Chris Bristow

Tom I am looking over your work in progress. It is gonna take some time to digest it. One thing about Oswald's lean is I have seen no one duplicate it. I have been trying to determine the angle of his hips and they are almost straight forward, maybe 8 degrees of angle. If a person is aloud to angle their right hip back 30 to 40 degrees and turn the right foot out way past Oswald's, it really blows the test. When a person can turn the right leg and hip way out it allows them to rock up onto the right knee and lean over that locked right knee. This allows them to lean 3 to 4 degrees more. If they turn way out and can also hyper extend the femur they gain more degrees of lean. So it is crucial that the position of Oswald's right foot and hips is maintained. I find that if you keep the foot and hips correct the posture becomes impossible. If you just try to line up your right foot under the right knee and belly button while maintaining hip and foot angles it is a fail. You can even cheat a bit go one inch right of the belly button and turn the hips back up to 20 degrees, but I think you will find you are still several degrees short of the goal when you fall over.

Tom, how do you determine how much keystone there is and did you use a program or tilt the image?

REMOVED IMAGE

Michael I think so. The floodlight illustrates a good point. it is all about perspective and as you say you have to apply it to life on earth. Shadows are not light and do not have to move in the same direction as the light. Simply take anything and let it cast a shadow on the wall, now tilt it all around and watch how far you can alter that shadows direction. Even that crazy shadow behind the background makes perfect geometrical sense.

John, Fantastical reasoning, really? I am using the optics I have studied for 30 years. I have been determining angles, shadows, reflection and more because it has a lot to do with how to troubleshoot optical problems people have with eyeglasses. I have passed the state boards and studied further. One of the questions on the advanced test asks you to calculate the length of a shadow based on the persons height and distance from the light source. That seems to drift away from eyeglasses a bit but the test is very comprehensive. So I am very confident that minus the occasional mistake old farts make, the methods I use are rational. It is a common mistake to think all shadows must behave as you say. It may seem so intuitive to you that you never look beyond to test your belief. Even that crazy shadow behind and below the landing at the top of the stairs is completely normal. If you really want to get past this incorrect concept we could discuss that crazy shadow, and if you are willing to take a piece of paper and stand under a light for a minute we could unpack this whole thing.

I think the post is a 4x4 which is really 3.25 inches. The post shows us the front and side so it is more than 3.25, but you can see the corner and then use the front measurement as a gauge. I get 13 inches for the newspaper and that leave me short by about 2.50 inches. But I found if i stand normal, not totally straight like when we measure our height, it reduces my height by 2 to 2.50 inches. So his height seems correct.

I am not weighing in on the validity of the chin controversy but after looking closely at the Dartmouth study I found some problems that may be of interest to anyone investigating their study. The first problem is not obvious because they have placed the mug shot and backyard images on top of each other. They appear to match in size if you compare the width from ear to ear. But because the backyard image is looking very slightly to his left the ear measurement becomes worthless. If you place them side by side you find the eye to mouth measurement is at least 11% larger in the mug shot. The backyard image is looking downward about 6 degrees more than the mug shot, but this does not cause the backyard eye to mouth measurement to shrink and does not affect the comparison. (I learned something very non intuitive about this perspective change of tilting the head down. The first 40 degrees of tilt down cause the eye to lip measurement to actually increase a tiny bit instead of shrinking as I assumed. That was a surprise! It turns out as you tilt down you start to see that the eye is farther back on the head than the lips. When the person is facing straight forward you can't measure the fact that the eye sits farther back than the lips. But as you tilt your head down that difference starts to become visible and measurable. I guess portrait artists already know this but it was a new and interesting aspect of perspective for me.) The second problem is that the backyard image is looking down about 8 degrees more than the mug shot, but when they created the model they more than doubled the amount of tilt. When you place the model next to the image you find the height of the lighted area on Oswald's chin is smaller in the model. However before you can measure this you have to make the correction explained in the next paragraph 'Problem 3". Problem 3 is that both computer models are oversized by 6%. Before you make any measurements you will have to shrink the computer models by 6%. The backyard image is tricky when making this comparison because since it is tilted down more than the photo the dimensions will gradually shrink as you go from top of the face to the bottom. One last small issue is the model of the mug shot is straight up and down while the mug shot itself leans to the right by 4 degrees. The backyard image is rotated maybe 1 degree more than the mug shot. So for the best comparisons you should rotate all the images to a vertical alignment. Both the larger mug shot and the extra rotation downward of the backyard model create a bias in favor of the results they obtained. They both cause the light on the chin to shrink and so the light does not wrap around the side of the jaw as much when the too small model is compared with the oversized mug shot. I tried to resize things and photo shop the corrected chin size onto the mug shot. But because the shadowing on the two images is different it did not blend well. To be fair I did notice the increased size was not very significant but for anyone studying the images I think the information above should be helpful.

