Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

Ok - so let us examine the curb part of your response.

It is hard for me to actually hard for me to even see the top of his shadow reach the curb before the man coming from the right blocks the view to Patrolman Baker's shadow. So let us discuss the lower portion of the shadow leading back to Baker. It is clearly not at the curb

Bart, I am not interested in your excuse that everyone must have lied nonsense. So don't waste your breath on me unless you have nothing better to do. I am interested only at this time what information can be drawn from the film images. There is no evidence that Baker ran to the corner of the building to look up and down Houston and he never mentions doing that in his re-enactment. No one claims to have seem him do that either, nor run across the street to the Dal-Tex building that I am aware of.  If you have witnesses that saw him shoot past the stairs and did any of those things, then I will hear it. If not, then its all jibber-jabber to me and why I am looking towards the info the Darnell film may have to offer.

Thanks!

Really?

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter.pdf

Bottom of page 13, you can see the shadow go up the curb.

Going past those stairs is an option, and would be a logical one. But it is speculative.

What isn't speculative is Truly's interview and saying he talked to Brennan

and then there is Peggy Joyce Hawkings.

The point was to show that they did not storm up those stairs at all....

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

As Bart says, neither Frazier or Molina saw Baker...

From the WC testimony of Molina.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.

From the WC testimony of Frazier.

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

Bart, can you please point me in the direction of Sanders... and can you point me in the direction of 'Truly talked to Brennan'? Thanks

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/pauline-sanders/

[Alistair Briggs]

Cheers Bart, much appreciated. P.S. I have bookmarked your 'Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter' and will get round to reading it.

 

[Alistair Briggs]

Interview (with Truly) story written by Roy Bode a 16 year old student on trip to Dallas, days after Truly & Brennan & a policeman (Baker?) testified to the WC.

"The man was standing on the wall of a monument near Elm Street."
"He looked toward the building and saw the killer aiming the rifle."
"The shots were fired and he ran across the street where a policeman and I were standing"
"He yelled to us that the man was on the fourth floor and told us what kind of clothes he was wearing"
"I understand he later identified Oswald as the killer at police headquarters."

It's certainly an intriguing piece.

Personally, I don't see it being the biggest issue; I feel that, in the main, Truly is relating information that he would have learned after the fact, and either Truly has conflated a couple of points, or the interviewer has done so, or the editor has done so... don't get me wrong, I do see what is 'objectionable' about it though. It has been noted.

It's certainly an intriguing piece.

Regards

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

You have several errors in your thinking IMO.

1)  The red line runs parallel with the woman's shadow on the ground which for some odd reason is starting from some guys rump.

If you had bothered to read my thread covering this proof -- which is easy to understand and not long -- you would know that you are looking at the wrong woman.

I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of this because you clearly have no interest understanding my proof.

To know the true direction she is walking - you should have placed the line between two recognized reference points known to be directly across the street from one another and watch how she progresses in relation to that line. In other words if the man that has the red line starting on his rump was to start walking towards the stairs from his location, then his shadow would also remain parallel with red line while his feet would eventually make contact with the red line. That very thing is what is happening  with the woman in the coat that the gif references as she isn't walking in the same direction as the red line is pointed, but more towards the stairs. This is supported when in the long version in the previous post ... the bottom of her coat in that clip starts out on the red line (if not slightly below it) and rises away from that line as she steps along.

2)  Patrolman Baker's shadow can be seen crossing over the curb just to the right of the hand-rail going up the middle of the steps. His shadow which is cast to the north east is to the left of the red line when it reaches the curb. That puts Baker in front of the people on the right side of the hand-rail to which would allow him to run up that side of the stairs.

Baker's  starting location was west of the woman walking near the red line, which means his path to get to the curb in front of the steps will be different angle than the woman's walking along the red line even if they were to be meeting at the same spot.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 

Alistair,

Watch Bakers shadow as it nears the red line ... just as its about to make contact with it - it turns to the left and away from it in the last two steps. The shadow tells the careful observer that Patrolman Baker also changed his path so to head up the steps. There can be no argument about this for if Baker had not turned, then the shadow would have had no choice by to cross the red line had it stayed on course. All is left now for Sandy to say that someone removed the original shadow in those last couple of steps and painted in a new one to make it appear that Baker turned towards the stairs.  

" In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement "

 

I am astounded by incredibly wrong Bill is in his assessment of Baker's shadow.

The fact is that when Baker is first running across the street, he is pretty much running in the direction of his shadow, just like all the other people crossing the street. That the direction of shadows was very close to the direction of the the crosswalk is a convenient coincidence.

