Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Greater enlargement and enhancement indicates the Corham photographer had 2 35mm cameras (wide plus telephoto) and a movie camera with pistol grip...plus a case for the movie camera. I have 4 Leicas, and the two depicted look very similar to cameras that I have. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Questions for shoe advocates. If the questions are too hard, take a peek at the answers. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Sorry, Jack. that's the miller photo very reduced with round corners. It just eneded up that way when I put a border on it. The red line is a suggestion of the corner of the Corham building to use in lining up the image to see where the photographer may have been standing. If you go to the aerial link,you can also select the 2001 aerials and zoom in even more (see the colored aerial, select tab on top right at terraserver images). What's the chance of someone popping over there and replicating it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Sorry, Jack. that's the miller photo very reduced with round corners. It just eneded up that way when I put a border on it. The red line is a suggestion of the corner of the Corham building to use in lining up the image to see where the photographer may have been standing. If you go to the aerial link,you can also select the 2001 aerials and zoom in even more (see the colored aerial, select tab on top right at terraserver images). What's the chance of someone popping over there and replicating it? I didn't recognize it because it was upsidedown! Photographing the same scene now is impossible because the scene is not the same. Stemmons is now a ten-lane roadway and looks more like this (a mile or so past the Corham location). Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) If you look at post 277 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=68753 the corham building (under the a in the yellow Corham text lower left corner of image) was still there in 2001. (If it is the correct Corham address.) (It's a big ask of an elderly citizen, perhaps a younger Dallas member could help out?) Edited July 17, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) Questions for shoe advocates.If the questions are too hard, take a peek at the answers. Jack Jack, I don't want to interrupt your fine photo analysis, but I took the liberty of rotating tha photo correctly so not to confuse the reader. I hope that it didn't change your interpretation of what you thought you were seeing. Bill Miller Edited July 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I guess this one is a bit further on. It seems his movements has been to get into this position. The miller photo with foot as suggested could be seen as a reversal of intent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Questions for shoe advocates.If the questions are too hard, take a peek at the answers. Jack Question for those who HAVE NO CLUE! Exactly What is the black shape COVERING the lower triangle chrome strip. Hints for the "its a hand" crowd...its not a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Try dealing with this tidbit before wasting more bandwidth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 If you look at post 277http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=68753 the corham building (under the a in the yellow Corham text lower left corner of image) was still there in 2001. (If it is the correct Corham address.) (It's a big ask of an elderly citizen, perhaps a younger Dallas member could help out?) Age has nothing to do with it. The temperature outside today will be 104 degrees, the Corham building is 25 miles* from my location, Stemmons ten-lane traffic is deadly, and nothing would be resolved re hand vs shoe...which is of minor import and not worth the trouble. I will stay in the airconditioning instead of wasting three hours. *gasoline at about $3 a gallon Jack I guess this one is a bit further on. It seems his movements has been to get into this position. The miller photo with foot as suggested could be seen as a reversal of intent? John...that photo shows the limo ON THE EXIT RAMP of Stemmons, going to Parkland. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Questions for shoe advocates. If the questions are too hard, take a peek at the answers. Jack Jack, I don't want to interrupt your fine photo analysis, but I took the liberty of rotating tha photo correctly so not to confuse the reader. I hope that it didn't change your interpretation of what you thought you were seeing. Bill Miller To the contrary, turning the photo enables the viewer to see it as one might see a shoe, instead of upsidedown. For instance, looking at the "shoe sole", we see that the "sole" meets the "heel" in the middle; we see that the upper area of the "shoe" is white instead of black. At this angle, one more easily sees the shirt cuff, etc. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 OK, Jack. No worries, (my mum at 82 is more gutsy than me). I felt a definite confirmation would be nice simply in order to proceed with a look at how the leg/hand combo could go the way it seems to. IMO, if it is not Clints right foot, then that notion is supported by those photo's being in the sequence suggested. I'll proceed as if the Miller is 8 seconds after the Hankins. It doesn't make sense that he goes from the leg stretched out rearward, to where he has it raised with the hand on knee as in the Hankins. Then he drops his leg into Kennedy's hip to achieve the position suggested by some in the Miller, then goes through the motions to where he is sitting on the right side as in the exit photo. Rather: IMO::the photos could show a smooth transition where he lifts his leg over Kennedys hand/leg then places it on an available area on the seat and swings around to the exit photo position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Questions for shoe advocates. If the questions are too hard, take a peek at the answers. Jack Jack, I don't want to interrupt your fine photo analysis, but I took the liberty of rotating tha photo correctly so not to confuse the reader. I hope that it didn't change your interpretation of what you thought you were seeing. Bill Miller To the contrary, turning the photo enables the viewer to see it as one might see a shoe, instead of upsidedown. For instance, looking at the "shoe sole", we see that the "sole" meets the "heel" in the middle; we see that the upper area of the "shoe" is white instead of black. At this angle, one more easily sees the shirt cuff, etc. Jack Drawn in green is what the absurd white shoe would look like at a "normal" viewing angle. The shoe cannot be twisted enough that the sole lines up with the MIDDLE of the heel. And despite what Lamson says, a BLACK SHOE cannot photograph as white. Fortunately, these provocateurs are revealing themselves as phonies in their stubborn insistence that a hand is a shoe, and that is the best thing about this little exercise. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 OK, Jack. No worries, (my mum at 82 is more gutsy than me). I felt a definite confirmation would be nice simply in order to proceed with a look at how the leg/hand combo could go the way it seems to. IMO, if it is not Clints right foot, then that notion is supported by those photo's being in the sequence suggested. I'll proceed as if the Miller is 8 seconds after the Hankins. It doesn't make sense that he goes from the leg stretched out rearward, to where he has it raised with the hand on knee as in the Hankins. Then he drops his leg into Kennedy's hip to achieve the position suggested by some in the Miller, then goes through the motions to where he is sitting on the right side as in the exit photo. Rather: IMO::the photos could show a smooth transition where he lifts his leg over Kennedys hand/leg then places it on an available area on the seat and swings around to the exit photo position. John...it would be interesting for you to show the three pix in sequence with your comments. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) To the contrary, turning the photo enables the viewer to see it asone might see a shoe, instead of upsidedown. For instance, looking at the "shoe sole", we see that the "sole" meets the "heel" in the middle; we see that the upper area of the "shoe" is white instead of black. At this angle, one more easily sees the shirt cuff, etc. Jack Jack , that's like saying if you turn the photo over that the limo may look like something else ... that's crazy! The photo as we are seeing it has been lightened, which as I said before will exand the light areas out of their original boundries on the original photo. The sunlight has illuminated the leather shoe ... A similar glare on Hill's shoe can be seen in this studio photo directly below. (resembles glare in the Newman photo shoe) Another example below. (resembles glare seen in the Miller photo shoe) Shoe lighting changes. Another thing ... Older style dress shoes had a narrow sole between the ball of the foot and the heel. This meant that the sides of the shoe was desinged to curl under the inner and outter instep. When one rolls the shoe onto its side - that part of the shoe where it curls under (see red arrows) will visually spread out under the heel. The way it is seen is related to the angle at which it is seen. Bill Miller Edited July 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Minor questions: !. What happened to Hill's sunglasses? 2. Why does his ID tag photograph, but his shirt does not? 3. Was Hill wearing a bulletproof vest? Jack 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