I just did some photographic testing on this post shadow vs Oswald shadow a couple weeks ago. Ray is correct and if need be i might do a video so i can move to different positions and you can all watch as shadows change. But I like thought experiments so try the following one which logically proves rays point. 1. picture yourself standing with the Sun directly at your back and the post directly in front of you. This means the Sun, you and the post are all on the same line of sight. So where is the post's shadow when you are in a direct line with it and the Sun? The answer is the shadow would be hidden directly behind the post. That is pretty easy to visualize and if you agree with me you can consider point 2. 2.Now if you understand that you, the Sun and the pole all have to share the same line of sight in order to hide the shadow behind the post, then consider that Oswald's position in the picture does not share that same line of sight. Oswald is not in direct line and so could never have his shadow hidden directly behind him as the post does. So if Marina was 10 feet away then Oswald is 7 degrees of to the right of the pole and we should see his shadow protruding by the same 7 degrees. But oswald is also leaning and that adds another 7 degrees. Then you add the perspective change of a camera at ten feet and approx 4 feet high and 14 degrees of shadow expands 2 1/2 times to about 35 degrees. (The post shadow is not subject to the same distortion because as the perspective changes vertical lines just shrink in size while angled lines change their angle towards the horizontal). Although I can account for what should be 14 degrees of original shadow distorted by perspective to 35 degrees, Oswald's shadow is closer to 50 degrees. Still can't explain that. It would take 20 degrees of shadow angle for the perspective to change it to 50(20 x 2.5 = 50)

John yes they would slow down for the turn but they could easily take it at forty mph. But at forty the middle guy would fall back just a bit. I swear they all have a grin on their faces too. At their apparent speed they would get run over in about 5 seconds if they don't step on it. Very strange thing. By this time there had been several radio calls saying "shots fired go to Parkland. So these guys had to know what was happening by that point. If Ellis is correct in his recollection the Altgens 7 is a lie. Although it appeared in a newspaper headline with 24 hours so not easy to explain as a fraud.

Thanks Denis, I have heard these but the quality is much better

The math is simple and proves the shadow on the post moves as it should. The telephone lines can be no closer that 14 feet and at that distance they should move just like we see in the 3 photos. If the lines are beyond 14 feet then the shadow would move even faster. The math does not lie and I think we have to accept that the power lines can be no closer than 14 feet and from that we know mathematically that the shadow would move 3 to 5 inches in only 10 minutes. To find how many inches a shadow moves per degree of the Sun's elevation you take the 14 feet x 2= the diameter x 3.14 to get the circumference then divide 360 degrees by the circumference and you get how many degrees equals 1 foot movement which is 360 / 88 = 3.9. That is one foot movement for every 3.9 degree elevation change. The sun's elevation was decreasing by 1 or 1.6 degrees every 10 minutes. (can't remember my exact figures) so the shadow had to be moving at LEAST 3 to 5 inches up the post if the time between photos was up to ten minutes. So because the power lines can be no closer than 14 feet from the post the shadow would move no slower than 3 inches every ten minutes. On another topic, I too have wondered about the shadow you pointed out recently as going in the wrong direction(It is the shadow leaning upward to the right that sits on the wall just beyond and below the landing at the top of the staircase). I think I know its origin now. It is the shadow of the South edge of the landing. I modeled it with a couple pieces of paper, one to represent the horizontal landing and the other to represent the vertical wall the shadow falls on. Once you get your light source at the right elevation and angle off or azimuth, you can reproduce the shadow and its angle exactly. Not saying these photos are real, just saying many of the theories don't hold water.

