Chris Bristow

"Cheers to you in your journey.  Yet IMHO, the fact that the BYP are Fake does not necessarily contribute to a CT -- actually, an LN theory can also be made on the basis of my theory of the BYP.  "

Paul, interesting idea. I have no firm opinions on the assassination other than it was a conspiracy to kill JKF and  to cover it up. Based on John Costella's Stemmons pincushion observations I am also pretty convinced the Z film was altered. I am going to revisit the subject in the forum and see if there is anyone that can provide an explanation other than the leaning/swinging pole. I found that because the pole was leaning away from Z it would not swing in the direction needed to explain Costella's anomaly.
 A pole leaning away swings in the same direction as the camera pans. A pole leaning towards the camera moves the opposite way from the camera. This basic principle means the leaning pole can't be the answer and with no other explanation offered in 9 years or so, I am very nearly convinced John Costella has offered definitive proof. I say  "Very nearly" because I have yet to claim anything as definitive proof.

Sandy, maybe we are defining something differently if you said the angle of 133b is 11 degrees. The visible measurable angle of the rifle in the photo is 27 degrees from straight up. So it can't be any less than that. Because we are not seeing it from a 90 degree angle( away from the direction it is pointing) we see less than the full lean. By the way when I talk about were the rifle was pointing  I mean where it was pointing in the horizontal plane not the vertical. How far off to the side, away from the camera is what I had meant. Not sure if that was a misunderstanding.

Sandy, I misspoke, I meant the rifle is pointing not leaning in a direction that is 45 degrees away from the camera's line of sight and that is just eyeballed. Knowing the how far it is pointing away from the LOS and how much it leans in the two dimensional image (27 degrees) you can determine the actual amount of lean it has. I don't have mathematical formula I just set up a leaning pole and took photos from positions around it from zero degrees to 90. That is how I determined we see about 75% of the total lean at 45 degrees off the LOS. Before that test I thought the visible lean would progress in a consistent manner as my position moved from zero degrees to 90, but interestingly it does not. The best part of these investigations is learning new optical principles.
 On the lens distortion issue I can't think of any distortion that would cause the entire stairway and fence and structure on the right to distort in a uniform way. Pincushion or barrel or induced cylinder would cause bending and curving of objects within the image. I have made a careful study of those distortions for many years because I had to troubleshoot patient complaints about their eyeglass prescriptions and always take into account the type and level of distortion they saw through the lens. If the objects around Oswald were distorted but he was not we would have to see the transition from distorted background to a non distorted Oswald, but I don't see it. I think a distortion that required that much rotation to correct would be far more obvious than the subtle distortions I am used to discerning.
If the entire lens was skewed then Oswald would be too and rotating the stairs to level would  also correct Oswald to his real angle. There might be a distortion we did not need to focus on in an Ophthalmic lens. Did he mention what type of distortion he meant? 

 

When looking at the staircase shadows I am reminded how many old wooden staircases I have seen that are misaligned, like leaning posts and crooked supports under the stairs. So when we look at shadows like the ones on the staircase we have to assume the wood that the shadows fall on may not be completely flat or completely vertical. Of course we know from the moon landing hoax debunking that the angle of the shadow depends on the angle of the surface it lands on as much or more than the position of the Sun.
A slight deviation off flat or vertical will make big enough changes in the shadows angle to mess up our measurements.

Sandy, I will redo my test when in real sunlight when the clouds part. I could easily be off some.
 The rifle in the photo is leaning at about 27 degrees and also appears to be leaning about 45 degrees away from the cameras line of sight. So we should perceive about 70 to 75% of the total lean viewing from 45 degrees. If my estimate of 45 degrees off the line of sight is right then the total actual lean is 34 degrees.
 Testing whether the shadow should hit the pole is a tough one to measure since you need Oswalds exact distance and angle to the post , his height and exact angles of lean. How far off was your test shadow from the backyard image?
Just a thought, we all discuss if it is possible to lean over like Oswald but even if he could lean like that why the hell would he?

