Chris Davidson
-
Posts
4,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Davidson
-
-
11 hours ago, John Butler said:
OBTW, one of your confreres, after criticism, went on a rant and said he didn't have an "effin Master". Do you, Ray? Do you have an "effin Master" that makes you write these ludicrous comments? Just curious?
Or, have you departed the land of reason and rationality for the land of disinformation and despite?
A disinformation rant just for you:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/?do=findComment&comment=395611http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/?do=findComment&comment=395623
-
Andrej,
I tried to take the photographic frame out of the equation by recommending the correct aspect ratio and angle to horizon adjustment.
Camera information and trigonometry for the rest.
The only height that's known is Fraziers.
Body proportions are all variables just as in the head height graphic you supplied previously.
I never said I found your "one foot on a lower step theory" unreasonable.
If I had, I would never had try to reproduce it with my own experiment. Although that turned out to be worthless in this instance.
We don't agree on the object/hand being in or out of shadow.
So you're not going to convince me about other shadows.
If there is an egregious mistake with my math/information then someone will correct it and maybe I'll change my opinion.
Present your case to those that are more knowledgeable in Photogrammetry than I am.
I've spent more time than I anticipated on this.
Break time!!!
-
On 5/21/2019 at 3:51 PM, Chris Davidson said:
If you paid attention to what I have previously said, I stated my Wiegman enhancements look like a woman. I still stick by that. I do not and have never hinged my so-called research reputation on those enhancements. If it’s Oswald, fine. If it’s not, fine. If it’s two different people, fine.
In fact, way back when this first started, I hinted the Darnell prayer person looks more male than female.
That doesn’t necessarily mean I think that it’s Oswald.
As I remain gender neutral on the identity of Prayer Person/s, I'm just not willing to exclude everyone but Oswald.
Do I believe Oswald was shooting from the 6th floor, no, never have, as my research has always dictated.
This doesn't therefore mean if Oswald isn't Prayer Person, it proves he was shooting.
There are other people that appeared similar in profile to Oswald near the confines of the TBSD.
If I made an error in the math, I will stand corrected.
As of now, I'm convinced by the math that the Prayer Person figure in Darnell is 63 inches tall.
-
Thanks to Ray for the stair height info.
Add 6 inches for the curb + 50"(stairs) + 73"(Fraziers height) = 129" / 12 = 10.75ft.
Height of the camera when the film was taken approx 6.72ft above the ground (Darnell sitting atop the back seat of a convertible I assume).
The calculator gives the base distance in nautical miles, I'just converted it for you.
You can compare that to the previous postings calculator if so desired.
-
The same distance to both figures when plotted would look like this:
It places Frazier approx 1.56ft back from the landing edge.
-
On 5/20/2019 at 4:05 PM, Chris Davidson said:
My guess for the camera that was used:
-
On 5/22/2019 at 4:56 AM, Andrej Stancak said:
Chris:
thanks for your explanations. The tonal values of objects in black-and-white photographs taken by different cameras and film materials are not comparable. There is no point in comparing a white helmet in a shadow with a human skin exposed to sunlight.
The body height problem: if you think Prayer Man was 5'6'' and was standing further back on the top landing, you would face the problem of comparing his 5'6' with Mr. Frazier's 6'. This would put the level of Prayer Man head (the top) to about the root of the nose in Frazier's figure. This is not the case. If you place Prayer Man closer toward the aluminium frame, his right elbow will be hopelessly far from the head of the man standing on the second step.
I have done very little modelling with Wiegman film and cannot comment on all details of Prayer Man's location and body posture yet. However, it appears that he stood in much the same way as in Darnell, however, he was rotated slightly more to his right and may also be shifted an inch or two closer to the western wall. I would see nothing strange in seeing such minor differences in Prayer Man's posture between Wiegman and Darnell.
Yet, coincidentally, they are approx the same tonal values.
I didn't say I thought Prayer Person was 5'4" / 5'6" tall.
