Chris Bristow

Thanks.

Maybe a compression program could go Haywire and just start repeating patterns. I don't know really, the only compression I am aware of is when it takes a specific group of connected pixels that all share the same grayscale number and remember the dimensions and positions of that block. That takes far less memory than remembering the position and scale number of each pixel independently. One error in the location data and the block of pixels appears in a different location or is a different size. That doesn't seem to account for what is in the photo as I understand compression. But maybe there's more complicated versions.

Mark, that is the same photo. In working with my copy I had to save it several times and jpg photos do degrade the more copies you make. Making a newer copy for people to look at is beneficial though, thank you.

You don't have to be sorry because there absolutely is a duplication there. It does not matter to me what conspiracy theory could relate to this. I'm simply making an observation and looking for a logical answer. I'm certainly not going to waste my time on a conspiracy theory when someone might post a logical answer regarding the Optics.

Yes obviously digitized and likely some other filters applied. But I can't think of any process that would duplicate the image. I suppose it could be tampered with and faked, but I'm not sure why some one would go to the effort of making this tiny alteration that would most likely go unnoticed. I find 9 out of 10 alteration claims in the Z film have rational answers. Every time one gets debunked I learn something new about photogrammetry. So if someone can offer a definitive explanation I would benefit by it.

The grass in this copy is clearer than I've ever seen. I believe the photo was printed in a newspaper the day of the assassination so I can't see how this would be an artifact of alteration but I can't explain it as yet. This copy can be found if you search the article written by Clifford spiegelman. If you expand the image and look between the two white lines just below the wall I think it is undeniable that the same slice of the grass appears twice. Two horizontal slices of the grass lay between the white lines. They are on top of one another and slightly offset. There are three or so very obvious similarities, but as you look closer there are many more. If you save the image you might be able to expand it more. Additional magnification allows you to see a dozen or more matches before it gets too blurry.

The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes. The vanishing point lines through the limo include the two rear antenna, the back of JFK seat, the crossbar, the two window posts and the top of the windshield. They all verify the angle of the limo to Z. If the limo had been straight the zero point or vertical Point Vanishing line would be right at JFK. But that line is at the windshield and also shows the limo was about six degrees crooked in the street. That shifted the zero point line about 7 ft forward from JFK to the windshield. All in all I don't think there's any other option possible. Although Nix and Muchmore can really nail down the location of the limo they are less accurate than the Z film when it comes to that six degree angle. They seem to confirm it but only within about 3°.

Sherry Fiester is the only other person I know of that has acknowledged that the limo was crooked in the street at 313. She has said it was 3° crooked but I'm pretty sure it was closer to 6°. Usually Zapruder's angle to JFK is represented as being between 89 and 90°. if that were true then the relative positions of the forward posts of the side windows would look very different. He would have seen the post on the left side of the car to the left of the post on the right side. Frame 312 is much clearer and shows from Z's position the post on the left side of the car is forward of the post on the right side. The curvature of the windows can throw things off so you have to look at the base of the posts. This is empirical proof that the car was turned several degrees relative to Elm St. It makes sense since Greer looked over his shoulder and likely pulled the steering wheel to the right. In earlier images like Altgens 6 the limo is not crooked. I guess people could also theorize that it is due to a cut and paste of the limo from an earlier frame. The implications for Sherry Fiesters South knoll theory is that six degrees would Place her shooter a little closer to the railroad tracks. Six degrees also makes the storm drain Theory even crazier. That bullet would either hit Kellerman or come within Maybe an inch of his ear. It doesn't make any difference for JFK's positioning because we generally judge that relative to Zapruder not the angle of the limo. I don't know who gets credit for the first observation of this but it is an overlooked and possibly boring fact. But it is a factual element of the case. WILLIS 5: On a completely separate issue Linda Willis has questioned why the trains in the yard are not visible through the Colonnade in Willis 5. She is sure that they were visible to her and her father. The fact is their lines of site at Willis 5 show that the Pullman cars were not visible to them. But she also States they walked about 20 to 30 ft forward to take the last photos. From either of those positions you would be seeing the Pullman cars in the yard. So I think the theories about the Pullman cars being removed from the photo can be put aside.

