of JFK:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

Good find John

Even in this short stand up routine, Bill is able to capture the very essence of the problem behind the publics perception of the JFK assassination...the techniques used to comatose the public into accepting the official (WC) line...mainly a combination of repeating the offical "facts" year after year after year, marrying said "facts" with technical jargon and scientific analysis...and promoting said facts on a variety of websites, tv specials, etc, etc...whilst ignoring (or discrediting) other pertinent information and witness testimony...

However, even with these "facts" firmly established, the majority of the public are not convinced that Oswald acted alone...

Why is this...

To me, there are a number of "basic" issues which have not been (or cannot be) adequately explained...namely

1) The exact timing of the three 3 known shots (this is still up for debate)

2) The exact path of each of the bullets...(this is still up for debate)

3) The true relations between LHO and a) the FBI the CIA, and c) the anti-castro community

If these three aspects can be fully explained then I will be more likely to feel comfortable in coming to a conclusion about the events that day...

At least number 2 should have been put to bed in 1963 when the presidents body was on the autopsy table...I cannot accept that this was not done and dusted then...

I'm interested in getting in contact with people who are using Google Earth in the classroom. I'm intrested in geographers AND non-geographers! What are you doing with it?

Many thanks

Rich

Rich

Something I came across today on Ed Parsons' blog site which might interest you. Ed is the former CTO of Ordnance Survey and is now the Geospatial Technologist at Google.

http://www.edparsons.com/?p=493

Regards

Russ

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process.

The primary problem being in defining the exact scope and nature of the "conspiracy", and whether it was always targeted at JFK (which does not appear so), or else was the conspiracy more in line with the initial target being Castro.

Then, for whatever reason, the target was changed to JFK.

Therefore, the pertinent questions would appear to be:

1. Was the conspiratorial nature of the activities of LHO always target to JFK?

2. Were the conspiratorial nature of the activites of LHO initially targeted at someone like Castro, and then changed to JFK?

3. If #2 above is the actual case, did JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target.

Prior to LHO's trip to Mexico, there is little to indicate that he had any "plans" which encompassed the assassination of JFK.

In fact, his activities appeared to be more directed at getting him closer to Cuba and therefore "Castro".

Only after the return from Mexico and the failed attempt to get to Cuba, did the activities of LHO take on the activities which indicated that JFK had become the target.

Thus, from available information, the return from Mexico is what signalled the "shift" for LHO.

This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)

The nice thing about being a "paid assassin" is that one truly does not nave to worry about who the target may be until such time as it is designated by those who make the payments.

Then and only then does one actually begin to stalk their prey.

Tom, for all the various 'disagreements', or whatever, to date, whether based on ignorance on my part, or lack of proper understanding or whatever.

This post is quite thought provoking.

"This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)"

............

"Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities...have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process."

As someone (myself) who has no problem with being regarded as a nut or even an uninformed nut, deluded fruitcake, or whatever, (still lots to learn and research) I see a clear statement on your part that the evidence as researched by you indicates a conspiracy.

The exact nature of the conspiracy continues to elude me. Nevertheless, much gratitude for all the info posted to date. At least I think I'm sitting on the same branch, though, for reasons resulting from my own stream of research, not quite that far from the trunk as yet.

The comments about truly understanding New Orleans (and the Southern States) of the time are importnat IMO. Therein persons, as yourself, have been, and can continue to be a valued source of info.

Keep it coming...

My thoughts exactly John...your post sums up my feelings to a tee. I am very grateful for Tom's input and will take his advice to try and come to a conclusion myself, based on the evidence available....even if it does take some considerable time and effort...

Morales had quite dark skin.

This is him below on the right during a basketball game.

James

Just in case people thought he was the guy sitting down on the left :D

Thanks, Gary.

BTW, thanks to all who have have responded to this thread. Nineteen years difference between the images used below.

James

James

I took the liberty of flipping your young Morales photo to make further comparison...

That looks fantastic Chris, the match looks to be very good on both survey overlays. We are lucky that the camera appears to have been almost directly overhead Elm Street when the photograph was taken so the camera angle is less of a factor.

These particular images from Google Earth appear to be aerial photographs, and although they have not been orthorectified (go back along Main Street and look at the Plaza Bank building for example), they are a superb reference tool.

Of course, nothing will be as accurate as the original survey carried out by a qualified surveyor.

For info, see attached links to US Geological Survey images of Dealey Plaza, the black and white one is orthorectified and the other is an aerial photograph.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/sk...bucket/96-1.png

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/skeeto_bucket/96.png

Thomas,

Thanks for posting the Speed data. I ran out of time. Your copy is far superior.

I found an aerial shot of DP in the WC report.

So I went ahead and composited the West survey over the aerial.

It seems to fit very nicely except for the Schoolbook Depository marker.

