Ray Mitcham

Thanks, Ed.

John,

Does anybody know with which camera Oswald is supposed to have taken the photos of Walkers house? Were they taken on the Imperial Reflex or the Minox? And, incidentally, has the Imperial reflex ever been proven to be Oswald's?

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

In the gif, the man in the blue jacket moves leftwards towards the tan jacket man. Co-incidence?

Suggested further reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," by John Perkins.

Lee, an interesting snippet from the National Guardian later in the pages mentioned above.(Page 31)

Comment by Milton Klein, whose company allegedly supplied the offending rifle.

"I don't think that rifle killed Kennedy. Not because it's too slow or too fast. Right after the murder, the Dallas Police discovered a Fort Worth armorer who said he was the man who put the telescope on Oswald's gun. He said he drilled the holes in the gun for the screws of the telescope and that he mounted it. He showed the Police the invoice for the telescope and the work, and he recognized the rifle.

"What is strange about this is that the gun was shipped from here with the telescope already mounted and the holes for the screws already drilled. Therefore, either the Dallas weapon is not the one I sold and Oswald ordered, or the Dallas Police persuaded the Fort Worth Armorer to issue a false statement. And if that's the case, why?"

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/15poage-arm&CISOPTR=46973&REC=3

Anybody know any more about the Fort Worth Armorer?

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows.

But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn.

Regards,

Do the maths Ray and then tell us how much movement you think you should be seeing in the verticals? Its really quite simple, the principle of the lever....

I will try if you can give me the relevant measurements.

Regards

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows.

But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn.

Regards,

Rays compares a living, moving person LHO to a "post". Ray is again incorrect.

Is he actually a "moving person" in the photographs? I would have thought that he was a "stationary person" for the purposes of the photo.

Ray wants to know why the shadow of LHO changes between photos, still thinking LHO is a "post".

I don't consider LHO to be a post but to be a person who is standing still LIKE a post. Maybe you disagree.

The images however show that LHO changed body positions in relation to the sun between photos. Poor old Ray is still confused.

You keep saying that LHO changes his position in relation to the sun but never explain exactly what you mean. There is virtually no difference in his stances in all three photographs.In each one, he is leaning slightly to his right weight on his right foot. If, the camera had not moved (you say it did) his shadow would be the same angle. If it moved in the direction you said, i.e. Back and to the right, the shadow would have changed in the direction that you said i.e. clockwise. It has changed the other direction, to anticlockwise.

Tests confirm that movements similar to the ones seen in the BY photos for LHO's body create shadow movements that are completely consistent with what is seen in the BY photos. Poor old Ray is SURE to more confused than ever now....

Poor old Ray would like you to show the tests that you quote.

Regards,

Good grief Ray, do you have working eyes?

WHY? HIS BODY MOVED IN RELATION TO THE SUN!

sigh...

LHO is NOT a fence post. You however....

This appears to be totally beyond your ken Ray.

So lets recap.

Poor old Ray claims the camera never moved between the view for the BY photos. Ray is incorrect.

I'll ignore the gratuitous insults. Wrong. I say the camera did not move forward, backward or sideways, not that it "never moved"

Regards,

That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved?

I'm not "surmising" anything. I have corrected the images to bring rotation and tilt into agreement and you can visually see the movement. Yes the camera moved Backwards, Yes the camera moved to the right, Yes LHO moved in multiple planes. Nothing earth shattering here Ray. You just can't accurately define LHO 3d movements with any degree of accuracy from the 2d Images. This is what I have said all along.

With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to

i) stay the same angle

ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective

iii) move clockwise.?

Regards,

(Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

Back produces movement clockwise.

Right produces movement clockwise.

Glad to see your reply. So if the camera moved backwards and to the right (As in movement CE 133b to CE133A) Can you explain why LHO's shadow moved COUNTER -clockwise?

Regards,

I'll say it again.

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved"

He moved is as good as it gets Ray. You can't measure it directly from the 2d photos.

That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved?

With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to

i) stay the same angle

ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective

iii) move clockwise.?

Regards,

(Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

duplicate post

I'll say it again.

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved"

You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

Well Ray, its the PERFECT explanation and it describes the situation to a tee.

Craig, you can go on till the end of time just saying that Oswald moved. What you don't describe is your opinion of how he moved and how the change in the angle of the shadow occurred. Now failing your ability to answer this simple question would indicate that you don't know.

Are you now claiming that changing the subjects relationship to the sun will not change the apparent shadow angle on the ground?

BTW, you seemed to have missed this little part and failed to reply. Why?

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved".

The argument is over because you still have not established that there is no change in the right verticals between images.{/quote]

How do I prove a negative, Craig, -"no movement" It's up to you to show me where there is movement.

Lets put this back on YOU Ray. Just because YOU say it does not make it true. So if you want to CONTINUE this argument, its put up or shut up time. Show us how much movement is to be expected and then show us the lack of this movement between frames. You can do that can't you Ed?

I say exactly the same thing to you.

Regards,

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Is this level of confusion normal for you Ray?

Lets review again...

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

You never said the camera moved. You were questioning MY statement that the camera moved.

Yes I know it was your statement. I said subsequently that I should have put the word "forward" in my statement about your statement.

Poor Ray isn't confused, it's poor old Craig.

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

Sorry Ray, but its STILL your bad.

