Chris Bristow

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

 

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.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I would, therefore, suggest you get some new eyeglasses.

And focus on the position of Oswald's feet in both images. Notice anything similar there?

 

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.

2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Is that really  possible? Having a hard time picturing how that black-clad torso could perfectly cover up Oswald below the neck, especially seeing as how the torso is so contorted. Maybe my imagination is just not that good.

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.

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see.

Main Point:

Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

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.

16 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Here is what is found in the HSCA Report pg 146: 

The backyard pictures were also visually inspected with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be viewed in three dimensions .* This was possible because the camera's movement between exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these two pictures are viewed together in a stereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. (161) (375) This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fakery because photographs of prints (i .e ., a photographic copy of a photo- (Yraph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.** Further, any retouching of an original photograph of a scene can be detected because when t-%vo photographs of that scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched item will appear to lie either in front of, or behind the plane in which it should be lying. It is virtually impossible to retouch one or both images of a stereo pair with enough skill to escape detection when viewed stereoscopically .

 

The report appears to be disingenuous in that it fails to point out that the stereoscopic testing can only be done effectively on the background, which does form a single scene. Oswald is in two different place in 133-A and 133-B, thus is not in a single scene, as Chris pointed out.

 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.

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Again, 

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.

When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

The "fine lines in the chin" have nothing to do with anything, otherwise fakery involving these "fine lines" would have been detected when the photos were viewed using stereoscopic techniques.

 

 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.

Stereoscopic analysis is good for testing the background but I don't think it works when testing Oswald. Oswald changes his position completely with each photo and that should make a stereoscopic analysis of him impossible.

When your eyes look at a 4x4 stairway post each eye sees it from a slightly different position. if you take two photographs of that post from slightly different positions you simulate what your two eyes take in. Then if you use a stereoscopic viewer to see one photo in your left eye and the other in your right eye, your brain will fuse the two images just like it does when you look at the real post and that results in a 3d effect. For that effect to happen you have to be looking at the same stationary object from two slightly different positions. as soon as Oswald shifts his stance that becomes impossible. 

A stereoscopic test could show if they used the same background for two different photos because there would be no 3d effect but it really doesn't tell us much about Oswald.

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

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. I wonder if there are now CTers who think the picture on the left is a fake too? ....

 

DVP's JFK Archives / The Backyard Photos (Part 1)

 

David, the image on the left is very misleading and really can't be compared without compensating for the off angle of the camera. in 133a he is facing almost directly to the camera with his torso. His spine sits pretty much directly behind his belly button and gives a true measure of his Center.

In the other photo his spine sits far to the right and the belly button sits  to the left creating the illusion that he's leaning farther to the left, when it's really created by the depth of the Torso from the spine to the belly button. He also seems to have his hips forward which from the off angle increases the illusion of him leaning left. If he had his hips forward in 133a it would make no difference because he's facing towards the camera.

The camera seems to be almost 40° off to the side and it is completely distorting his actual position.

21 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If I had to guess, the Dallas Police Department detective on the Walker scene earnestly conjectured a high-powered rifle had been used, as the Walker bullet had passed through a plaster wall. 

If one happens upon a scene in which it appears a high-powered bullet was used, in general that suggests a rifle. 

But there are relatively high-powered handguns, such as the .357 Magnums or others. 

The big mystery is why the DPD detective called the Walker slug "steel jacketed." And as pointed out by Gil Jesus, many others in the DPD also witnessed the original Walker slug. 

But CE573 is obviously copper-jacketed. Even a layman can see that.

Again, if I had to bet, I would bet CE573 is not the slug found in the Walker home. 

Yes I agree there's definitely reason to doubt the official story.

19 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Some .357 Magnum rounds get 1,500 feet per second. 

Of course, no one ever tested the plaster walls of Walker' home with additional gunshots, or probed the Walker bullet hole to find out if the slug had passed through a wooden slat, a 2x4, or even electrical conduit etc.  

If the Walker bullet had merely passed through plaster, almost any gun could have produced the result. 

In the end, I think I am safe in saying that a powerful handgun would have sufficed to produce the damage seen in the Walker home. I do not rule out a rifle. 

The detective on the Walker scene almost immediately conjectured a powerful bullet had produced the damage, further conjectured a rifle must have been used, but then mis-identified the bullet as "steel jacketed." 

So it goes....let us say I am not convinced a rifle was used. I rather suspect a handgun, as no one saw a rifle that night. 

 

The question for me is what caused them to assume it was a high powered rifle? The damage it did or the distance it was fired from are the only two indicators I can think of. Maybe they call it a rifle round so they can later implicate Oswald.

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The DPD report actually specifies a "high powered rifle." 

The bullet nicked the bottom edge of a window pane, then passed through a wall, which I believe was the old -fashioned wood slats and plaster variety. 

Whether that would take a high-powered rifle or not...probably conjecture. Did the Walker bullet strike a wooden slat, or upright 2x4? Electrical conduit? 

It is true, most handguns shoot at about one-half the velocity of a high-powered rifle bullets. But there are many exceptions. 

A 30.06 shoots at 3,400 fps. That is among the most powerful commonly available rifles. 

If memory serves, a Mannlicher Carcano fires at 1,800 fps (by some definitions, not a true high-powered rifle).

A .357 Magnum handgun can achieve very similar fps to the Mannlicher Carcano. 

That Walker was shot at with a rifle...seems largely conjecture. 

 

 

The Carcano velocity is about 2,000 ft per second out of the barrel. that well-known Myers test where they fired into a bunch of pine boards left the barrel at 2050 frames per second. I know very little about the Walker shooting but it may be possible that the Bullet Hole represented something closer to 1800 ft per second which would eliminate a handgun. I still don't know if they can even estimate that so I'm just tossing it out there.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Add on: Why assume a rifle, and not a handgun, in the Walker shooting? 

Is it possible to estimate the velocity of the bullet based on its depth within the wall, and could that lead them to conclude it was a rifle?

18 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I would think that one would look for splices near frame 313 & a little beyond.And of course where there is the suspected limo stop.

If by splicing you mean some frames were removed it would not work. We can measure the limo moving forward relative to the background in each frame. Even taking one frame out would make the limo jump twice as far as the previous frames. The limo can't just double its speed in a single frame. Any alteration to remove the limo stop would require a matting process. But the matting process alone would create some fatal errors.

If you used a matte process to keep the background moving  in order to create the illusion that the limo did not stop you would have to make up for approximately 40 ft of travel. In other words you would have an image of the limo from frame 310 matched to a background from frame 370. That is a huge mismatch and the angle from Z to the limo would be way off when compared to the background. So would the shadows and so would the reflections of objects in the trunk. As an example you can see Moormon and Hill reflected in the trunk around frame 310  which would be shifted to frame 360 when they are nowhere in sight.

 To take out a limo stop you would need a combination of several techniques but there would be no splices.

My father and I were standing in the living room and watching the transfer. When Oswald was shot my father became stunned and took a few steps backward and plopped down on the couch. I remember him just staring into space for a while and I thought that was strange. He said nothing he just sat there and stared into space.

About 8 to 10 years later he explained that he immediately saw the parallel between Oswald claiming he was a patsy and then being murdered within 2 days. It was a well-known tactic to kill the Patsy before they could talk and that concerned him. I think you may have doubts about the assassination but was never a CT person.

The bullet took a 28° downward angle through Connally. I don't know if that means he was leaning back 10° and it came from the sixth floor, or if he was sitting straight up and it came from the roof of the Records building or Dallas textile building, or maybe it was deflected downward.

 Breaking his radius  must have imparted a fair amount of energy to his  forearm  in that downward Direction .  But in the film  he doesn't seem to react that way. I don't know for sure but I think  his arm would go down  for a few frames  before rising up in reaction to the injury.

 that downward angle  would allow his wrist to be about  two to three inches  below the nipple  and about 7 in out from the chest . In that position he would only need to rotate the dorsal side of his  wrist  about 28° towards him.

The lateral angle through Connally was only 15° so the Bullet had to deflect at least 15° if originating from the TSB . If a shot came from the southwest corner of the Dallas textile building the bullet had no lateral deflection. This is all based on Connelly being rotated 20° in the seat.

I don't know exactly where his left leg was or exactly how far his wrist was from the exit wound on his chest. In the diagram the bullet would have to deflect about 50° through his wrist to make it to his left thigh. Tuck his knee in a little more and it would maybe be 30°. Seems like a pretty sharp turn. Connally's rotation in the Z film and the track through his body show the bullet would have left his chest in a direction that was at least 5° to the right of the Direction the limo was facing. The overhead drawings usually put the bullet on a straight line through both men and into the thigh. But if the bullet was from the TSB it had to have deflected twice laterally. That makes it a little harder to explain the near pristine nature of ce399

On 2/25/2023 at 10:35 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks for working that out for me.

So, is it safe to say, that the camera height for the Barnes photo was at the same/approx height as the reenactment frames I have been providing? 

Yes the Barnes photo looks very close for the camera height. My hard drive just took a dump so I can't do much right now.

 

On 2/23/2023 at 11:24 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Sorry, I think I mis-identified that as Shaneyfelt on the pedestal, as he was known to wear hawaiian shirts and appears to have grey/white hair in other videos. The other photo of the hat man, in the same position as I mis-identified Shaneyfelt, is Barnes I believe. Irregardless, we agree they are in the same location upon the pedestal.

Is it possible for you to estimate the difference in camera height between these two frames:

Thanks,

 

The camera is about 5 or 6 inches higher than Z's camera.

On 2/22/2023 at 12:20 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Responses in red.

The photo I unskewded and rotated is a Barnes photo, I think, and the guy on the pedestal was Shanyfelt? If so Shanyfelt is standing where the Barnes photo was taken from.
 I think a camera making multiple passes from the same exact location is easier to envision that two cameras running concurrently that day. Trying to combine two images from slightly different location is very limiting. Although a cut and paste of just the ladies without any of their background would work like we see it in 205/206. If the bobbling is a result of a cut and paste from a 2nd camera the 206 ladies would be taken from a position 5 to 7" above Z's lens.
 

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Then, referring back to the previous plat, along with the Betzner/Wiegman composite, the physical position of Shaneyfelt is much closer to the following gentleman:

So, I'll ask again, who and how many were filming?

Keeping in mind, that parallax could be created by either one person moving to different locations or two people within close proximity filming.

And, if you still believe the official story, I highly recommend not following this topic any longer.

His position is the same as I get for Barnes.
 I come across as an LN sometimes but that is just because I attempt to apply that scientific methodology of scrutinizing any new evidence from as skeptical a view as possible. But my core assumption about the film is that it is altered. All 4 bike cops seeing it stop or almost stop, the account of Chaney's ride forward missing from Nix and Dr Costella's observation on the Stemmons pincushion issue, and issues surrounding Parkland put me firmly in the CT camp.
 I have wondered about the opportunity they had when the plaza was closed down for the survey. If they still had possession of Z's camera it would be easy to re film it from the exact same position(Maybe using a tripod for perfect height matching), maybe choosing a time to duplicate the azimuth and elevation as close as could be done.    
  Regarding the contrast on the right pole I think there might be a non alteration explanation. The darkest shadow is on the sign with a lighter shadow next to it on the pole and next to that is the bright part of the pole. Adding a little contrast darkens the lighter middle shadow and that part of the pole disappears into the dark shadow on the sign causing the pole to get skinnier from on its left side only. Add more contrast and the right side starts to shrink. I think the initial disappearance of the left side contributes or is fully responsible why the mismatch.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

Steven,

That was one idea we tested (that's my 5'9" brother down at the curb) but found he rose up a little above the top of the tires.

Perfect. That resolves the Newman's back of the head issue, and thanks for the video.
  The original Barnes photo used in one of your last comps is extremely distorted causing the buildings in the background to lean outward from the center of the image. It makes determining if the photo is level a big hassle. I don't know how much of it is due to the camera's downward tilt or the wide angle lens he used. 
   The vertical center of the image should not be distorted by either, so the south corner of the Records Building would barley be affected. It should still be a good measure of level and it leans about 1 degree left. This might be the reason the right Stemmons pole does not match in the Z vs Barnes Stemmons pole comp.
   I skewed the image below to correct the leaning but the center, the records building south corner, was still leaning. I concluded the photo was not level and I added one degree of rotation to it.
 

2 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

The top of the pedestal is about 2 1/2 feet square.  If I recall correctly, my feet were planted 90 degrees to the street and I pivoted at the waist to record the transit of a car and keep it in frame from Houston to the underpass.  I did shift the position of my feet at one point and noticed that the pedestal doesn't have a flat top, so it was a little unnerving to move my feet up there (without a secretary behind me to keep me steady).  Interesting note about the position of the Newman family.  They were near the curb and standing, so the limo would have to be far into the left lane to be filmed without catching the tops of their heads (at least).  Maybe Zapruder was just trying to avoid filming the backs of their heads and panned so far up that the limo almost drops off the bottom of the frame right around the head shot.  Sure.

Thanks for the info on the pedestal.

On 2/10/2023 at 11:49 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Speaking of that lower sprockethole.

This next gif should help you conceptualize the sleight of hand.

What part of the StemmonsSign is in unison with the Bobbleheads?

Give your eyes a few seconds for adjusting to see its true movement.

 

 

That is very strange. The simple answers don't work. It is not a change of Z' camera position as no other objects like the wall change relative to the sign. So it is definitely not the change of camera tilt or a change of camera height. It does not seem to be due to the distortion found in the sprocket area because the ladies remain in almost the same exact place in both frames. If it was a distortion the women would change shape significantly but they don't. I thought maybe it could be an illusion because we don't have any stationary objects in their background. It is not that. I thought maybe there is some rotational distortion where the center of rotation would be outside the frame to the right side causing greater change on the right side. That was a total fail.
The woman in the blue scarf partially blocked by the sign looks as if her head is bobbling up and down while her coat does not move. I am not yet convinced this is an artifact of fakery but it is baffling as hell. If a non CT photogrametric(Maybe not a real word) answer is found it will be hugely educational. Would love to think this is proof of alteration but I have been disappointed before so I will be skeptical for now, but wow it sure is strange.

5 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I went to DP and stood on the pedestal myself, and videotaped cars coming down Elm Street so I know what it feels like to stand precariously up there and try to keep a moving vehicle that is also going down an incline in the center of the frame.  With nobody standing in front of the pedestal, it would seem much easier (and afford a better field of view as well) to stand a little bit in front of the pedestal and film from there, safely at ground level but still above the action being filmed. When you add the fact that Zapruder wanted/needed Sitzman to help "steady him" on the pedestal, it makes even less sense that he would mount and maintain that precarious filming position as a personal choice.  When you watch Abe demonstrating the enormous blow-out of the side of JFK's head in his filmed TV interview a few hours later (that nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing), you'll realize that his demonstration matched the appearance of JFK's head at Bethesda, not Parkland.  Not sure how to account for Mr. Zapruder's expressing such a clear image from the future - as if it came straight through his camera. It did look that way on the film that was eventually developed, so Mr. Zapruder's account was certified correct, after all, right?  Food for thought.

I have often pondered Zapruder's precarious position on the pedestal. He seems to have switched his stance from the Willis 5 position facing toward the Stemmons sign to a position about 45 degrees to his right by the Moorman photo. If that is correct he had to switch his stance while looking through the viewfinder. He could not see were to place his feet and his balance must have been compromised because he could only see the tiny landmarks through the viewfinder.
 Did you find it necessary to pivot while you panned?. I tried to test a changing stance during the pan and found switching your weight to the left foot as you pan to the right momentarily cancels out any parallax. I found the switching of stance happened right about the time I would be panning past the lamppost. I considered it may be the reason we see no parallax from the lamppost and background in the Z film.
  I am not positive on this but standing in front of the pedestal would cause the Newman's to block the view to JFK. I measured it and it is a close call but it is likely Newman would have blocked at least part of the view.

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Failure Analysis served as the expert for both sides of the 1992 ABA Mock trial. Different teams were established. I know the former CEO of the firm who worked for the defense. I also have some CDs from the trial.  I know that Failure Analysis did a test showing that a frangible bullet would not have transited the other side of the skull- thus rebutting the claim that a shot from the GK would have hit Jackie.

I believe that Posner only used the portions of the Failure Analysis work that was developed for the prosecution.  

The first I heard of the theory that a knoll shot would have hit Jackie was in the documentary "Inside The Target Car" with Gary Mack.
  It was a complete fabrication. Mack positioned JFK's head firmly  up against the actresses left shoulder to put Jackie in the GK line of sight. We know from Z frame 312 that JFK's head did not align with her left shoulder and we know from the Muchmore film that their heads were at least 6" apart at the head shot.
 The theorized knoll shooter position at 15 ft west of the fence corner lines up above the 6" gap between their heads in the Muchmore film. That means Marie Muchmore, the gap between the heads, and the knoll shooter position are all on the same line of sight. They are at opposite ends of the LOS so they would both see almost the same gap at the head shot. A shot from the knoll would not have hit Jackie.
 Z frame 312 alone proves the shot would not hit Jackie. Taking into account the LOS from the knoll and Jackie's head being forward of JFK's the shot would have not hit her. The Failure analysis people must have plotted the knoll LOS so it is surprising they did not realize Jackie was out of the way.