Chris's quote: "I gave two different heights for the Darnell person, one which doesn’t fit a person who is 5’4”/5”6” tall unless that person was standing a certain distance back from the landing edge. Imo"
That was in reference to somebody else making a determination of Prayer Persons height at 5'4"/5'6".
It is what I thought would occur if a 63" object was a few feet back from the landing edge, but photographically
The effect from a 25mm lens on the height of Prayer Person at those distances is minuscule.
The two photographic heights I arrived at (63 pixels for Prayer Person)(73 pixels for Frazier)(work previously provided) place Prayer Person on the approx top edge of the landing (in complete shadow) and Frazier's relationship to that location.
-
8 minutes ago, John Butler said:
"That person is either one of two heights(described previously) depending on what step you believe he/she is on."
I still don't get his work. He is counting pixels between to misplaced lines and then offering some unrelated video not connected at all to what you are describing. Huh?
I'd be very careful when assessing other people's research.
I'll just mention the Altgens/Stemmons sign perspective and leave it at that.
-
4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
This may be possible but I will not spend hours doing it because your mentally deranged master does not understand anything and uses you to challenge me. He did so several times in the past and it never ended well for his messengers.
I am sure that you are bright enough to understand the problem, however, I would be grateful if you could also convey this information to that mentally disturbed individuum on the other forum.
First of all, I don’t have an effin MASTER and nobody uses me for anything.
So cut with the cr—p.
I do my own research.
Do I converse with him on another forum and agree with him sometimes, yes.
If you paid attention to what I have previously said, I stated my Wiegman enhancements look like a woman. I still stick by that. I do not and have never hinged my so-called research reputation on those enhancements. If it’s Oswald, fine. If it’s not, fine. If it’s two different people, fine.
I have never said I believe that person to be who my so called master thinks it is.
Anyone can search that if desired.
In fact, way back when this first started, I hinted the Darnell prayer person looks more male than female.
That doesn’t necessarily mean I think that it’s Oswald.
I gave two different heights for the Darnell person, one which doesn’t fit a person who is 5’4”/5”6” tall unless that person was standing a certain distance back from the landing edge. Imo
Now that I addressed that, I’ll take a look at the rest of your points.
My first response is:
If prayer persons hand in Darnell is in sunlight, how can the tonal value equal that of a white helmet and white police hat in similar shadow locations?
I’ve always been under the impression that prayer person (if they are the same person in both Wiegman and Darnell) was raising and lowering a white object in Wiegman a few seconds apart.
Whereas the time difference between the two films was approx 30 seconds.
-
20 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
So, it is in Mr. Frazier's hands. He just needs to say who this person was and we check whatever evidence there is if the person indicated by him could be Prayer Man. However, unless he does so, some of us will continue this research until the truth emerges whatever would it be. It is unsatisfactory to say that the figure is blurred because it is not about a blurred image - it is about the few people who we know stood on the top steps. The person of interest stood about 2 feet away from Mr. Frazier and was in Mr. Frazier's field of view. He should have known from the very beginning who was around him. And he knows - only one blind spot remained. However, that person there at the western wall was never addressed in any of Warren Commission testimonies. And that person bears a striking resemblance with Lee Oswald:
1. He was 5'9'' + 5/8'' which would fit Lee Oswald's body height.
2. He was a white Caucasian.
3. The body height says he was a male.
4. He was dressed as a worker.
5. There are striking similarities between Prayer Man's shirt and CE151, the reddish shirt which Oswald wore in the morning hours.
6. Prayer Man's hairline suggests that he was a non-balding male placing him into the age range of 20-30 years.
7. He had to come from the inside of the building, therefore, he was most likely an employee.
Is it then that strange to ask if Lee Oswald could be Prayer Man? Who else could he be?
I should continue with the recent find of James Hosty's handwritten notes which say that Oswald went for the Coke to the second floor, returned to the first floor and then went out to view the P.
I believe prayer person in Darnell is in complete shadow.
