Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dartmouth and the study of Oswald's lean in 133a


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

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?

It's copy pasted from 133-C so Ozzie fits into the ghost....  Here's the rotation I was talking about

Given this, the ghost background is from a different time (no leaves on the trees) so the cutout/ghost could have been from 133-C (even though they were not supposed to know about 133-C for many years) and just placed over the blank background photo... but then when we put him back, it's all skewed....

Doesn't that conclusively prove that at least 133-C was created?

1263136434_oswaldbackyard-withghostrotatedtomakefencehorizontal-rotated.jpg.ca888a8113e2c3ad2ce24f2063f02f53.jpg

 

If that doesn't prove it... this does... no?

Skewed-GHOST-image-used-to-put-Oswald-into-the-BYPs--smaller.gif.25fe87b2ac0037cd6a054b4f3efe7c5d.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris:

I checked your March 19 post and could not find any proof in your post that Lee Oswald's hip would have to be distorted beyond the anatomical range if he stood as he stood in the backyard picture. The degrees of freedom offered by the hip joint are large both in lateral and sagittal planes. You can have the pelvis only minimally turned backward and still have the foot extremely backward. The backyard image shows dark trousers and it is, in my view, impossible to measure how much the frontal plane of the pelvis deviated from the zero degree frontal plane (suggesting rotation). Please show it because a guess is not enough if you are implying a photographic manipulation with a historic piece of evidence. 

So, if you want to say that the posture was tempered with, what has actually been done to the posture? Was it only the waist that was manipulated, was is all below the waist? The feet look all right and their orientation entirely possible, so I wonder what in the figure above its feet was manipulated.

You may wonder why I am not letting you to claim that the picture was manipulated because of a non-anatomical distortion of the hip. The whole assassination case is difficult to understand due to lack of chain of evidence, lack of evidence, missing or non-informative witness testimonies and a clear attempt to pin the guilt on Oswald whatever the truth was. However, the case is equally distorted by us, researchers, who spread unsubstantiated hypotheses and conclusions. I would suggest that you document your analyses and methods in an article, just like the Dartmouth study did, and let other evaluate all the steps. To repeat myself, the backyard pictures could have been manipulated but the rotation of the hip does not seem to prove it.

I will not partake in this thread if this is your preference.

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

I checked your March 19 post and could not find any proof in your post that Lee Oswald's hip would have to be distorted beyond the anatomical range if he stood as he stood in the backyard picture. The degrees of freedom offered by the hip joint are large both in lateral and sagittal planes. You can have the pelvis only minimally turned backward and still have the foot extremely backward. The backyard image shows dark trousers and it is, in my view, impossible to measure how much the frontal plane of the pelvis deviated from the zero degree frontal plane (suggesting rotation). Please show it because a guess is not enough if you are implying a photographic manipulation with a historic piece of evidence. 

So, if you want to say that the posture was tempered with, what has actually been done to the posture? Was it only the waist that was manipulated, was is all below the waist? The feet look all right and their orientation entirely possible, so I wonder what in the figure above its feet was manipulated.

You may wonder why I am not letting you to claim that the picture was manipulated because of a non-anatomical distortion of the hip. The whole assassination case is difficult to understand due to lack of chain of evidence, lack of evidence, missing or non-informative witness testimonies and a clear attempt to pin the guilt on Oswald whatever the truth was. However, the case is equally distorted by us, researchers, who spread unsubstantiated hypotheses and conclusions. I would suggest that you document your analyses and methods in an article, just like the Dartmouth study did, and let other evaluate all the steps. To repeat myself, the backyard pictures could have been manipulated but the rotation of the hip does not seem to prove it.

I will not partake in this thread if this is your preference.

