Backyard Photo Observation

[Chris Bristow]

I think the format we use here prevents us from reaching mutual conclusions. If we asked one question at a time it would be more like real time conversations. "Do you think a or b?". "I think b with this caveat.". If the conversation proceeded along these lines we would resolve some issues rather than go round and round . 
 Josephs statement "the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image...."  has been taken to mean that the post shadow and body shadows diverge back towards the Sun and that that is impossible. If this is what Joseph's intended meaning is, then Ray's response regarding vanishing point causing shadows to converge behind Oswald and diverge toward the Sun is relative to this point at hand. His response was not an unwarranted diversion from the main topic, it was a slight diversion addressing Joseph's sub topic. 
 I believe we all agree that shadows converging is a matter of perspective. the question is do shadows appear to converge away from the Sun or phrased differently do shadows appear to diverge towards the Sun? 
 This super simple question is something that we should not debate in multiple thread. So lets make a real effort to resolve this issue. It takes almost no effort to walk outside and place two objects on the ground and see if shadows APPEAR to converge away from the Sun(diverge towards the Sun). Or if you have a chain link fence just look at two poles. It is amazing that we could argue over this in many threads when we could resolve it and MOVE ON. For anyone that believes that the post and body shadows diverging towards the Sun is wrong, Please please go outside and check this claim before weighing in on it. Please don't respond with "I don't need to cause I no better". If you go outside and find you are correct then  I will get a major education that is crucial to my understanding of perspective. If I am wrong I will welcome the new knowledge, but when I go outside I find shadows do diverge back to the Sun.
 

[Ray Mitcham]

35 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the format we use here prevents us from reaching mutual conclusions. If we asked one question at a time it would be more like real time conversations. "Do you think a or b?". "I think b with this caveat.". If the conversation proceeded along these lines we would resolve some issues rather than go round and round . 
 Josephs statement "the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image...."  has been taken to mean that the post shadow and body shadows diverge back towards the Sun and that that is impossible. If this is what Joseph's intended meaning is, then Ray's response regarding vanishing point causing shadows to converge behind Oswald and diverge toward the Sun is relative to this point at hand. His response was not an unwarranted diversion from the main topic, it was a slight diversion addressing Joseph's sub topic. 
 I believe we all agree that shadows converging is a matter of perspective. the question is do shadows appear to converge away from the Sun or phrased differently do shadows appear to diverge towards the Sun? 
 This super simple question is something that we should not debate in multiple thread. So lets make a real effort to resolve this issue. It takes almost no effort to walk outside and place two objects on the ground and see if shadows APPEAR to converge away from the Sun(diverge towards the Sun). Or if you have a chain link fence just look at two poles. It is amazing that we could argue over this in many threads when we could resolve it and MOVE ON. For anyone that believes that the post and body shadows diverging towards the Sun is wrong, Please please go outside and check this claim before weighing in on it. Please don't respond with "I don't need to cause I no better". If you go outside and find you are correct then  I will get a major education that is crucial to my understanding of perspective. If I am wrong I will welcome the new knowledge, but when I go outside I find shadows do diverge back to the Sun.
 

Thank you Chris. It's exactly what Michael and I have been saying. but they seem to be unable to carry out a simple experiment. When they do, I hope they come back and describe their experience. However, I believe you meant converge rather than diverge  in your last sentence, as is shown in my post photo. 

 

https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url

Edited February 12, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Exactly Michael... and that is exactly what I am going after... exaggerated of course but still the same point....  the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image....

I found these images of the Oswald(s)... the shadow faling behind each man is virtually the same yet the shadow on the nose and the left side of his face is the real problem here...

