Chris Bristow
-
Posts
1,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Bristow
-
-
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.
-
7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
A really great model would have the option to see them as shirtless and maybe also as skeletons - maybe with the suit "Faded" underneath it.
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.
-
8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Michael,
I have some related information that you might find useful since you seem to have become somewhat of an expert on this topic.
Others might find this useful or interesting themselves.
We have a forum member named Tom Hume who I haven't seen posting in many years. I ignored most of his posts because they were generally about numerology or some other pseudoscientific nonsense. (Sorry, Tom.) But one time he said that if you take two of the BYPs and viewed them with a stereoscopic viewer, you would indeed see the background in 3D.
So I bought a cheap 3D viewer and tried it, and by golly it worked! But not in the normal way. It worked only if the two photos were rotated by 90 degree (i.e. tipped over). It was as though you were there in the back yard and could see 3D only if you had you your head tipped sideways.*
The odds of this happening by chance are very low, thus indicating a probable forgery. (The HSCA even new about this phenomenon. So why didn't they mention the probable forgery?)
The most likely way those stereoscopic photos were made was with a stereoscopic camera rotated sideways. Stereoscopic cameras were popular at the time.
Anyway, this is yet one more piece of evidence pointing to a forgery.
* BTW, FWIW.... Actually physically rotating your head probably won't do what my above mind-experiment makes you think it will do. If you rotate your head, your eyes will rotate in the opposite rotational to compensate. Just try it in front of a mirror and you will see that what I'm saying is true. Eye muscles try very hard to keep eyes level.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:
I would be interested to know what you mean by counter lean (physiologically that is, not appearance-wise). I agree with your description that "His lower body leans out to the left while his upper body is almost straight up and down." What is your take on the head?
Nobody has mentioned here about the straight dark line above the chin which the HSCA "experts" tried to explain away as caused by a water spot, which would be caused by somebody doing a poor job developing the picture in the darkroom.
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.
-
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.
60th anniversary of the backyard photos
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.