I am not claiming anything about his  hips or feet being distorted. I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far.
 You said I should let others evaluate all my steps. My case was based on measuring the shadow of the telephone lines across his hips. I explained how the shadow across Oswald's hips reflect his angle toward the camera. I provided a recreation of the factors in a physical model and reproduced the 9 degree angle on his hips that occurs when a persons hips are rotated 22 degrees away from the North South alignment of the telephone shadows(When he is facing Marina).
The case I presented was not an unsubstantiated Hypothesis. I laid out facts and hard measurements that can be tested.
The premise is based on several facts that are basic optical principles. First, a shadow  at approx a 45 degree angle will drop one inch for every inch it as moves from the source to the ground. Second, A telephone line that runs North/South will cause it's shadow to also lay in the North south line.(slightly off the North/South because the telephone line is not perfectly level, it droops.) Third, any object like Oswald's hips, will display a shadow that is parallel to the shadow on the ground when the hips also lay on a North South plane.(That is when he would be facing directly West)
The findings are that only when Oswald's hips are facing the camera(At 22 degrees south of West) does it cause the telephone line shadow to take that 9 degree angle relative to the shadow on the ground. It is important to note that regardless of how much he leaned or tilted his hips upward the angle of the shadow does not change relative to the shadow on the ground. Only turning his hips toward or away from the camera effect a change. Because the only way to change the angle is to rotate his hips toward or away from the camera we can say with confidence that the angle on Oswald tells us where his hips are facing.
   This is because as he rotated his right hip around to face the camera that hip moves several inches closer to the source of the shadow. for every inch he moves forward the shadow on his right hip moves up an inch (The BYP have it closer to 49/52 degrees elevation so the shadow climbs up slightly more.)
First anyone can check to see that the principles of light and shadow I stated above are correct. Once you have that you can draw a conclusion just based on those facts and the conclusion will validate my theory. To further test it you could reproduce all the parameters and create photographic evidence that validate my theory. But I already did the physical model in the original thread. It demonstrates and proves the angle of Oswald's hips. The conclusion is his hips have to be facing the camera in order to create a shadow that is 9 degrees from the shadow on the ground.
 One of the photos shows both Oswald and Mr Cappel. The shadow on Cappel is a bit clearer. I should have offered a more contrasted image so people could see the shadow better, but I assume most everyone here knows the case very well and is aware of the telephone line shadows already.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think if it is fake it is because the image was rotated a few degrees too far.

Chris, what do you mean by "the whole image was rotated a few degrees too far"?  Please explain how can this be done or what do you actually mean by the whole image being rotated.

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris, what do you mean by "the whole image was rotated a few degrees too far"?  Please explain how can this be done or what do you actually mean by the whole image being rotated.

 

 

 

Andrej, Did a word search in both threads for the word "whole" but Can't find that quote. We know there are different prints of 133a that sit at slightly different angles, but if I was taking about Oswald I would have meant the whole image of Oswald(Body, head and rifle) is rotated relative to the background. 133a is a cut and paste it could be the separate images were taken 20 to 30 minutes apart and so they had to rotate Oswald to keep the shadow angles matching.
   I am not really into theorizing about how it was made. I was only looking at evidence of possible forgery, or actually I was just looking for things that don't add up. And maybe someday I will figure out a way for the stance to be plausible. 
I have had two other people try and duplicate the stance with up to a thirty degree hip angle and It failed. Now I believe the shadow angle proves the hip was no more than 8 degrees angled. I am at a loss as to how a person can stand in that manner without falling over.
If you should try and strike this pose according to the parameters I have measured you might want to use a rifle or an 8 pound object. That 8 pounds is more than the umbrella you used before and it will allow you to lean slightly farther than with the umbrella. The center of mass of the rifle is almost exactly were his left hand is. that leaves more of the rifle on his left side than his right and will help a little.
 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Chris, for correcting my wrong quote of "whole". Of course, this word is not in your text, it was my mind trying to figure out whether a part or the whole figure (maybe a better word than image) of Lee Oswald was rotated to achieve what you consider an impossible stance.

I am not an expert in photographic manipulation techniques but I do not think that this particular backyard picture was manipulated by drawing contours around the whole body and the rifle, extracting it and then pasting it onto another picture in a wrong angle. This would cause a number of associated issues with a mismatch in view angles and shadows and how the feet align with the plane of the ground. However, even if the picture was manipulated as you suggest, it would mean that the pose was anatomically possible and that a picture of Lee with a rifle was indeed photographed, only it would be used to place his figure onto the plain backyard of their Neeley Street house, photographed on a slightly different time (or day?). 

But why would it be necessary to photograph Lee at the same place  and to take a plain backyard picture and merge the two pictures? Or, was Lee photographed on a different place? But Marina did confirm that she had taken two pictures of Lee with his guns and newspaper one morning before the noon while they lived at Neeley Steet. Why then was it necessary to produce a picture using a photographic manipulation which would be the same that Marina had already taken?

