Chris Bristow

What is the original unzoomed image, a Zapruder frame?

On 10/25/2019 at 1:18 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

you raised the problem whether some specific details such as wrist watch or maybe a metal band were on Prayer Man's arms. I do not know yet. The pictures I saw do not indicate this but we are in realm of guessing. I would hope that the higher resolution of Darnell available to the Sixth Floor Museum could one day be also accessible to us.

I work on reviving Tom Wilson's image analysis method in the hope to maybe disclose some more layers of information in Darnell film and this would also address the points you raised. I hope to have the whole of Tom Wilson's setup ready by Christmas or early next year. There is a lot of technical stuff to solve there. Together with a better resolution scan of Darnell, it should be possible to extract as much information as possible from Darnell and other pictures or films.

 

Should be interesting.

Great, yes the newer version of his arm makes sense. And I do think the highlights on the forearm and Knuckles is due to him being in the direct light not the ambient light. I was just making the point that the light on his body seems to be coming up from Below. In one of the other films there is a reflection coming off his wrist for a moment. It looks like prayer man has a wrist watch on and for a moment the crystal reflects outward. But also in the Darnell photo we've been working with it looks like a shadow on his wrist and a small highlight it also looks like a wrist watch.

Andrej, I re posted your overhead view from the Prayerman thread. To have sunlight on both the hand and forearm  would he have to have the forearm at almost the same angle the Sun is coming in at?

Ray, in this overhead the light hitting the East wall is very low. But the light reflecting off it at 39 degrees(The Sun's elevation) would hit the floor at around 54 degrees and bounce back up at 54 degrees towards the entrance doors but some would also go to his face. I think the East wall would add some light.

Overall I think most of the light on the subject is coming up from the  street and everything else in front of the TSBD. Regardless of the azimuth Every object visible from the alcove is reflecting some light into the alcove. That adds up. If you stood in the alcove on a very bright sunny day you might feel the need to squint as you looked out, that illustrates just how much ambient light makes its way into the alcove from every object in your view.
  There seems to be some shadow from the subject on the wall behind him. It is raised up above his right shoulder which indicates it is coming from below. The light reflecting off the cement floor and everything outside of the alcove is lighting the subject. The ceiling looks like it is getting a lot of reflected light which  is coming up from the floor, sidewalk etc. The ceiling must also be reflecting a bit of light down to the subject.

Here is a photo shop with the vanishing point perspective removed. It simulates a view that is looking straight at the TSBD's front face, as if the camera lens was perpendicular to the front of the building. You still can't see straight into the recess of the doorway but the lines of the front of the building are squared off.

If I was an assassin the idea of 20 to 25 minutes to escape the tunnels would scare the hell out of me. What if someone in the plaza catches a glimpse of me or sees a puff of smoke? They may be focused on the tunnels within seconds. A police officer could pop the manhole cover up and give Chase.

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

I think the HSCA quietly determined that, despite her testimony, Marina didn't take the pictures because she didn't have the slightest idea how to use the camera.

HSCA: "I will show you those two photographs (133-A & 133-B) which are
marked JFK Exhibit 1 and JFK Exhibit 2, do you recognize those two
photographs?"
Marina: "I sure do. I have seen them many times."
HSCA: "What are they?"
Marina. "That is the pictures that I took."
HSCA: "Did you hold it [the Imperial Reflex camera] up to your eye and look
through the viewer to take the picture?"
Marina: "Yes."
HSCA: "When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?" Marina:
"Yes."
HSCA: "This camera, do you recall whether to take pictures with this camera,
you would look down into the viewfinder or whether you would hold the
camera up to your eye and look straight ahead?"
Marina: "I just recall I think it is straight."
HSCA: "You would put the camera up by your eye."
Marina: "Yes."
 

Here is the view Marina couldn't remember:

 

Thanks to David Josephs for the image above.

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.

8 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

Chris,

Thanks for your detailed response.  Also, thank you for all of your research.  

Thank you I appreciate that.