That person is either one of two heights(described previously) depending on what step you believe he/she is on.
The cycle cop is one step down from the landing moving from west to east.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing
-
3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
The only measuring I would utilize from the enlargement is a more precise distance between the blue lines representing Frazier and Prayer Person.
In this case 73 pixels vs 63 pixels.
Then I would convert from pixels to mm and then onto inches.
73 x 25.4 = 1854.2mm = 73 inches
63 x 25.4 = 1600.2mm = 63 inches
What shoes were being worn?
If I believe the frame shows a person was straddling the top step that would make them approx 1/2" smaller than the 7 1/4" top riser or 63 + 7.25 - 1/2" - shoe height.
= 69.75" - shoe height?
My guess for the camera that was used:
-
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:
Very interesting and very good work guys. Aside from the strong resemblance to LHO your work here is the most compelling work I have seen. I don’t give any credence to the idea that PM is anything but a man but, which is the subject of this thread, but your analysis is spot on if you needed to be convinced that there is a person behind Frazier and it could be Stanton.
The only measuring I would utilize from the enlargement is a more precise distance between the blue lines representing Frazier and Prayer Person.
In this case 73 pixels vs 63 pixels.
Then I would convert from pixels to mm and then onto inches.
73 x 25.4 = 1854.2mm = 73 inches
63 x 25.4 = 1600.2mm = 63 inches
What shoes were being worn?
If I believe the frame shows a person was straddling the top step that would make them approx 1/2" smaller than the 7 1/4" top riser or 63 + 7.25 - 1/2" - shoe height.
= 69.75" - shoe height?
-
2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
To show the level reached by a person 5' 2 1/2'' on a figure of a man 6', I have prepared a realistic human model with standard male proportions in Poser 11.1. Then I scaled one of the figures to 6' and another to 5' 2 1/2'', and also added a 7 1/2 grid (this refers to the observations that the height of human head fills the body height 7.5 times).
Please note how well the top of the short person's head aligns with the tall person's chin. This is exactly what we see in Darnell and what all other estimates predicted. The 5'4'' line would cross the mouth. This is too a high level of Prayer Man's head compared to what is evidenced in Darnell, and too bad for those few who believe that Prayer Man was Mrs. Stanton (who, by the way, was 5'6'').
I didn't say your height conclusion from Darnell was wrong. I tried to point out the placement of Prayer Persons head in your previous graphic broke the red colored plane and therefore registered as a height too tall for your conclusion.
Provided is an enlarged representation from a properly aspect ratio'd and rotated version of Darnell. imo
The red "x" marks the photographic center of it.
-
5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
Would you be willing to take a picture of yourself with marks at 5' 2 1/2'' , 5'4'' and 6'' next to you? This would clear the problem of the height at which Prayer Man's aligns with Frazier's chin.
I don't believe that's necessary.
Just rotate your existing graphic 1.3° clockwise.
Disregard your yellow head marker.
Follow my two blue horizontal lines (both which eliminate the hair aspect).
The blue chin line runs where? in relationship to Fraziers chin.
Like this:
-
10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
Chris:
a person measuring 72 inches (6') would have his/her head of 9' 6/10''. First, there are standard proportions between body parts in human being. Tall and short people will differ in the heights of their heads, however, the proportions between their body height and the height of their heads will always be the same. This rule is known as a 7 1/2 rule and it is used by artists to achieve normal proportions in their human figures: https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-techniques/drawing-proportions-human-body-ameral/ .
Applied to Buell Wesley Frazier: 72/7.5 = 9.6. However, I used in my work the head height estimate acquired from real human beings. These are published e.g., on wikipedia.org in the chapter "Human Head". Here are the values:
Dimension 14 refers to head heights. There are 5 columns in the table above. The columns correspond to head heights (from short to large - left to right) in people divided into 5 quintiles based on their body heights. Thus, 9' 1/10' would correspond to a person of average body height. Buell Wesley Frazier was taller than average and that was the reason for selecting the two right-most values in my preliminary estimates.