I would love to make an Earth shaking discovery and blow the case wide open but that is a long shot. However I think I have been able to make some minor Corrections to the official record. I posted a topic recently that had a few hundred views and no responses. Either people thought it was a strong case and just assimilated the simple and maybe boring fact, or it sounded nuts and didn't deserve any scrutiny. For at least 50 years the popular opinion held that Altgens 6 was taken while he was standing in the street. It very much looks that way at the bottom of the frame but he was actually standing further back at the curb. The uncropped version inserted on the map below shows his line of sight to the southwest corner of the Daltex and that line of sight travels over the grass on Elm and over Charles Brehms arms. The line of sight passing over the grass, is unequivocal proof that he could not have been standing in the street. Both the Roberdeau map and overhead images of the Plaza corroborate each other. If he had been standing in the street the line of sight from the Daltex would come nowhere near the grass. It would have to have been 2 ft into the street to reach Altgens. If you tried to run a line of sight from his theorized position in the street and over the grass it would miss the Daltex by 30 ft. In correcting this you can still maintain the lines of sight to the TSB, you just have to extend them a little farther west and south to the curb. This is the only way to reconcile all the lines of sight. It's interesting we had it wrong all this time but it has no real impact. Although I did hear a couple famous researchers the other day theorizing that Mary Moormon could have been in the street because Altgens was, and he got out of the way in time. I think most of us know she was never in the street but they based their assumption on the misinformation about Altgens position. The line over the grass is proof enough but we also know exactly where Charles Brehm was because we can triangulate him from Zapruder., Nix and Muchmore's films. Brehm's alignment to the corner of the Datex building provides further concrete evidence that Altgens could not have taken the photo from several feet out into the street.

Yes the camera barely moved between shots and the wind didn't seem to be blowing when the photos were taken, but no conclusions can be drawn from those facts.

My problem with getting a good 3d effect from the background is related to the fact that the camera barely moved. The most obvious shift of background is the roof of the house in the background against the top of that post next to Oswald. The distance between those two objects is about 30 or 40 ft. I'm confident a stereoscopic viewing of the top of the post and that roof would give a good 3D image. The roof appears at a different position in each of the three backyard photos and in itself demonstrates they are not the same photo.

The black dog nose looks strange but I can't say it's anything other than just a photographing defect. Can't see any logic to manipulating that part of the screen. His head has a little tilt to it but I don't see that as odd. I have recreated the dimensions of the backyard with the positions of the camera and Oswald and I don't see any problems with the Shadows. Even the shadow under his nose is correct. The only thing I find very odd is his lean in 133a. If you accurately duplicate his stance you're either on the verge of falling over or have Fallen. The position of his feet and hips is crucial to accurately duplicating The Stance and I've never found a way to make it work.

The top of the post is about 5 ft 8 in. Oswald is a little closer to the camera than the post and is why he appears about 4 in taller than it. The rise on each stair is 8 in and the post intersects with the stairs between the 8th and 9th step. The large head in 133a has been attributed to the fact that the camera is tilted down which causes some magnification towards the top of the photo. 133b is tilted slightly above the level plane and causes opposite magnification at the bottom of the photo. Some photographic testing was done by the WC using a dummy head to demonstrate the basic principle. I think it is somewhat exaggerated and doesn't really give a satisfactory answer Imo. I recently used a stereoscopic viewer to see how Oswald would show up. His torso and arms cannot provide any stereoscopic effect because they moved to very different positions between photos. There is a bit of stereoscopic effect on his head and knees. It is not a real effect, it is just the result of him moving to a slightly different position so the background lines up differently in both photos. That mimics The Parallax we see when we switch from one eye to the other. slight shifting of the background allows our brains to create the 3d effect regardless of whether the camera has moved or the subject has moved. The 3D image below can be viewed with the stereoscopic viewer placed right on the screen. The image of the two houses should be sized to 63 mm across for best viewing. The image on the left sides is of the pillars in front of the tsbd. It has a very clear and easy to see 3D to it. All it takes to create the very strong 3D is to place the two identical images of the TSB pillars at slightly different positions relative to the house in the background. Within the photo the pillar and brick wall behind it don't have any 3D effect. That is because both pictures are the same pasted image. So the bricks and pillars within the photo don't have any 3d effect. The second set of photos with the vase in front of the Martian landscape book does not have a 3d effect relative to the background. That is because they are both pasted to basically the same location relative to the house. But within the photo the vase is clearly a 3D image in front of the book. Just placing the vase in a different location in each photo creates the 3D between the book and the vase. Making a single 3D object from existing photos is easy but making all the objects in the yard 3D would be much harder. Objects in the foreground would have to be displaced more than objects behind them. The biggest problem is moving an object leaves a blank space where it was moved from. There's no other photographic information you can use to fill in that blank space because in the original photo we can't see what was behind the object being moved. The only way around that is to have two photos from different directions, but if have photos from off angles you don't need to make a fake 3D image in the first place.

The slowing of the limo is more obvious in the Nix film but it is still moving about 8 miles an hour. That does not seem slow enough to explain the statements of Hargis, Cheney, Martin, and Jackson. The four bike cops had to monitor the speed of the limo very closely through the entire parade in order to maintain their position near the rear bumper. If the limo slowed to 2 mph for just 3 seconds and the bike cops didn't react, they would be out in front of the limo. If they mistakenly thought the limo slowed to 2 miles an hour and they reacted by slowing down to match it they would have ended up behind the Queen Mary. Very hard to Fathom how slowing from 12 to 8 miles an hour would be mistaken by them as the limo stopping or almost stopping.

