Chris Bristow

Yeah it's definitely possible that she was coerced to say she took the photos. But I have to take her bad memory with a grain of salt. It would be very easy to combine memories you took later in life with the first time you ever took a photograph. I have done this myself.

Thank you I appreciate that.

Rich, Have you ever run film through it or have you measured the field of view through the viewfinder? Knowing the field of view would be another way to verify Marina's location. It is no big deal because the HSCA, Dartmouth and the WC all pretty much come to similar conclusions. Marina was about 11"4' away and at 22 south of west. But if you ever measure the width of the view at a given distance it would be of interest to me. As far as the reliability of the image vs distortions Oswald's camera has an advantage. The distortions of that very camera have been well documented. I think it was the WC that photographed a chart with a grey scale at the bottom and grid lines similar to the old famous indian chief image used to burn it video cameras in the 50's So we can make accurate predictions about the distortion at particular points in the image. Although the test with the dummy heads does show a stretching the way they did it about doubled the amount of distortion. The distortion is due to a keystone effect from tilting the camera. There is a misconception that it is just the top of the image that stretches but the tilt is the main factor. In 133a there is 4 degrees of camera tilt which moves Oswald's head up in the frame a bit. But the dummy test takes the head from mid frame and compares it with a head at the top of the screen. That is more like 8 degrees of tilt rather than 4 degrees. They stacked the deck on that test.

I would think because JFK is the star of the show they would put extra distance in front and behind with the exception of his security detail. I don't know if it would make a big difference to a gunman if he was shooting from off to the side. YouTube has other parades JFK was in, it might be worth a look to see if the extra distance occurred in those parades or if Dallas is an outlier. If this post has a bunch of underlines ignore them, speech to text is going nuts.

Okay if it's a hand where is his head? I'm going to make an assumption that Kennedy's torso and head are down in the foot area of Jackie's portion of the seat. If he was laying on the seat himself Clint Hill's knees would be in his back. And I can't figure out where Clint Hill's lower legs would be anyway folded back underneath him? It looks like his knees would be hitting the seat cushions. I don't think it's fake I just can't figure out where those lower legs are.

I have tested almost every shadow in the yard and found they are all correct. I also modeled the stairs in the back yard to help determine the shadows. I did not do a computer 3d model of Oswald, instead I reproduced the camera angles photographically and was able to determine the actual angles and amount of distortion caused by perspective of angle and the amount of keystone effect from Marina tilting the camera down. The HSCA or the WC did some testing with his camera and photographed grid line which allowed me to also determine the slight distortion inherent in the lens. As to faking the shadows on Oswald I would think it can be manipulated but my analysis of Oswald's stance is not about determining how it would have been faked. I am only concerned with how the stance could or could not be achieved. I get his inseam to be about 2 inches shorter than average but finding the top of the inseam is a guess. I did find his hips sit about two inches higher than mine. One inch due the fact his total height is 2 inches more than me. But why the hips sit higher with a shorter inseam is confusing. If his inseam caused the waistline to sit lower then he would have to lean a bit farther to align the belt buckle over the shin and right knee. A shorter inseam should lower his COG but it also means he has to lean farther so I think the difference could be very minimal. Before I started this I felt that any analysis would fall short in the end because there are too many variables as you said. You could never each a full conclusion because of that. But I found some ways around the problem. I found that just trying to reproduce his stance from the hips down was enough to see that the stance was not stable. if you try to counter balance with the upper body, or move your arms to the left, or hold the arms and rifle closer to move the COG back, the stance is still unstable. The only way to achieve a stable stance with the upper body, arms, etc is to go way beyond what we see in 133a. That means none of the variables above he waist make a difference. When it came to 3d and issues of depth(How far forward is the left leg, arms torso etc) I allowed for anything reasonable that would fix the balance. If for instance you lean the body backward to try and correct the balance it does not work. I have tested the options for depth factors that could not be nailed down and found none of those factors fix the problem. I concluded there was nothing above the waist or below that could correct the balance problem without far exceeding the parameters of his stance. The second way I eliminated the problem of small variables adding up is I allow for a much greater angle of the hip than I measure. I believe the telephone line shadow on his hip prove the hip angle to be well under 11 degrees, closer to 7 degrees max. But for anyone attempting to reproduce the pose I allow up to 20 degrees(I think I said 30 in the original thread but I feel less generous today.) Allowing for 20 degrees when the shadow demonstrates that it is less than 10 removes any ambiguity in that measurement. Below is a photo shop I did to make Oswald stand straight. Check out his feet on the ground, they look pretty normal, not sitting at a weird angle. I guess 5 degrees is not enough to make it stand out because the original 133a looks pretty normal too. I also tweeked his right lower leg a few degrees just to see how it looked. But before that his right foot still looked level to the ground.

