Chris Davidson

Double check according to age please.

The only person (imo) that looks close to 36/37 years of age in this photo is the taller woman to Mrs R.E. Sanders left.

My wife puts Sanders at 50-60 years old, which I agree with.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/190JzmbnyCNkeLi7VdAAtyKqinCjXzkjK/view?usp=sharing

The steps are 7 inches heigh. 

The steps are 12 inches in depth.

The photos are taken approx 75 ft from the front step.

My wife is 70 inches tall.

I am 72.5 inches tall.

I raised my heel up to create an approx 3.5 inch difference between us.

Andrej,

When I scale the blocks (337%) to coincide with the Oswald ruler at 100% (each increment representing 1 inch), BWF should be taller.

8 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I have now checked your downloaded model and did what my  own model does. The height of the step in the downloaded model is 0.5 cm smaller compared to real measurements, however, this is a small difference. I have placed a person 5'2'' on the top landing (pink), another person 5'9'' on the second step (green) and Mr. Frazier as a white column (6'05''). The red rectangle on the while column corresponds to the size of Mr. Frazier head. The doorway is shown from approximate Darnell's perspective. The camera field of view needs to be on 16.

Where do you see any problem, any difference compared to my analyses? Please confirm that you can or cannot replicate what I have done with the downloaded model. Please note that if you draw a horizontal line through the bottom of the red square you meet the top edges of the two other columns.

 

 

 

Andrej,

Can you double check the height difference between the top of the (red and green) columns in relationship to the height difference between (PM and Frazier)?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ia6AHXs9NlbXXPeXmz5dXJysiYCKag3C/view?usp=sharing

On 5/10/2018 at 10:33 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

Chris,

 

Given the fact that you recently, on Greg Burnham's website, reiterated your belief that "Prayer Man" is a woman, one can only wonder whether or not you and Andrej are secretly collaborating on trying to prove that Sarah Stanton was wearing pants that day, and was ... gasp ... 5' 9" tall.

 

--  T.G.

 

I don't consider overtly posting links to checks/balances for Andrej's work as secret collaboration.

Yes, I still believe it's a woman based on my photo enhancements. 

Enough said on my part.

Andrej,

Good to see the inclusion of a measuring scale.

The size difference between this one and the previous block measured Oswald provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZM8qkE-KYbctkRXbl6T3zu0Ol-4A9Dx1/view?usp=sharing

Perhaps others have suggestions for alterations, but I'm fine with it.

7 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Gentlemen:

can we cool it down?  I am thankful to Tom and Michael for their support.  It is important to know that someone is following the  3D doorway project. 

Thomas: you may not have spotted that the whole recent activity on this thread aims at changing the current mannequin that was based on Poser 11.1 default male model (inseam at 49% of body height) for a new mannequin matching Lee Harvey Oswald's body in all essential aspects. I have already suggested one mannequin last week - it was the mannequin named James Poser. This mannequin was adjusted to match Lee Oswald as he was photographed by the NO PD, and the body proportions are being checked by Chris.  You could see in my recent posts on this thread that this Oswald-like mannequin with relatively short legs and long torso fitted Prayer Man in Darnell very well, actually better than the default male mannequin because the long torso of Oswald-like mannequin did not require tilting Prayer Man towards his right that much as in the current model.

Once this step is completed, I will take the mannequin and compare it with other existing pictures (there are not many) showing the whole Lee Oswald's body from a front view. Then, I will import this agreed Lee Oswald-like mannequin in his Darnell posture into Sketchup and will change colors and triangulation and will also sculpt the shirt sleeves a bit. Of course, I will also sculpt the head shape, hairline and some facial features to match Lee Harvey Oswald. Finally, I will replace all figures in my blog post on Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton with the new Prayer Man mannequin if a figure contained Prayer Man. Only then will I be able to resume my work on Altgens6, followed by the reconstruction of Prayer Man's body height in Darnell and finishing with Wiegman stills.  