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Given I spent 30 years creating high end advertising images where it is not uncommon to spend an entire day on a single image making very precise camera and subject changes and creating detailed lighting sets, I can most certainly tell you WHY the shadow moved the way it did. In fact I already DID THAT Ray.

You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

But, the long and short of it...you claimed initially that the camera has not moved between frames. Graphics taken from the BY photos show that not to be the case. The camera DID move, and the changes in image perspective cannot be caused by some warping of a single image using a technique like the one suggested by Jack White.

You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been

more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White?

It was not 'your bad', you were just wrong.

Let's review...

Ray sez:

"No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)"

Opps, you do say "forward...your BAD indeed.

The Argument is over Ray, the camera moved. That you are not happy with what you THINK you should see really means squat. The camera moved, thus ending that argument for fakery.

Oh, what happened to your reading comprehension Ray? There is no mystery. I mentioned Jack White.

Regards

Wrong again, Mr Lamson. I INITIALLY (post 74) said that the camera hadn't moved. The quote above is much later. (post 122) Your bad there, I'm afraid.

The argument certainly isn't over. If the camera moved diagonally forward to the left (Comprenez? or do you need taking by the hand?) then the horizontal parallax of the right verticals would have changed. It didn't. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why.

Just as a matter of interest, with your vast experience as a happy snapper, could you explain how,if the camera moved diagonally forward to the left, in CE133B, Oswald's shadow moved clockwise in relation to the shadow in CE133a, when according to perspective, had it done so, the shadow should have moved anticlockwise?

Problems with link

(your written descriptions leave a lot to be desired)

It's funny. I expected you to say that, so I asked my 15 year old grandson to look at the photographs and then look at what I wrote in answer to your query, He said he understood what I meant completely. Maybe it's not my written descriptions that leave a lot to be desired but your reading comprehension.

But, the long and short of it...you claimed initially that the camera has not moved between frames. Graphics taken from the BY photos show that not to be the case. The camera DID move, and the changes in image perspective cannot be caused by some warping of a single image using a technique like the one suggested by Jack White.

You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been

more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White?

Regards

Your assumptions leave a lot to be desired. It appears you are expecting to see changes in 'relationships' that won't change with parallax like this right fence/paling you seem to be talking about. If I have have it correct, the area you defined will not show any movement in relationships unless the camera moves grossly.

From your comments above, it would seem I'm not the only one making assumptions. You obviously haven't got it correct.

But of course that is in fact the (sic). Everything on the right side of the photo is so closely related in distance from each other that the principle the lever demands a huge camera movement for relationships to change visually.

And everything on the left side if the image has a decent spread from from object to rear object but again this spread only produces fraction relationship changes on camera movements. Finding these fractional movements is compounded by poor image quality. Trying to work from a 500x500 pixels image names finding fractionals near impossible.

So, because there is no change in the parallax of the stair-post and the end fence post, are you saying the camera moved forward diagonally left (in the direction of the Stair-post)? Or aren't you prepared to say which way you think it moved?.

Regards

A straight line ..IN WHAT DIRECTION? Directly towards the stair post? Directly towards Oswald? Directly toward the exact at center of the image?

What in your mind does "FORWARD in a straight line" mean?

You are kidding? right? WHY? And how much forward movement movement ( lets first decide what direction) are you talking about here? The movements were are talking about here are very small, in all directions with the forward motion being the greatest. So how much movement do you think would be needed to make the fence post "disappear?

How do you know that "the movements we are talking about" are very small? Where are your measurements? .

The "gap" between the post and the wall is set by actual distance and parallax will not change this apperence. And and left/right shift between the fence and he wall would require a massive camera move to bee seen due the the very short distance between them (that lever thing again.)

"The gap between the post and the wall is set by the actual distance" What he heck does that mean? "and the parallax will no (sic) change this apperance (sic)"

Says who?

"And and (sic) left/right shift between the fence and he (sic) wall would require a massive camera move to bee (sic) seen due the the very short distance between them"

What is "the very short distance between them" in your opinion?

Regards,

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards

I'm not sure exactly what parts of the image you are talking about, could you please label them for clarity?

Sigh.... To Oswald's immediate right (our left), there is a vertical stair-post, just behind which and to it's left is the post (partly in shadow) which is the end post of the paling fence which runs behind LHO.

To Oswald's left and behind him is a vertical Fence/wall (just behind the straggly bush) behind which, to it's left, is the paling fence (the first visible one of which is in shadow)

Regards

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards

Then let me ask you this one:

Did Marina move in relation to the subject?

Marina moved in relation to the background....

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

Yes,she moved the camera

Parallax of the background verticals COMPARED TO WHAT? Why don't we start with Maria moving closer to the fence. Where would you see parallax in the "fixed verticals of the background? And the next question...DO you understand the principle of the lever and how it applies to parallax?

Parallax IS evident in each of the BY images indicating the CAMERA moved in relation to the scene.

The parallax of the verticals compared to EACH OTHER.

The Imperial Reflex 620 that was supposed to have been Oswald's didn't have a parallax lever.

No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)

With your experience of taking snaps, you surely understand parallax, and the way fixed objects apparently change their position due to camera position. If not, I can point you in the right direction.

(Incidentally, when I asked Hary Farid the same question he wouldn't or couldn't answer it. He said he had studied only ONE photograph and that was to investigate the nose shadow! Some investigator.)

Regards.