Edited came out, retested and got results closer to yours. I could not get it to move as much as the indoor test so I think your theory still holds.

WTF I did not put an emoji of the star in our solar system, I just wrote the word. Ok

Edited again. Just for general edification. The mistake I made was due to the light source being a lamp that was only a foot or two from the test subject. That creates a situation where the light source angle changes as I moved the pen. The Sun is too far away of course, to cause that angle change.

Paul, I do think the photos being fake is by far the most likely scenario. Of all the photographic evidence in the JFK case I am most convinced by John Costella's, Stemmons pincushion issues. So I am definitely in the CT camp and appreciate all that Jack White has done to illuminate the public.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:01 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

You don't need to be an expert to see that the BYPs are fake.

Here's my simple proof that the photos are fake:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23028-how-did-they-get-roscoe-white-to-lean-like-that-and-not-fall-over/&page=19#comment-335258

 

(P.S. I know... I use the word "proof" a little loosely.)

Sandy, I was looking over the shadows of the rifle and newspaper and noticed something. While the newspaper looks to be pointing straight up, the rifle is leaning towards the camera and slightly to the right. To the degree it is leaning at the camera the shadow will move toward a horizontal position. Holding a pen upright on a table under a close light source and rocking it from straight up to 30 degrees forward changed the direction of the shadow by almost 90 degrees. Just how far forward the rifle leans is hard to confirm but it may be a plausible answer for the direction of the shadow.

I took these images from the Dartmouth study assuming they were already sized. The ear tips match well, the mug shot is about  3% larger than the backyard photo. But the face front is an additional 12% larger than the backyard photo.
Even though the horizontal measurements of the faces are only off by 3%, the horizontal measurements of the pupillary distances are over 10% larger in the mug shot.
 The height vs width dimensions are way off, but even the width of the ears vs the eyes are way off. And they are on the same horizontal plane!
Makes difficult to compare the Pupillary distance when nothing else matches. I can't find any good reason for these large differences 

Note: the pupillary measurement on the backyard photo.is taken from a high contrast image of his left eye. The slight rotation of the backyard face was taken into account for the PD measurement.

In the comparison above I have removed the shadow below the tire(On the left) and used an inverted image from Alrgens6(On the right to compare it with. That is followed by a gif of the original image contrasted against the 'shadow removed' image. It looks like the shadow is creating the cut out notch effect. The line of the tire after the photoshop looks a bit too straight but overall it looks pretty convincing, the shadow is the cause of the notch.

Here is a single photo to compare tire tread size. The image on the right is again from Altgens 6 inverted.

According to statements made by two of the motor cops they saw the incident happen over their shoulders. Lumpkin said they had come to a stop before the underpass, that he saw the commotion and heard Curry say "Lets go boys". Ellis said Chaney rode up to him and informed him the president's head was blown off. Very strange accounts, all different than the Z film. I was looking at the photo because of the 'missing freight train' theory and became curious about how slow and casually the cops seem to be moving. I am promoting no theory regarding it. It is just weird they were about to get run over unless they hit the throttle bigtime. 
 Diverging a bit I can accept a witness may mistakenly think they see a puff of smoke after hearing a gunshot. But for Officer J.C. White do they have to conclude he only thought he saw a FREIGHT TRAIN pass 20 feet in front of him during the head shot? I just mention it for humors sake.

Thanks David very cool.

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

I've noted this before but it's the white nationalist "cross in a circle" patch on Ellis' left forearm that I'm most curious about.

Well that might explain why he looks like he is smiling!

Thanks David, the Stemmons was taken down in 1964 so anything added to the Thornton, I assume, would have occurred in 64'. I really don't know what that image above the Thornton is the result of. Anybody got an idea?
 

Something bothers me about this picture. It looks like the motor cops are putting along at 25mph based on the lean and slight wheel turn Ellis shows. The limo must be doing 50 plus? If so it is less than 2 seconds behind the escort at approx 130 feet back.  By their statements they are fully aware they are rushing to Parkland at this point but are riding 3 abreast into a turn they should be rushing through. Lumpkin has his left hand in his lap! I swear Lumpkin and Ellis look like they are smiling. I would expect them to be falling into single file at 40+ mph and not riding with one hand. The slideshow is just that one photo, no need to click on it.