 

 

Joseph the image of the box is mine and may be misleading . I took that photo from a position way to the left of Marina's relative to the Sun. That is mainly why the nose shadow is so much greater than the BYP. Notice the box shadow leans about 20 degrees more than BYP.  Also I took it from maybe  10 inches of the ground so the angle to the shadow is far less than Marina's camera height. That lower perspective adds another 10 degrees to the body shadow.
 The comparison of the two Oswalds  has some dissimilarities to consider. In the BYP Oswald is leaning 7 degrees left (His head sits just outside his stance, it lines up vertically to the left of his right shoe. The other Oswalds head sits inside his stance). The 7 degree lean, when you add the distortion of perspective, accounts for about 17 degrees of the shadow. also Marina held the top view camera at chest level. If the other photo was taken at eye level then that photo will show less shadow angle. I have not tested to see just how much less but it is most likely about 5 degrees. another factor is that the BYP Oswald is facing a couple degrees to his left(Towards the Sun) and that takes a couple degrees of nose shadow away. But that is also true in the other Oswald photo and there he is facing about 5 degrees away from the camera and the Sun which adds 5 degrees to the nose shadow. The other Oswald image has a nose angle of about 40 degrees. Take away 17 for the lack of lean, 5 for the head turned to the right, and 5 for a higher camera position and you have 13 degrees.
 
REGARDING THE BYP NOSE SHADOW

 In the BYP Oswald is facing about 10 degrees away from the Sun and should have 10 degrees angle under his nose. (the angle is determined more by where he is facing relative to the Sun than the elevation of the Sun. You could imagine if he was facing directly towards the Sun the shadow would fall directly below his nose. If he turned 90 degree away from the Sun his nose shadow would match the elevation). But Oswald also has his head turned away from the camera and back towards the Sun by 2 degrees. He also is tilting his head by about 4 degrees and both those cancel out some of the shadow angle, 6 degrees total. The last bit is that because Oswald is looking to his left his nose no longer sits in the center of his face. If you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find the nose shadow is leaning by about 4 degrees. This fully accounts for the ten degrees of nose shadow that we should see in the BYP. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

19 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Thank you Chris. It's exactly what Michael and I have been saying. but they seem to be unable to carry out a simple experiment. When they do, I hope they come back and describe their experience. However, I believe you meant converge rather than diverge  in your last sentence, as is shown in my post photo. 

 

https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url

Regarding my last sentence. In your photo it converges toward the Sun but I was talking about when the Sun is at your back and the shadows converge away from the Sun.

[Tony Krome]

23 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

One thing I can't resolve is the date the BYP's were taken. On 3/31 the azimuth from 3pm to 4pm went from 194 to 220 and the elevation 61 to 55. Looking at the post shadow it sure looks like the azimuth was about 240. At 5pm the azimuth was around 240 but the elevation was so low that Oswald's shadow would be about 6 feet long. It isn't until about April 15th at 430pm that you get a 240 azimuth with an elevation of 51 which matches the BYP's.
The HSCA determined Marina's line of sight was 70 degrees East of North. An azimuth of 220 translates to 40 degrees East of North. This means from Marina's pov Oswald was standing 30 degrees away from the post. For that to be true she would have to be standing only 4 feet from Oswald which seems impossible, it should be more like 13 feet. (Azimuth can be determined by using North or South as the starting point and you can go clockwise or counterclockwise. for Neeley st. they use a clockwise movement starting with North as the starting point of zero azimuth).
 To test how many degrees away from the post Oswald is, take  Marina's distance to Oswald as 4 feet(Radius) x 2 = 8 feet(diameter) x 3.14 =  a 25 foot circle based on a 4 foot camera distance. 360 degrees divided by  a 25 foot circle results is 14.4 degrees per foot. Oswald is about 2 feet from the post so he would be about 29 degrees away from the post. If that were possible then Marina's pov at 70 degrees East of North(Per the HSCA) would be 29 degrees away from the post and everything would be fine. But Marina can't be just 4 feet away from Oswald so Oswald can't be 29 degrees away from the azimuth. This means the azimuth of 220 on 3/31 at 330pm can't be right or Marina's line of sight as 70 degrees East of North can't be right. 
 If Marina is 13 from Oswald then he would be about 9 degrees away from the post. If this is the case and the HSCA is correct about Marina's 70 degree line of sight to Oswald then the post's shadow represents an azimuth of about 240 or 60 degrees East of North. Oswald would be at 70 East of North, 9 or 10 degrees away from the post shadow. 
The post shadow points almost directly to the post under the landing at the top of the stairs( The post under the NorthWest corner of the landing). You could determine the azimuth if you know the distance from the post to the NorthWest landing post and the width between them. I measure the stairway to be from 30 to 36 inches wide.
    To get the distance from post to post I use the steps which I measure to be 10.28 inches each( 12 foot long stairway divided by 14 steps = 10.28 inches per step) the landing post is 51 inches East of Oswald's post. If you draw a box with the proportions based on 36' width and 51 inch length  and draw a line from the lower left corner to the upper right corner it shows the angle of the post shadow which aligns with an azimuth of around 235 to 240. 
 to make the azimuth come out to 220 the stairs would have to be 6 feet wide or 42 inches long from post to post. The width obviously is no more than 3 feet and the length can't be 42 inches or each step would be only 8 inches long, shorter than the average foot. So I can't see the photos being done before April 15th.
    I wish some  person in Dallas could take a picture of the yard this March 31st. That would solve a lot. 
 

