Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

Members
  • Posts

    508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,853 profile views

Chris Bristow's Achievements

  1. I am not attempting to be an advocate or a critic for the process just wondering how it could have been achieved. I used 36 frames simply because I am assuming a 2 second stop for the sake of argument. It is one of those unknowns that make it hard to create a model. Many witnesses said 'The limo stopped or almost stopped' it makes me think it may have just slowed to such a crawl that it was hard for people to quickly assess whether it fully stopped. I like the matte theory but am not sure just how complicated it might get.
  2. Below is a crop of fr359 and a blurry image that looks like a blue arrow or wedge icon. It is just to the left of the comp icon I inserted. It looks like it has a white border around it. The question is do modern optical printers place icons on the screen that do not appear in the final product? Note; after posting the image it looks much worse than on my PC.
  3. I would like to start with some questions about using separate mattes for the limo movement and the background movement(camera panning) in order to remove a limo stop. The only way we know the limos speed or lack of it is the how the background moves by. So by altering the speed of the background with a separate matte for the background and the limo you could remove the limo stop all together. Here is a list of problems that would need to be addresses to accomplish such an edit. 1. If the limo completely stopped for 2 seconds there would 36 frames that have to be completely removed(This is assuming Zapruder would stop panning and stay fixed on the limo which would stop the background from moving across the frame). If the printer was capable of frame by frame compositing then you would stop the process and do a fast forward through the background that was not moving then restart the process of compositing the 2 mattes into one film after forwarding past the background stop. Maybe those stopped frames would be removed on the background copy before combining the two elements in the printer. Does anyone know the method that would be used with an optical printer? 2. Would it be more difficult to handle the slowing of the limo to a stop and the acceleration from the stop than just taking out the fully stopped frames? Lets say the limo slowed very quickly from 8 mph to 4 mph in a single frame(Maybe not possible but it simplifies this thought experiment). You could take out every other frame starting at the 4mph transition frame and the limo would double it speed and continue at what looked like 8 mph. That works out fine. But what if the limo slows from 8 to 4 mph for 9 frames before changing speed again? Now I have to double the speed but I don't have an even number of frames. How do I remove half of 9 frames? I can't just run one of the mattes a little faster because the film is just a series of single photos strung together. Each frame of the mattes has to be married to another single frame. Even a single extra frame would cause a momentary jerk of the motion. How would the edit be accomplished? 3. I have seen theories in which the limo movement was re timed from a point well before the slowing or stopping like when it was behind the Stemmons or just after. Would changing more of the limos timing down Elm help in dealing with the limo stop? If it was re timed that early it also presents some new problems that more mattes may have fixed. A big problem is the reflections from the limo's trunk show Brehm and a very tiny and distorted but identifiable para-style behind him. It later shows Mary Ann Moorman and Jean Hill and the same para-style around them. Altering the limo's position on Elm more than maybe 4 feet would create a big mismatch of the trunk reflections. Would that require another matte for the trunk? changing the limos position on Elm would also create incorrect lines of sight through the limo like where the rear handholds on the trunk line up next to JFK, Jackie and the side windows too. Rotating the image of the limo in the matte can give the impression that the limos was facing the correct direction as you look at it's angle down Elm. But the rotation will not correct the lines of sight through the limo. If a rear handhold is sticking of out of JFK's ear rotating the image will not change those relative positions of JFK to the handhold.
  4. I find the subject of optical printers and mattes very interesting and would like to go deeper into it. Don't want to hijack this thread so I will start a new topic. I hope you can weigh in. I had a couple years of film school in the 70's and have pondered the process as it relates to the Z film many times. Having the shadow atop the curb as the demarcation appealing because it is just so perfect a place to separate elements.
  5. Does anyone have any ideas on what a 3D computer Recreation of Dealey Plaza and the limo movement could reveal? A few months ago I noticed that frame 312 definitively shows that the limo was not aligned with the direction of the Lane markers. The proof is in the relative positions of the small side window frames. The one on the left side of the car sits slightly to the right of the one on the right side of the car. This is only possible if the car was either about 6 to 8 feet farther east than is depicted in the film, or the limo is turned six or seven degrees to the right of the direction of Elm Street at that point. It's possible that Greer veered to the right a bit as he looked over his right shoulder. The biggest implication of the limos position is that the shot from the West End of the Knoll fence no longer works. Other than Sherry Fraser's Theory I have never seen the limo represented as being at an angle in the street.