Andrej, Did a word search in both threads for the word "whole" but Can't find that quote. We know there are different prints of 133a that sit at slightly different angles, but if I was taking about Oswald I would have meant the whole image of Oswald(Body, head and rifle) is rotated relative to the background. 133a is a cut and paste it could be the separate images were taken 20 to 30 minutes apart and so they had to rotate Oswald to keep the shadow angles matching. I am not really into theorizing about how it was made. I was only looking at evidence of possible forgery, or actually I was just looking for things that don't add up. And maybe someday I will figure out a way for the stance to be plausible. I have had two other people try and duplicate the stance with up to a thirty degree hip angle and It failed. Now I believe the shadow angle proves the hip was no more than 8 degrees angled. I am at a loss as to how a person can stand in that manner without falling over. If you should try and strike this pose according to the parameters I have measured you might want to use a rifle or an 8 pound object. That 8 pounds is more than the umbrella you used before and it will allow you to lean slightly farther than with the umbrella. The center of mass of the rifle is almost exactly were his left hand is. that leaves more of the rifle on his left side than his right and will help a little.

"Mugar would end up with promoting dope fiend Willie Nelson in the Farm Aid front operation of the 1980's." This is such cheap 50's style propaganda. Guilt by association is a typical tactic to smear a person. I guess everyone who associated with Willie Nelson on the Farm Aid concert was a person of low character?

I HAVE ADDED SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON A SEPARATE THREAD REGARDING THE SHADOW ISSUE. I am not claiming anything about his hips or feet being distorted. I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far. You said I should let others evaluate all my steps. My case was based on measuring the shadow of the telephone lines across his hips. I explained how the shadow across Oswald's hips reflect his angle toward the camera. I provided a recreation of the factors in a physical model and reproduced the 9 degree angle on his hips that occurs when a persons hips are rotated 22 degrees away from the North South alignment of the telephone shadows(When he is facing Marina). The case I presented was not an unsubstantiated Hypothesis. I laid out facts and hard measurements that can be tested. The premise is based on several facts that are basic optical principles. First, a shadow at approx a 45 degree angle will drop one inch for every inch it as moves from the source to the ground. Second, A telephone line that runs North/South will cause it's shadow to also lay in the North south line.(slightly off the North/South because the telephone line is not perfectly level, it droops.) Third, any object like Oswald's hips, will display a shadow that is parallel to the shadow on the ground when the hips also lay on a North South plane.(That is when he would be facing directly West) The findings are that only when Oswald's hips are facing the camera(At 22 degrees south of West) does it cause the telephone line shadow to take that 9 degree angle relative to the shadow on the ground. It is important to note that regardless of how much he leaned or tilted his hips upward the angle of the shadow does not change relative to the shadow on the ground. Only turning his hips toward or away from the camera effect a change. Because the only way to change the angle is to rotate his hips toward or away from the camera we can say with confidence that the angle on Oswald tells us where his hips are facing. This is because as he rotated his right hip around to face the camera that hip moves several inches closer to the source of the shadow. for every inch he moves forward the shadow on his right hip moves up an inch (The BYP have it closer to 49/52 degrees elevation so the shadow climbs up slightly more.) First anyone can check to see that the principles of light and shadow I stated above are correct. Once you have that you can draw a conclusion just based on those facts and the conclusion will validate my theory. To further test it you could reproduce all the parameters and create photographic evidence that validate my theory. But I already did the physical model in the original thread. It demonstrates and proves the angle of Oswald's hips. The conclusion is his hips have to be facing the camera in order to create a shadow that is 9 degrees from the shadow on the ground. One of the photos shows both Oswald and Mr Cappel. The shadow on Cappel is a bit clearer. I should have offered a more contrasted image so people could see the shadow better, but I assume most everyone here knows the case very well and is aware of the telephone line shadows already.