 

Andrej,

Download for true size:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HrJ2P5zbl0Lm1Hc9Z4IRde6mbY4HxdIh/view?usp=sharing

Scaled Oswald to 66% so the tip of the shoes to the top of his head equals 69 increments/inches.

Then used your first Poser model (scaled to 92%) with 30 inch leg length designation as the overlay.

Blue lines are (head to chin) and (ground to 30inch) using tip of shoes as the starting point.

On 5/7/2018 at 11:21 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

I"m assuming the bottom of the lower block to the top of the upper block represents 69 inches.

If you were to place the bottom of the lower block even with the tip of Oswald's shoe, 

 

 

 

 

Andrej,

I believe if you align (your lower block bottom edge) with the tip of Oswald's shoe as the starting measuring point, this will pick up the additional inches.

As it stands now, that lower block ends at the upper ankle, which on my foot, is about 3 inches from the ground. Imo

Anyhow,

Here is the new Poser (upscaled to 107.75%), it is at the end so you get an idea of the adjustment difference you made between it and the previous Poser.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kp0XPlBTRStQP0xx2kqOG1P0g2QFnB-n/view?usp=sharing

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

Here we go with some realistic measurements of James Poser's body. The top picture is the overall figure. Strangely enough, James Poser has white hair after importing from Poser, therefore, the next picture shows the top of his head so that it is possible to check that his body height was 5'9''. The final picture is a detailed view of James Poser's inseam region. I read the height of his inseam as 2'6'' or 30''. 

1. 

Andrej,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TpCqAW19guUqXmzyu0nvKMhDgC4Dt0BU/view?usp=sharing

I took the new James Poser and scaled him down at 96.5% (2.5inches too tall) to match the existing Oswald height.

Is Poser the correct height now or do I need to upscale Oswald to Poser's height?

Just to be clear, does the measurement via the checkered path(30 inches mentioned) equal your leg length (not the inseam) for Oswald?

11 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

I am not working with absolute dimensions of human bodies until I get the mannequins into Sketchup,

I understand.

however, I can do it easily if the purpose is only to measure the length of the inner leg (just ignoring that the guy is triangulated and the colors are weird...).

Can you measure using this method:    https://www.spacycles.co.uk/info/leglength.php 

Do you want to know how long is his leg in the James Poser mannequin in the left-hand panel of your composite when this mannequin is 5'9''?

Since the mannequin and Oswald are scaled to the same height (69increments/inches), I don't believe it should matter. 

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I will prepare two more mannequins by pushing the inseam in two steps (about 2 and 4 inches ) higher and would be grateful if you could have a look and say which would be the best. However, I assume that I am not modeling Lee Oswald's true inseam height (because I cannot measure the length of his inner leg)  but rather the  "pants inseam", the one we see in his NO PD photograph and which is much lower than his true inseam.

What I also can do is to model a reasonable inseam (e.g., 32 inch) and then sculpt his pants to drag a portion of the pants down to reproduce his NO PD figure. However, this can only be done outside Poser.

 

 

 

 

Andrej,

Instead of creating more work for yourself, is it possible using the scale I supplied, and I'm assuming that the bottom of your lower block is the ground, can you tell me how long Oswald's leg is?

Andrej,

I"m assuming the bottom of the lower block to the top of the upper block represents 69 inches.

The splice into 8th's should provide the approx mid-point in height for 69 inches. (My inseam is half my height. I'm 72.5 inches tall.)

The inseam on the mannequin appears to be approx 28 inches representing somebody who is 69 inches tall. (See bike link previous posting)

That seems quite low.

If you were to place the bottom of the lower block even with the tip of Oswald's shoe, the distance to the inseam on the mannequin now becomes 32 inches, much closer to the shortest inseam mentioned in the bike forum response for someone who is 69.5 inches tall.

On 5/6/2018 at 8:46 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

 

In the meantime, I have prepared a better version:

 

 

 

 

 

Andrej,

This graphic has been scaled so the measuring increments (at left of the rightmost Oswald) equal 1inch per one increment = 69 increments/inches = the 7.5 blocks.

