John Dolva Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 (edited) “Olsen said that on the day of the assassination he was guarding a ramshackle house in Oak Cliff, sitting inside."For curiosity, where is this quote from? Harry testified to no such thing, actually, although it is clearly the impression he gave to Bill Turner for the Garrison deal. Also - if one is to believe anything that Harry told anybody - the "estate" was on 8th Street (2 blocks to the north) near the "Stemmons freeway" (actually R.L. Thornton ... but they are just names for different sections of the same highway), that is, north and east of the murder site. This is furthered by Kay Coleman's having stopped at the 7-11 to get Harry some milk for lunch, the 7-11 being located at 8th and either Marsalis or Lancaster (I can't remember which right now, but they're only a block apart).This, incidentally, is the same photo corrected for perspective and rotation(the original shot was taken at a slight downward angle, hence the "V" of what are normally parallel lines at either side of the photo, and none of the usual things that you'd think were vertical - e.g., doorways, the vent window of the car, etc. - were actually vertical. This is stuff I do literally every day): Unretouched Retouched for perspective and rotation Take a look at it using the same "gridded" and highlighted technique as above, could you? "Does this house qualify as 'ramshackle'?" I think it does. Here are various edges highlighted and even taking into account lens distorion some of the lines don't obey lens distortion consistently but are higgledy-piggledy as if there's been assorted foundation shifts and leans. I'm curious to see how it appears .... Duke, I'm not a hundred percent sure I understand lens distorion fully. I use Richard Rosenmans plugin. Here the two lower are set to 35 and 50 mm lens presets. The top half of the 50mm most closely corresponds to your correction. Could you comment before I look at the lines, please? As you can see I've applied the correction before rotating the picture. Your correction is placed over 'mine' at 50 % transparency to compare. EDIT:: hmm...that turned into a double post. Edited November 21, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Duke, I'm not a hundred percent sure I understand lens distorion fully. I use Richard Rosenmans plugin. Here the two lower are set to 35 and 50 mm lens presets. The top half of the 50mm most closely corresponds to your correction. Could you comment before I look at the lines, please? As you can see I've applied the correction before rotating the picture. Your correction is placed over 'mine' at 50 % transparency to compare.I'll relocate the 'ramshackle' quote and post. As to distortion, a good photogammetrist would probably take me apart (to paraphrase Howard Brennan), but basically, the wider-angle a lens used, the more barrelling you'll get (a fisheye is usually about 8mm, vs a standard wide-angle of about 24mm, vs. a "standard" lens of about 40-50mm).The corrective order is supposed to be barrelling/pincushioning, then perspective, then rotation. I did not correct for distortion because I don't know what lens was used, and simply decided from the photo's content that it was probably a standard lens (a wide-angle lens would probably have more content in all directions from the distance this photo was taken). There is more street than sky or building, suggesting the downward angle, substantiated by the "V"-ing of the usually-parallel lines of the window frames at either side of image. I aligned the window on the left-hand house with the far-right window edge on the right-hand house, those being the lines closest to the edges. Then I used the doorway to correct rotation. I use Andomeda's LensDoc plug-in. I process literally thousands of images of homes - interior and exterior - every month with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It seems to be from an article by a Bill Drenas (rev '98) hosted here quoting an iterview with Olsen by a William Turner. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm I know that in itself would be a problem for some but it's in a section pf articles mcadams says he doesn't necessarily agree with but puts up because he thinks they are objective. I'd say be your own judge. It's an interesting read. Draenas: "On a recent visit to The Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington D.C. I was able to locate a 1967 interview of Harry Olsen by researcher William Turner. Several things are talked about in the interview, but Olsen’s remarks of special interest to us concerning this article are “Olsen said that on the day of the assassination he was guarding a ramshackle house in Oak Cliff, sitting inside. He said an attorney had hired him to guard the property of a recently deceased person. He heard the sirens but did not see anything himself. If this information is true about a ‘ramshackle house’ then it is possible that researchers should have been looking for a structure that would appear much different from the ‘estate’ mentioned in Olsen’s Warren Commission testimony. Lawyer friends of mine point out that an estate can be a large piece of property and can also mean all the property and debts left by someone at death, both definitions are commonly used. Still to this date it is unclear of the exact location of this ‘estate.’ " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It seems to be from an article by a Bill Drenas (rev '98) hosted here quoting an iterview with Olsen by a William Turner (Car 10 Where Are You?) I know that in itself would be a problem for some but it's in a section pf articles mcadams says he doesn't necessarily agree with but puts up because he thinks they are objective. I'd say be your own judge. It's an interesting read.I'm very familiar with the article; Bill Drenas' number is on my cell phone speed-dial, so you can be certain that we've discussed it more than once. I referenced it regarding the Gloco Station in another post on this thread (leading to the "Duke, Duke, Duke of Oil, Duke, Duke..." ditty!).That is what Harry told Bill Turner when Turner (ex-FBI) interviewed Olsen on behalf of Jim Garrison. Harry is obfuscating. In 1964, he told the WC that the house belonged to an elderly aunt of a DPD motorcycle cop who was in the motorcade (maybe) and who had asked him to fill in for him. He could recall the names of neither the elderly aunt nor the motor cop. Three years later it became the "estate" of a "dead person" who was male, and Harry'd been hired by an attorney representing the estate of such dead person. But note that in 1964, Harry told WC that /a/ he had been outside at some point following the assassination, and /b/ had gone back inside to answer a phone call from a woman friend of the elderly aunt. Problem: how many friends of deceased people call them at home after they've died? Even if the friend didn't know of the death, upon learning of it - as I'm sure anyone answering said dead person's phone would tell upon learning it was a friend of said decedent on the phone - would carry on with a total stranger about the assassination of the President like the death of their friend was of no import, and talking to a "security guard" was the most natural thing in the world? Harry is also the person responsible for the characterization of Jack Ruby as being distraught over "poor Jacqueline" having to come back to Dallas, etc., etc., on the night before Ruby shot Oswald, this during a conversation held between him, girlfriend (later wife ... so as not to be able to testify against him?) Kay Coleman, parking garage attendant "Johnny" (last name unknown) and Ruby. The FBI interviewed "Johnny" (John Simpson) in August 1964, four months after the Olsens' testimony, who said that he did not take part in the conversation, did not eavesdrop on it, and did not overhear any of it ... and moreover, while he recognized the "other" three participants to the conversation "by sight," he "did not know them well enough" to carry on any sort of conversation with any of them beyond a simple greeting. Also, in December 1963, the FBI interviewed Harry at Baylor Hospital, where he'd been recuperating from an auto accident. At that time, Harry described Ruby as being "no more upset than the average guy." Take your pick: which do you think is the true story? Either one (or any) of them? What I'm curious about is just what Harry was really doing at a house - any house, large or small - that just happened to be along the same route that Tippit took from Kiest and Bonnieview, to 8th and Lancaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Interesting. What seems clear is that Harry for some reason was into being obfuscating about that. Sorry about being a bit pedantic about the distortion. I just want to be sure you're happy with the result. I'm interested to see if the previous analysis holds, and I'm happy to do it with a correction you're happy with. Here's the image on the size format of the least cropped image I've come across in that series. Could you correct it and post, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 (edited) Interesting. What seems clear is that Harry for some reason was into being obfuscating about that.Sorry about being a bit pedantic about the distortion. I just want to be sure you're happy with the result. I'm interested to see if the previous analysis holds, and I'm happy to do it with a correction you're happy with. Here's the image on the size format of the least cropped image I've come across in that series. Could you correct it and post, please? If anyone was being pedantic, it was I. I'll see what I can do, but you realize that it renders the original as "altered," with perhaps some important clue removed. It's bad enough that every single image taken in DP is "doctored," and a pity that the Oak Cliff images will be too! As for Harry, the things he describes are peripheral, ostensibly innocuous in the larger scheme of things. His prevarications call attention to them and make one wonder what's so important about them to warrant the lies. Edited November 22, 2006 by Duke Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Sorry about being a bit pedantic about the distortion. I just want to be sure you're happy with the result. I'm interested to see if the previous analysis holds, and I'm happy to do it with a correction you're happy with. Here's the image on the size format of the least cropped image I've come across in that series. Could you correct it and post, please?I haven't had a chance to do anything with the photo, but thought you might be interested in seeing a lighter and clearer photo on James Richards' site; look at the lower part of the image, probably below your screen's bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 That's fine Duke, the point was if the house is 'ramshacle' and I feel confident that no amount of correction can change that a number of lines don't square up. Just wanted to see if 'feel confident' is borne out. The gutter, the top veranda. The veranda posts and the corners of the house (and other things) point in different directions and the difference remains while the degree may change. I also found a larger (not clearer) photo showing that the way it was cropped is not so clear. Do you know what was written on the sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Interesting. What seems clear is that Harry for some reason was into being obfuscating about that.Sorry about being a bit pedantic about the distortion. I just want to be sure you're happy with the result. I'm interested to see if the previous analysis holds, and I'm happy to do it with a correction you're happy with. Here's the image on the size format of the least cropped image I've come across in that series. Could you correct it and post, please? I'm down to 4.92K global space left, so am posting a very poor quality version; have sent you the better one by email? The vertical and horizontal lines (almost none of which you can see on this version) by the dark