Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

So hurray glad you caught my error.  But I still stand by the crazy thing you mentioned in the other thread, how you said one of the three old gentlemen standing up on the steps as Kennedy gets his brains blown out was holding a black pistol.


I never said the man was holding a pistol. I said:

  • The man appeared to be taking the stance of someone about to shoot a pistol.
  • The man had something black in his right hand.
  • And I made a joke: "Ready... aim... shoot!  (Is that black thing a camera?)"

I stand by the first two. The third was a joke you didn't get because you were too busy trying to smear me. I suppose I can stand by it too.

 

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And I'll also stand by the other crazy thing you said on still another thread, when you said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB ballpark and throwing a ball to home plate has to "aim" the ball the equivalent of 150 feet in the air for it to reach there.


Actually the outfielder needs to aim 197 feet above the catcher. (For an 80 mph throw and a range of 120 yards.)

I originally calculated 150 feet. A few days later I remember that I had derived the formula as an approximation suitable for projectiles of near-constant velocities, such as bullets shot at normal ranges. After re-working the formula to work in all projectile applications, I calculated the 197 foot answer. That answer is precise (not an approximation).

Link to approximate solution.

Link to precise solution.

And, or course, I stand by that too. To do otherwise would be anti-science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I never said the man was holding a pistol. I said:

  • The man appeared to be taking the stance of someone about to shoot a pistol.
  • The man had something black in his right hand.
  • And I made a joke: "Ready... aim... shoot!  (Is that black thing a camera?)"

I stand by the first two. The third was a joke you didn't get because you were too busy trying to smear me. I suppose I can stand by it too.

 


Actually the outfielder needs to aim 197 feet above the catcher. (For an 80 mph throw and a range of 120 yards.)

I originally calculated 150 feet. A few days later I remember that I had derived the formula as an approximation suitable for projectiles of near-constant velocities, such as bullets shot at normal ranges. After re-working the formula to work in all projectile applications, I calculated the 197 foot answer. That answer is precise (not an approximation).

Link to approximate solution.

Link to precise solution.

And, or course, I stand by that too. To do otherwise would be anti-science.

I threw a base runner out at home plate on a one-bounce throw from deep in left field in Little League, once.

--  Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

I threw a base runner out at home plate on a one-bounce throw from deep in left field in Little League, once.

--  Tommy :sun


I don't know what that means, but it sounds impressive.  ;)

I posted the problem on Yahoo Answers and Quora. The one on Quora somehow got switched over from the Physics category to Baseball. Most the answers sound sorta like what you said. Apparently 120 yards needs a bounce to be most effective, not an arc. (So you did the right thing!) And "you don't aim high! You aim it at the catcher!" LOL I guess it depends on what the definition of aim is. To a technical person the aim is the direction the projectile begins with, not ends with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 5:50 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

JFKmoralesD1.jpg


Note how Morales's camera strap rests on top of his jacket collar.

While the right side of the strap can be seen in the Black Op Radio video Thomas posted above, the left part is difficult to make out because the sun reflects off of it.

I took a screenshot of one frame of the video and adjusted the brightness and contrast so the strap can be more easily seen. (I also sharpened the screenshot a bit.) Note that it is also resting on the top of his jacket collar.

 

david_sanchez_morales_strap.jpg.ecd3423fad180dd2c167a8d69be49d66.jpg
 
There is no reason to believe that the top of his collar would appear darker than the rest of his collar, especially in bright sunlight. It's definitely a strap.

Note how the weight of the presumed camera pulls the strap down on his shirt collar, and this causes the top of the shirt collar to flare out. I don't think the weight of the jacket itself, spread out over the surface area of its collar, would do that. (The strap is basically putting a dent in the guy's neck flesh/fat.)

(Tommy, you should keep a copy of this photo if you like it.)

Sandy,

Great work.

Thanks for enlarging this detail.

Just wondering -- Is there any way to adjust the contrast or the hues, or something, so as to make the strap "stand out" from his skin more?

Thanks,

--  Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:
On 3/23/2017 at 6:50 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

JFKmoralesD1.jpg


Note how Morales's camera strap rests on top of his jacket collar.