I am not claiming anything about his hips or feet being distorted. I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far. You said I should let others evaluate all my steps. My case was based on measuring the shadow of the telephone lines across his hips. I explained how the shadow across Oswald's hips reflect his angle toward the camera. I provided a recreation of the factors in a physical model and reproduced the 9 degree angle on his hips that occurs when a persons hips are rotated 22 degrees away from the North South alignment of the telephone shadows(When he is facing Marina). The case I presented was not an unsubstantiated Hypothesis. I laid out facts and hard measurements that can be tested. The premise is based on several facts that are basic optical principles. First, a shadow at approx a 45 degree angle will drop one inch for every inch it as moves from the source to the ground. Second, A telephone line that runs North/South will cause it's shadow to also lay in the North south line.(slightly off the North/South because the telephone line is not perfectly level, it droops.) Third, any object like Oswald's hips, will display a shadow that is parallel to the shadow on the ground when the hips also lay on a North South plane.(That is when he would be facing directly West) The findings are that only when Oswald's hips are facing the camera(At 22 degrees south of West) does it cause the telephone line shadow to take that 9 degree angle relative to the shadow on the ground. It is important to note that regardless of how much he leaned or tilted his hips upward the angle of the shadow does not change relative to the shadow on the ground. Only turning his hips toward or away from the camera effect a change. Because the only way to change the angle is to rotate his hips toward or away from the camera we can say with confidence that the angle on Oswald tells us where his hips are facing. This is because as he rotated his right hip around to face the camera that hip moves several inches closer to the source of the shadow. for every inch he moves forward the shadow on his right hip moves up an inch (The BYP have it closer to 49/52 degrees elevation so the shadow climbs up slightly more.) First anyone can check to see that the principles of light and shadow I stated above are correct. Once you have that you can draw a conclusion just based on those facts and the conclusion will validate my theory. To further test it you could reproduce all the parameters and create photographic evidence that validate my theory. But I already did the physical model in the original thread. It demonstrates and proves the angle of Oswald's hips. The conclusion is his hips have to be facing the camera in order to create a shadow that is 9 degrees from the shadow on the ground. One of the photos shows both Oswald and Mr Cappel. The shadow on Cappel is a bit clearer. I should have offered a more contrasted image so people could see the shadow better, but I assume most everyone here knows the case very well and is aware of the telephone line shadows already.

I have never taken the time to unpack the possible issues with the cutouts, it is all a bit cloudy to me. But looking at your last photo I do see it is rotated farr to the right. Is Oswald's image a cut and paste you did based on the feet or is this an original image from the Dallas PD?

Yes I know you said the model is not anatomically correct. Because a humans COG starts and inch or two forward of the base of the spine(rifle and arms move it farther) your model's COG would be well past the right foot. So there does not seem to be anything we can infer from your BYP model. ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially and from only one angle?"". How can we do that? Maybe I should just repeat myself for maybe the 4th time?? I offered two proofs that the hips face almost straight forward in the original post that his thread is based on. You replied to it with a image of you with your hips angled way back as proof the stance is possible. So I guess you missed the point of the thread or just ignored it. So I restated it in this thread and you still ask ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph". If you disagree with my two proofs, fine, then make your case. We are way past anyone asking that question because an answer has been offered up for discussion.