 

Chris, if you apply your determinations, as above, to the 1967 CBS photo, can you be confident it shows no anomalies, and the photo was taken on the 31st March 1967? And if so, what time of day?

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Tony Krome

[Chris Bristow]

52 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Chris, if you apply your determinations, as above, to the 1967 CBS photo, can you be confident it shows no anomalies, and the photo was taken on the 31st March 1967? And if so, what time of day?

 

 

Tony thanks for the input. The results are the same for the CBS and BYP. Although I think the CBS image may be propaganda to address Oswald's  awkward lean and I don't trust either image. On the 31st the azimuth would match the pole shadow at 4:10pm. But the elevation at that time is 43 deg which would make Oswlad's shadow(If he is 5'9")  74" long, but the distance from the post to the fence is only 51". It is not till mid April that both azimuth and shadow length would match. 

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Tony thanks for the input. The results are the same for the CBS and BYP. Although I think the CBS image may be propaganda to address Oswald's  awkward lean and I don't trust either image. On the 31st the azimuth would match the pole shadow at 4:10pm. But the elevation at that time is 43 deg which would make Oswlad's shadow(If he is 5'9")  74" long, but the distance from the post to the fence is only 51". It is not till mid April that both azimuth and shadow length would match. 

Chris, for the CBS photo to be authentic, lets look at mid April. Now that would be around 3 weeks past the equinox.

Would there be a date, around the next equinox cycle, that would allow a reproduction of the CBS photo to be taken that would closely match the shadows caused by the azimuth and elevation back in mid April?

[John Butler]

It is insane trying to make sense out of the shadows in the CBS reproduction.  You can't tell what time of the day it is or what season by using shadows.  The only clue to the season is the bare shrub and the documentation that says the photo was made on March 31, 1967.  It can't be done with the directions of shadows as portrayed below by the red arrows.  I darkened the contrast slightly so the shadows were more pronounced.

 

Can you give me a short, concise explanation for this cluster f**k of shadows?  Please excuse Clint Eastwood for introducing the term.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

It is insane trying to make sense out of the shadows in the CBS reproduction.  You can't tell what time of the day it is or what season by using shadows.  The only clue to the season is the bare shrub and the documentation that says the photo was made on March 31, 1967.  It can't be done with the directions of shadows as portrayed below by the red arrows.  I darkened the contrast slightly so the shadows were more pronounced.

 

Can you give me a short, concise explanation for this cluster f**k of shadows?  Please excuse Clint Eastwood for introducing the term.