Thanks to Robin for the date and statements about the sign removal. My other question is about the Thornton sign. It has an extra portion added to the top. Is this maybe a Stemmons sign added to it after removing the original? Or is this a kind of photographic artifact?

The Thornton sign is visible but the Stemmons sign is missing. I know about the conspiracy rumors but was it ever taken down officially, and does anyone know the date of this photo?
 The Stemmons should have it's left pole lined up behind(or close to) the lamppost on the far left and the rest of the sign should protrude to the right. The Thornton sign is exactly where it should be based on the position of the 3 lampposts in front of the TSBD. The other strange thing is on top of the Thornton sign there appears to be another image of the sign starting a couple inches above it. It is about 1/3 the height of the sign.
The second video has a close up enhanced view after 10 seconds but the friggin start icon sits right over the subject matter in the thumbnail so you will have to click on it to see the double image.

John, the flat head and see through factor can easily be due to motion blur . The man is very close to the camera and so will move through the frame very quickly and cause blur. Notice the bald spot has straight lines that run at about a 17 degree angle upwards to the right. That is the direction of travel the head took in that 50th? of a second. It created a straight line out of a curved surface and appears flat. In that moment he moved in a straight line and so dragged the image through the frame causing a straight line of blurred image which appears as flat.
The see through effect happens because in that 50th of a second he moves forward a bit. In the first 100th of as second(half the total exposure time) his image lands on the film. In the next 100th sec he moves left and now an image of the limo falls on the film right were the back of his coat was. That means two images have fallen on that spot and we see a ghost of the 1st image(the coat) and also the second image of the limo layed over each other. This happens in reverse for the front image of his coat. We might be able to test this because the limo image overlaid within the ghost of his coat should be from different moments in the front compared to the back. The limo image in the back of his coat was made just after the front image. But until we have something to indicate it is not motion blur I have to assume that is what it is.

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 7:56 AM, Tom Hume said:

Hi John,

 

I agree that Oswald's left shoulder in your example at the top looks mighty weird.

 

Hi Chris,

 

In the pair of Oswald head-shots you posted, the backyard photo on the right, CE133A, exhibits quite a bit of keystone, which has the effect of widening the face. The same is true for 133C, but interestingly, CE133B shows no keystoning. 

 

Not being handy with Photoshop, I removed the keystone in the version below by tilting my monitor 11 degrees and photographing it. I wonder if your two faces would line up better if you first photoshopped out the keystone.

 

John, did you find a significant difference between the keystoned face in 133 and non keyed 133b? I think the width difference between backyard and mug shot may be too large to be caused by KS.

Note: I just tested it at about 12 degrees and found 9% reduction in width. So my guess was wrong, the keystoning causes enough of a change but wouldn't it narrow the face rather than widen it? The original discrepancy I saw was the backyard face is the wider of the one.

Regarding the reversing of the keystone effect by tilting it the other way, I think it would return the vanishing point to its original perspective. But once the width is shortened by the first keystone it would not be recovered by tilting the other side. It seems to me it would further reduce the width. So the register of height to width would be off. I'm thinking if you add KY to the vertical it would correct the height/width ratio but not the vanishing point. And if you add a reverse KY in the width it will fix the vanishing point but further distort the height/width ratio.
General info for the group: I don't remember who mentioned the shadow under the nose but I have tested the angle and the skeptics are correct. If you tilt your head to line up with the sun the shadow straightens out. So the strange angle is just due to his tilted head.

John, wow that sure is a fat neck on the chubby Oswald photo

Tom Hume, Thanks for the reply, The keystone effect may be the reason Oswald seems to be looking about one degree to the left. I have compared a photo were Oswald is looking 2 degrees left taken my own photos to conclude that if the face is rotated 2 degrees it has little effect. Question: I thought the keystone effect in this case was due to a horizontal tilt of the photo which would narrow the face instead of widen it?

