Chris Bristow

I am not alluding to fakery but those photos don't match!. The two top cracks are about 43 degrees apart in the HSCA and almost 65 degrees in the White House garage photo. Adjusting for perspective can spread the HSCA angle out to match the other but then several other cracks are way off. The Garage photo was taken from the front and if the HSCA photo was taken from inside the limo it might explain this. Can someone tell me the source of the HSCA image?

That is a good point in fact I think it makes the gunman theory completely implausible. The shadow of the tree trunk on the grass below means there also has to be a tree trunk right where the gunman image is.

I agree this the first photo is not original. Judging from the lamppost in the background we should see Fosters in the background. Second the North plaque above the route 77 sign on the Stemmons pole has way more space between it and the 77 sign and between it and the Stemmons sign above. And I just noticed the big giveaway, Moorman and Jean hills positions are reversed, Moorman should be on the right of Hill with her orange coat.

I have heard that sometime in the 80's Gary Mack said he was told by several of the people involved that Chaney caught Curry on the Stemmons on ramp, that is where the meeting took place. This is the explanation for why Chaney's ride forward is missing from films, it did not happen in the plaza. There are some big problems with this story. First, Curry had already been notified about shots fired several times. 1. As the shots were being fired both the agents in the back seat each told him what was happening and told him to rush to Parkland. 2. A radio message from the Beast alerts everybody to 'shots fired' 3. Kellerman radios the same message seconds later. 4 Curry sees the limo has floored it and is overtaking his car. 5. Clint hill and Greer both yell' 'get to parkland" when the limo catches up with Curry underneath the triple overpass. Curry testifies that he heard two people from the limo yelling "get to Parkland". At this point Curry and the limo race onto the Stemmons onramp. Now Chaney is supposed to catch up to Curry to tell him that shots have been fired!! How could Chaney think that Curry didn't already know? Chaney has a radio and should have heard the 2 radio calls. But it would also be obvious when the limo and Curry rushed away. Nix shows him stopping right after the head shot so he would have seen everybody reacting as the limo speeds off. Chaney is about to deliver this important message that is extremely time sensitive. Yet instead of using his radio he decides to try and catch Curry who is speeding away. Gary Mack said Curry slowed on the onramp which allowed Chaney to catch up. Did Chaney know that? If not he would have thought there was little hope of catching Curry without a long chase in order to give the most important time sensitive message of his career. Maybe the radio was too full of chatter about the emergency for Chaney to tell Curry about that emergency... Faking all the films would be a monumental task. Was it impossible? I don't know. But when we get stories like Gary Mack's illogical account of the incident it really makes you wonder.

I found this interesting. The alleged Altgens 6 bullet hole has a heart shaped center(Left), and so does this image of a bullet hole in a windshield. I cropped it but several of the holes in that image had the heart shape. I think it has something to do with the angle of the windshield which tends to cause the hole to be bigger at the top,

For anyone not convinced by the photographic proof both Ray and I have provided there is a simple way to resolve this for yourself. Simply walk outside and place two objects about two feet apart. Line up so one object casts it's shadow almost directly behind the object, I.E with the Sun at your back. You will instantly find that shadows can appear to converge exactly as demonstrated in the photographs we provided. This is really a debate we did not need to have because you can prove it to yourself in a couple minutes. If anyone wants to argue this further I would ask that you first spend a couple minutes outside and test the theory.

At least we all agree that shadow lines converge back towards the source. Obviously not rocket science. Ray's photo in the link and my last box photo offer proof that shadow lines moving out from the Sun can appear to converge due to perspective. So while there is still an issue regarding how much angle we should see, can we all agree that shadow lines moving away from the source CAN APPEAR to be converging?

Here is a photo that shows diverging shadows. If you line up with the Sun behind the box on the left, the object to the right will to appear to diverge. This is natural and anyone can verify it for themselves in minutes when the Sun is up. Looking from above, these two shadows appear parallel or maybe slightly converging. Not sure how much convergence I should see when the shadow lines would converge 93,000,000 miles away. I think your photo of the fence shadows converging towards the Sun illustrates the distortion effect of shallow camera angles because the shadow lines converge before they even get above the horizon. I do think the Oswald shadow shows 5 or so degrees more than it should. It should be 10 degrees based on the post shadow. With the distortion the camera angle causes that 10 degrees should be 25 to 30 degrees. But it is around 45 suggesting the undistorted angle is around 15 degrees. that is 5 degrees too much. I think the photos I posted in the other BY thread demonstrate that the nose vs body shadows can and do happen. I think this new photo of the boxes shows shadows can diverge which accounts for the post vs Oswald shadows. Simply by matching the camera angle and positions of objects we can duplicate the shadows. So unless we can find an error in the set up of my photos, I think we have to conclude that the shadows in the BY photos are not fake just because the run different directions. The pose Oswald took in 133b that was not discovered till 1977. But I think it was found in the possession of Roscoe Whites relative. So he was around when the Dallas cops took their Backyard comparisons. That means it is possible they had access to 133b from Roscoe White. One question, you said rotating Oswald to straight corrected the shadows. I have had a hard time evaluating the small difference in body shadows. Which shadow looks the most obvious to you. Also how many degrees did you rotate Oswald?