As far as any reconstructions of Lee's posture are concerned, these would necessitate to have a person having the same height of inseam (Lee's inseam was quite low, about 38% of the body height, if I remember correctly, compared to average male population (48-49%)). Also, it is not only the weight of the object (the rifle) he held but also the exact length of the rifle and where Lee held it - these factors decide about the balance. From my experience with modelling different pictures, any reconstruction - real or digital -  has only meaning if every detail is reproduced faithfully. This is why it takes me so long to get to complete any model - it is too much work and effort. For that reason I cannot invest myself into reconstructing Lee's stance in the backyard picture. Actually, I did start with modelling their house and especially their backyard, however, then I decided to prioritise the Depository doorway.

 

Late edit: The video linked below is by the scientist at Dartmouth University and it explains a few things about the shadows in the backyard photograph. The shadows look often weird and improbable to human eye, yet they can be reproduced if all aspect of the scene are considered. Of course, it needs to be done in 3D. There can be only one geometric solution for shadows in backyard photograph. There cannot be a situation that the shadows on the face and neck would be true but shadows elsewhere in the body would be false - that would be some manipulation with only part of the body, not with the whole figure.

 

One more late edit:

I found a screenshot of my model of the Neeley street house in which Oswalds rented one appartment. I remember that I have also modelled the backyard of that house.

neeley_draft1.png?w=529

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks, Chris, for correcting my wrong quote of "whole". Of course, this word is not in your text, it was my mind trying to figure out whether a part or the whole figure (maybe a better word than image) of Lee Oswald was rotated to achieve what you consider an impossible stance.

I am not an expert in photographic manipulation techniques but I do not think that this particular backyard picture was manipulated by drawing contours around the whole body and the rifle, extracting it and then pasting it onto another picture in a wrong angle. This would cause a number of associated issues with a mismatch in view angles and shadows and how the feet align with the plane of the ground. However, even if the picture was manipulated as you suggest, it would mean that the pose was anatomically possible and that a picture of Lee with a rifle was indeed photographed, only it would be used to place his figure onto the plain backyard of their Neeley Street house, photographed on a slightly different time (or day?). 

But why would it be necessary to photograph Lee at the same place  and to take a plain backyard picture and merge the two pictures? Or, was Lee photographed on a different place? But Marina did confirm that she had taken two pictures of Lee with his guns and newspaper one morning before the noon while they lived at Neeley Steet. Why then was it necessary to produce a picture using a photographic manipulation which would be the same that Marina had already taken?

As far as any reconstructions of Lee's posture are concerned, these would necessitate to have a person having the same height of inseam (Lee's inseam was quite low, about 38% of the body height, if I remember correctly, compared to average male population (48-49%)). Also, it is not only the weight of the object (the rifle) he held but also the exact length of the rifle and where Lee held it - these factors decide about the balance. From my experience with modelling different pictures, any reconstruction - real or digital -  has only meaning if every detail is reproduced faithfully. This is why it takes me so long to get to complete any model - it is too much work and effort. For that reason I cannot invest myself into reconstructing Lee's stance in the backyard picture. Actually, I did start with modelling their house and especially their backyard, however, then I decided to prioritise the Depository doorway.

 

Late edit: The video linked below is by the scientist at Dartmouth University and it explains a few things about the shadows in the backyard photograph. The shadows look often weird and improbable to human eye, yet they can be reproduced if all aspect of the scene are considered. Of course, it needs to be done in 3D. There can be only one geometric solution for shadows in backyard photograph. There cannot be a situation that the shadows on the face and neck would be true but shadows elsewhere in the body would be false - that would be some manipulation with only part of the body, not with the whole figure.