While the right side of the strap can be seen in the Black Op Radio video Thomas posted above, the left part is difficult to make out because the sun reflects off of it.

I took a screenshot of one frame of the video and adjusted the brightness and contrast so the strap can be more easily seen. (I also sharpened the screenshot a bit.) Note that it is also resting on the top of his jacket collar.

 

david_sanchez_morales_strap.jpg.ecd3423fad180dd2c167a8d69be49d66.jpg
 
There is no reason to believe that the top of his collar would appear darker than the rest of his collar, especially in bright sunlight. It's definitely a strap.

Note how the weight of the presumed camera pulls the strap down on his shirt collar, and this causes the top of the shirt collar to flare out. I don't think the weight of the jacket itself, spread out over the surface area of its collar, would do that. (The strap is basically putting a dent in the guy's neck flesh/fat.)

(Tommy, you should keep a copy of this photo if you like it.)

Sandy,

Great work.

Thanks for enlarging this detail.

Just wondering -- Is there any way to adjust the contrast or the hues, or something, so as to make the strap "stand out" from his skin more?

Thanks,


Tommy,

I have the feeling that you've just done something that I've done a couple times myself. And that is, look for the strap in the wrong place. The strap is neither touching the skin nor near it. It is resting on the top of the jacket's collar.

The strap is black. Just above the strap is the white shirt. Just below the strap is the gray/blue  jacket.

See what I mean?

Notice how on our far-left of the strap, it is roughly the same shade as the jacket. That is because the sun is reflecting directly off that part. Even the jacket itself is brighter on the left. However, the sun brightens the strap more than the jacket because it has a highly reflective surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I have the feeling that you've just done something that I've done a couple times myself. And that is, look for the strap in the wrong place. The strap is neither touching the skin nor near it. It is resting on the top of the jacket's collar.

The strap is black. Just above the strap is the white shirt. Just below the strap is the gray/blue  jacket.

See what I mean?

Notice how on our far-left of the strap, it is roughly the same shade as the jacket. That is because the sun is reflecting directly off that part. Even the jacket itself is brighter on the left. However, the sun brightens the strap more than the jacket because it has a highly reflective surface.

Dude!

I'm the guy who discovered the strap about a year ago, mostly by noticing the spectral highlights (even noticeable in your enlargement) on the left couple of inches, and it's slight crunching of his collar / jacket on the right.

I know exactly where to look for the strap.

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2015 at 5:27 PM, Thomas Graves said:

bumped

Bumped.  Because it's been about a year and a half, now.

Awwwwwwwughhffuhyvjuyfjvyfjc!

I preferred the old forum as far as "quoting" was concerned.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2015 at 5:27 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/7/2015 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/7/2015 at 0:28 AM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 11:09 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 10:22 PM, Chris Newton said:

Tommy,

When was the "Martin" film that's in the Sixth Floor Museum Archive shot?

I have watched it from their archive and it has some footage of LHO but it's different than the other color footage in the youtube so I'm confused as to how many films there are.

Chris,

Possible teenager John T. "Jack" Martin from Minnesota filmed Oswald while visiting New Orleans on August 9, 1963, the same day that sixteen-year-old Jim Doyle and his eleven-year-old sister shot the very same Oswald leafletting incident at which Oswald, Bringuier, Cruz. and one other anti-Castro Cuban were arrested for disturbing the peace.

This August 9 incident is not to be confused with Oswald's leafletting activity in front of the New Orleans Trade Mart on August 16, during which Oswald was assisted by paid worker Charles Steele and an unknown Hispanic-looking guy, and nobody was arrested.

Thanks for asking!

--Tommy :sun

I believe that the scar I've been talking about (which is barely visible on and over Morales' left eye in the upper right photo) is much more visible in the lower left photo. If you look very closely, you can even see it in his high school photo, which leads me to believe it was from an old high school football injury, which sport Morales played, according to his old high school buddy, Ruben Carbajal.

ciamorales1.jpg

--Tommy :sun

The reason I think Morales' scar is important is because a Garrison researcher, Life Magazine's Richard Billings, wrote in his notes in 1967:

"More on Spanish trace... Giant [Jim Garrison] says the shepherd has a one-inch scar on his left eyebrow. He was also seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz at Maison Blanche when Oswald passing out leaflets."