  6. The theory that he was a paid FBI Informer has some Merit. The Attorney General of Texas telling the WC that his trusted source said Oswald was getting 200 dollars a month from the f b i. As I recall there was similar testimony by someone who worked in the New Orleans FBI office. If this is true he could have been thoroughly controlled, manipulated and groomed for his role as a patsy. He could have been instructed to go to the Texas theater that afternoon to me to contact. He could have been told to take the bag into the TSB that morning. He could have been told to bring a handgun to the theater. He could have been given a specific route to walk to the theater to put him near The tippet Killing at the correct time. They may say walk this specific route and if a car pulls up next to you and gives the code word get in the car. If they don't show up proceed to the theater and be there by 1:15 p.m. . Maybe they tell him to keep his Hidell I D in his wallet because he might need it. I'm reaching pretty far with those scenarios but the point is if he was a low-level intelligence operative he could have been very tightly controlled.
  7. If I see a person with super clean white straight teeth I trust them less. Maybe the whole rotten teeth thing was a KGB ploy. I'm kidding except for the first part.
  8. I do think there is reason to doubt Marina's involvement. Changing her story on the number of photos is suspicious. There is a possibility of coercion as part of a cover too. I think her father was a ranking intelligence official which is also suspicious if true, and I believe she could have been a low level operative. I use her name more as a place marker for the camera and often say "the camera position" when being more careful about what is implied. You are right I mentioned the TWO days a year when the azimuth and elevation match the BYP at t 4:30pm. That is 3/31 and 9/11. I remembered that fact as I wrote the post but immediately dismissed it as not germane. Don't know why I did that because it does make it possible to manufacture the image on 9/11. Skeptics point out there was another BYP that Marina said she burned. So now she has to claim she took 4 photos that day? Well without seeing that photo we don't know if it was a BYP or from another time. Even if she claimed it was a BYP we still have to consider coercion. "These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos." Absolutely yes that is 214 Neeley St. When I talked about the Sun and "the house in the background" I meant the house next to Oswald's, the house just east of 214 Neely. (The stairs next to him run east/west. Oswald is facing 22 degrees south of west.) At 9:15 on the day in question the Sun was at 83 degrees azimuth and would have been 15 degrees off of and behind Oswald's left shoulder. The elevation was 18 degrees and so maybe the Sun was just rising over the roof of that house next door or still behind it. 18 degrees would never create the overhead shadows. It is so far off what we see maybe he was misquoted somewhere along the way. "For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes." If the Sun was in back of Oswald the shadow would fall in front of him not to the rear. The nose shadow issue frustrates me a bit because there is a solid explanation for it but it is hard to explain and hard to visualize the answer. I have reproduced it photographically so I know there is an answer. First consider that there two other condition that will make the light fall directly below the nose when the Sun is not directly above. 1. Lets say the Sun is at elevation 50 degrees and you are facing directly towards it. If you are facing the direction of the Sun the shadow will fall directly below the nose regardless of elevation. 2. You can be facing 90 degrees away from the Sun(You would be facing azimuth 270, directly west) but if you tilt your head in the direction of the Sun and tilt it to match the elevation(Sun elevation 50 degrees means you would tilt your head over 40 degrees from 90 degrees(vertical) to 50 degrees. The shadow will again fall directly below your nose. In both cases you orient your head so you see the sun directly above your forehead and between your eyes. Oswald was facing 13 degrees away from the Sun which would cause about 10 degrees of nose shadow angle(13 gets you 10 but the reason takes more unpacking, let me know if you want to discuss it). So we have to account for the 10 degrees we should see. Here is how it goes. first Oswald's face is actually looking two degrees to his left, he is not looking straight into camera. It is subtle but measurable in the increased size of the right side of his face.(Temple to bridge of nose has a large 10% difference from left half to right.). This reduces the 10 degrees to 8 cause while his body is facing the camera his face is looking 2 degrees more towards the Sun. His facing two degrees left of camera also causes the tip of his nose to swing to the left of center so the tip is not directly over the philtrum. To measure the shadow angle we have to draw a line from the tip of the nose to the tip of the shadow. The shadow being on the philtrum(center of face) and the tip of his nose being off center results in 4 degrees of shadow angle present on his face. We have 2 degrees cancelled by his looking left of camera and 4 degrees measurable under his nose. That explains 6 of the 10 degrees we expect to see. That leaves 4 degrees to explain and that is due to the 4 degrees of head tilt. Each aspect of this explanation is perfectly consistent with the way shadows are known to behave and I have tested each aspect of this and it is all reproducible. So I have to conclude the nose shadow is not an issue. As to Jack Whites other statements some are interesting like the wrist watch or the fingers but it seems like they can't be resolved. I have used the rifle to gauge his height and it came out correct as I recall. I think that depends on whether you take the rifle length to be what he ordered or what is claimed they supplied.
