Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

I found another frame in Hughes' folder at jfkassassinationgallery.  It is again a picture of superior quality compared to the quality of frames obtained after disassembling Hughes film into frames. 

hughes_orig_lines.jpg?w=529&h=220

The picture below shows a cropped view of the doorway from the picture above. The section above Lovelady's head was enhanced by resampling it, reducing shadows, and increasing the contrast.

jfkag_hughesgood_inset.jpg?w=529&h=454

Similar to the frame in my preceding post, something resembling a human figure having his/her right arm in front of the chest and the small light object can be seen. Due to noise, there are several other specks in the inset too. The problem is that we are zooming into a very small area of the film in pictures which appear to be processed pictures. There is a risk that a previous processing has simply produced an object from the noise. The picture below is a sample frame to illustrate what would be the initial pictures.

jfkag_hughesgood_aframe.jpg?w=529&h=385

 

Are we actually able to resolve the presence of Prayer Man in the doorway in Hughes film?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, David Josephs said:
On 11/28/2017 at 6:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Below is another one... a young Paul Newman. Notice that all three of these show a height of 5' 9" and a head height of 13". It seems there must have been a standard or popular mug shot system that made all three. I found this one by googling "13 inch head height mug shot."

Mystery solved. Good job Richard and Tom.

 

55bf08db7edff8b16854a13b2dc911a5--celebr

 

Yet if this person stepped back to the wall... his real height is shorter that the 5'10" the photo suggests...

As stated, the camera would have to be level with the top of his head to get a true height...  this lens is most certainly lower than the top of this person's head.

He could be as much as 3 inches shorter once he steps back....

 

And yet this is the famous Paul Newman, who was known to be 5' 9" or 10". And Tom found a similar 13-inch headed person with close to the same height.

So how can this be explained, David?

IMO the most likely explanation is that the camera was mounted quite close to the subject. Because of that, the person did not need to stand away from the chart to get the 13" head height measurement. Given the thickness of the human body from back to front, even when the subject is standing with his back against the wall/chart, the front of him is away from the wall/chart. And so if the camera is positioned vertically such that the lens points to the top of the head, it will give the correct height reading.

You say that the camera is not pointing to the top of the head. How can you tell? Well, regardless, you may be right. I can envision a small, portable mug shot booth in which the operator has a narrow-view view finder which he is instructed to use to line up the camera lens with the eyes of the subject. Now, aiming at the eyes instead of the top of the head would give the wrong reading on the chart if it weren't for the fact that the height chart is raised a certain distance to account for that.

Did you see Richard's trignometric drawing showing how a closely-positioned camera could make a head look 3" or 4" taller? Without standing away from the height chart?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I'd still have to say that this method of photography cannot accurately convey the height of the man or the size of features like his face...

Strictly speaking, no photograph can accurately convey all those things, due to perspective. But a single measurement -- height for example -- can be pretty accurately conveyed.

Do you now agree with us that the 13" head-heights of the three men (Oswald, Paul Newman, and a black guy) in these mugshots is a result of the camera being close to the subject, rather than the subject standing away from the wall? And that the 5' 9" and 5' 10" heights given by the chart are (close to) correct?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

Life Magazine crop

 

Hughes crop2.jpg

Thanks, Robin, for posting one more Hughes frame which has the advantage that it can be properly linked to a source. I have looked into the possibility to spot anything in the region of interest in the western part of the doorway only to find a black hole. This is illustrated in the figure below. The left-hand side panel is a cropped view of the doorway from the posted picture, and the right-hand panel shows the same picture after adding light to the dark part of the doorway.

The Life Magazine frame was clearly retouched because the horizontal metal separator between the top window and the three large glass windows can only be seen in the east part of the doorway. There is no natural explanation for not seeing this part of the door frame also in the west section of the doorway. Instead, there is a light object there which in theory could be some residual light from the ceiling lamp behind the glass door, however, not from the lamp which was right behind the glass door. The missing part of the door frame is highlighted with two yellow dot lines.

The Life Magazine may have touched the doorway for esthetic reasons or for other reasons, we may never know. However, their role in the cover-up (e.g., sitting on the Zapruder film for more than a decade, publishing a retouched backyard photograph) is hard to overlook, and so we are left with the same uncertainty as in many other aspects of the assassination case. Did Life retouched the west but not the east part of the doorway to cover up the presence of someone who should be on the sixth floor and shooting the President? Or is it just a coincidence and an innocent attempt to enhance the picture? 

Unless good-quality copies of Hughes stills with a proven birth certificate are available, I would say that Hughes film cannot conclusively prove or disprove the presence of Prayer Man in the doorway during the particular time instant when the motorcade was passing in front of the Depository.  I would be glad to be proven wrong though.

hughes_timelife.jpg?w=768&h=423 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

What matters here is the wall with the measurements on it...

No matter how close the camera gets... if the person is standing up against that wall the measurement will be very close (off only by the fraction caused by the depth of the head...


David,

Look at Richard's drawing below. This man is standing against the wall. And yet the height chart shows that his head is 13" in height, instead of the real 10" height.

The reason the measurement is way off is because 1) the man's face is several inches in front of the wall, and 2) the camera is quite close to the wall. The further back the camera is moved, the shorter the head height would measure. (If the camera were an infinite distance away, the 10" head height would be correctly conveyed on the height chart.)