Not sure what you mean. The fence sits between 2 and 4 degrees right depending on the photo. Rotating it 2 to 4 degrees makes the fence posts vertical. You said rotating it till 'horizontal', but I think there is a vanishing point distortion in the horizontal aspect. But vanishing point aside if I rotate even 10 degrees the entire yard is leaning over, so not sure what you meant here.

John, the hips being angled back causes his right hip to show the inside and the left to show us an edge on view. The right shows the inside of the disc and the left shows a bit of the outside of the disc.

Andrej, John Butler's point about the hips goes to the heart of my original point. I think you were the first to comment on my original thread on Oswald's stance by posting an image of you leaning. In it your hips were angled way back at maybe 65 degrees+., and again today you post images of a models who's hips are also angled way back. The point of that thread was about offering two proofs that Oswald's hips were almost straight forward. When you limit the hips at an angle of approx 10 degrees the stance becomes very unstable. So any testing using the model you show above is, imo, flawed. Your response seemed to completely ignore the point of that thread. I mentioned it again at the beginning of this thread because this thread is an extension of that study. The photo of Oswald you posted above does have him leaning at around 8 degrees. But unlike 133a Oswald is counter leaning with his upper body. The angle of his upper body is vertical and I find that is more than enough to maintain that stance. Josephs point about finding level also makes a difference here. The photo you used has the fence at 3 1/2 degrees. I the original thread I offered a proof that the fence really sits at 2 1/2 degrees. Finally look at the position of Oswald's left foot on the diagram below. This is taken from the previous Dartmouth study. Looking at the side view they place Oswald's left foot as slightly overlapping the right foot position. I think this is accurate. In you model you have the left foot placed one entire foot length out in front of the right foot. If you try and physically reproduce that I think you will find it unlikely. In fact if you look at the Dartmouth images of their model they place the cog a few inches forward from the spine.That aligns with the base of the right toes when seen from the side. This creates a problem for your model because from the side view you can see that the COG point would fall far forward of the right toes which when compared to the overhead of the Dartmouth model, places the cog too far forward. The Dartmouth group had that part right, imo.

In March I posted a topic about Oswald's lean in 133a. I offered two proofs that Oswald's hips are facing almost straight toward the camera. This is a key factor in testing his posture because if you keep your hips forward the stance becomes impossible and very painful. If you do manage the angle you have to keep your hand on a wall or something and you can only let go for a second before falling over. It appears that the only way to duplicate the angle is to swing your hips way back, and even then some counterbalancing of the upper body is usually present. In other cases like the Cappel photo taken at Neeley St. the subject hips are forward but they are barely leaning(Not to mention they rotate the photo left to increase the lean.) This is why I scratch my head at the Dartmouth study that claims the stance is highly stable. The first problem I found with the study was they have Oswald leaning one degree less than reality. Most accept the picket fence at 2 1/2 degrees is correct. The Dartmouth study rotates the photo to a 3 1/2 degree fence angle. correcting for this takes their results of 99% probability down to about 85%. A small difference but a long way from a 99% certain 'case closed' argument. But now I find something that I can't explain and it may take those odds down to way less than 50%. In the composite image below take a look at the upper right corner. It's line of sight is directly in front of Oswald which correctly matches Marina's position. The feet are correctly positioned in comparison with 133a. But now look(just below )at the overhead model. In it they have Oswald's right foot facing in a very different angle. They have switched from Marina's line of sight to a position far to her left. The foot points 45 degrees to the right but in reality his right foot swings OUT at 45 degrees, not inward. Now if you rotate the image to correctly reflect the angle of the foot(bout 90 degrees) the angle of their yellow line changes to. You can see from the top right image that the yellow line goes to his left foot and toes. But if you look at the corrected image on the left it is obvious that the yellow line in the overhead was not correct to begin with. Once the foot angle is corrected the angle of the yellow line relative to the foot puts his left foot way the hell out in front of his right foot. To be extra fair I placed the right foot in a narrower stance. A wider stance would place the left foot even farther out in front of the right foot. Then I placed another left foot farther back in a more realistic position. Notice the red line that denotes the correct outline for the COG when the angles are corrected. The red line passes thru the bullseye just inside the 80% ring. So this correction means the likelihood of this analysis being right drops from 99 to about 78% probability that the stance is stable. But this analysis does not take into account the extra degree of lean I mentioned at the start. If I include that error then the bullseye moves one inch to the left. That would move the red line to almost the center of the bullseye or at least well within the inner ring. This means the probability of the stance being stable drops to under 50%. So not really a case closed type of thing. In fact at 50% odds it is not worth much at all.