  9. I think many of the observations you listed have been explained over time. 3. OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Oswald is facing Marina with the Sun 13 degrees off to his left. In 133 we should see about 13 degrees plus 6 more for Oswald's lean. But the perspective distortion of Marina's shallow camera angle flattens out all angular lines. I just double checked it and 20 degrees of actual shadow angle as viewed from directly above doubles to 40 degrees when viewed from 10 feet away and matching Marina's camera height. As far as I can tell what we see in 133a and C are correct. In the past I have photographically reproduced these effects to match the BYP's 133b shows about 28 degrees of shadow angle. (Hard to measure because he feet are cut off). Since he is standing straight there should only be 13 degrees of shadow but the perspective distortion is doubling that as it did in 133a. 11. FACE SHADOWS: To compare the shadows 133b has to rotated 1 degree right and 133c 2 degrees left for all to be level. Once you do it is hard to see any difference in the position of the heads. But even if there was a difference a 1 1/2 shadow under the nose would only change by 1/40th of an inch per degree of head tilt. I don't think the image is sharp enough to detect. 14. The camera did change position vertically and it was more than fractions of an inch. Look at the roof line of the house in the background and where it meets the top of the post next to Oswald. That shows that Marina lowered the camera a couple inches. The story goes that Oswald came over and advanced the film after each shot and Marina just stood there. If you take a photo and don't change your feet at all you can lift the camera back up for a second shot and the camera position will not change horizontally. I tested that. 15. When Jack White tilted the photo"keystoned it" and got it to match the other I think he was just reversing the natural keystone effect from Marina tilting her camera down in 133a. The last part about Mr Wilson's analysis of the BYP is a real head scratch-er. He said if the photos were taken on the day they said it would have to be 9:15 in the am. Wow. On 3/31/63 the Sun was in the East at 18 degrees elevation around 9am. The Sun would have been behind the house in the background. The shadow running from the post next to Oswald intersects with the post on the Northwest side of the 2nd story landing. That means the azimuth was very close to 232 not 83 as it was at 9:15am. His conclusion that the conditions in the photo match 9:15am if taken on 3/31 is really nuts. Marina said the photos were taken in the early afternoon but the only time the azimuth of 232 with an elevation of 40 or 50 degrees happened was around 4:40pm. The azimuth can be tightly locked in to within 4 degrees by the post shadow. The elevation has been checked by many by measuring shadow lengths and has to be around 49. That does not allow for any other time than 3/31 around 4:40.
  10. Painters attempt to recreate the world as our eye or brain sees it. With photography we have to add another level because film is Limited and its ability to recreate the world. So I don't know if we should expect to see glare around the fingernail.
  11. All I can say it it looks strange as if the ends of the fingers are cut off. The fingers length is just a bit shorter than the comparison photo. I compared the distance between the little knuckle and index finger knuckle and decided to decrease the Backyard hand by 6%. a very small amount but that is what I based the finger lengths on. The fingers also look fatter but it may just be the brighter exposure or the slightly shorter finger length. I used to think it may be due to Oswald curling his fingers a bit but your comp photo has his hand more curled the the BY photo. So it is one of those weird things that may or may not be the result of a cut and paste.
  12. My intention was not to divert the discussion to Parkland. I was referencing Parkland In order to support my opinion that there is reason to doubt the official evidence you sited. I did not feel comfortable just stating that I doubt the evidence you accept without giving my reasoning.
  13. Do you mean like anatomically wrong or in comparison to other photos of Oswald? I spent a lot of time looking at his eyes because I was an optician for many years and looked for inconsistencies between different photos. One interesting thing is that his right eye is 1 mm farther out from the center of his Bridge than his left eye. Not really out of the ordinary but it is consistent in all photos where he's looking straight forward, like mugshots and Military photos.
  14. Steve, a fundamental aspect of the conspiracy theory is that there was a cover-up of the evidence. Personally I have examined every explanation for the Parkland doctors account of the head wound. There WC testimony refutes every argument that tries to explain how 20 staff members reported a wound completely inconsistent with the official story, and only four staff members support the official story. Even after you throw out all the crazy CT stuff that has built up over 50 years there is still serious problems with the official story. So I do believe it is possible that evidence in the case could have been altered. I think it is possible that Witnesses were coerced. I think when you consider just how close the CIA came to a full cover up of MK Ultra, it is reasonable to assume that in another case they were able to go just a little farther and successfully cover it up. The MK Ultra project was a massive 10 year project in multiple countries. If the numbers in the Parkland doctors issue was reversed and 20 staff saw the hole in the official location and only four supported the CT location, I would be called a crazy conspiracy theorist if I support the argument that we should listen to the four doctors over the 20 staff members. But the Skeptics will try and Float the idea that those 20 staff members just got it wrong. I think it is perfectly rational to have about the official story.
×
×
  • Create New...