 

One more late edit:

I found a screenshot of my model of the Neeley street house in which Oswalds rented one appartment. I remember that I have also modelled the backyard of that house.

neeley_draft1.png?w=529

 

 

 

I have tested almost every shadow in the yard and found they are all correct. I also modeled the stairs in the back yard to help determine the shadows. I did not do a computer 3d model of Oswald, instead I reproduced the camera angles photographically and was able to determine the actual angles and amount of distortion caused by perspective of angle and the amount of keystone effect from Marina tilting the camera down. The HSCA or the WC did some testing with his camera and  photographed grid line which allowed me to also determine the slight distortion inherent in the lens.  
As to faking the shadows on Oswald I would think it can be manipulated  but my analysis of Oswald's stance is not about determining how it would have been faked. I am only concerned with how the stance could or could not be achieved.
      I get his inseam to be about 2 inches shorter than average but finding the top of the inseam is a guess. I did find his hips sit about two inches higher than mine. One inch due the fact his total height is 2 inches more than me. But why the hips sit higher with a shorter inseam is confusing. If his inseam caused the waistline to sit lower then he would have to lean a bit farther to align the belt buckle over the shin and right knee. A shorter inseam should lower his COG but it also means he has to lean farther so I think the difference could be very minimal.
 Before I started this I felt that any analysis would fall short in the end because there are too many variables as you said. You could never each a full conclusion because of that. But I found some ways around the problem. I found that just trying to reproduce his stance from the hips down was enough to see that the stance was not stable.  if you try to counter balance with the upper body, or move your arms to the left, or hold the arms and rifle closer to move the COG back, the stance is still unstable. The only way to achieve a stable stance with the upper body, arms, etc is to go way beyond what we see in 133a. That means none of the variables above he waist make a difference. When it came to 3d and issues of depth(How far forward is the left leg, arms torso etc)   I allowed for anything reasonable that would fix the balance. If for instance you lean the body backward to try and correct the balance it does not work. I have tested the options for depth factors that could not be nailed down and found none of those factors fix the problem. I concluded there was nothing above the waist or below that could correct the balance problem without far exceeding the parameters of his stance.   
The second way I eliminated the problem of small variables adding up is I allow for a much greater angle of the hip than I measure. I believe the telephone line shadow on his hip prove the hip angle to be well under 11 degrees, closer to 7 degrees max. But for anyone attempting to reproduce the pose I allow up to 20 degrees(I think I said 30 in the original thread but I feel less generous today.) Allowing for 20 degrees when the shadow demonstrates that it is less than 10 removes any ambiguity in that measurement.
Below is a photo shop I did to make Oswald stand straight. Check out his feet on the ground, they look pretty normal, not sitting at a weird angle. I guess 5 degrees is not enough to make it stand out because the original 133a  looks pretty normal too. I also tweeked his right lower leg a few degrees just to see how it looked. But before that his right foot still looked level to the ground.
2142733897_legrotatedcopy.JPG.71e675e04bea47d3b7ad3a22d7f6c7b5.JPG
       

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but, I have a capture from a film which has someone standing in the same unusual style.

The funny thing is that the person is one of the people who had been arrested that first day in Dallas before being released later with no charges against him.

Guess who this is.

1549771760848.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 11:20 PM, David Josephs said:

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?

David,

 

This was not a cut and paste job.

Either:

a) the contractor who built the shed, the fence, and the support beam for the stairs was drunk and needs to be fired; or,

b) there was a major earthquake that took place under the ground at Neely St. sometime in early March, 1963.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even an expert at asking questions but I do have one offhand ....What ever happened to the rest of the pictures on that roll of film? I mean anything--baby pictures...family in the park...flowers around the house...a couple of Marina even? The public was asked to believe that Oswald wanted his wife to come out and take some really incriminating photographs and where were they developed and printed? Mindful that when she testified...she didn't know how many pictures she took or even how to operate the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 12:20 AM, Chuck Robbins said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but, I have a capture from a film which has someone standing in the same unusual style.

The funny thing is that the person is one of the people who had been arrested that first day in Dallas before being released later with no charges against him.

Guess who this is.

1549771760848.jpg

I'm going to guess it's Frazier demonstrating how Oswald was carrying the curtain rods, maybe in front of 214 Neeley Street. He does have his hips shifted over his right foot but his upper body is not leaning. To me the 133 a posture is a problem but the posture in this photo looks doable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

I'm not even an expert at asking questions but I do have one offhand ....What ever happened to the rest of the pictures on that roll of film? I mean anything--baby pictures...family in the park...flowers around the house...a couple of Marina even? The public was asked to believe that Oswald wanted his wife to come out and take some really incriminating photographs and where were they developed and printed? Mindful that when she testified...she didn't know how many pictures she took or even how to operate the camera.

I think Karl really has a point to consider.  The answers to what happened in Dealey Plaza are in the films, photos, and witness statements involving the events there and anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited by John Butler
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...