All the blood on the seat where Jackie sat could have been deposited there while Jackie was out on the trunk. JFK's head fell right to that spot. The windshield mark in Altgens 7 that appears to be a rear view of the 'bullet hole' in Altgens 6 is in the correct position. It looks like it is farther from the rear view mirror but that is just due to perspective because the mirror sits several inches farther back than the mark on the windshield. The illuminated crack that runs down and left in Altgens 7 is a solid match for the crack line in Altgens 6. There is a past issue about the cracked windshield because the cracks in the FBI garage photo don't match the cracks in the image at the archives. I reproduced the angles of the crack lines and found they change exactly like the 'garage to archive' images do once you reproduce the different camera angle to the windshield. I don't know if it is a bullet hole but the multiple qualified witnesses who said they saw a "thru and thru" bullet hole is compelling. I also think the image in Altgens 7 matching Altgens 6 is pretty strong evidence that something was there. Something that does not appear in the official record.

I saw an interview with Doctor Lee regarding the Simpson case. He said the crime scene photos had a strange register to them. He found the originals and saw that those uncropped photos showed a bloody bicycle trail leaving the scene. Rather important but it got buried.

Ok so I don't think they could have such different sized heads, maybe wrong, will have to find a picture of Morley Safer. I guess different agencies position the person farther from the wall and then raise the ruler on the wall to compensate. The New Orleans mug shot must have him closer to the wall and so his head is closer to realistic. The takaway is those photos are good for recording height but the size of the face is not consistent. Edit, ya thinking about two Oswald's could never have two different size heads and get away with it, not 3 inches

Hey Joseph, maybe my eyes are failing me but in those two photos of Oswald, is his head is 12.5 inches in the Marine photo and 9 inches in the other one??? Edit: Just gave those faces another look and it is weird. I sized them to match pupillary distance and when I did the inch marks behind them no longer match. The New Orleans mug shot has to be sized way up to match the PD and the the inch marks become about 20% larger than the Marine photo. So maybe the Marine Oswald is standing farther from the inch marker like you theorized. Very strange.

I think some information can still be gleaned from distorted images. I mentioned earlier that you can measure the magnification of the barrel and minification of the butt and have a good idea of how much distortion we should see at different points along the length of the rifle. Of course all we can do is compare it with other photos that will have some level of distortion. But my point here is the level of distortion in the slide, the butt and the barrel are absolutely tiny compared to the rear portion of the scope which is over 30% larger in virtually every other photo except the cover of Life Mag. In the comparison below the yellow lines mark 2 points along the slide mechanism that are the same length in both photos. How is the scope, which is just above the slide, over 30% longer in the rear portion when the slide is normal? Now looking at the red lines they show that the front and middle part of the scopes and the brackets that hold it are all the same length, only the rear portion is over 30% longer. Can you think of anything that could ever cause such large and selective size distortions? Maybe printing it on defective paper could make for a 30% difference in just one small location on the print, and only along the horizontal axis. But where the distiortion merges back into the non distorted area we should see considerable bending, but there is none to see. It also leaves an image of the shirt where the scope originally was. The distortion is very large at 30% and limited only to the rear 1/3 of the scope with no corresponding distortion in the slide right below it. Those factors, imo, rule out the possibility of distortion as anything other than a very small contributor to the scope anomaly.