The thin blue lines(at right) slice Oswald into 8th's.

Can you tell us what the inseam length is on Oswald and what you used as your endpoints?

Below is another forum where somebody is talking about inseams in regards to cycling:

https://www.bikeforums.net/2153505-post31.html 

On 5/2/2018 at 10:54 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

thanks for an interesting and useful overlay. Would you like to see the mannequin to match the exact posture and body contours of Lee Harvey Oswald as he was photographed by the NO PD? I was happy with the body proportions which, as the horizontal lines indicate, match in both figures quite well. Or, do you think that the body proportions of James Poser do not match well Lee's body? I would be only worried if the latter would be the case and, of course, I would make a correction.  

The more exact you are, the better.

For instance: What is the distance of the combined gaps?

17 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

One more attempt to achieve the optimal body proportions for Prayer Man. This time, I have abandoned Poser 11.1 recommendations and turned to the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald taken during his arrest by the New Orleans police in July, 1963. The right picture shows Lee Harvey Oswald from a rare frontal view. I have added lights to this picture to be able to see better his inseam and his knees. The left panel is the adjusted Poser mannequin named James. It is possible to adjust body proportions interactively and so I took the default James with proportions of an average man and adjusted them to fit Lee Harvey Oswald's body. Interestingly, Lee Harvey Oswald has long arms, I had to extend them by 10% compared to a standard male figure. The horizontal lines cross both figures at homologous body parts. Notably, the inseams in both figure, but also the waist and knees, are at the same levels in both figures.

 

 

In the next, the mannequin with body posture of Lee Harvey Oswald was adjusted to match Prayer Man's posture in Darnell, and the resulting figure was overlaid onto Darnell's Prayer Man with blending coefficients 0, 20, 40 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95 and 100%. A 100% overlay means the original Darnell picture with no traces of Poser mannequin. The two red lines indicate the edges of the top landing and the second step.

The result exceeded any expectations. The overlay appears natural. Thus, it stroke my mind: if the fit of Poser mannequin is better when it has the body proportions of Lee Harvey Oswald than the body proportions of an average man, does it not say that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald? I use to watch these overlays for couple days before I export into Sketchup for the final fit. If anyone would have a suggestion what could be tweaked in Poser mannequin, please let me know. 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrej,

Does James (Poser mannequin) need more adjusting?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SAzc3DbJrMBE32XxOrFfqPwzzC0tgbVr/view?usp=sharing

On 3/26/2018 at 8:43 AM, Chris Davidson said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bRS49wIfblFnXYW8bj9iL3oUnIU3MXRX/view?usp=sharing

The difference between the two graphics, via Myer's work is 108%

As can be seen, when the top frame layer is increased 108%, the plat becomes the same size.

 

David,

Need an expert in films/photography, which I am not.

The enlarging/zoom ? = 112%.

Is there a connection with Myer's manipulation?

Added on edit:

Upon further review, it looks like she starts zooming after the limo has passed her and hits maximum zoom before the film ends.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H-2GQBzjh7NqK46b-cmzwK4ddxCsQ3PT/view?usp=sharing

23 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Not what I was talking about Chris...

At the point of BELL I posted you can align the limo and determine its location...  it's not AT position A, it's south of it...  So I am wondering how they pulled that off cinematically...

 

 

 

David,

Green box is the distance from the tree (Towner's LOS) converted into frames(average speed plotted between TSBD corner and tree) and Bell's LOS .

The frames represent JFK at the approx same location on Elm St.

Pull off what cinematically?

They would have to alter Bell (not traversing PositionA also) to match Towner.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Look at BELL...

How do we reconcile this with this image showing the turn in TOWNER...

 

 

 

  

 

There is a TSBD corner overlap between Bell/Towner.

The graphic shows Bell's LOS using JFK's position within the limo.

At this spot, JFK is approx 6.1ft (green box) from TSBD corner alignment.

The speed of the limo is 23.75ft/29frames (plotted average from Dal-Tex to TSBD corner) = .818ft per frame.