Anyway, we have three values to compare for Buell Wesley Frazier's head:
The estimate according to the 7 1/2 rule: 9' 6/10''.
My estimate from comparing the plane 5' 2 1/2'' and 6': 9' 6'' .
The estimate that was given by wikipedia.org: 9' 7/10'' .
They are all three very close and make a strong case for Buell Wesley Frazier's head to measure 9' 6''.
While it looks trivial to measure own head, it is actually not that trivial because the chin and the top of the head are not parts of a perfect cube. These measurements are usually made using simple but standardised tools.
Please do not believe people who already lost their case for good. If you wish to make a case for Mrs. Stanton being Prayer Man, you need to answer not only how her body height 5'4'' - 5' 6'' (the higher estimate is correct according to the comparison of her figure with the figure of her son Larry who was 6' -6'1'') but also the question where is her thick grey hair in Prayer Man's figure. Where is it?
I will go through the rest of your points carefully although I may not understand some very technical aspects in your post.
Before I go on, a correction is in order on my part.
My head height is actually 9 inches , NOT 8.5.
My sub-nasal length is 2.9 inches which also corresponds to the 50th percentile group.
Sorry, but I initially trusted my wife's vision without the use of a flat surface over the top of my head to measure to.
This most important aspect could be resolved by someone asking Frazier to take these two measurements.
-
Andrej,
Here's what I would double-check:
Can I take the original frame, determine the correct aspect ratio for that 16mm frame and size it accordingly. (Crop width to black bars and reduce height to a 1.37/1 ratio)
Once the aspect ratio is correct, can I properly correct for horizontal/vertical accuracy. Use the photographic center. (.75° clockwise is pretty good.)
Do I know the height of Frazier's head?
If I straddle one step am I stepping down the total height of that step or am I not quite at that height. (A half inch difference comes to mind.)
This is not what I did to your graphic since I do not know where you started from.
But, analogous to the previous suggestions, it looks like this:
The top of Prayer Persons head touches the chin bottom of Frazier.
I'm 72.5" tall, just as Frazier and JFK were.
My head height is 8.5".
Variables!!!
-
13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
I think you are right, CE844 may be correct and Google Earth has a problem. Your numbers match the West Breneman map at Z210. At Z313 the WB map is 418 and CE844 shows 421, so they diverge a bit, while Google Earth is about 10 feet off in many places. I don't know why that is but none of those maps are fully consistent with CE844.
The WB map shows the manhole by the West end of the picket fence is 1 foot higher than than street level at Z210. That appears correct and If that is true then the South parking lot is at about the same elevation as Z210 because that manhole, the overpass, and the parking lot in the South corner are all within one foot elevation of each other according to Google Earth. CE844 does not give the elevation for any of those points so I don't have one map that shows Z210 and the parking lot. It looks like it still is close to a level shot.Chris,
If you want to dig deeper into this, I suggest this site:
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
After reading it, if so inclined, you can add my info to it and draw your own conclusion.
P.S. I am not Ant Davidson mentioned in the link above.
-
47 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:
I think you are right, CE844 may be correct and Google Earth has a problem. Your numbers match the West Breneman map at Z210. At Z313 the WB map is 418 and CE844 shows 421, so they diverge a bit, while Google Earth is about 10 feet off in many places. I don't know why that is but none of those maps are fully consistent with CE844.
The WB map shows the manhole by the West end of the picket fence is 1 foot higher than than street level at Z210. That appears correct and If that is true then the South parking lot is at about the same elevation as Z210 because that manhole, the overpass, and the parking lot in the South corner are all within one foot elevation of each other according to Google Earth. CE844 does not give the elevation for any of those points so I don't have one map that shows Z210 and the parking lot. It looks like it still is close to a level shot.Yes, that's the important part.
My original elev was 426, not 426.3, so adjusting for that from previous work, at 400ft away from the top of the South knoll a shooting angle of .157° at approx 1.1ft above the ground will do.