I have looked at all the shadows now and was able to reproduce the angles seen. The answer is not short. You have to take into account  several factors for each shadow. But as far as when it was taken the shadows greatly limit the time frame. In March the elevation which determines shadow length is a mismatch to the azimuth by a large degree. Now this is based on some calculations that are estimated. But when I consider the error factor it still does not explain the azimuth/elevation mismatch. 
 As an example of shadows that look weird but are correct take the one just right of this guy's head. It is a shadow created by the landing. To test it I used a piece of paper to recreate the landing, the wall behind it, and the azimuth and elevation. The angle of the shadow matched using the azimuth of 240 which matches what I see in the post. To double check I used the end of the treads on the staircase which sit at the same orientation as the south facing part of the landing. The difference is that shadow falls on a South facing surface not a West facing one like the wall behind the landing. This makes for a good test because if I change the wall to face South it should then reproduce the shadow of the tread. It reproduced the tread shadow perfectly which confirms that the shadow by his head is correct for a shadow cast by the southern end of the landing at the top of the stairs. If you want to take all the shadows one at a time we could do that, but if you don't agree with my analysis it won't matter. Do you have any objections to my explanation of the shadow by his head?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Chris, for the CBS photo to be authentic, lets look at mid April. Now that would be around 3 weeks past the equinox.

Would there be a date, around the next equinox cycle, that would allow a reproduction of the CBS photo to be taken that would closely match the shadows caused by the azimuth and elevation back in mid April?

The only days that don't have a matching counterpart are on the solstice. June 21st is the longest day and so has no counter day. But the day before solstice and the day after are the same. Likewise two days before solstice is the same as 2 days after. so almost all days have a counterpart ranging from two days part to 6 months apart.

[Tony Krome]

31 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

The only days that don't have a matching counterpart are on the solstice. June 21st is the longest day and so has no counter day. But the day before solstice and the day after are the same. Likewise two days before solstice is the same as 2 days after. so almost all days have a counterpart ranging from two days part to 6 months apart.

Right, so in effect, if the CBS photo was actually taken around April 15th, the same photo could be replicated around August 28th. 

According to your calculations, if the CBS photo crew turned up at Neely St on the 31st March, they would not have been able to shadow match the BYP. But if they turned up in mid April, they could.

But at some point, they wanted the date the photos were taken to be before the April 10th Walker shooting.

The question is, when did they decide to incorporate the Walker incident into the script? If it was after the Neely BYPs had already been taken, the shadows make sense in regards to August 28th & April 15th

 

[Ray Mitcham]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Regarding my last sentence. In your photo it converges toward the Sun but I was talking about when the Sun is at your back and the shadows converge away from the Sun.

Thanks Chris. Agreed, as shown in this photo which I also posted.

It is impossible to work out the time that the photos were taken without knowing the precise lengths of "Oswald's" shadows. 

 

For those who still disbelieve, here is another photo simulating the position of "Oswald" and the stair post which shows the shadow of the "stair post" (the pole on the left) in the same region as the stair post in the BYP., and which shows the shadows converging. rather than diverging.

 

Q.E.D.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

There are 6 sets of shadows in the CBS March 31, 1967 reproduction photo.  They are marked by arrows and numbers.  Shadows are made from a light source projecting light onto an opague object.  This casts a shadow of the same shape as the object in the direction the light source is shining.  In this single moment captured by this photo there should be one light source which is the sun in the sky since the scene is outside.

The red arrows and numbers show different groups of related shadows moving in the same direction.

Shadow group 1:  These are the step shadows and they move in direction from picture left to the right.  This is a morning shadow of about 9:00 to 10:00.  They appear to be moving in a related direction.

Shadow group 2:  The shadows here are strange for step shadows.  They move in an opposite  direction from the other shadows.  They move down and to the right.  There is probably a natural explanation for the direction.  If natural the would be about the same time I would guess.

Shadow group 3:  These shadows are from the nose and neck of the figure.  And, there is a similar shadow under the eave of the structure in the back ground.  These are from a sun directly overhead at about noon or 12:00.  The shadow moves in a downward direction.

Shadow group 4:  Is one shadow that moves from left to right in a flatter angle than the step shadows.  This shadow appears to be from a power line and somewhat problematic to assign a numerical value and time.