As people discuss the shadows there is agreement that they don't all add up. But there are different opinions on just exactly how wrong they are. So here is my question for everyone. If the angles and directions of the shadows were all correct what would you expect to see? Exactly what direction and specific angle would you see for the nose and body shadows? Please base your answer on the following specs which are all close estimates. 1. Oswalds face was 8 degrees away from the Sun.(Based on the post shadow for reference. This agrees with the HSCA position.) 2. Oswald's head was tilted 3 or 4 degrees back towards the Sun.( depends on just how rotated the camera was.) 3. The Sun's elevation was approx 45 degrees.(The exact time of day was not known for sure but it makes little difference since Oswald was facing only 8 degrees away from the Sun. At this elevation you gain one degree of nose shadow angle for every degree that the face rotates away from the Sun.) NOTE: The body shadow becomes distorted as you go from above(True angle) to the distorted angle determined by the distance and height of the camera. The first 15 degrees will distort to 2.5 times it's actual angle. So multiply you answer by 2 1/2 then add another 6 to 8 degrees to account for Oswald's lean which is reflected in the shadow angle.

I just verified that I can walk around the box, a full 360 degree circle and the ground shadow changed by 360 degrees. You can make it face toward you, away or 90 degrees to either side. Of course to make Oswald's shadow point straight towards you , you would be standing next to the picket fence and would not see the nose.

This is not a video. It is just a high res copy of Macintyre one that I could not directly post. Check out the overall graininess then look closely at the the top of the windshield. I just noticed this and was amazed at how sharp the top line of the windshield is. If you wanted to remove a bullet hole it is best not to place the seem or transition too close to the object you are removing because that is where people may look for fakery. The image is very clear once you click on it.

I think he might have gone over to Commerce to get a good picture because Dealey Plaza is smaller than it looks and maybe he needed to get farther back to get a good shot of the whole area from the South. Go on google Earth and take a look from Commerce North. It is an 8 foot eye altitude and it almost duplicates the Bell image. Commerce sits lower than Main too.

John ,yes the lampposts have changed. The Brehman & West survey map of shows the old locations and many witness locations. After using the Google Earth street view I see that from Commerce St Main almost disappears. The camera is tilting up a bit and points over the couples heads but it must be around shoulder level. If Google Earth allowed us to drop the camera height to shoulder level i think it would reproduce the view we see in the photo. So I think i have to refute my own claim. The grass below the lamp post does not 'prove' anything.

Anyone notice something out of place in between the Stemmons sign and the lamppost on the South side of Elm? It sure looks like a lamppost near Mary Moorman's position. It and another lamppost appear for about 3 seconds till the camera pans away. It happens around 1:30 seconds. The grass below it proves it is not the lamppost on the North side of main. It can't be the type of video glitch that smears different frames together because the background it correct. In fact there is a car passing behind the lamppost that blends with the other people moving past. But there was no lampost on South Elm. I have now looked at it on a big screen and I can see some grass beyond the lamppost and a curb below which would indicate the lamppost is actually the one on North Main. But i still can't figure out why Main St is not visible. If the camera angle was really low you might see all grass and no street and the grass between Main and Elm would appear like a sliver as it does in the image. But we are looking over the heads of the couple in the foreground so the camera was not low. Where is Main St.?

John, read my last response to David. The fact that I can change the ground shadow 130 degrees by moving from a few feet while the nose shadow barley changes means there is something more to be considered when you see conflicting shadows. The nose shadow falls on a vertical surface so it does not change as I move around the box. The two shadow having different angles does not mean it is fake. When I swung around to the right side of the box the ground shadow leaned right while the nose shadow was still leaning left!

David, I rotated the box to closer reflect Oswald's angle off the Sun. I also tilted the box a bit to simulate Oswald's tilt because that cancels 3 degrees of shadow angle. The angle you have in the green BY image matches the head tilt. But check out the the BY face I included. The image is rotated to straight up yet there are still 5 degrees of shadow angle visible From the tip to shadow bottom. To get the actual shadow angle we would have to add that 5 degrees to the angle you're showing above. The other Oswald image has such a different sun angle I don't think we can use it. Oswald is almost 70 more degrees off the azimuth. I noticed that trying to compare the direction of the ground angle to the nose can be misleading. I could move left two feet and completely hide the ground shadow while there would be little or no change to the nose shadow. In fact I just realized I could walk around to the right side of the box and i would start to see the ground shadow lean to the right instead of the left while the nose shadow would not change much. I just ran back outside and double checked this theory and it is true. I can make the ground shadow change by almost 130 degrees. The nose barley changed. What do you think? I do think the ground shadow is a mismatch to the azimuth implied by the post shadow by about 20 degrees, but I see no problem with the directions of the nose vs ground shadow

