PDA

View Full Version : single bullet theory is not true says Soily

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 06:50 AM
No idea what time it is. I didn't say I measured any angles.

Rich_C
30th September 2010, 06:50 AM
Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

They're not. I don't know what you are looking at.

In both photos the shadow of Oswald's head is around the base of the 4th or 5th board of the fence. It's closer to the 5th board on the 2nd photo, but it looks like Oswald has shifted very slightly to the right.

The photographer (who we know was Marina) has obviously taken a step to her left between photos. But you can see Oswald's shadow is in the same place in relation to the fence.

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 06:53 AM
Really? If the photographer changed his/her position, why does the relationship between the Post supporting the Stairs and the fence end post to the left of both photos, not change?

Well, the photo on the left is very clearly taken from further away than the photo on the right. Oswald's stance is different in the two photos - his upper torso is at a different angle, in any case - so it's not surprising that the shadow of his upper torso is at a different angle too. It's difficult to tell for certain, but he appears to be leaning slightly towards the camera in the right hand photo, and he's certainly leaning a little more to his left to counterbalance the weight of the rifle to his right; since the sun is coming from his left, then leaning forwards will make his shadow move to his left, our right, as we see in the photo. We can't compare the angle of the shadow of his legs because that part of the shadow isn't visible in the right hand photo.

Also, the light is coming from almost directly behind and above the photographer, so she probably had to hold the viewfinder fairly close to her eye to see it clearly. Or had you already conceded that point?

Dave

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 07:02 AM
So who is the witness you are relying on for this information?
Would it be the same person you quoted in post #456 and characterized as;
So we can't rely on witness testimony, but you can when it is convenient to prop up your theories?

Ranb

You can't have it both ways Ranb. Either the pictures are fake, or the witness was telling the truth. If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

uke2se
30th September 2010, 07:07 AM
If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

They haven't. They are in the same place. The angle of the camera has moved, as has Oswald.

JimBenArm
30th September 2010, 07:16 AM
No idea what time it is. I didn't say I measured any angles.

Of course not. You'd have to find someone to do it for you.

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 07:16 AM
Well, the photo on the left is very clearly taken from further away than the photo on the right. Oswald's stance is different in the two photos - his upper torso is at a different angle, in any case - so it's not surprising that the shadow of his upper torso is at a different angle too. It's difficult to tell for certain, but he appears to be leaning slightly towards the camera in the right hand photo, and he's certainly leaning a little more to his left to counterbalance the weight of the rifle to his right; since the sun is coming from his left, then leaning forwards will make his shadow move to his left, our right, as we see in the photo. We can't compare the angle of the shadow of his legs because that part of the shadow isn't visible in the right hand photo.

No the second photograph is taken from the same place. (If the camera had moved forward the relationship between the stair post and the fence post would have changed. No matter which way he leans his shadow will fall at the same angle. If he leans forward, the shadow shortens. If he leans backwards, the shadow lengthens. If he leans either side the shadow will lean the same way.

Also, the light is coming from almost directly behind and above the photographer, so she probably had to hold the viewfinder fairly close to her eye to see it clearly. Or had you already conceded that point?

Dave

Certainly haven't. If the sun was coming from behind her then there would have been no need to hold the camera higher to shade it from the sun.

If you compare all three photos, you will see that the relationship between the stair post and the fence post stays exactly the same in them all. This is almost impossible to achieve with a hand held camera, especially if it is moved forward as you say it was to take the second photo.

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 07:17 AM
Of course not. You'd have to find someone to do it for you.

God, have they let you out again?

uke2se
30th September 2010, 07:29 AM
This is almost impossible to achieve with a hand held camera, especially if it is moved forward as you say it was to take the second photo.

You make it seem as if she was trying to achieve it. She wasn't. It happened.

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 07:31 AM
Okay, let's see what reference points we can use. In the first photo, Oswald's head is in line with the left hand post behind the gate, and the shadow of his head is in line with the third vertical board of the gate. In the second photo, Oswald's head is to the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective - and the shadow is in line with the fourth board. So it looks to me like the shadows are at the same angle.