Recently I looked at the power line shadows on the post. The reason it moves differently is because the power lines are about 14 feet away and so the shadows move very fast. Based on the distance to the power lines the shadow should move about 6 inches over about 7 minutes.(that is from memory). If you take that 14 feet as the radius x 2 x 3.14 divided into 360 you get one foot of shadow movement for every 4 degrees change in elevation. The Sun's elevation was changing by one degree every 10 minutes so as I recall, the shadow on the post moved about 6 inches so the time elapse for 3 photos is about 5 minutes. Also the telephone lines ran down the East side of the ally right next to the Neeley house. they have since been moved across the ally to the power pole. You can verify this because the pole in your Neeley house photo (on the right side of the photo) is on the East side of the ally. One interesting thing I noticed is the shadow behind the post is only slightly visible so from that we can determine almost the exact azimuth as it relates to Marinas los. What is weird is Oswald is only 7 degrees to the right of the post( degrees based on a camera dist of 10 feet), yet his shadow extends at least 13 to 16 degrees out to the side(It measures as 40 degrees but a 16 degree angle from 10 feet distorts to 2 1/2 times what it really is. We should see a 7 degree difference plus one because the post shadow appearing to be one degree left of center. But we see way more than 8 degree. As far as Oswalds lean in 133 I find it impossible to duplicate. If you just try to align your right shin, knee and belt buckle(The center line of the body at the belt line) you will fall over. As long as you match the forward position of the right foot and match the hips which remain almost straight forward you will fall over.When people claim to duplicate the stance they tend to turn the foot(And therefore the knee) way out to the right. But Oswald's foot and hips are almost fully forward and if you match the hips and right foot you can't turn the knee out enough to make it work.

Denis I have had a question about this photo for some time and I wonder if Mr Ellis ever said anything that might shed some light on this. Myself and other bike riders have noted that although the limo is only a couple seconds behind the motor cops(It must be doing 50 mph) the motor cops seem to be putting along at about 25-30 mph. I say this because they are riding 3 abreast while navigating the turn onto the Stemmons. For the person in the middle this gets tricky at higher speeds and you would usually fall back a bit. But what really gets me is the middle cop, Lumpkin?, has his left hand in his lap! The rain gutter that you have to cross will definitely cause a slight deviation in you equilibrium and to take it at high speed with one hand is just a bit tricky, but sandwiched between two other bikes is gonna create the pucker factor even for experienced riders. Has he mentioned their speed maybe?

Thanks for that. It is interesting to note that Oswald's belt line is leaning at the same 8 degrees or so that his whole body matches, while Oswald on the left has a belt line that is almost level

No they don't because the two stances are not similar enough for comparison

Thanks I am looking three the HSCA now and guess I agree with their nose shadow opinion but might have started reading past were they fully explained their findings on it. I had seen the photos of their test manikin before and noticed it is messed up. Don't know why, not giving a theory, but the mouth on that thing is offset quite a bit from the eyes. The nose is offset just a bit to the right and the mouth to the right of that. I will also check your analysis link

I really don't think this is a valid comparison since your backyard image is rotated almost 3 degrees farther right than other representations like Life Magazine, which seemed pretty fair. Secondly the backyard photo is from the front while his Marines? photo is almost 45 degrees to the side. You cannot determine how far over he is leaning to the side of his feet. But you can tell his lower body is leaning and his upper body is leaning back to a near straight position. This is nothing like the backyard photo or stance and not valid for comparison

Jeff, yes I am saying the nose shadow is consistent with the other shadows and does not show fakery. that does not mean the head was not pasted on the body ir just means they got the shadows right. what did the HSCA say about Oswald's leaning. Did they determine it was possible?