133a, 133b and 133c do not have the same background. The camera is a bit lower and tilted down more in 133a. If you look at the top of the stairway post on the right side you can see where the roof line of the house next door meets the post. It is a little different in all three photos because the camera height had changed. This is not due to any type of distortion and shows the background is not the same in any of the backyard photos. The camera height change is apparent in other aspects of the photos too, but most obvious where the post meets the roof line. I Know Jack White claimed that they just Keystoned the same photo but that would not change where the roofline meets the post. It is a fact that the camera tilt will cause exactly the effect that he saw. Tilting the photo in the enlarger will create the exact same effect as tilting the camera when the photo was taken. So when Jack White tilted the photo in the enlarger he was doing the exact process necessary to correct/reverse the keystoning that occurred naturally from tilting the camera in the original photo. All you have to do is tilt it in the opposite direction. When you tilt the camera down below the level plane it causes straight vertical lines on the left side to lean out to the left at the top. Straight vertical lines on the right side of the photo will lean out to the right. If you tilt the camera above the horizontal plane the opposite effect happens and the vertical lines appear to lean inward towards the top of the photo.

Yeah, skeletons so we can see rib cage and spinal column, that would be nice. With JFK we could determine the exact amount of hunching he needed to match the official entry and exit. It would be great to have views that are directly above and directly on the side too. I've noticed in pretty much every overhead diagram the ratio of the width of the torso to its depth is way off. Taking those measurements from average people and then drawing it from directly above gives you a torso that looks freakishly thick. But that's the way it measures out. It seems there's always something lacking in 3D simulations and diagrams.

Sandy, the ability for our visual system to take two separate inputs from our eyes and fuse those into one image is twice as hard for a vertical displacement Than the horizontal. The tolerance for unwanted prism displacement in a pair of eyeglass lenses is 6/10 of a diopter in the horizontal plane but only 3/10 in the vertical. A diopter is a measurement of the power of the lens. One diopter of power will bring light to a focus at one meter, two diopters a half meter, Etc. Our eyes are physically designed to converge in the horizontal axis as the reading material gets closer. But the actual fusing of two separate images into one is done in the brain. The brain is always converging images that are separated on the horizontal due to the distance between the eyes. But it has little experience trying to converge objects that are vertically displaced. So it might have been easier on your eyes to rotate it 90° so your brain can fuse images in a manner similar to your normal vision.

A counter lean is when the person leans their upper body in the opposite direction of the lean. In Oswald's 133a you can draw a straight line from the base of the throat at the clavicle, down over the fly flap or belt buckle and to a location between his feet on the ground. When there's is a counter lean you can't draw one straight line from clavicle to the feet. You have one line from clavicle to the belt buckle, and then the line has to deviate to follow the lean of the legs down to that spot between his feet.

People often think they can interpret photos with an intuitive eye. They say it's just obvious I can see it right there. But there are many ways a photograph can be misleading. people will look at the shadow under Oswald's nose in 133a and feel intuitively that it is just impossible if the Sun's not at 12:00 noon. Of course that intuitive knowledge is wrong. So when someone says just look at it, it's obvious, but can't give anything specific like a measurement or principle of perspective I suspect they're just using their intuitive eye and it's likely misleading them.

Don't need glasses, I am doing all right. Yes he has two feet in both pictures otherwise it's not that similar. The difference in the two stances is dramatic and the off angle of the one photo can't be ignored. But even from the off angle it's obvious that Oswald is counter-leaning with his upper body. His lower body leans out to the left while his upper body is almost straight up and down. In 133a the camera is in front of Oswald and we can accurately measure his counter lean which is zero. I'm an amateur Enthusiast when it comes to the study of photogrammetry. Optics and perspective and the human form especially interest me. So I have a strong opinion and I think this comparison is complete non-starter. I'll leave it at that.

I don't know I'm just tossing the idea for the hell of it. But the first problem I thought of is how to cover up the old Oswald from the neck down. Maybe you could cut and paste in bits of the background from 133 B and C. You'd have to correct the shadow too. It's starting to very problematic.

Virtually identical huh? I'm not making some argument from a CT or point of view, I just like photographic analysis and you could not be more wrong when you say these stances are identical.

The popular theory is that Oswald's head has been photoshopped into the image. But what if it's the other way around? If you could get a hold of the photo of Oswald standing in his backyard you could Photoshop in the person holding a rifle, pistol and newspapers.

Thank you and yes they do seem to avoid the issue. Although they do say that it is based on two slightly different positions along the same axis. Keeping the same axis is worthless if the object photographed isn't stationary.

yes, when you compare two photos of the "same scene" you get a stereoscopic 3D impression. But only the backgrounds are the same in the backyard photos. Oswald does not stay stationary so the photo of Oswald is not the "same scene". Stereoscopic viewing requires that you are looking at the exact same object in space from two slightly different angles. I am an amateur photogrammetrist. Studied optics for a few decades and principles of photogrammetry for the last 10 years or so. Photogrammetry is not a specific test, it is the overall science of everything that relates to the forming and manipulation of two-dimensional photographs. I'll go out on a limb and say that the stereoscopic testing of Oswald's figure in the photo is not possible. Only the background could be tested.