2 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

I own one of those cheap Imperial Reflex Camera's and it is a plastic, piece of junk.  I wouldn't use pictures from it as evidence of anything.

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.

On 9/21/2019 at 11:26 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks, Chris, for correcting my wrong quote of "whole". Of course, this word is not in your text, it was my mind trying to figure out whether a part or the whole figure (maybe a better word than image) of Lee Oswald was rotated to achieve what you consider an impossible stance.

I am not an expert in photographic manipulation techniques but I do not think that this particular backyard picture was manipulated by drawing contours around the whole body and the rifle, extracting it and then pasting it onto another picture in a wrong angle. This would cause a number of associated issues with a mismatch in view angles and shadows and how the feet align with the plane of the ground. However, even if the picture was manipulated as you suggest, it would mean that the pose was anatomically possible and that a picture of Lee with a rifle was indeed photographed, only it would be used to place his figure onto the plain backyard of their Neeley Street house, photographed on a slightly different time (or day?). 

But why would it be necessary to photograph Lee at the same place  and to take a plain backyard picture and merge the two pictures? Or, was Lee photographed on a different place? But Marina did confirm that she had taken two pictures of Lee with his guns and newspaper one morning before the noon while they lived at Neeley Steet. Why then was it necessary to produce a picture using a photographic manipulation which would be the same that Marina had already taken?

As far as any reconstructions of Lee's posture are concerned, these would necessitate to have a person having the same height of inseam (Lee's inseam was quite low, about 38% of the body height, if I remember correctly, compared to average male population (48-49%)). Also, it is not only the weight of the object (the rifle) he held but also the exact length of the rifle and where Lee held it - these factors decide about the balance. From my experience with modelling different pictures, any reconstruction - real or digital -  has only meaning if every detail is reproduced faithfully. This is why it takes me so long to get to complete any model - it is too much work and effort. For that reason I cannot invest myself into reconstructing Lee's stance in the backyard picture. Actually, I did start with modelling their house and especially their backyard, however, then I decided to prioritise the Depository doorway.

 

Late edit: The video linked below is by the scientist at Dartmouth University and it explains a few things about the shadows in the backyard photograph. The shadows look often weird and improbable to human eye, yet they can be reproduced if all aspect of the scene are considered. Of course, it needs to be done in 3D. There can be only one geometric solution for shadows in backyard photograph. There cannot be a situation that the shadows on the face and neck would be true but shadows elsewhere in the body would be false - that would be some manipulation with only part of the body, not with the whole figure.

 

One more late edit:

I found a screenshot of my model of the Neeley street house in which Oswalds rented one appartment. I remember that I have also modelled the backyard of that house.

 

 

 

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.

       

13 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris, what do you mean by "the whole image was rotated a few degrees too far"?  Please explain how can this be done or what do you actually mean by the whole image being rotated.

 

 

 

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.

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

I checked your March 19 post and could not find any proof in your post that Lee Oswald's hip would have to be distorted beyond the anatomical range if he stood as he stood in the backyard picture. The degrees of freedom offered by the hip joint are large both in lateral and sagittal planes. You can have the pelvis only minimally turned backward and still have the foot extremely backward. The backyard image shows dark trousers and it is, in my view, impossible to measure how much the frontal plane of the pelvis deviated from the zero degree frontal plane (suggesting rotation). Please show it because a guess is not enough if you are implying a photographic manipulation with a historic piece of evidence. 

So, if you want to say that the posture was tempered with, what has actually been done to the posture? Was it only the waist that was manipulated, was is all below the waist? The feet look all right and their orientation entirely possible, so I wonder what in the figure above its feet was manipulated.

You may wonder why I am not letting you to claim that the picture was manipulated because of a non-anatomical distortion of the hip. The whole assassination case is difficult to understand due to lack of chain of evidence, lack of evidence, missing or non-informative witness testimonies and a clear attempt to pin the guilt on Oswald whatever the truth was. However, the case is equally distorted by us, researchers, who spread unsubstantiated hypotheses and conclusions. I would suggest that you document your analyses and methods in an article, just like the Dartmouth study did, and let other evaluate all the steps. To repeat myself, the backyard pictures could have been manipulated but the rotation of the hip does not seem to prove it.