This is a extensive course on Photogrammetry from Bonn University in Germany. Over 50 hours of lecture to a class. I have only got thru a few lessons and have not seen a method for calculating the angle of the Carcano yet. The only way I can think of to determine if the rifle is leaning barrel end forward is to consider the manner in which it is distorted. A clear example of what to expect can be seen in Jack White's comp I posted on page one. The top rifle((Dallas PD) is by far the most distorted image of the Carcano. Measuring the distance between objects as you move from front to rear shows that the Dallas photo is larger than the other images at the barrel end but slowly shrinks as you move towards the butt of the rifle. At the butt end the rifle it is smaller than the other images. I believe this demonstrates that the barrel end leans toward the camera. In comparing the rifles I measure from barrel end to front sight, front sight to stock, stock to raise on top of stock. Raise to scope etc. I also photographed and tested a Mauser and verified the same measurable distortion. One thing that Jack Whites comp shows is that even though you can measure these differences they are much more obvious when comparing the barrel end to the butt. But even though the Dallas Police photo has a great deal of distortion front and back, the scope is not affected much at all. Those distortion can't account for the large difference that appears only in the scope. But more specifically in Jim's image it is only the last 3rd of the scope that appears too short. I can't figure how distortion, focal length or distance to camera could selectively shrink only the rear part of the scope. Not only does the Dallas PD image show a large amount of angular distortion, all three photos(National Archives, FBI and Dallas PD) were taken with different cameras, even with all that the scope in all three images is almost the same length. I think this is because the middle of the rifle is the closest to distortion free. Too big at the front, too small at the rear and just right in the middle.

The way I see it the arbitrary line is not the same in both images so can't be used to compare scope to stock angles accurately. Regarding the bolt almost every photo of a Carcano I see does not have it rotated like 133a. I duplicated the bolt position with my Mauser but that is not a perfect comparison. I found one image that comes very close to the bolt in 133a, close enough that I don't think it has to be faked in 133a. In most images the first part of the bolt is pointing right at camera and you can't see any of it's length. But as soon as you rotate down it grows significantly.

Jim, I think this issue of angles and scope size can be resolved by looking at Jack White's comparisons of the FBI, National archives, and Dallas Police photo comparison that I posted on page one. The Dallas Police photo is the most distorted. In it the butt of the rifle is much smaller than the comparison photos yet the barrel is larger, longer than the FBI and archives photos. Still the scope in the Dallas Police photo is not shrunk much at all. I think this confirms that the angles are not the cause of the shorter scope. Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork. I also think the different angles of the scope to the barrel are simply the result of that airbrushed portion of the scope being misaligned. In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake. The butt of the gun changes in size as you change the exposure level which in turn changes that line from the barrel to the butt. Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. The rotation will change the red line from the barrel to the top of the butt of the rifle. I believe the issue of the scope and Barrel angles will detract from your main issue and should be dropped. One other thing that I don't understand is that you call your comparison the Life magazine photo, but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo.

You are right. His whole body length is about 6.5 times his head. Reducing the head size by about 9% makes it proportional. I measured a couple of other photos and he was consistently 7.5. That quite a bit bigger. I could not read your chart well but it looks like 8.0 is "Idealistic" and normal is 7.5. The HSCA offered up the fact that objects at the top of the frame are somewhat magnified. Tilting the camera down to move the head up in the frame does magnify the head but the amount of tilt is greater in the HSCA comparison. If you can find a copy of 133a that clearly shows no scope it would be a smoking gun. If that existed I would bet great efforts were made by the CIA to retrieve and destroy that evidence.