Chris Bristow Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 (edited) In March I posted a topic about Oswald's lean in 133a. I offered two proofs that Oswald's hips are facing almost straight toward the camera. This is a key factor in testing his posture because if you keep your hips forward the stance becomes impossible and very painful. If you do manage the angle you have to keep your hand on a wall or something and you can only let go for a second before falling over. It appears that the only way to duplicate the angle is to swing your hips way back, and even then some counterbalancing of the upper body is usually present. In other cases like the Cappel photo taken at Neeley St. the subject hips are forward but they are barely leaning(Not to mention they rotate the photo left to increase the lean.) This is why I scratch my head at the Dartmouth study that claims the stance is highly stable. The first problem I found with the study was they have Oswald leaning one degree less than reality. Most accept the picket fence at 2 1/2 degrees is correct. The Dartmouth study rotates the photo to a 3 1/2 degree fence angle. correcting for this takes their results of 99% probability down to about 85%. A small difference but a long way from a 99% certain 'case closed' argument. But now I find something that I can't explain and it may take those odds down to way less than 50%. In the composite image below take a look at the upper right corner. It's line of sight is directly in front of Oswald which correctly matches Marina's position. The feet are correctly positioned in comparison with 133a. But now look(just below )at the overhead model. In it they have Oswald's right foot facing in a very different angle. They have switched from Marina's line of sight to a position far to her left. The foot points 45 degrees to the right but in reality his right foot swings OUT at 45 degrees, not inward. Now if you rotate the image to correctly reflect the angle of the foot(bout 90 degrees) the angle of their yellow line changes to. You can see from the top right image that the yellow line goes to his left foot and toes. But if you look at the corrected image on the left it is obvious that the yellow line in the overhead was not correct to begin with. Once the foot angle is corrected the angle of the yellow line relative to the foot puts his left foot way the hell out in front of his right foot. To be extra fair I placed the right foot in a narrower stance. A wider stance would place the left foot even farther out in front of the right foot. Then I placed another left foot farther back in a more realistic position. Notice the red line that denotes the correct outline for the COG when the angles are corrected. The red line passes thru the bullseye just inside the 80% ring. So this correction means the likelihood of this analysis being right drops from 99 to about 78% probability that the stance is stable. But this analysis does not take into account the extra degree of lean I mentioned at the start. If I include that error then the bullseye moves one inch to the left. That would move the red line to almost the center of the bullseye or at least well within the inner ring. This means the probability of the stance being stable drops to under 50%. So not really a case closed type of thing. In fact at 50% odds it is not worth much at all. Edited July 15, 2022 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 You'll get your answer if you do a little digging into the origins of the research grants of the author of the article............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) I have studied Lee Oswald's pose in the backyard photograph and even have tried to reproduce it myself. My conclusion was that he pose was not too stable but it was possible to stand that way. However, holding a gun like it is seen in the picture may have helped to maintain the pose as it shifted the centre of mass forwards and to the right. This my reconstruction of Lee Oswald's pose using Andy2 humanoid avatar from Poser 11.1. I did not do any calculations of the centre of mass. And this is the overlay of the model with the original picture: Edited September 18, 2019 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 This is one more example of an awkward looking pose by Lee Oswald in the left panel. I have modeled that pose (the right-hand panel) and overlaid it onto Lee's pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Yet we need to orient the picture to a straight horizon.... to get the person into the image they had to rotate the background to the left if we put Oswald back, the change just jumps off the page.... rotate the image to the left to get the real extent of this lean.... One ghost has the two white parallel lines, the other on the left, not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) The angle of the iliac blades seem to be wrong. They should be the same and match from side to side since the structure is locked in by bones and cartilage. Each side of the human pelvis is spread out in a flatter orientation than the model. If things are off in just a minor arrangement than that causes big problems with femoral orientation. I realize that the femur is a ball and joint operation, but there is little room for changes in orientation. The orientation of the lilac blades in the model are more simian in orientation than human. With that type of orientation the model needs a simian ball and joint arrangement and simian legs. Josephs reconstruction is a better way to look at it. The angle of Oswald's hips in the 133-A photo is a clear example of photo manipulation. The angle of the femur from the pelvis places the knee below the pelvis when standing erect. It does so at an angle that allows us to stand erect, to stride without staggering, and run successfully. The model has the right femur bone bent to meet this condition. The left leg doesn't and is in an unnatural position. The red lines I used are not technically correct for the Oswald figure's stance. It is for a normal standing position. I believe Andrej's model is built without proper consideration of anatomy. Particularly in the femoral neck joint and it's orientation to the rest of the lower limb. If possible a human skeleton could be a better model if his software could handle that. Edited September 18, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, John Butler said: The angle of the iliac blades seem to be wrong John, this avatar is not an anatomical model of a human skeleton. However, it allows testing different poses and various articulations (joints). Edited September 18, 2019 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) On 9/18/2019 at 8:20 AM, Andrej Stancak said: John, this avatar is not an anatomical model of a human skeleton. However, it allows testing different poses and various articulations (joints). Andrej, John Butler's point about the hips goes to the heart of my original point. I think you were the first to comment on my original thread on Oswald's stance by posting an image of you leaning. In it your hips were angled way back at maybe 65 degrees+., and again today you post images of a models who's hips are also angled way back. The point of that thread was about offering two proofs that Oswald's hips were almost straight forward. When you limit the hips at an angle of approx 10 degrees the stance becomes very unstable. So any testing using the model you show above is, imo, flawed. Your response seemed to completely ignore the point of that thread. I mentioned it again at the beginning of this thread because this thread is an extension of that study. The photo of Oswald you posted above does have him leaning at around 8 degrees. But unlike 133a Oswald is counter leaning with his upper body. The angle of his upper body is vertical and I find that is more than enough to maintain that stance. Josephs point about finding level also makes a difference here. The photo you used has the fence at 3 1/2 degrees. I the original thread I offered a proof that the fence really sits at 2 1/2 degrees. Finally look at the position of Oswald's left foot on the diagram below. This is taken from the previous Dartmouth study. Looking at the side view they place Oswald's left foot as slightly overlapping the right foot position. I think this is accurate. In you model you have the left foot placed one entire foot length out in front of the right foot. If you try and physically reproduce that I think you will find it unlikely. In fact if you look at the Dartmouth images of their model they place the cog a few inches forward from the spine.That aligns with the base of the right toes when seen from the side. This creates a problem for your model because from the side view you can see that the COG point would fall far forward of the right toes which when compared to the overhead of the Dartmouth model, places the cog too far forward. The Dartmouth group had that part right, imo. Edited July 15, 2022 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 8 hours ago, John Butler said: The angle of the iliac blades seem to be wrong. They should be the same and match from side to side since the structure is locked in by bones and cartilage. Each side of the human pelvis is spread out in a flatter orientation than the model. If things are off in just a minor arrangement than that causes big problems with femoral orientation. I realize that the femur is a ball and joint operation, but there is little room for changes in orientation. The orientation of the lilac blades in the model are more simian in orientation than human. With that type of orientation the model needs a simian ball and joint arrangement and simian legs. Josephs reconstruction is a better way to look at it. The angle of Oswald's hips in the 133-A photo is a clear example of photo manipulation. The angle of the femur from the pelvis places the knee below the pelvis when standing erect. It does so at an angle that allows us to stand erect, to stride without staggering, and run successfully. The model has the right femur bone bent to meet this condition. The left leg doesn't and is in an unnatural position. The red lines I used are not technically correct for the Oswald figure's stance. It is for a normal standing position. I believe Andrej's model is built without proper consideration of anatomy. Particularly in the femoral neck joint and it's orientation to the rest of the lower limb. If possible a human skeleton could be a better model if his software could handle that. John, the hips being angled back causes his right hip to show the inside and the left to show us an edge on view. The right shows the inside of the disc and the left shows a bit of the outside of the disc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said: Josephs point about finding level also makes a difference here. The photo you used has the fence at 3 1/2 degrees. I the original thread I offered a proof that the fence really sits at 2 1/2 degrees. Chris... it appears to me with the image of Oswald in the ghost background, that that's much more than a few degrees.... Take my image and rotate it left until the fence is horizontal using a photoshop line guide or whatever you like... I have little room to post images left, but that looks like a rotation of 20-30 degrees... his nose is to the left (facing the image) of his right knee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Chris... it appears to me with the image of Oswald in the ghost background, that that's much more than a few degrees.... Take my image and rotate it left until the fence is horizontal using a photoshop line guide or whatever you like... I have little room to post images left, but that looks like a rotation of 20-30 degrees... his nose is to the left (facing the image) of his right knee Not sure what you mean. The fence sits between 2 and 4 degrees right depending on the photo. Rotating it 2 to 4 degrees makes the fence posts vertical. You said rotating it till 'horizontal', but I think there is a vanishing point distortion in the horizontal aspect. But vanishing point aside if I rotate even 10 degrees the entire yard is leaning over, so not sure what you meant here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, David Josephs said: Yet we need to orient the picture to a straight horizon.... to get the person into the image they had to rotate the background to the left if we put Oswald back, the change just jumps off the page.... rotate the image to the left to get the real extent of this lean.... One ghost has the two white parallel lines, the other on the left, not.... I’m sure I got something mixed up Chris... The image with the parallel white lines on either side of Oswald’s ghost image on the left. The center horizontal fence post is truly horizontal or the 2 to 4 degrees you mention. But In the actual image pasted into the ghost photo on the left, The center horizontal fence post support seems to need much more that 4 degrees of left rotation to make it true horizontal or at least much closer to the ghost images. Oswald is directly within the ghost cutout.... see the feet. My gif shows it even better.... I think this image shows what the fence SHOULD look like with Oswald standing in that position... but of course it doesn’t.... so, from which image is the ghost image on the left created, that pasting him back in does such strange things to the background? And doesn’t it make some sense