I will not partake in this thread if this is your preference.

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.

 

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

I’m sure I got something mixed up Chris...

The image with the parallel white lines on either side of Oswald’s ghost image on the left. The center horizontal fence post is truly horizontal or the 2 to 4 degrees you mention.

 

I

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?

10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Gentlemen:

a claim that Lee's hips in the backyard picture were photographically altered is unsubstantiated. Lee had his inseam very low compared to the average male. and therefore, his whole hip region looked stiff and large. How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially  and from only one angle? He wore trousers and those can confound the true location of femurs. The only way forwards is to provide a faithful 3D reconstruction of Lee's body (inlcuding the correct height of his inseam) using multiple photographs and then fitting the model onto his figure in the backayrd picture. This would tell if the pose was possible or not.

Chris: you may have overlooked my comment that the humanoid I used to reconstruct the pose is not an anatomical model of human skeleton. However, it allows to model any pose to figure out if it was anatomically possible at all.

Lee used to stand in very awkward poses. I have posted one yesterday in this thread. Please find here a reconstruction of his pose in that photograph which was taken while Lee had been on leave from the military. It is an awkward pose but this is how he used to stand - resting his weight on his right foot, unloading the left foot and having left foot forward and the left leg slightly bent in the knee joint. This is similar to his stance in the backyard picture. You may have also seen my post showing that Robert stood in a very similar fashion during Lee's funeral.

I do not say that the backyard pictures were not manipulated at all. However, it is not Lee's pose which would prove a photographic alteration.

This is my reconstruction of Lee's stance in the photograph taken during his leave while in military. The pose bears a striking similarity with his backyard picture pose in resting the body weight on his right foot and having his left foot forward and unloaded.

 

And this is Robert's stance during his funeral. While it is out of context here, Prayer Man's stance also bore similarities with both Lee's and Robert's stance.

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.

4 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Chris... it appears to me  with the image of Oswald in the ghost background, that that's much more than a few degrees....

Take my image and rotate it left until the fence is horizontal using a photoshop line guide or whatever you like...
I have little room to post images left, but that looks like a rotation of 20-30 degrees...  his nose is to the left (facing the image) of his right knee

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.
 

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

The angle of the iliac blades seem to be wrong.  They should be the same and match from side to side since the structure is locked in by bones and cartilage.

 

Each side of the human pelvis is spread out in a flatter orientation than the model.  If things are off in just a minor arrangement than that causes big problems with femoral orientation.  I realize that the femur is a ball and joint operation, but there is little room for changes in orientation.  The orientation of the lilac blades in the model are more simian in orientation than human.  With that type of orientation the model needs a simian ball and joint arrangement and simian legs. 

Josephs reconstruction is a better way to look at it.  The angle of Oswald's hips in the 133-A photo is a clear example of photo manipulation.

The angle of the femur from the pelvis places the knee below the pelvis when standing erect.  It does so at an angle that allows us to stand erect, to stride without staggering, and run successfully. 

 

The model has the right femur bone bent to meet this condition.  The left leg doesn't and is in an unnatural position.  The red lines I used are not technically correct for the Oswald figure's stance.  It is for a normal standing position.

I believe Andrej's model is built without proper consideration of anatomy.  Particularly in the femoral neck joint and it's orientation to the rest of the lower limb.

If possible a human skeleton could be a better model if his software could handle that.

 

 

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.

On 9/18/2019 at 8:20 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

John, this avatar is not an anatomical model of a human skeleton. However, it allows testing different poses and various articulations (joints).

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.

28 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Wish I had a prize for ya Chris...

1956 induction...

1961 arrest in New Orleans....   

seems like something is wrong until i show you a shot of Paul Newman at 5’10” with also a 12 inch head....

I think this adds proof to the existence of two men using the name LHO in day to day living and that people have hugely diff sized heads...

If that Ozzie marine photo is real.... seems so

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