You already agree that the 13" head height will occur if the man moves away from the wall. The drawing below merely shows that being away from the wall just a few inches (the depth of the head) will also result in the same 13" head if the camera is pretty close to the wall. Like about 3 ft in this case.

 

On 11/28/2017 at 6:55 AM, Richard Hocking said:

5a1d6a7ca7f0b_LHOHeadheight.jpeg.eda4567e6a94d34e20d52033de65b982.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stabilized video might help.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hVxB20F72IqU3lCcm9_2QL536XTm9wVP/view?usp=sharing

It looks like the suited man in Altgens appears in Hughes.

Located at the immediate left side of the person in blue, who is standing on the wall.

38035325724_43e5d7723b.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


David,

Look at Richard's drawing below. This man is standing against the wall. And yet the height chart shows that his head is 13" in height, instead of the real 10" height.

The reason the measurement is way off is because 1) the man's face is several inches in front of the wall, and 2) the camera is very close to the wall. The further back the camera is moved, the shorter the head would measure. (If the camera were an infinite distance away, the 10" head height would be correctly conveyed on the height chart.)

You already agree that the 13" head height will occur if the man moves away from the wall. The drawing below merely shows that being away from the wall just a few inches (the depth of the head) will also result in the same 13" head if the camera is pretty close to the wall. Like about 3 ft in this case.

 

 

 

So Sandy,

Why does the camera only take an image from horizontal DOWNWARD but not upward?

If I place a camera where he's placed it (blue lens far left) the field of view would include the area above his head as much as below unless you were right up against the man's nose...

The Red line at the top represents the entire field of view... you'd have to raise the camera up higher than it is for these photos and then point it downward which would result in a different final image than those military photos...

The blue lens to the right, turned downward still has a full field of view yet it captures what you claim the other diagram shows...  without that tilt the man's forehead would be in the middle of the image, not his nose.

The field of view that Richard offers is not physically possible using the physics of light...  to put the man's head at the top of the frame the lens would need to move DOWN not up

We get this right?  Field of view from the lens works in both directions, not just down... the green lines and the lowered lens position would push his head to the top of the frame but the man's chin would be in the center of the image UNLESS YOU TURN THE LENS... which changes the perspective of the photo.

yes?

5a20912d96e0c_Oswaldphotomechanics13inchheadandcameraposition.jpg.f3f168a34b1065395d31780821949c5d.jpg  5a2092b21eb99_Oswaldphotomechanics13inchheadandcamerapositionv2.jpg.15542d1f862121c1d88324af5243c339.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Stabilized video might help.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hVxB20F72IqU3lCcm9_2QL536XTm9wVP/view?usp=sharing

It looks like the suited man in Altgens appears in Hughes.

Located at the immediate left side of the person in blue, who is standing on the wall.

38035325724_43e5d7723b.jpg

 

It looks like there might be somebody there, yes. Here's what I think I see: At 1 second, Lovelady's face gets lit up by the sun, at 2 seconds he wipes his forehead or something, and in seconds 3 and 4 there appears to be somebody standing to his left, and somebody behind and above Lovelady. 

Edited by Tom Hume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I would also imagine the focal length of the lens can exaggerate size up or down...

Once again common sense always gets lost in the shuffle on EF.  This is another example where Josephs is trying to say that an extra large head - according to him - proves that this was another person entirely.  What a joke.

Two things that no one has mentioned here unless I missed it - the Newman photo really shows how there is distance between the head and the marker board.  The reason is note how the board is out of focus. So it's obvious there is some distance between the head and the marker board.

Second, this proves to me that this was some kind of standardized photo system throughout the military. The military tends to be very anal about stuff; in other words, nationwide, they had the same boards on the wall and probably the same kind of cameras and most probably markers on the floor at the same distance telling the grunt where to stand for the photo. The LHO version of this photo shows the marker board being more in focus than the Newman one - it could simply be the guy taking the photo had his camera not quite focused and as sharp as the Newman one, which is exceptionally sharp, showing the contrast between him and the board. 

Third, why in god's name would the US xxxxing military use a system that exaggerates or incorrectly displays the soldier's height? Holy xxxx!

So I took the three photos and lined up not the heads but the numbers as close as I could get them.  You can see it below. What does it all mean? Absolutely nothing.  Three different men having their photos taken with the same system - you can see a little lens perspective difference between the black guy and Newman vs. LHO.

They're photos - that's all they are but for some batxxxx crazy reason batxxxx crazy people here think in their warped world that because the heads look large that it's some kind of grand conspiracy. GMAFB!

5-9-board.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So Sandy,

Why does the camera only take an image from horizontal DOWNWARD but not upward?

 

David,

The horizontal line in Richard's drawing represents the optical axis of the lens. So the photograph the camera takes will indeed include the image above the head. And, as is illustrated in the drawing, the bottom of the chin in the photograph will appear to be 13 inches below the top of his head... even though he is not standing away from the height chart.

In the photograph you will see "69" at the top of the head and "56" at the chin.

 

5a1d6a7ca7f0b_LHOHeadheight.jpeg.eda4567

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest locked this topic
  • Guest unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...