Dave

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 07:33 AM
Not so. However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

uke2se
30th September 2010, 07:33 AM
Okay, let's see what reference points we can use. In the first photo, Oswald's head is in line with the left hand post behind the gate, and the shadow of his head is in line with the third vertical board of the gate. In the second photo, Oswald's head is to the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective - and the shadow is in line with the fourth board. So it looks to me like the shadows are at the same angle.

Dave

This anomaly hunting crap is just so tedious. I mean, let's just assume the premise for a moment, how does the "fake photos" hypothesis explain it? The anomaly is still there.

uke2se
30th September 2010, 07:34 AM
Not so. However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

How did they achieve that by faking the photos?

Ranb
30th September 2010, 07:37 AM
You can't have it both ways Ranb. Either the pictures are fake, or the witness was telling the truth. If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

You keep evading my questions. You want us to believe a person you suggest is not a reliable witness, then you presume that the photos were taken within a few minutes of each other and offer no evidence to back it up.

If Oswald changed position, then the shadows move. Rather basic isn't it?

Ranb

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 07:41 AM
You keep evading my questions. You want us to believe a person you suggest is not a reliable witness, then you presume that the photos were taken within a few minutes of each other and offer no evidence to back it up.

You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.

If Oswald changed position, then the shadows move. Rather basic isn't it?

Ranb

Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

JimBenArm
30th September 2010, 07:41 AM
God, have they let you out again?

My awesomeness cannot be contained.

uke2se
30th September 2010, 07:46 AM
Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

And the angle doesn't move.

However, assuming that you're right, how does claiming the picture is fake explain this anomaly?

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 07:57 AM
Not so.

What do you mean, not so? I've explained my reasoning as to why the shadows were at the same angle. All you've done is assert that they're not. So far, I'm the one providing the reasoning; you're just engaged in blatant knee-jerk denial.

However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

Typo in my post; the second appears to be taken from further away, but not much. If it was taken at a slightly further point along the line bisecting the angle between the stair-post and the end fence post, the relationship would remain the same.

Dave

TraneWreck
30th September 2010, 08:00 AM
You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.

Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

The perceived angle of shadows will change, sometimes dramatically, depending on your position. Because you haven't used actual science when attempting to discern the location of the sun in both pictures, you're just expressing ignorant incredulity.

If you read the hilarious testimony involving your buddy who apparently stared at the pictures for 15 years and never bothered to use actual investigative methods, you'll notice the questioner asking him about specific techniques. These techniques allow people to determine facts from a photograph that aren't obvious from an uneducated glance.

In addition to the fact that we have no idea how much time transpired between the two photographs (maybe they went inside for some lemonade before finishing, maybe they had trouble with the camera and took 15min to figure it out, maybe they both had strokes and froze for a half hour, who knows?), looking at the staircase and fence, it's clear that Oswald's wife wasn't in the same place. Such a move can alter the way a shadow will look compared to other shadows.

Just look at the shadows in this recording:

u4Ay3tUi68E

If the guy with the camera moved to the left or right, you would notice that many of the shadows would appear to move closer or farther from one another. It's called perspective. I don't understand it well, which is why it's nice that there are experts in the world. They do not agree with you.

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 08:06 AM
What do you mean, not so? I've explained my reasoning as to why the shadows were at the same angle. All you've done is assert that they're not. So far, I'm the one providing the reasoning; you're just engaged in blatant knee-jerk denial.

You said that his head "was the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective" If his head is closer to the camera then the relationship between the Stair post and the fence post changes.

Typo in my post; the second appears to be taken from further away, but not much. If it was taken at a slightly further point along the line bisecting the angle between the stair-post and the end fence post, the relationship would remain the same.

If the second photo was taken further away, as you say, then it has been cropped, (otherwise you would see more of Oswald not less.) If it was cropped, who cropped it?

uke2se
30th September 2010, 08:18 AM
Fourbrick, this question is and was directed at you:

Assuming you are right (which I very much doubt, given perfectly good explanations from other people), how does claiming the picture is fake explain the shadow anomaly?

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 08:26 AM
Fourbrick, this question is and was directed at you:

Assuming you are right (which I very much doubt, given perfectly good explanations from other people), how does claiming the picture is fake explain the shadow anomaly?

Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in :) ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 08:30 AM
You said that his head "was the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective" If his head is closer to the camera then the relationship between the Stair post and the fence post changes.

No, nearer the camera than the post.

If the second photo was taken further away, as you say, then it has been cropped, (otherwise you would see more of Oswald not less.) If it was cropped, who cropped it?

The second photo is taken with the camera angled further upwards, as anyone with better than a room temperature IQ can see. Because it's angled upwards, Oswald's feet are cut off. Really, can you honestly be so stupid that you can't work this out for yourself?

Dave

TraneWreck
30th September 2010, 08:36 AM
The funny thing is that this is quite literally one of the easiest theories to test.

Fourbrick, get a camera, have someone stand in your back yard, take some pictures moving both the camera and the subject slightly, and see what happens.

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 08:40 AM
No, nearer the camera than the post.

The second photo is taken with the camera angled further upwards, as anyone with better than a room temperature IQ can see. Because it's angled upwards, Oswald's feet are cut off. Really, can you honestly be so stupid that you can't work this out for yourself?

Dave

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Dave, but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first.

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 08:42 AM
The funny thing is that this is quite literally one of the easiest theories to test.

Fourbrick, get a camera, have someone stand in your back yard, take some pictures moving both the camera and the subject slightly, and see what happens.

Have done that many times, T, but due to parallax if you move the camera sideways or forwards or backwards, fixed points change their position. In these photos, this doesn't happen.

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 08:43 AM
I think somebody told Fourbrick that there was a discrepancy between the angles of the shadows, and he believed it because he wanted to. Now that he's asked to explain exactly what that discrepancy is, he can't actually explain it, but he can't bring himself not to believe it. Now he's desperately making up irrelevant nitpicks to preserve his cognitive dissonance. Since there isn't really a rational debate going on any more, it might be a good idea to move on.

Dave

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 08:46 AM
Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Dave, but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first.

Didn't you just say that the second picture couldn't have been taken from closer than the first?

However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

Yes, you did. Now you're saying it must have been taken from closer.

You're contradicting yourself in order to deny everything that's presented to you. Sorry, but you're clearly not capable of being rational about this any more.

Dave

TraneWreck
30th September 2010, 08:47 AM
Have done that many times, T, but due to parallax if you move the camera sideways or forwards or backwards, fixed points change their position. In these photos, this doesn't happen.

THat's weird, because I looked at a family photo album last night and noticed the exact phenomenon.

Holy ****, did my mom kill Kennedy?

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 08:51 AM
Didn't you just say that the second picture couldn't have been taken from closer than the first?

Yes, you did. Now you're saying it must have been taken from closer.

You're contradicting yourself in order to deny everything that's presented to you. Sorry, but you're clearly not capable of being rational about this any more.

Dave

No, Dave, please read what I said more carefully. I said that it appears to have been taken closer, in answer to your point that the camera had been pointed upwards, but as I have already pointed out if it was taken closer, the relationship between the stairpost and the end fence post would be different.a

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 09:01 AM
No, Dave, please read what I said more carefully. I said that it appears to have been taken closer, in answer to your point that the camera had been pointed upwards, but as I have already pointed out if it was taken closer, the relationship between the stairpost and the end fence post would be different.

It's a photo. Appearance is all there is. So you're saying that it appears to have been taken from closer, but that it appears not to have been taken from closer. From which, the only thing we can conclude is that you're incapable of drawing consistent conclusions on where the photographs were taken from, and hence you have no way of determining where the shadows should fall.

It's obvious that the second photo was taken with the camera angled further upwards, because Oswald's feet are shown in the first and cut off in the second. That much is obvious. That's why you see less of Oswald in the second photo; that too is obvious. How can you possibly not be able to understand this?

Dave

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 09:06 AM
It's a photo. Appearance is all there is. So you're saying that it appears to have been taken from closer, but that it appears not to have been taken from closer. From which, the only thing we can conclude is that you're incapable of drawing consistent conclusions on where the photographs were taken from, and hence you have no way of determining where the shadows should fall.

No I have consistently said that the photos show the same camera position, otherwise the fixed points wouldn't line up.