Anything to be concerned with?

chris

-------------------------------------------------------

Chris

Although I only have a limited knowledge of aerial photography, I dont think there is anything to be concerned about. Because of camera angle / tilt, lens distortion and ground relief or elevation, an aerial photograph is not a true geometric representation of what is on the ground.

When using aerial photography for survey purposes (i.e. placing digital lines, geographic symbols, etc) it must first be orthorectified. Software is used to remove the effects described above and the result is a geometrically corrected image (orthoimagery) which can be used to measure distances, etc.

When overlaying onto an aerial photograph one should always expect an accurate trace to differ slightly from the photograph.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thx Russ,

You mention rendering software for corrections.

Do you have a link or name for such software?

Miles

I don't pretend to be an expert on this at all, but from what I understand it is a very complicated process requiring difficult to acquire information and equipment. I don't think knowing the name of the software will help, as we only have a single image to work with and no supporting data about the image.

In order to orthorectify a photograph, you need to have a digital elevation model to "drape" the photograph over. In the most basic terms, what usually happens is that a set of equally distributed and accurate Ground Control Points (elevation points) are taken from all over the area photographed - this is carried out using GPS stations to acquire very accurate height data. This is the Digital Elevation Model.

The area in question also needs to be photographed to produce a series of overlapping photographs, which are then scanned using a very accurate flatbed scanner. Various algorithms must be applied to each pixel on the scan to rectify it with the real features on the ground - using supporting data such as the camera location (in relation to the ground), film resolution, etc. The scan is then digitised and becomes an orthoimage.

For information purposes, 'Arc Info' is one of the more popular pieces of software but I am sure there are many others.

Russ

Thomas,

Thanks for posting the Speed data. I ran out of time. Your copy is far superior.

I found an aerial shot of DP in the WC report.

So I went ahead and composited the West survey over the aerial.

It seems to fit very nicely except for the Schoolbook Depository marker.

Anything to be concerned with?

chris

Chris

Although I only have a limited knowledge of aerial photography, I dont think there is anything to be concerned about. Because of camera angle / tilt, lens distortion and ground relief or elevation, an aerial photograph is not a true geometric representation of what is on the ground.

When using aerial photography for survey purposes (i.e. placing digital lines, geographic symbols, etc) it must first be orthorectified. Software is used to remove the effects described above and the result is a geometrically corrected image (orthoimagery) which can be used to measure distances, etc.

When overlaying onto an aerial photograph one should always expect an accurate trace to differ slightly from the photograph.

One question: Is anyone able to enlighten me, what happened to the face of the man to the left of the TSBD entrance? The one that looks like he is wearing a suit and some kind of Fedora-looking hat. Left left of Lovelady.

The man left left of Lovelady (as we look at the picture), wearing a hat and suit, appears to be holding a young child whose woollen hat is obscuring his face.

I see the auction price is now at $600,000. It would interesting to know who has won this auction when it ends - may prove difficult to find out unless they publicise their purchase.

If one is convinced that the case is open and shut, and has been since 1964, why would one spend a further 35 years studying the case? I am a relative newcomer to the forum, but I think it is unfair that you can generalise that all contributors are being led on a blind chase up the "grassy knoll". This is not a reflection of the level of debate which I have witnessed on this forum to date - from both those who see evidence of conspiracy and those who do not.

I for one have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion as to who perpetrated this crime. If (like you) I take 35 years of study to reach my conclusion, then so be it.

A professionally surveyed map of Dealey Plaza is an extremely valuable resource for researchers, particularly one which is dated prior to (and as close to) the date of the assassination. Due to location and other constraints, maps and photographs are often as close as one can get to examining the physical scene of the crime.

Don, I would appreciate if you could provide some details as to the estimated survey date for this map, the original scale and the methods used to carry out the survey? I am presuming that the original survey was stored as a paper map which has then been scanned electronically for web display.

One related thought which occurred to me whilst reading the Stemmons Freeway sign thread, has anyone sourced any aerial photographs of Dealey Plaza from 1963 or prior to 1963?

Apologies if this has been covered previously, I am a relative newcomer, hence my first posting.

Regards

I became aware of the education forum whilst reading up on the assassination of John F Kennedy some years back. I became interested in the assassination and its political repercussions about 25 years or so ago, having viewed a documentary on UK television which I think was called "The Mysterious Career of Lee Harvey Oswald". I thoroughly enjoy the valuable discussions which take place on the forum although I am more of a lurker than a contributor.

I have worked as the Policy Co-ordinator for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (National Mapping Agency - Northern Ireland) for the 5 years but have relatively recently moved on to take up another post in local government. I have a BA Hons degree in History and Media Studies from the University of Ulster and am particularly interested in politics and its impact on history.

I live with my wife and four sons in Ballyclare, which is a small town approx 12 miles outside of Belfast in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.