Shadow group 5:  Are shadows that move from the right side of the photo towards the left.  The shadows are the shadow of the human figure, the shadow of the shrub, and a shadow on the fence.  The sun is high in the sky and moved from the noon position to about 1:00-2:00.

Shadow group 6:  It is apparent these shadows are moving from right to left.  They are supposed to be post shadows outside of the scene.  They are at about 4:00-5:00.  They are so out of tune with the rest of the picture they are extremely noticeable.

There are 6 different shadows going in 6 different directions.  5 directions if you consider 1?-4? as the same direction.  This gives us 6 different light sources or 6 suns in the sky at the same time.  Or, 5 directions if 1? – 4? are the same.  Which one would you pick to determine the time of the day much less the season?

5 or 6 light sources, the sun, tells one that this photo is a composite photo made at different times of the day.  The season is still determined by the condition of the shrub and the vegetation in the photo.

Jack White said he was a life-long resident of Dallas.  In March there is no foliage or blooming.  That occurs in the middle of April.

The Warren Commission determined the date of the BYPs to be March 31, 1963.  They did this based on Marina Oswald and scientific measures.  One can imagine an early bloom at about March 31 to April 15 to account for the foliage on the shrub in the BYPs. 

One can not do that for the shrub in the CBS 1967 reproduction.  There is no foliage on the shrub indicating a time of pre-April in the spring.

Regardless of this or that argument the different times in the photo indicate a composite photo.  This would be a must to produce if you wanted to get close in appearance to the original BYPs.  The original BYPs are composites also. 

[John Butler]

Here's something I thought was funny and perhaps a bit cool on a google search when doing research on shadow times.

[John Butler]

The Backyard Photos 133-A and 133-B were successful in framing the Patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, in the mind of the public as the lone assassin of President Kennedy.  The negatives of the photos that came to be known as 133-A and 133-B were found at the home of Ruth Paine on 11-23-63.  It is claimed that Oswald was shown one of these the night before they were found.  The FBI had these photos and others developed the night of the assassination on 11-22-63 according to developers Mr. Robert Hester and Mrs. Hester.

From the McAdams site, the official version:

347. Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about photographs. She said that she had taken them in the backyard of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas. (129) She gave, however, different versions of when the pictures were taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or early March 1963. (130) Her testimony to the Warren Commission reflected the same thing. (131) In an FBI interview made after her initial appearance before the Warren, however, she said that the first time she saw the rifle was toward the end of March; she recalled having taken the photographs 7 to 10 days thereafter, in late March or early April.(132)
348. Other evidence available to The Warren Commission supports her later version. A rifle and a revolver were shipped to Oswald from different mail order houses on March 20. (133) The left-wing newspapers Oswald is holding is dated March 11 and March 24 and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively, both by second-class mail. According to postal authorities, both newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28. (134) In addition, Marina claimed she remembered taking the photographs on a Sunday, about 2 weeks before Oswald allegedly shot at Gen. Edwin Walker on April 10. (135) From this information, the Commission deduced the likely date on which the photographs were taken to be Sunday, March 31, 1963. (136)

 The two photographs in question 133-A and the 1967 CBS Reproduction are said to be made on the same day 4 years apart.  Official documentation supports these two dates.  According to the official version both photos are not composite (or fake) photos and are authentic.  Various government agencies, the Warren Commission and the HSCA, after exhaustive studies have concluded the photos, 133-A and 133-B are authentic.

However, an examination of 133-A and the 1967 CBS reproduction gives a lie to the official story for both photos.  There are many ways to determine these photos as false.  This discussion is based on shadows and foliage.  Shadows for determining the time of day or inability to do so.  And, foliage to determine the season in both photos.

There are red arrows and numbers marking the directions of the shadows shown.  There is the letter F indicating foliage in the photos.  These photos capture a single moment in time and show a single light source, the sun.  They should capture a consistent shadow pattern based on the position of the sun when the photo was taken.