It's obvious that the second photo was taken with the camera angled further upwards, because Oswald's feet are shown in the first and cut off in the second. That much is obvious. That's why you see less of Oswald in the second photo; that too is obvious. How can you possibly not be able to understand this?

Dave

It may be obvious to you, So let's see, first the photo was taken closer, then it was taken further away, then the camera was angled. There is no reason why it couldn't be the same background photo cropped differently. All the other fixed points in the photos would support this.

Dave Rogers
30th September 2010, 09:17 AM
No I have consistently said that the photos show the same camera position, otherwise the fixed points wouldn't line up.

Then how do you explain the differences that you claim give the appearance that the second photo was taken from nearer?

It may be obvious to you, So let's see, first the photo was taken closer, then it was taken further away,

Which, as I said, was a typo. And you've got these the wrong way round.

then the camera was angled.

This is nothing short of wilful idiocy. The angle of the camera and the position from which the photo is taken are independent; nothing about one claim contradicts the other.

There is no reason why it couldn't be the same background photo cropped differently. All the other fixed points in the photos would support this.

So why did you say earlier that:

but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first

You're saying that the fixed points on the second photo show that it appears to have been taken from closer than the first, but that the fixed points on the photo also show that it's the same background photo as the first. That's nonsense.

You stopped making sense quite some time ago.

Dave

Fourbrick
30th September 2010, 09:43 AM
Then how do you explain the differences that you claim give the appearance that the second photo was taken from nearer?

It has been cropped.

Which, as I said, was a typo. And you've got these the wrong way round.

You did indeed

This is nothing short of wilful idiocy. The angle of the camera and the position from which the photo is taken are independent; nothing about one claim contradicts the other.

You said the camera was angled upwards.

So why did you say earlier that:

You're saying that the fixed points on the second photo show that it appears to have been taken from closer than the first, but that the fixed points on the photo also show that it's the same background photo as the first. That's nonsense.

Explain how the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post remain constant throughout the three pictures.

You stopped making sense quite some time ago.

Dave

You're quite entitled to your opinion.

Ranb
30th September 2010, 09:48 AM
You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.

My witness? I have no witness. You are the one saying Marina is unreliable, but you still use her to show the photos must have been faked. Why are you using a witness that is unreliable in your opinion?

Ranb

danrush
30th September 2010, 11:34 AM
This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!

This is very easy...Many of you JFK'rs continue to neglect just where JFK and Connolly were sitting when the shots were fired. By looking at the many photos taken from Love Field to Dealey Plaza that day you can clearly see that Connolly is sitting lower and inboard of President Kennedy, the bullet wounds from a TSBD shot match up nicely.

The case has been closed for 50 years and you're still trying to prove that Barney the Dinosaur hit Kennedy from the secret bunker in the tripple underpass.

Oh yes...and do explain the navy back brace of fabric and metal stays that kept JFK upright like a nice shooting target.

Conspiracy? not.

RoboTimbo
30th September 2010, 01:53 PM
Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in :) ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

Your hypothesis is that someone took pictures of Oswald with those shadows and inserted them into those pictures?

How did the shadows in the croppings of Oswald get different angles?

uke2se
30th September 2010, 02:24 PM
Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in :) ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

Why would they fake it so that the shadow falls in different angles? Wouldn't it defeat the purpose to ensure that amateur sleuths with no training in photographic analysis can figure it out?

The way I figure it there are three possibilities:

1. The photos are fake, making the perpetrators of this insanely complex plot incapable of faking simple photographic evidence properly.

2. The photos are real and they were taken at different times.

3. The photos are real and you're simply wrong about the angle.

I'm going with number 3.

Dave Rogers
1st October 2010, 01:30 AM
It has been cropped.

Even more ridiculous. You're claiming that cropping a photograph alters the relationships between the fixed points in it. Remember that you said that "the post is longer in the second picture than the first"; how can cropping a picture make a post in that picture longer?

Explain how the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post remain constant throughout the three pictures.

Is that the relationship that you claim did stay constant, or the relationship that you claim didn't stay constant but was magically altered when the photograph was cropped?

You're quite entitled to your opinion.

And you're quite entitled to both of yours.