window at the left, by the door in the center, and by the window at far right were drawn in with Photoshop's line tool with the shift key held to force them to 90°. The photo objects (windows, door) are all within a pixel of being absolutely vertical. I did not correct for barrelling because /a/ the lines look straight enough, and /b/ I don't know what lens was used, and there are variations for so many of them! Hope this helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 That's fine Duke, the point was if the house is 'ramshacle' and I feel confident that no amount of correction can change that a number of lines don't square up. Just wanted to see if 'feel confident' is borne out. The gutter, the top veranda. The veranda posts and the corners of the house (and other things) point in different directions and the difference remains while the degree may change. I also found a larger (not clearer) photo showing that the way it was cropped is not so clear.Well, as I noted, I aligned the window sashes on either house at the farther edges of the image where I could see as much of the line of them as possible, then used to the doorway sash to rotate the image to vertical. As you can see, all three of these do line up when so corrected, they are not off at odd angles. The horizontal lines also line up, again within a pixel or two.By that measure, the houses are not "ramshackle," and aren't "funhouses" ready to tilt over. They were probably fairly old, though, even then: I'll bet built in the '20s? ... And not for very much money, even in the dollars of those days. "Ramshackle" as in direpair? That I'd say is probably the case. But not falling over. Do you know what was written on the sign?No idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) That's fine Duke, the point was if the house is 'ramshacle' Do you know what was written on the sign? No idea. Looking at the panoramic photo on page 66 of Myers, this house appears to be 4 or 5 houses away from the Davis house. On page 70 of With Malice Myers' diagram makes it seem that the shooting was in front of the house next door to the Davis house. Do you agree that Myers diagram is misleading, and do you know of any reenactment photo showing the actual view that the Davis girls would have had? If not, and based on the view Goggins had per photo in WM68, would it be fair to say that the Davises were slightly closer than Scoggins, but their view would have been obstructed -- possibly to a serious degree -- by a tree (or 2 trees?) in front of the house next door? Am I correct in thinking that the Davis girls lived in the corner house? Edited February 27, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 That's fine Duke, the point was if the house is 'ramshacle' and I feel confident that no amount of correction can change that a number of lines don't square up. Just wanted to see if 'feel confident' is borne out. The gutter, the top veranda. The veranda posts and the corners of the house (and other things) point in different directions and the difference remains while the degree may change. I also found a larger (not clearer) photo showing that the way it was cropped is not so clear. Do you know what was written on the sign? The houses on Tenth were not ramshackle in 1963, just old. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Looking at the panoramic photo on page 66 of Myers, this house appears to be 4 or 5 houses away from the Davis house. On page 70 of With Malice Myers' diagram makes it seem that the shooting was in front of the house next door to the Davis house. Do you agree that Myers diagram is misleading, and do you know of any reenactment photo showing the actual view that the Davis girls would have had? If not, and based on the view Goggins [sic - Scoggins] had per photo in WM68, would it be fair to say that the Davises were slightly closer than Scoggins, but their view would have been obstructed -- possibly to a serious degree -- by a tree (or 2 trees?) in front of the house next door? Am I correct in thinking that the Davis girls lived in the corner house? You are correct as to where the Davis sisters-in-law lived - 400 E 10th, SE corner of 10th & Patton. As to the WM diagram, I'd have to go dig it out to look, so I'm just going to refer you to the official documentation and photos in CD630 regarding the shooting scene and let you decide for yourself: CD630, page 7 - diagram of the Tippit shooting scene (forgive me, I don't know what all of the little pointers refer to) CD630, page 8 - aerial photograph of shooting scene CD630, pages 9-11 - Helen Markham's position and fields of view CD630, page 15 - Scoggins' view out the right-side window of the cab CD630, page 16 - the Davises' view from the porch of 400 E 10th CD630, page 22 - Charlie Davis: Tippit was killed "in front of the hedgerow between the house next door and the house he lived in" CD630, page 32 - Markham's residence, 328½ E 9th (even numbers at south side of street, building at SW corner) In many of these, the principals are present - e.g., that's Helen standing on the corner, and Scoggins by and in his Checker cab - so it's a fair presumption that others including the Davises were present as well for these re-enactments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Duke, CD630, page 32 - Markham's residence, 328½ E 9th (even numbers at south side of street, building at SW corner) FWIW: I just learned yesterday, from a Jerry Rose article in vol. 1, issue# 3 of the Third Decade, that a former residence of Carousel stripper, Joyce Lee McDonald, aka Joy Dale was 328 1/2 E. 9th. DPD Archives, Box 18, Folder# 9, Item# 2 p. 1 There is no information that they ever met. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 When researcher Barry Ernest was at the vicinity of the Tippit murder, to stop the time it took from Beckley to Patton, (back in the sixties?), the following occurred . Tippit was shot 13.06 on November the 22. 1963. Who could ask for anything more? KK 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