Had Baker continued running the direction he was initially running, his shadow would have been far up on the sidewalk by the end of the film. In fact, I believe that Baker himself may have been on the sidewalk by then.

But what the film shows is that near the end of the clip, the head of Baker's shadow just begins to rise the face of the curb. It rises SLOWLY, slow enough that you can watch it rise. Had Baker been running directly toward the sidewalk still, his shadow would have moved on the top of the sidewalk as fast as he was running.

And BTW, you can see his shadow move to the east at the very end of the clip. Indicating that he was running to the east by then.

Now, granted, this is not the best reasoning that can be used because the video is slowed down, thus slowing down the motion of the shadow. And there are only one or two frames showing the shadow move east. But there are other factors that are undeniable. These are presented in the proof.

The proof has lots of useful graphics, is easy to understand, and it not long. Anybody who honestly wants to know the truth should read the whole proof: Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

It is hard for me to actually [hard for me to] even see the top of his shadow reach the curb before the man coming from the right blocks the view to Patrolman Baker's shadow. So let us discuss the lower portion of the shadow leading back to Baker. It is clearly not at the curb

 

If you go to my proof you'll find a lot of useful gifs that allow researchers to see things.

And, BTW, it is necessary to understand exactly what the red line represents, and to which woman it is ascribed. It is necessary to watch that woman from beginning to end so that you see that she is running to the postal box that is to the right of the TSBD steps.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/24/2017 at 0:50 PM, Bart Kamp said:

Really?

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter.pdf

Bottom of page 13, you can see the shadow go up the curb.

Going past those stairs is an option, and would be a logical one. But it is speculative.

What isn't speculative is Truly's interview and saying he talked to Brennan

and then there is Peggy Joyce Hawkings.

The point was to show that they did not storm up those stairs at all....

Bart,

In your presentation you state that Baker was about to step on the curb, and the he is therefore about ten feet away from the TSBD steps.

He is actually more like 15 or 16 feet away from the steps. We know this because at the end of the film the head of his shadow has just barely risen the edge of the curb. So he is close to one shadow away from the sidewalk. I haven't measured the shadows, but their lengths appear to be close to the peoples' heights. So if Baker is 6 ft tall, then he is about 6 ft away from the sidewalk.

You can see Baker's shadow rising the edge of the curb here. The bottom of the curb is marked with a gray line. You will see that the shadow bends when it crosses the gray line. This confirms that I have placed the gray line correctly.

Maximize window to enlarge!

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Miller]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If you go to my proof you'll find a lot of useful gifs that allow researchers to see things.

And, BTW, it is necessary to understand exactly what the red line represens , and to which woman it is ascribed. It is necessary to watch that woman from beginning to end so that you see that she is running to the postal box that is to the right of the TSBD steps.

I disagree, Sandy. You have simply drawn lines on a two dimensional image from a skewed line of sight which leaves a considerable margin for error in my view. The world as I know it is the dimensional. Your two parallel lines don't account for Baker's shrinking in  size by the time he gets to the other side of the street, nor do they tell the viewer how far west of the line is Baker when he starts and finishes his run before the camera moves off of him. In other words - from the camera man's angle .... those lines without accounting for perspective are misleading in my view. Your base line appears to be running towards a location east of the stairs with no reference as to how far in reality is Baker to the west of the line. Both the upper and lower blue lines should be on some path that should eventually meet a horizon point, but they appear parallel - again misleading. Patrolman Baker is decreasing in size quite rapidly which means he is moving away from the camera. I believe if you were to show your animation to a someone who is skilled in Photogammetry that that Baker is far enough west of your blue line to place him on a course with the base of the stairs leading up to the entrance of the TSBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

 

[Alistair Briggs]

Sandy, I see what you are saying and I understand it mostly. I get what you are saying that when Baker "is first running across the street, he is pretty much running in the direction of his shadow" , and I get that the (red-line) woman is "running to the postal box that is to the right of the TSBD steps". And I reckon you have " placed the grey line correctly". To start with, to me, it does look like Baker is running towards the same thing the red-line woman is running too - (the mailbox) to the right hand side of the steps...

What I don't see yet though is Bakers shadow bends when it crosses the gray line What I see is as Bakers shadow moves towards the grey line, I see 'red-line' woman's left shoe rise...

From my many viewings of the clip it appears that during Baker's last step his shadow runs almost parralel to the red line, to me it looks like Baker's foot will land on his shadow (alas, that dude in the suit blocks the view)... it appears to me that Baker looks like, at worst, he is on a collission course with 'red-line' woman, and, at best, will just avoid her on her left hand side.