Note: The "Maison Blanche" was a large old building where Dean Andrews had his law office on the sixth floor, only two blocks from where Oswald, Bringuier, and Cruz were arrested on August 9 in the 700 block of Canal Street. After the assassination, Andrews said he had seen Oswald passing out leaflets in front of this building, and that Oswald told him it was just a $25 "job"

...

"He [the "shepherd"] was wearing a coat and tie and sunglasses... He was taking pictures of Oswald." [emphasis added]

http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Billings' notes, he wonders if "Spanish Trace" might have been the dark-complected driver of the "getaway" Rambler station wagon in Dallas. rhereby suggesting that "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" was both dark-complected and Mexican-looking.

David Sanchez Morales was half Spanish and half Yaqui Indian, and was so dark-complected that his nickname was "El Indio".

The photo below is of Morales and is cropped from a larger photograph taken of him in Chile or Peru in 1966. I have seen the larger photo on the Internet. It shows a 35mm camera hanging in front of Morales' chest. I can't find that larger photo right now, but a least we can see the camera's strap in this one.

JFKmoralesD1.jpg

FWIW, 16-year-old amateur photographer Jim Doyle, who filmed Oswald's arguing with Bringuier on August 9 and being arrested, said that the guy watching Oswald so intently was wearing a grey suit and taking pictures of him with an expensive-looking camera.

Here it is.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dude!

I'm the guy who discovered the strap about a year ago, mostly by noticing the spectral highlights (even noticeable in your enlargement) on the left couple of inches, and it's slight crunching of his collar / jacket on the right.

I know exactly where to look for the strap.

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

 

 


Well then you've got me confused. Where do you think the strap is?

Your comment ("make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more.") makes it sound like you believe the strap is against the skin. If so, I disagree with you. I don't see it there.

On the other hand, if you believe the strap is where I believe it is, resting on top of the jacket collar, then why would you want to "make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more?"

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Well then you've got me confused. Where do you think the strap is?

Your comment ("make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more.") makes it sound like you believe the strap is against the skin. If so, I disagree with you. I don't see it there.

On the other hand, if you believe the strap is where I believe it is, resting on top of the jacket collar, then why would you want to "make the strap 'stand out' from his skin more?"

Oh.  You're right.

But it's all your fault.

Because you enlarged it too much.

And you made it too dark or something.

(And it has been over a year since I last looked at it.)

My bad but it's all your fault, Larsen.

(lol)

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/7/2015 at 5:27 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/7/2015 at 3:14 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/7/2015 at 0:28 AM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 11:09 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Graves said:
On 11/6/2015 at 10:22 PM, Chris Newton said:

Tommy,

When was the "Martin" film that's in the Sixth Floor Museum Archive shot?

I have watched it from their archive and it has some footage of LHO but it's different than the other color footage in the youtube so I'm confused as to how many films there are.

Chris,

Possible teenager John T. "Jack" Martin from Minnesota filmed Oswald while visiting New Orleans on August 9, 1963, the same day that sixteen-year-old Jim Doyle and his eleven-year-old sister shot the very same Oswald leafletting incident at which Oswald, Bringuier, Cruz. and one other anti-Castro Cuban were arrested for disturbing the peace.

This August 9 incident is not to be confused with Oswald's leafletting activity in front of the New Orleans Trade Mart on August 16, during which Oswald was assisted by paid worker Charles Steele and an unknown Hispanic-looking guy, and nobody was arrested.

Thanks for asking!

--Tommy :sun

I believe that the scar I've been talking about (which is barely visible on and over Morales' left eye in the upper right photo) is much more visible in the lower left photo. If you look very closely, you can even see it in his high school photo, which leads me to believe it was from an old high school football injury, which sport Morales played, according to his old high school buddy, Ruben Carbajal.

ciamorales1.jpg

--Tommy :sun

The reason I think Morales' scar is important is because a Garrison researcher, Life Magazine's Richard Billings, wrote in his notes in 1967:

"More on Spanish trace... Giant [Jim Garrison] says the shepherd has a one-inch scar on his left eyebrow. He was also seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz at Maison Blanche when Oswald passing out leaflets."