They do not.  The shadow patterns indicate different times in the photos indicating they are composite.  The foliage indicates a different time of the year in the different photos.  They supposedly were taken on the same day, March 31, in 1963 and 1967.  The foliage is different.

In photo 133-A there are 5 numbered groups of shadows as versus 6 in the CBS Reproduction.  This discussion will focus mainly on the photo 133-A and switch to 1967 to note differences.

Shadow group 1:  In the 133-A photo this group of numbered red arrows is pretty much the same as the CBS reproduction.  The step shadows move from left to right for the No. 1s.  Doing some in both photos indicates a similar time of the day.  The time is about 9:00 to 10:00.

Shadow group 2:  Is problematic for me.  The steps shadows indicated by 2s move in a direction different from the 1s.  The 2 shadows move down from the right to the left.

Shadow group 3:  These shadows are from the nose and neck of the figure.  And, there is a similar shadow under the eave of the structure in the back ground.  These are from a sun directly overhead at about noon or 12:00.  The shadow moves in a downward direction.  They are the same as in the CBS reproduction.  This is a different shadow direction and the first sign that something is not right.  We now have two shadows directions going in different directions in both photos.  We now have two light sources in the photos that match in photos 4 years different in age.  This is a sign of composite reconstruction.  Both are now fakes.

Shadow group 4 in the 1967 CBS repro:  This shadow group changes since there is no shadow in the same area in the 1963 133-A photo.  I originally thought is was a power line in the CBS 1967 photo.  I have now come to believe the shadow is from a limb directly above.  That limb had not yet grown to that length in 1963.

Shadow group 4 in 133-A.  Are shadows that move from the right side of the photo towards the left.  The shadows are the shadow of the human figure, the shadow of the shrub, and a shadow on the fence.  The sun is high in the sky and moved from the noon position to about 1:00-2:00.  We now have a 3^rd group of matching shadows that gives one 3 light sources in the photos.  3 suns portrayed in a single instance.

Shadow group 5 in 133-A (6 in the CBS 1967 repro):  It is apparent these shadows are moving from right to left.  They are supposed to be post shadows outside of the scene.  They are at about 4:00-5:00.  They are so out of tune with the rest of the picture they are extremely noticeable.  We now have 5 groups of shadows showing 5 different times in the two photos. 

In both 133-A and the CBS Reproduction there are the letters F which call attention the foliage one can see in various areas in the two photos.

If you look at the foliage near the steps in 133-A you can see that the foliage is larger and more robust than the foliage in the CBS reproduction.  If you look at the shrub in 133-A that foliage is larger and in bloom than the CBS photo.  The shrub in the foliage of the CBS reproduction is leafless and is shorter than the shrub in 133-A.

This tells one that sometime between 1963 and 1967 the shrubs and trees in the back yard were trimmed and pruned.

The difference in the foliage / non-foliage tells us that the seasons are different or that the photos were taken on the cusp of a changing of a spring season’s cold weather/ warmer weather cycle.

Recall back to the official story.  Both were taken on March 31 four years apart according to the authorities.  Jack White, a life-long native of Dallas, said that the vegetation did not emerge in March but, did so in mid-April.

According to the shadows these photos were taken around the Vernal Equinox or afterward.  133-A could represent a warm year.  But, if one looks closely at the leaves above Oswald’s head in both photos 133-A represents a warmer time and the CBS reproduction represents a colder time.

133-A could represent a time of mid-April or its corresponding time for light shadows being the same in the fall near the Autumnal Equinox.

The real point of this has been and will always be that the BYPs are composites and therefore fake.  You can argue this or that about elevations, azimuths, angles of incidence, converging shadows, etc.  You cannot escape the fact that there are at least 5 different shadow patterns indicating 5 different times captured in a single moment for both photos.  They are composites and fakes.  The photos 133-A and the 1967 CBS Reproduction captures a single moment in time when there were 5 suns in the sky in Dallas.

They did a great job of framing Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of President Kennedy.