Doesn't the nose shadow move left? The shadow does fall in the center of the face but the tip of the nose does not. If you want to measure the leftward movement of the nose shadow, draw a line from the tip off the nose (Which is offset to the Left cause Oswald is looking Left.) to the bottom of the nose shadow. You will find the shadow proceeds down from the nose at a 3 degree LEFTWARD angle. What I will agree with is that the amount of body shadow is strange. The post tells us we should see no more than about 25 degrees, distortion included, but there is more than 40 visible.

No prob I was not clear at first.

Sandy, I did say it was just perspective but I really meant to include the vertical vs horizontal factors as part the perspective.

I posted this in another thread but I think it makes a valuable point regarding the direction of shadows under the nose. The shadow on the front of the box simulates the shadow under Oswald's nose and lies on a vertical plane. The shadow behind the box, which lays on a horizontal plane, represents Oswald's body shadow. The direction of the shadow on the ground appears to move upward in the photo due to vanishing point perspective while the nose shadow on the box has a downward direction. The fact that these shadows appear to contradict each other, is in reality, just a matter of perspective.

I have edited this post and added an image. Notice how the shadow on the ground which lies on a horizontal surface has an angle very different from the shadow on the face of the box that is cast onto a vertical object. One runs down and left and the other up and left. I find that the nose shadow is correct in relation to the shadow behind the post. But the shadow on the ground leans out to far even when taking into account that the angle of the camera to the shadow can increase the angle we see by 2 1/2 to 3 times. Still not enough to explain it. So to me the nose is correct, it is his body's shadow that I still can't figure out.

Much gets made of the nose shadow because it seems to be directly under the nose as if it was noon, but all the other shadows do not. First thing I want to point out is that Oswald is looking slightly to his left. This caused the tip of his nose to swing off center. If you run a line from the tip of his nose to the bottom of the shadow you get about a 3 degree shadow angle. So the shadow being directly at the centerline does not mean there is no angle visible. The next thing to consider is the approx 3 to 4 degree tilt of his head which cancels out that amount of shadow. So we can account for up to 7 degrees of shadow angle from the photo. How much angle we should see is less about the elevation of the Sun and more about the azimuth. That does not sound correct but consider this. When a person is facing directly toward the Sun's position their shadow will fall directly under the nose with zero angle. The only difference elevation makes when looking toward the Sun is the length of the shadow. If you turn 90 degrees away, perpendicular to the Sun, the elevation is fully represented in the shadow angle. 50 degrees of elevation will create a 50 degree shadow angle. Because Oswald is only facing about 10 degrees away from the Sun the azimuth comes much more into play. The azimuth is pretty obvious because we can see the post shadow creeping out from the side of the post by about one degree. Assuming a camera distance of 10 feet puts Oswald at 9 degrees away from the post. Include the extra degree we see in the post shadow puts Oswald at 10 degrees angle off the azimuth. Elevations between 40 and 50 degrees will create a shadow angle that increases by one degree for every degree of rotation away from the azimuth(At least for the first 25 degrees or so, then it tappers off.) That gives us 10 degrees of shadow angle but we have to subtract 3 degrees for his head tilt and 3 more degrees because although his body is 10 degrees away from the post, his face is looking about 3 degrees away, back towards the Sun. In the end we should see about 3 degrees of angle from the tip of the nose and that is what I measure. It seems that the shadow is pretty much exactly as it should be

Thanks Steve. The argument makes sense in terms of total body size vs head size but the torso itself just looks small to me in 133a. The stretching of the head in 133a due to its higher position from distortion is what I really want to look at as it must relate to the body vs head issue.

Sandy, I want to look into the issue of the head size but the only HSCA explanation I could find was about the position of the head in the frame relative to different distortion levels at different locations in the frame? Can you point me towards the testimony about the body/head size, "They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller"?

I have a new method for measuring the backyard. On google Earth you can count the horizontal slats on the front of the house and compare them to the 80 inch screen doors. I count 32 slats which equals 80 inches or 2.5 inches per slat. From a side view of the house that shows the landing in the backyard I used the slats to confirm that the landing is 10 feet high, maybe 10 ' 4" at the tallest. I have also confirmed the landing at 10 feet two other ways. So that makes the steps 8 inches tall each. Oswald's head comes to 1.1/2 inches below the top of the 9th step. That puts him at 5'10. But the first step seems to be short by about two inches which makes Oswald 5'8". I have found that when you do not stand perfectly straight to measure your height your slouch drops one to two inches off your actual height. Also I have tested his lean and found it takes another inch off. I get his height at 5' 6" which is about right when you subtract his slouch and lean.