Note: The "Maison Blanche" was a large old building where Dean Andrews had his law office on the sixth floor, only two blocks from where Oswald, Bringuier, and Cruz were arrested on August 9 in the 700 block of Canal Street. After the assassination, Andrews said he had seen Oswald passing out leaflets in front of this building, and that Oswald told him it was just a $25 "job"

...

"He [the "shepherd"] was wearing a coat and tie and sunglasses... He was taking pictures of Oswald." [emphasis added]

http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Billings' notes, he wonders if "Spanish Trace" might have been the dark-complected driver of the "getaway" Rambler station wagon in Dallas. rhereby suggesting that "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" was both dark-complected and Mexican-looking.

David Sanchez Morales was half Spanish and half Yaqui Indian, and was so dark-complected that his nickname was "El Indio".

The photo below is of Morales and is cropped from a larger photograph taken of him in Chile or Peru in 1966. I have seen the larger photo on the Internet. It shows a 35mm camera hanging in front of Morales' chest. I can't find that larger photo right now, but a least we can see the camera's strap in this one.

JFKmoralesD1.jpg

FWIW, 16-year-old amateur photographer Jim Doyle, who filmed Oswald's arguing with Bringuier on August 9 and being arrested, said that the guy watching Oswald so intently was wearing a grey suit and taking pictures of him with an expensive-looking camera.

Here it is.

 

BUMPED

It's interesting that 14-year old Jim Doyle's parents, and a married couple who were friends of the family, all said that there were two pro-Castro demonstrators there that day -- Oswald with a yellow or orange "Viva La (sic) Fidel!" sign around his neck, and another guy, who had no sign but did have a pro-Castro placard on a wooden stake, and who was also handing out flyers. If so, why wasn't this second demonstrator arrested along with Oswald, Bringuier, Martinez, and Cruz?

Scroll down to page 2.  http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Civil Actions/JFK-MLK Appeals Subjects/Pix/Pix 05-09.pdf

Scroll down to page 5 for more detail.  http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI Records Files/105-82555/105-82555 Section 015/105-15c.pdf

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making a good case here, Tommy. Summarizing the evidence:

Regarding alleged David Morales observing Oswald leafleting in NO (in the Jim Doyle film):

  • Photoanalysis shows he is wearing a (probable) camera with its strap around his neck, something Morales was known to do.
     
  • He's husky, has black hair, and wiry hair, like Morales.
     
  • According to Garrison investigator Richard Billings, a "Spanish" man with a one inch scar in his his left eyebrow, wearing a coat and tie, was observing and  photographing Oswald leafleting on August 9. (The man was seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz.) This description matches Morales perfectly, the scar making the identification most likely. The description of this "Spanish" man matches favorably the alleged Morales we see in the film. (The "Spanish" man has got to be there in the film somewhere... if alleged Morales isn't the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales), then who in the film is??)
     
  • Garrison investigator Richard Billings asked in his notes if the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales) isn't the dark complected guy who drove the tan station wagon. Again this matches alleged Morales we see in the film.


This is very, very strong evidence IMO. I believe it's a match.

The only reasonable question I've seen is about Morales's height. Does the height of alleged Morales we see in the film match Morales's known height? We should at least take a look at this and see if there is an obvious discrepancy. I don't believe there will be.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You're making a good case here, Tommy. Summarizing the evidence:

Regarding alleged David Morales observing Oswald leafleting in NO (in the Jim Doyle film):

  • Photoanalysis shows he is wearing a (probable) camera with its strap around his neck, something Morales was known to do.
     
  • He's husky, has black hair, and wiry hair, like Morales.
     
