Jump to content
The Education Forum

The angle of the sun in the backyard photos


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

In mid-November Martin sent an e-mail to Hany Farid and posted it here. He made what I though was most perculiar claim.

Dear Mr. Hany Farid

[…]

The sun should hit Oswald's nose at an angle of 33.6 degrees at that time.

If you have the time in march, go to Neely street ond proof it.

What we see in the "Backyard photos" are a sharp downward angle of some 48° minimum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=174638

What I though odd about this is that the sun angle constantly changes during the day and would shift 0.1 degrees in less than a minute but he made no indication how he calculated the time of day. In fact the only reference to the time of day was in a graphic he posted in support of his claim (see below). All that Marina said (IIRC) was that it was early afternoon*. To make matters worse in the graphic we can see that :

- he’d set the program to the wrong year (1971)

- the time of day he set was 3:54 PM later than Marina indicated she took the photos AND

- it only indicated the angle with 1 degree precision [56 degrees is the compliment of 34 (33.6 rounded)]

* http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

LLDatalc.jpg

Craig also had doubts about Martin’s claims and on Nov 19 2009 at 04:32 AM GMT in response to question from the photographer about his conclusions Martin wrote:

So i want to create a real life recreation in the backyard. Let's say to show the suncycle on march 31. To show that the sun at this time in Dallas is too low to create those long shadows under Oswalds nose.

People trust real photos more than anything.

My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.

Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over.

Two weeks later at 11:20 PM on Dec 4 2009, in response to one of my questions he wrote:

Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before)

Later on in the same post he asked me to, “Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget.” As per his request I “bump[ed] it up from time to time” i.e. every few weeks, he either ignored these reminders or made vague promises to post the video sometime in the future. A few days ago he responded hostilely

You know so little about it and have such a big mouth Len.

Your thoughts are up to you but i can ensure you....you are wrong.

I have meanwhile evidence at hand that it would can fill a book. I consider to do something like that.

Time will tell.

The problem that you don't understand sun angles is not mine. My goal is to show my research to the public.

Not just to you. Live with it.

Why should i waste again time with you to show something you don't understand?

Len, be sure i publish my results in any form at any time.

It will make you look like a fool.

And i don't know yet how often you will be mentioned in my work.

It's up to you and what you will tell in the future.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=184409

Since after more than 3 months or refusing to answer reasonable questions about his claims he responds with hostility I thought the added focus of a new thread was in order. He claims he will make me look like a fool, time will tell.

EDIT - Formatting error corrected

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See A DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115.

As pointed out previously Wilson seems to have have been a fraud and/or a fool. His calculation of the time of day is at complete variance with the time indicated by the shadows.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=175637

Martin - I eagerly await your promised attempt to make a fool of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backyard photos are FAKE.

That is disputed of course and I am being far from being the only person who realizes that you studies are deeply flawed. But that is not relevant to Wilson’s analysis. The shadows indicate the photo was taken shortly after (solar) noon and the highlights on LHO’s shoes as expected are pointing away from the shadows. Indicating once again that Wilson had no idea what he was talking about.

Martin

I’m still eagerly awaiting your promised attempt to make a fool of me but suspect the US will elect an openly devil worshiping alcoholic lesbian president before you do so. :blink::ice<_<:rolleyes::lol:

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...