6.1ft/.818ft per frame = 7.45frames

There are 6 previous Bell frames leading up to JFK's position in the graphic.

Bell's footage starts approx 13.45 Bell frames before JFK aligns with the TSBD corner.

Marc Bell's footage from the pedestal allows us to compare an overlapping area within the Towner film.

Remember, no matter who is filming with what camera, the limo is traveling the same speed.

+/- 1 frame for the following

From his location, Bell's outer LOS lines = 32.1875ft @ 41 frames = .785...ft per frame

The Towner LOS from StationC to the Tree = 38.685ft @ 60frames = .644..ft per frame.

We need the same distance among both so:

38.685 - 32.1875 = 6.4975ft

6.4975 / .785ft per frame = 8.27frames

8.27frames + 41 = 49.27frames

This creates a ratio of frames to frames over the same distance using two different frame rates.

Since Myers used a phony frame rate of 22.8fps for Towner, it is more than likely, the ratio between that and the real Towner frame rate (+/- 1 frame) would hold true for Towner and Bell also.

A real frame rate of 18.3 for Towner vs 22.8 yields the 33 frame difference over 167 Towner frames (previously shown).

60/18.3 = 3.278...sec

3.278...sec x 15fps = 49.18 frames 

60/48.08(+/- 1 frame) = 1.2479... x 18.3 = 22.83fps = Myers bogus rate.

On 4/23/2018 at 9:33 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Towner 167frames shifted to start at StationC:

Discounting 30ft over 166.666frames:

30ft/166.666 = .18ft per frame

CE884 (z161-z166 @18.3fps) = 3.294ft per sec = .9ft traveled in 5 frames = .18ft per frame traveled

Start at StationC 

End at Station 299.0 = Frame 100

Jump the frame count by 33 = extant z133

Discount the span (no data) from z133-z166 = 33frames/30ft

Accommodate the (Towner end- z133 beginning )distance span with path change.

End at extant z166 = Shaneyfelt (not Robert West) path via extant zfilm.

StationC + 100 + 33 + 33 = 166frames. 

 

 

 

Myers accommodates (using inside tire radius) for the 30ft = a loss of .18ft per frame over 167 Towner frames including the distance gap to z133 this way:

Add his total distance in the graphic = 83.68ft

There are 6 Towner beginning frames which need to be included in the distance:

11.28ft/26frames = .4338...ft per frame x 6 frames = 2.6ft + 83.68ft = 86.28ft total for Towner film.

The plotting of JFK using Robert West's path for the Towner film = 110.90ft approx.

110.90 - 86.28 = 24.62ft

24.62ft + 5.625 (gap between Towner end and Z133 beginning) = 30.245ft

The .18ft per frame difference evolves this way:

110.90ft + 5.625ft = 116.525ft/ 167 frames = .6977...ft per frame

86.28ft/167frames = .5166...ft per frame

.6977 - .5166 = .181ft per frame

21 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I appreciate what you are saying Chris...

but please point out TOWNER in the Zapruder frames

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GR06EO_rxNBWc7gNlU8KHIeE0yuJL52g/view

The gentleman with the pink shirt and white pants.

Watch as someone pokes their head around his left side and then pulls back.

You can barely see him until he moves.

He is much taller than Tina Towner.

She is off the curb, in the street making her even shorter than those in front, who are on the sidewalk.

That is approx where Tina Towner is.

Towards the end of her film, someone appears in the sprocket hole area.

I would assume it is her father since he has a camera in hand. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pdQEedUrUD0FQqNil4as3IhXrqzHxCw7/view?usp=sharing

This is the closest I can find from Towner's view via the cameraman, with the Z pedestal and the curved curb included.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

Where is TOWNER while filming this?  (edit - and we see there is no one in the line of sight....)

She would be in the LOS of the rightside blue line and off the curb a few feet.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ev4WTYOzerUp_BmUdl9u4vR0-ofSwdFz/view?usp=sharing

Reenactment similar to previous posting.