On the last step we see Baker making, is his forward foot not his right foot? To me it looks like the right foot. Thus his next step would be forward on to his left foot... I can see how with that and with his forward momentum Baker could avoid the red line woman on her right hand side (which would be consistent with him NOT running to the steps)...

If Baker' is 6ft from the curb, and his shadow is rising the edge of the curb, with the momentum of running forward will his next step not take him over the curb? (or at least closer to it?)...

I'm just not fully understanding the part of the blue line that runs almost parralel to the grey line (starting from the point where Bakers trailing leg is hidden by the 'tall-guy'). I don't see how that part of the blue line can be Baker's path; if it is indeed his right foot, and on his last step seen his right foot will land on the blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum.

*If the end of the blue line was moved up to the grey line (or actually) just above it, I could buy in to that being Baker's path (and that would still have Baker heading NOT to the steps and also avoiding the red line woman to her right hand side.

Sandy, honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative on this point, I am trying to perhaps help you out a bit. (It's just that I see something of a problem with the part of the blue line that runs parallel to the grey line being Baker's path, and I don't feel you have noticed what that problem might be. )

Regards.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I disagree, Sandy. You have simply drawn lines on a two dimensional image from a skewed line of sight....

What you are talking about no doubt is perspective error, if we can call it an error.

My proof isn't affected by perspective error. The effect of perspective is that it changes angles between straight lines. For example, two parallel line will appear not to be parallel. The two lines will converge at some point, even if off the boundaries of the image.

I haven't created lines that I compare the relative angles of. I have simply drawn a line that shows the path of a person mapped on the ground. There can be no doubt that the path is correct because the locations of the footsteps of the person on the ground are known. I merely drew dots where the toes make contact with the ground. Then I interpolated by connecting the dots.

Now, of course, the person could have "swerved" and not run in a perfectly straight line in places on the video where I could not see his footsteps. But that is of no consequence because 1) in addition I essentially projected and mapped the head of the person onto the ground in the places where I could not see his footsteps; and 2) the location where I could not see the footstep are irrelevant to the conclusions of the proof anyway.

....which leaves a considerable margin for error in my view. The world as I know it is the dimensional.

Your two parallel lines don't account for Baker's shrinking in  size by the time he gets to the other side of the street,....

Yes, the two parallel lines do account for Baker's apparent change in height. Because I mapped the lower line to his toes on the ground and the top line to the top of his head at it's highest points. The two lines are parallel in reality (3D), because Baker's true height doesn't change as he crosses the street. But, due to perspective, the two lines on the 2D image are nearer each other at the far end of the street (where I ended the upper line) because Baker's apparent height does decrease in that direction. Check it out and you will see I am right.

Now, Baker may have jumped a bit higher on the last step of where I've drawn that upper line. In which case the upper and lower lines don't converge as quickly as they should to show the true perspective. But that, in practice, doesn't affect the purpose for which I drew the upper line.

My goal in drawing the upper line was to verify the path of the bottom line in that particular location. Because I could not see  Baker's steps in that area. I connected the footsteps that I could see, and assumed that he ran a straight line between those steps. The upper line confirms that Baker indeed did run a straight line in that area. Close to, anyway.

....nor do they tell the viewer how far west of the line is Baker when he starts and finishes his run before the camera moves off of him.

I don't know what you mean. Baker was neither to the west nor to the east of the blue line. He was precisely ON the blue line.

If you are referring to the one animated gif where I extrapolated and extended Baker's straight blue line beyond his final steps where he veers right, that was just a temporary measure until I could map his final steps. But that straight line DOES show where Baker would have ended up had he continued straight and not veered to the right. He would have ended up... drum roll please... up on the sidewalk JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE STAIRWAY! That's right... even before veering right Baker wasn't headed for the steps! Check it out:

Click to enlarge!

In other words - from the camera man's angle .... those lines without accounting for perspective are misleading in my view.

How can they be misleading? They merely reflect where Baker's footsteps hit the pavement. There is no perspective to account for. With the exception of the perspective between the upper and lower blue lines, which I already point out includes perspective.

Your base line appears to be running towards a location east of the stairs....

Yes, he was headed to the right of the stairway, and would have ended up there had he not veered to the right. If you believe otherwise, you have been fooled by perspective! The straight line I drew can't lie. Perspective doesn't bend straight lines. (Barrel and other lens distortions does, but that's a different topic.)

....with no reference as to how far in reality is Baker to the west of the line.

Baker is never west of the line. He is right on the line until he veers right. And my subsequent animated gif accounts for his veering right. In that gif he is always on the line.

Both the upper and lower blue lines should be on some path that should eventually meet a horizon point, but they appear parallel - again misleading.

As I said, the two lines do get closer to each other on the right. If you extended them out beyond your computer screen, they will converge.