John Butler, thanks for the reply, the photo you posted does look chubby. The problem for me is so many folks look very different after boot camp I expect them to beef up in the neck and face too. The other problem is fat makes it hard to find bone structure to measure. The eye position looks correct to me but it can't be measured to the mm. I will take a closer look. One thing you can see from his collar is that the camera was not straight in front of Oswald it was maybe one foot to the left of center. That will cause dimensional differences between his left and right side.

John, regarding the level of the eyes I have to tell you there are a few mistakes. As an Optician I have measured over 20,000 patients pupillary distance as well as the difference in relative height between the eyes. When a patient has one eye that is 3mm or more lower than the other we may compensate by lowering the bifocal in that eye. People do have uneven eyes.
A persons ears do not always line up relative to the eyes, they can be unequal.  In this case though his left ear will rise up to closely match the other side if you rotate your photo about 3+ degrees to the left. Here is the mug shot photo and backyard photo rotated to vertical for comparison. The uneven eyes in the passport photo are also due to his tilted head. If you rotate your photo it will correct the uneven eye and ears. My best measurement shows his right eye sits 1mm farther out and 1mm or less down. His pupillary distance should be about 34/33
If you want a related puzzle to consider, the mug shot and backyard photos cannot be matched in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions at the same time without distorting one of the photos. The backyard image has a much wider face. You will notice in the photos below the distance between the ears matches within 3% but the vertical dimension is way off.

One more comp.

The 'NORTH' sign below the Stemmons sign appears to have a much larger vertical dimension on the day of the assassination than when the Nuns were there to pray, the next day?. Comparing just the vertical dimensions of the North sign with the vertical dimension of the 77 sign  or with the "S" in the word Stemmons, there is a large difference. In the Rickerby photos the 77 sign is about 2.25 times larger than the North sign while in the Nuns photo it is 3 times larger.  In the 'Nuns' photo the 77 sign is mounted higher up, closer to the Stemmons sign to compensate for the smaller north sign. In later photos the north sign has returned to the original size. I have a comp photo here.

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 8:25 AM, Paul Brancato said:

To the good folks who think the Z film is altered, what's your theory as to why? 

Paul I know  there are lots of fake proofs around using incorrect optical principles and such, but some like John Costella's theory about pincushion distortion in the Stemmons sign are pretty solid. I can't see any valid debunking of his theory. The only counter theory that I know of states that because the poles were leaning there is a swinging motion that you see as the camera panned right. This is the explanation for the change in the poles lean from frame 193 to 228.
The problem with that explanation is a pole leaning away from the camera would exhibit a 'with the motion swing.' (I.E. camera pans right, pole also swings right) conversely a pole leaning toward the camera exhibits an against the motion swing. Since the right pole on the Stemmons sign leaned away and Zapruder panned to the right, the direction of the pole swing has to be to the right. But from 193 to 228 the right pole swings to the left. This means the lean of the pole does not explain Costella's anomaly. Not to mention Zapruder panned about one third of one degree but it would take about 11 degrees of movement to cause the 2 degree change seen in the right pole from frame 193 to 228.
 So if the lean of the pole is not the answer what is the reason for Costella's anomaly? Put a different way the images that have not been corrected for pincushion distortion show the right pole leaning 1 1/2 degrees in both frames 193 and 228. Pincushion should cause a very obvious 2 degree shift but there appears to be no change. There should also be an additional approx 1/4 degree shift to the right due to the poles leaning which I do not see. So at this point I think Mr Costella's observations still raise valid questions about fakery.
 

Quote

I'm in the camp that thinks the film is unaltered and that it's a distraction to question it.

Chris Newton, "Has anyone isolated (and maybe flipped for clarity) the reflections on the trunk of the limo? It would be interesting to see if there are any defects in the skyline it shows."

Yes I have looked very closely at the trunk reflections and in the end it all seemed correct. The buildings, sky, people, everything. The only thing I found is what appears to be a reflection of the white piece of trash on the grass is actually a pillar directly behind the trash on the South side of the plaza.