Chris Bristow

3 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

                         CE133A                                                                          CE133B                                                                 133C

Hi Chris,

Of the three Backyard Photos, only CE 133A and 133C display the keystone effect, CE 133B does not. Since the camera used appears to have been held about waist high, there should theoretically have been almost no keystone effect whatsoever, since the tallest structure we can see is only about 9 feet tall. However, the keystone we see in the two BYPs is backwards. In principle, the taller the structure, the more pronounced the keystone will be, and the parallel lines of a building will always converge toward the top (if one is shooting from below). Not so in the Backyard Photos, the parallel lines diverge toward the top! 

As I indicated earlier, I think the Backyard Photos are a complicated puzzle (part of a larger puzzle system) created by Oswald and his crew, and one of the clues to this particular puzzle appears to indicate that there are 12 degrees of keystone built into some of the photos and that this keystone should be removed as part of the puzzle’s solution. I’ll briefly talk about this in a moment. 

My first attempt at removing the keystone involved Affinity, Apple’s answer to Photoshop. I didn’t like this because of the possibility of introducing error.

Jack White thought that the keystone was intentionally created in the darkroom by tilting the easel. I think so too, and I removed the keystone using pretty much the same method. 

Individually, I put CE 133A and 133C on my 27 inch iMac monitor tilted at exactly 12 degrees. From the same height as the center of the photo, I took photographs from across the room of CE 133A and 133C.  

Here they are after straitening:

The explanation for where the 12 degree clue came from will have to be brief and I can’t prove or even argue any of this. This is a hypothesis and a work in progress.

Here we go:

There were four sets of 3D photos created by Lee Oswald and his crew, two sets of Backyard 3D Photos (four pictures in all), one set of Mexico City 3D visa application photos (2 pictures in all), and one set of DD Form 1173 3D photos (2 pictures in all). 8 pictures, 4 sets.

There are only three sets of 3D photos extant, because the 3D mate to CE133B went missing. All three sets of 3D photos can be seen in the work-in-progress first post at the link below:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/

Lee Oswald and his crew were tangled up in the assassination and were trying to prevent it. Apparently five members in all, three of these were low-level spooks - Richard Case Nagell (Leader and chief puzzle maker), Igor Vladimirs Vaganov (puzzle maker and primary Oswald double), and Lee Harvey Oswald (Patsy with eyes wide open).  

Lee Oswald’s “HISTORIC DIARY” anagrams to “RICHARD’S ’88’ TOY”. 

(A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25) 

There are “88” puzzles in the Historic Diary, and the complete list can be found in my June 25, 2014 post at the link below:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/

As you can see from the Number/Letter key above, if one wanted to change the expression “3D” into numbers, it would be “33”. Since Oswald and his crew were making anagram puzzles that also made heavy use of this key, one might expect Historic Diary puzzle number “33” to yield some “3D” information in anagram form. 

This is in fact one of the major uses for the Historic Diary.

If you check the list you’ll find that puzzle number “33” is:

“THEY MAKE NOTES”

Anagramming puzzle #33 above can yield at least two puzzle instructions:

(1) “THE KEYSTONE, A 12”

and,

(2) “KEYSTONE THEM ‘0’”

Following instructions, I’m going to remove the 12 degrees of keystone.

There are other much more complicated instructions that indicate the puzzle solver should rotate the 3D photos 88 degrees to be viewed properly. 

Like I said, if you want to experience the 3D Oswald photos, take a look at my work in progress here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/

3D Lee Harvey Oswalds - a metaphor

Oswald was likely being impersonated because of instructions given by those framing him (Banister/Ferrie/Phillips/Hoover/etc.), but Oswald and his crew turned those impersonation assignments into full-blown Theatre of the Absurd. Maybe they thought that all of this could be used later to their advantage. Or maybe they thought their stunts would eventually be noticed by someone like us. 

I think that a good deal of what confounds and baffles us (and what has held the interest of some of us all these years) are all the enigmatic stunts pulled by the “ICO” crew (“ICO” stands for “Igor”, “Case”, and, “Oswald”)
 

Tom

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.
 

20 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Okay Ray and Chris, you’ve convinced me. I forgot that the Oswald figure was about to fall over. Below is CE 133A with the 12 degrees of keystone removed, and the photo properly straightened:

If we could now get the Oswald figure to loose the Tower of Pisa lean, his shadow would be much more congruent with that of the post. 

Below is a screenshot from the “Wrong Way Shadows” video posted by Ed LeDoux earlier on this thread. The Oswald model is standing erect, and one can now more accurately compare the two shadows under discussion.

 

Tom

 

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. 
 

53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What about this from a K and K reader?

 

As an artist, I have for many years have been struck by the 'oddness', in terms of proportion and pose, of the backyard Oswald photos.  A little while ago, I had a 'eureka' moment: we know the Militant and Worker newspapers were tabloid size, ie 11 x 17 inches. That means the paper Oswald holds vertically against his chest in one shot is 11 inches wide. Using this as a 'ruler' and a photo-editing program such as Photoshop, it's possible to work out a fair approximation of Oswald's height in the photograph. It's roughly 5 feet to 5 feet 4 inches, way below what it should be. This immediately screams 'fake' to me. I wonder what your view is on this, and whether anyone else has made the same calculation.