  • According to Garrison associate, Richard Billings, a "Spanish" man with a one inch scar in his his left eyebrow, wearing a coat and tie, was observing and  photographing Oswald leafleting on August 9. (The man was seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz.) This description matches Morales perfectly, the scar making the identification most likely. The description of this "Spanish" man matches favorably the alleged Morales we see in the film. (The "Spanish" man has got to be there in the film somewhere... if alleged Morales isn't the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales), then who in the film is??)
     
  • Garrison associate Richard Billings asked in his notes if the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales) isn't the dark complected guy who drove the tan station wagon. Again this matches alleged Morales we see in the film.


This is very, very strong evidence IMO. I believe it's a match.

The only reasonable question I've seen is about Morales's height. Does the height of alleged Morales we see in the film match Morales's known height? We should at least take a look at this and see if there is an obvious discrepancy. I don't believe there will be.

 

Sandy,

Regarding the use of the word "Spanish man" to describe the way someone, who happens to speak that language, looks -- since most of the people who live in Spain are "White" like you and me, and are, therefore, difficult to distinguish from most other people living in European countries or North America, Australia, New Zealand, European Russia, etc, it's obvious to me that the person who said or wrote "Spanish man" should have said "Mexican-looking" or "South American-looking" or "Hispanic-looking," or something like that,  instead.  Living next to Mexico as I do, I hear people make the same mistake in describing someone from time to time.

As regards Morales' height, I believe he was an athletic 5'10" (he had run track and, according to his friend Ruben Carbajal, been a football star in high school).

I'll try to look up his documented height and post it here.

When I do, please bear in mind that the photographer, Jim Doyle, was only 14 years old at the time, so all of the adults around him were taller than he was, I would imagine.

--  Tommy :sun 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

My highlights in red:

 

20 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Regarding alleged David Morales observing Oswald leafleting in NO (in the Jim Doyle film):

  • Photoanalysis shows he is wearing a (probable) camera with its strap around his neck, something Morales was known to do.
     
  • He's husky, has black hair, and wiry hair, like Morales.
     
  • According to Garrison associate, Richard Billings, a "Spanish" man with a one inch scar in his his left eyebrow, wearing a coat and tie, was observing and  photographing Oswald leafleting on August 9. (The man was seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz.) This description matches Morales perfectly, the scar making the identification most likely. The description of this "Spanish" man matches favorably the alleged Morales we see in the film. (The "Spanish" man has got to be there in the film somewhere... if alleged Morales isn't the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales), then who in the film is??)
     
  • Garrison associate Richard Billings asked in his notes if the "Spanish" man (who likely is Morales) isn't the dark complected guy who drove the tan station wagon. Again this matches alleged Morales we see in the film.


This is very, very strong evidence IMO. I believe it's a match.

The only reasonable question I've seen is about Morales's height. Does the height of alleged Morales we see in the film match Morales's known height? We should at least take a look at this and see if there is an obvious discrepancy. I don't believe there will be.

Sandy,

Regarding the use of the word "Spanish man" to describe the way someone, who happens to speak that language, looks -- since most of the people who live in Spain are "White" like you and me, and are, therefore, difficult to distinguish from most other people living in European countries or North America, Australia, New Zealand, European Russia, etc, it's obvious to me that the person who said or wrote "Spanish man" should have said "Mexican-looking" or "South American-looking" or "Hispanic-looking," or something like that,  instead.  Living next to Mexico as I do, I hear people make the same mistake in describing someone from time to time.

As regards Morales' height, I believe he was an athletic 5'10" (he had run track and, according to his friend Ruben Carbajal,

been a football star in high school).

I'll try to look up his documented height and post it here.

When I do, please bear in mind that the photographer, Jim Doyle, was only 14 years old at the time, so all of the adults around him were taller than he was, I would imagine.


Tommy

I think it's clear from the context of Billings' notes that they were using the word "Spanish" instead of Hispanic. The term Hispanic wasn't widely used in America until it was adopted by the U.S. government in 1970. I suspect that "Spanish" was often used before the term "Hispanic" became widely known.

I, like you, have also heard people use Spanish instead of Hispanic.

BTW, do you have any idea why they referred to the guy as shepherd?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...