that those white lines are guides so the composited Oswald matches the background more closely than what that top image suggests? I think i’m Saying the top image proves the byp images were created, composited.... as we felt or knew all along cause the 2 identical but not, images, are mutually exclusive. The ghost image on the left could not come from 133-C as is obvious from the above image.... edit... I see now that ghost image is not cut from 133-c, yet the argument remains valid... why would the background be so rotated n the 2 images? Edited September 19, 2019 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, John Butler said: Josephs reconstruction is a better way to look at it. The angle of Oswald's hips in the 133-A photo is a clear example of photo manipulation. Gentlemen: a claim that Lee's hips in the backyard picture were photographically altered is unsubstantiated. Lee had his inseam very low compared to the average male. and therefore, his whole hip region looked stiff and large. How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially and from only one angle? He wore trousers and those can confound the true location of femurs. The only way forwards is to provide a faithful 3D reconstruction of Lee's body (inlcuding the correct height of his inseam) using multiple photographs and then fitting the model onto his figure in the backayrd picture. This would tell if the pose was possible or not. Chris: you may have overlooked my comment that the humanoid I used to reconstruct the pose is not an anatomical model of human skeleton. However, it allows to model any pose to figure out if it was anatomically possible at all. Lee used to stand in very awkward poses. I have posted one yesterday in this thread. Please find here a reconstruction of his pose in that photograph which was taken while Lee had been on leave from the military. It is an awkward pose but this is how he used to stand - resting his weight on his right foot, unloading the left foot and having left foot forward and the left leg slightly bent in the knee joint. This is similar to his stance in the backyard picture. You may have also seen my post showing that Robert stood in a very similar fashion during Lee's funeral. I do not say that the backyard pictures were not manipulated at all. However, it is not Lee's pose which would prove a photographic alteration. This is my reconstruction of Lee's stance in the photograph taken during his leave while in military. The pose bears a striking similarity with his backyard picture pose in resting the body weight on his right foot and having his left foot forward and unloaded. And this is Robert's stance during his funeral. While it is out of context here, Prayer Man's stance also bore similarities with both Lee's and Robert's stance. Edited September 19, 2019 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 19, 2019 Author Share Posted September 19, 2019 10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said: Gentlemen: a claim that Lee's hips in the backyard picture were photographically altered is unsubstantiated. Lee had his inseam very low compared to the average male. and therefore, his whole hip region looked stiff and large. How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially and from only one angle? He wore trousers and those can confound the true location of femurs. The only way forwards is to provide a faithful 3D reconstruction of Lee's body (inlcuding the correct height of his inseam) using multiple photographs and then fitting the model onto his figure in the backayrd picture. This would tell if the pose was possible or not. Chris: you may have overlooked my comment that the humanoid I used to reconstruct the pose is not an anatomical model of human skeleton. However, it allows to model any pose to figure out if it was anatomically possible at all. Lee used to stand in very awkward poses. I have posted one yesterday in this thread. Please find here a reconstruction of his pose in that photograph which was taken while Lee had been on leave from the military. It is an awkward pose but this is how he used to stand - resting his weight on his right foot, unloading the left foot and having left foot forward and the left leg slightly bent in the knee joint. This is similar to his stance in the backyard picture. You may have also seen my post showing that Robert stood in a very similar fashion during Lee's funeral. I do not say that the backyard pictures were not manipulated at all. However, it is not Lee's pose which would prove a photographic alteration. This is my reconstruction of Lee's stance in the photograph taken during his leave while in military. The pose bears a striking similarity with his backyard picture pose in resting the body weight on his right foot and having his left foot forward and unloaded. And this is Robert's stance during his funeral. While it is out of context here, Prayer Man's stance also bore similarities with both Lee's and Robert's stance. Yes I know you said the model is not anatomically correct. Because a humans COG starts and inch or two forward of the base of the spine(rifle and arms move it farther) your model's COG would be well past the right foot. So there does not seem to be anything we can infer from your BYP model. ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph in which his hip is only visible partially and from only one angle?"". How can we do that? Maybe I should just repeat myself for maybe the 4th time?? I offered two proofs that the hips face almost straight forward in the original post that his thread is based on. You replied to it with a image of you with your hips angled way back as proof the stance is possible. So I guess you missed the point of the thread or just ignored it. So I restated it in this thread and you still ask ""How can you reconstruct his pelvis and femurs from a photograph". If you disagree with my two proofs, fine, then make your case. We are way past anyone asking that question because an answer has been offered up for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 19, 2019 Author Share Posted September 19, 2019 17 hours ago, David Josephs said: I’m sure I got something mixed up Chris... The image with the parallel white lines on either side of Oswald’s ghost image on the left. The center horizontal fence post is truly horizontal or the 2 to 4 degrees you mention. I I have never taken the time to unpack the possible issues with the cutouts, it is all a bit cloudy to me. But looking at your last photo I do see it is rotated farr to the right. Is Oswald's image a cut and paste you did based on the feet or is this an original image from the Dallas PD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now