Regards

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) 

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Chris Barstow,

I think you have answered a question about the motorbike cops in McIntyre that has always bothered me.  That is the motorbike cops don't see to relate to the background picture of a desperate high speed race towards Parkland by the presidential limousine and the vehicles accompanying it. 

This has bothered me but, I couldn't put a face to it.  My efforts have been toward identifying the Motorcycle Officers in that formation making the turn.  So, if those officers are making a slow turn onto Stemmons that is what makes them seem different from the rest of the photo. 

Wouldn't this be natural for the bikes to slow down when making this turn? 

Another thing that bothers me is that they don't seem to be aware of what is going on.  Sgt. Ellis said he was aware.  But, he also said he was in between the Curry Car and the limousine.  According to Altgens 7 I don't know when that would be.  Bell doesn't show that either.

This bit of reasoning plus the slow speed of their turn might suggest the 3 Motorcycle Policemen may not be Lead Motorcycles but, are members of the Advance Motorcycle Policemen.

 

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.

On May 1, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Ed LeDoux said:

 

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. 

On August 5, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Denis Morissette said:

I was wondering the same about Ellis a few days ago. Only the one in the middle is in question. I mailed that photo to Ellis and he told me it was him in the photo. He did not say which one he is, though. 

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?

On July 14, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tom Hume said:

To understand CE 133A, one needs to straighten the photo, and also remove the "keystone". Only CE 133A and 133C display keystone - CE 133B does not.

Edit Added: Hey Chris, you say 8 degrees of Oswald tilt, and I get 4 degrees - roughly the same as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. 

I added the red line to show what I take to be a 8 degree lean. 2nd photo, left:Just for fun I photoshopped Oswald back to a non leaning position. It looks fairly normal, his feet are flat on the ground and he does not look like he had been compensating for his extreme lean. I bet if the Pisa tower leaned as far as Oswald it would have fallen already. 

9 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

The caption on David’s website for the two Oswald photos in his post is this:

“Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:”

Balderdash!

If one took those two photos to a professional photographer and asked him or her to make some nice prints of this subject that one could hang on one’s wall, the photographer would say “Sure thing, but in both instances the person who took the pictures was not holding the camera level. Would you like me to straighten them for you?”

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Chris

you might find it interesting to skim through the HSCA panel’s work yourself:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=185&tab=page

To make my position clear:

The HSCA photo panel, through its spokesman Calvin McCamy, presented a false version of the Oswald family photo record, and therefore created a false context for the backyard photos. The HSCA also failed to account for the presence and origin of the third backyard pose. These are crucial issues which transcend the authenticity of the BYP themselves.

That said, the panel’s forensic work on the BYP utilizes recognized techniques in examining photographs (i.e. it is not pseudo-science as seen in other areas such as the SBT), and I am not aware of any substantial critique of its work. If such exists I would be very interested to see it.

My analysis of all these issues is here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

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

54 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#The-Leaning-Tower-Of-Oswald

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

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Hi Chris

Thanks for your work. Am I right in summarizing that the shadow anomalies are in fact consistent with the existing conditions (positions), and therefore not “anomalies”?

After the HSCA photo panel finished their report, the consensus of the consulted experts - from both sides of the debate - was that the only viable location of forgery in the BYP was the possible superimposition of Oswald’s face on someone else’s body (which, everyone conceded, could be done by a skilled forger with high-end equipment). If you are saying the shadows line up and are consistent, then this would make such a superimposition much less likely due to the coincident of an unrelated Oswald face matching the light conditions.

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?

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes. And PROVING that the different shadow angles are NORMAL for a photo taken in the backyard of 214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas, on March 31st at noontime.

And yet there are still CTers arguing that the shadows "prove fakery", even with that huge blow-up of the CBS News 3/31/67 photo staring them in the face via the above-linked video. (I guess they must ALSO think the 3/31/67 CBS picture is fake too.)

 

S'alright.

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 

On July 14, 2018 at 2:45 PM, John Butler said:

Sorry Gentlemen,

The BYP’s as an issue is dead.  The photos are fakes.  There is no way you can get around that.  You can ignore it if you choose.  You can find someone of like mind to continue the argument with if you want.

It is inescapable that there are 3 light sources inducing shadows in the BYP’s that are not consistent with each other or anything else. 

The sun produces shadows by shining on objects.  The resulting shadows move directly off from the light source, in this case the sun. 

You can not have 3 suns in a normal and real photo.  The photo from Life Magazine will demonstrate this with red arrows that point out 3 different directions that shadows in the BYP’s move.

A brief summary of the directions of 3 conflicting shadows in the Life BYP.

1. Shadow no. 1 moves from picture left to picture right.

2. Shadow no. 2 moves downward from the Oswald figure’s nose to mouth.  A different direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 3.

3. Shadow no. 3 moves from picture right to picture left.  This is the opposite direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 2.

The BYP’s are fakes and point out that the man everyone knows as Lee Harvey Oswald was being set up as a Patsy.  As far as I am concerned the issue needs no further discussion and nothing extra added to understand that this is a dead issue or if you like case closed.    

You can continue the argument if you wish.

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.

1 hour ago, Pamela Brown said:

That is the NARA copy.  I doubt that it is a mark though.  

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