Patrolman Baker is decreasing in size quite rapidly which means he is moving away from the camera. I believe if you were to show your animation to a someone who is skilled in Photogammetry that that Baker is far enough west of your blue line to place him on a course with the base of the stairs leading up to the entrance of the TSBD.

As I said, Baker is never west of the blue line. Single step through the gif and you'll see for yourself that every one of his footsteps -- the ones you can see -- is on the blue line. And the upper line indicates that he ran very close to a straight where you can't see his footsteps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

What I don't see yet though is Bakers shadow bends when it crosses the gray line What I see is as Bakers shadow moves towards the grey line, I see 'red-line' woman's left shoe rise...

Alistair,

Thanks you for studying the gifs.

I will help you to see Baker's shadow bend as it hits the bottom of the curb and rise to the top of the sidewalk

See the gif below. Look at the red line, where it intersects the blue line and the gray line. Pay attention to the segment of the red line that is between the blue and gray line. Focus on that segment even as the things around it move.

Now, there is a guy in a suit, really big because he is close to the camera, who periodically blocks the ground around that segment of red line. While he is in the way, prepare to see the stuff around the red segment when he moves out of the way.

Okay, now you are periodically seeing what I want you to see. Half the time the big guy is blocking the view, and the other half he is not. And this repeats over and over again.

From this point forward I will be talking only about the times when the big guy isn't blocking the view.

Again, look at the red segment between the blue and gray lines.

Just to the left of the red segment you will see a shadow that is parallel to the red segment, and about the same length. In fact, the shadow -- like the red segment -- is bounded by the blue and gray lines! Not the whole time you can see it...  just at the end when Baker steps back. (After which the big guy blocks the view.)

Now, observe that shadow and you will see that the right end of it will move up and down on the face of the curb. When he big guy first gets out of the way, the shadow will be up on the face of the curb. Then as Baker steps back, the shadow will drop down, off the face of the curb. Baker then reverses direction, goes forward, and the shadow again rises the face of the curb. At which point the big guy again blocks the view.

Hopefully you can now see the shadow.

Now look at the direction of the shadow. Most of it is parallel to the red line. However, the part that rises the face of the curb will bend to the left.... counterclockwise, as it were. That part of the shadow points pretty much straight up toward the sky.

The point at which the shadow bends is the bottom of the curb. The importance of the bending is that it shows precisely where the bottom of the curb is. I used Bakers shadow and the shadow of the guy some people say is Truly to determine the straight line that represents the bottom of the curb.

The fact that Baker's shadow rises up the curb shows that his is still getting closer to the sidewalk. But you can see that he travels a distance of about 4 ft forward for his shadow to rise just a few inches up the curb. This proves that he is moving in a direction mostly parallel to the curb/sidewalk.

This is yet another of the reasons I'm 100% confident in the proof and would bet my house on it.

BTW, when Baker's shadow rises the face of the curb, you can see the running woman's left shoe rise up right next to it, just to the right of the shadow on the curb. It's kinda hard to see without single-stepping software because the big guy quickly gets in the way. But I think most patient people can see it.

.

Maximize window to enlarge!

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Miller]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

BTW, when Baker's shadow rises the face of the curb, you can see the running woman's left shoe rise up right next to it, just to the right of the shadow on the curb. It's kinda hard to see without single-stepping software because the big guy quickly gets in the way. But I think most patient people can see it.

.

Click to enlarge!

 

Why does your blue line make a turn right before getting to the curb?

[Alistair Briggs]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, when Baker's shadow rises the face of the curb, you can see the running woman's left shoe rise up right next to it, just to the right of the shadow on the curb. It's kinda hard to see without single-stepping software because the big guy quickly gets in the way. But I think most patient people can see it.
 

Ok, let's just say that I can see the shadow beside the runinng woman's left shoe.

It looks to me that his right foot is following his shadow, and that when his right foot lands on the ground (which we can't see because of 'Suit Man') it will land pretty much at the point his shadow rises on the curb and because of that it appears to me that Baker looks like, at worst, he is on a collission course with 'red-line' woman, and, at best, will just avoid her on her left hand side.

I don't see how his right foot will land on the blue line that is parralel with the grey line... and even if on his last step seen his right foot will land on that blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum.

Regards

[Bill Miller]

15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I don't see how his right foot will land on the blue line that is parralel with the grey line... and even if on his last step seen his right foot will land on that blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum.

Alistair -  Did not Sandy say that Baker was running in line with his shadow?  If so, then Baker's right step ... it will step in his shadow and his street shadow is not on the blue line but clearly above it.

And I still want to know why the blue line bends just before the curb???

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bill Miller