A sniper lying down perhaps.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=392034
P.S. There is more to the above link if you want to scroll (backward/forward) from it.
-
1st shot/back shot was referred to as behind the Stemmons sign when viewing from Z's footage.
CE884 shows the elevations with a 3.27ft height adjustment for the back wound location above the pavement.
Subtract 3.27ft from the elevations listed in CE884 and you have the true street elevations at those frame numbers.
So between Z frames 210-222, elev 423.53 (426.8 - 3.27) and 422.84 (426.11 - 3.27) = elev 423.07.
-
22 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
The theory about the bullet hole in the windshield in Altgens 6 places the shooter at Commerce St and the overpass. A shot from there lines up the hole in the windshield with JFK's neck. I mapped it out and came up with the same results as others have. But now I find that military snipers say even high velocity rounds will deflect downward by an inch or more from the windshield to the target in the (front) seat. This is due to the 45 degree backward angle of the windshield. For a bullet to pass through the location of the Altgens 6 hole then deflect downward 2 inches and hit JFk's neck the shooter would have to be at least 8 feet lower than the junction of the triple overpass and the Commerce St. sidewalk. I don't see how you could get any lower!
The only solution is to move the shooter closer which allows for the round to hit at a more upward angle and account for the deflection. To maintain the angle and still have cover the only option is the manhole on the South West side of Elm. The manhole is 200 feet from the front of the limo and the hood is about 3 feet high. That means the angle from the manhole would allow you to see JFK's head but I am not keen about a manhole theory. Anyone have an insight?
Is Dealy Plaza symmetrical?
If so, are the parking lots on both the North/South knolls at the same elevation?
The 1st shot determined was elevation 423.07 (approx z217-218), that, plus a windshield height hole at approx 42.5 inches above the pavement equals an elevation of 423.07 + 3.54ft = 426.61ft.
Drommer plat shows the elev at the picket fence corner of 96.5 while the elev at the sidewalk under the 6th floor snipers window is elev 100.4.
That difference = 3.9ft
Converted back to West's measurements, that would be elev 430.2 - 100.4 = 329.8 + 96.5 = elev 426.3.
Or, 430.2 - 3.9ft = 426.3
I assume the ground was level(symmetry) from the east to the west end of the picket fence.
-
22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
John, you need to get a plat of Dealey Plaza--or actually go there--and plot out the angles of the photos. Altgens, for example, was not in the middle of the street, but on the south side of the street looking back at a section of street that curved slightly to the left right at him before curving back to the right as it passed him. Zapruder's location is also problematic in that you can see the limo passing the Stemmons sign long before it actually reaches the sign on the street. (You can see this for yourself by watching cars in your neighborhood--if you pick out a location let's say ten feet back from the street and look at cars as they pass a street light or power pole fifty feet to your left, you will see them pass the streetlight or power pole seconds before the cars actually pass them).
We're running out of examples, maybe this one will work:
-
There is too much detail in the Oswald version. imo
Take the original non-detailed version and apply "image-adjustment-variation" using Photoshop. (Pick whatever variation looks good to you.)
Notice the difference in detail among the "original and variation" versions versus the Oswald version.
-
On 4/5/2019 at 2:06 PM, Chris Bristow said:
Best example yet.
Please John, tell us why this gif is fake.
Of course you're not interested. Admitting to the truth is tough.
Sourced:
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
You appear to be the one derailing this thread with your idiotic assessments.
I can't wait to hear your explanation as to why I posted the following in FLV format.
Anyone else care to enlighten the genius?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15aufNDEaX6Mb83xIEKcaThcxa1eeNtEw/view?usp=sharing
DR Costella's leaning lamppost
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Thanks David.
Nice Recap.
Willis stabilized.
How is JB ever going to prove Willis's leg is extra long/wide when a gif like this appears and someone says he's stepping backwards up on the curb.
Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled.