Chris Bristow

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.