If it was noon the shadow angle off of Oswald would have been about 48 degrees. The photo shows about forty but when you account for perspective it has to be less than 20 degrees. The image seems to refute the 3pm time and puts it past 4pm. Can you explain the angle of his shadow? By the way the photo you have provided previously where they have Mr Cappel imitating Oswald's lean is very flawed. First they claim he is exactly Oswald's height but he is actually 4 to 5 inches taller. While the top of his head matches Oswald's at the pole behind him, the camera was raised to accomplish this. Look at where the roofline of the house in the background aligns with the stairway and it proves the camera was raised. If you want to compare their height's just look at how they each line up with the part of the stairway right next to them( basically the same distance from the camera as they are). You will see there is about 1/2 of one step difference in their height's. The stairs are 8 inches high, so Mr Cappel is 4 inches taller than Oswald. The other thing has already been pointed out, that is Mr Cappels photo is rotated 2 or 3 degrees left compared to 133 which makes it look like he is leaning more than he is. If you rotate him to match Oswald he is not even leaning with his lower body. All he is doing is leaning his upper body and still is not displacing his head to the right of his feet anywhere near Oswald's stance. Oswald's entire body leans but Cappel comes nowhere near this. And of course if you lean Oswald's picture right to match Cappel he is leaning even farther and that is a problem. I think I saw you say that this photo proves the lean is not fake and that is complete nonsense. That photo is of no value

Well John I did not say they are real. I am only saying the nose shadow is as it should be.I really do not mean to be offensive but you are very much mistaken when you say all shadows should have the same angle is not true. Shadows do move directly off objects like you say and angled objects create angled shadows that move directly off it. The attached photo shows several different angles, the rear is horizontal, the side vertical and the pole has an angled shadow. Secondly uneven ground will change the apparent shadow angle too. Third thing is you perspective, you may notice in the Z film that poles to the right of the Sun have a shadow that(From Z's perspective) lean to the right. But poles on the left of the Sun lean to the left(from Z's position.

I have been trying to sort out the issue of the shadow below Oswald's nose. I have a few observations and questions. First, while the shadow does fall on the center of the lips and face it does not mean that the shadow is vertical. Oswald is actually looking slightly off to his left, about three degrees. Because of this his nose is not lined up directly over his lips. A line running from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow shows about 7 degrees of angle. If we consider his head tilt at 4 degrees which cancels 4 degrees of shadow angle, and the 3 degrees leftward rotation of his face, which also cancels the shadow angle we can account for 14 degrees of shadow We can say the shadow below the nose verifies 14 degrees angle between the line of sight of the camera and the Sun. If 14 degrees is correct then the shadow on the ground should show the full 14 degrees angle when compared to Marina's line of sight. However the shadow on the ground appears to be around 40 degrees off Marina's line of sight(Taking into account Oswald's amont of lean in 133a,b,c). But the 40 degrees visible is the result of distortion by the angle of view. So if anyone has any information on photogrammetry results of 133a I would really appreciate it. Short of having Marina's exact location/angle I can make some basic observations and place an upper limit on the actual angle. As an example, an angle of 15 degrees will appear as approx 40 degrees when photographed from 9 feet. The farther you move away the wider the angle becomes. So I am making an assumption that Marina had to be be at least 9 feet away. I took some sample photos to come to this assumption.This means that the 40 degree angle we see is really no greater than APPROX 15 degrees. If Marina was farther away it was even less. The first implication is that the 15 degrees accounted for by the position of the nose shadow is consistent and sufficient to account for the shadow angle on the ground at the time the photo was taken. The second implication involves Marina's line of sight which together with the angle of the shadow gives the azimuth and time of day. I found Marina's line of sight to be about 27 degrees North of East. Adding 15 degrees of shadow angle makes a shadow angle correspond to an azimuth of 228 or shadow angle of 42. That puts the time of the photos at around 4:05pm March 31st 63'. Based on my assumption that Marina could be no closer than 9 feet from Oswald, the real shadow could be no greater than 15 degrees and so the time could be no earlier that 4:05pm(considering a 15min error possibility). In order to get a good line of sight for Marina I used modern photos that still retain markers in the yard to approximate camera position. These later photos, taken after the house next door was torn down, allows you to see a house 1/2 block East on the NorthEast corner Elsbeth st. It is still there on google maps and allows for a very accurate line of sight for Marina. I tried to verify the 15 degree shadow on the ground a separate way. To do this I had to make an assumption that the pickets on the fence are 3 inches wide. I based it on the posts that holds up the platform at the top of the stairs being 4x4's. (4x4'sactually measure 3.25 x 3.25). If anyone has input on what the size the pickets or posts are I would love to know. I made an estimate of the shadows angle using 2 measurement. First, the elevation of the Sun at 4:20pm of 52 degrees which resulted in shadow of 53 inches. Second, the position of the shadow at the 3rd picket and Oswald's head lining up above the 5th picket allowed for an estimate of the deviation from object to shadow. Using both those measurements the shadow angle came out to approx 13 degrees. If I change the width of the picket to 4 inches the result grows to 18 degrees. So what I conclude from this inquiry is that it would be impossible for Marina to be any closer than 9 feet and get the shot we see. If this is the case then the shadow on the ground can be no more than 16 degrees off of her line of sight. This means the nose shadow or lack of it can be accounted for by the 7 degrees of measured angle, the head tilt of 4 degrees and rotation off the line of sight at 3 degrees. It also puts the time of the photos to around 4:20pm. One issue I can't address is that in 133b his head is tilted 4 degrees more than 133a. It is measurable after you rotate the two images to match. But 133b is not clear enough to see if the angle at the lips is 4 degrees less than 133a. I am open to input but as of now it seems the shadow under the nose may be a false issue.

I am trying to find out if Oswald had a slight degree of Knock knees. My nephew has knock knee and he can come pretty close to duplicating Oswald's leaning position in CE133 from the waist down. The hard part to reproduce is the alignment of Oswald's right knee within about an inch of his center line at the waist(Where the belt buckle would be). I could not come close to it, in fact I took a photo where I was just about to fall over, yet still had to rotate the photo 7 degrees to attain the knee to buckle alignment. That is six degrees past where I would fall over. Although knock knees can bring you close to the alignment, Oswald's lower right leg looks like it is leaning slightly outward instead of in towards the opposing knee. Matching the lower legs outward angle may negate the benefit of a knock kneed stance. Only having to duplicate the knee/waist alignment makes testing the stance simple. If you keep the lower leg leaning outward or even just straight up there are no more joint articulations that you can do to align the knee under the midline at the waist. All you can do at that point is start leaning your legs and hips as a whole. If you try and match the image as it appeared in LIFE mag you will need to align right at the belt buckle. If you try to match the image in the Dartmouth study you only need to get within an inch of the belt buckle. The Dartmouth photo is rotated ones degree farther right so is a bit easier to do, but if you look at the full photo 3 degrees of rotation is obviously past level. I put up a video on Youtube to challenge anyone to duplicate Oswald's posture from the waist down. You can do anything you like above the waist and you can even cheat the stance to see what it takes to do it. But I found that even with a rifle as a counter balance it is impossible for me to do and having to rotate my photo 7 degrees was so far beyond the tipping point that I am stumped. That said, I am not married to this idea and am open to input.

Pamela, Ya unfortunately there are lots of crazy conspiracy theories out there. People will start to believe a theory if they see many small unrelated facts that raise questions. Like years ago Jack White raised so many questions that it seemed there had to be something to the conspiracy. But they were just questions and many of them have been shown to have no merit. I try to keep this in mind when considering the JFK assassination. Still consider the conspiracy as the most likely truth though. Thanks for the info you provided.

I don't think it is a real mark, it looks too much like a bullet strike, it has to be a deliberate hoax.