Dave

Tolls
1st October 2010, 04:28 AM
Looking at those photos, one thing on the one on the left (and I only just noticed since I superimposed them in GIMP) is that there's a shadow of Oswalds rifle on the post in the second one (with the gun in his right hand).

Oh, and superimposed and flicking between the layers its clear the camera has moved in relation to the background. The stair and post are fairly fixed, but everything else around moves slightly...increasingly so to the right of the picture. It's is clearly not the same background.

RoboTimbo
1st October 2010, 06:26 AM
The angle of the stairs on the left side of the picture changes also. Clearly the stairs have been photoshopped in. Your thoughts, Fourbrick?

Dave Rogers
1st October 2010, 06:39 AM
Looking at those photos, one thing on the one on the left (and I only just noticed since I superimposed them in GIMP) is that there's a shadow of Oswalds rifle on the post in the second one (with the gun in his right hand).

Oh, and superimposed and flicking between the layers its clear the camera has moved in relation to the background. The stair and post are fairly fixed, but everything else around moves slightly...increasingly so to the right of the picture. It's is clearly not the same background.

Can you post an overlay? It would pretty much put this one to bed.

Dave

CurtC
1st October 2010, 09:40 AM
I'm willing to do a deep-dive on the photo measurements, but before we do that, shouldn't Fourbrick explain *why* we should do that?

I thought the whole idea behind the fake-photo position was that Oswald's head was pasted onto a photo that was taken of someone else. How do the shadows relate to this?

What is the conspiracy angle that these shadows are supposed to demonstrate?

tsig
1st October 2010, 10:20 AM
Fourbrick, this question is and was directed at you:

Assuming you are right (which I very much doubt, given perfectly good explanations from other people), how does claiming the picture is fake explain the shadow anomaly?

Anomalies are in the eye of the beholder.

RoboTimbo
2nd October 2010, 08:43 PM
In the right hand photo, Oswald looks like Hitler. Coincidence? Or their calling card?

Tolls
4th October 2010, 02:28 AM
Can you post an overlay? It would pretty much put this one to bed.

Dave

If anyone can tell me how to do an animated gif out of GIMP. I'm just clicking the show/hide layer button...:)

CurtC
4th October 2010, 07:11 AM
Before we do that, can we please get Fourbrick to tell us why we should bother?

Tolls
4th October 2010, 08:00 AM
Well, yes.
I wasn't going to do anything until that was answered...:)

Fourbrick
4th October 2010, 09:41 AM
Even more ridiculous. You're claiming that cropping a photograph alters the relationships between the fixed points in it. Remember that you said that "the post is longer in the second picture than the first"; how can cropping a picture make a post in that picture longer?

Where did I say cropping a photograph changes the relationship? If you look at the second photo which I contend could be a cropped photo enlarged, then you will see that the stair post is longer than the same post in the first picture. Do you agree that the post is longer in the second photo than the first??

Is that the relationship that you claim did stay constant, or the relationship that you claim didn't stay constant but was magically altered when the photograph was cropped?

Dave

No, you obviously can't read properly. I said the relationship between the stair post and the fence post behind it is the same in all three photos. Tell me where I said the relationship "magically changed when the photo was cropped."

Dave Rogers
4th October 2010, 09:49 AM
If you look at the second photo which I contend could be a cropped photo enlarged, then you will see that the stair post is longer than the same post in the first picture. Do you agree that the post is longer in the second photo than the first??

Ah, so you think it's enlarged, then cropped. OK, you're starting to make some kind of sense now.

OK, then, so you think that somebody took a photo without Oswald in it, took copies with different cropping and enlargement, and added in pictures of Oswald, included fake shadows, but got the proportions and angles wrong so that the shadows appear to be at different angles. Is that a fair summary of your argument?

If so, I can see no discrepancy in the positions of the shadows, and none of the rest of your suggestion would produce an appearance different to the photographs simply having been taken from slightly different positions and the camera held at slightly different angles, as one might expect.

Dave

Fourbrick
4th October 2010, 09:53 AM
Where was the magically altered comment I made, Dave?

Do you agree that according to the shadows shown that Oswald is standing in approximately the same position?

Fourbrick
4th October 2010, 09:56 AM
The angle of the stairs on the left side of the picture changes also. Clearly the stairs have been photoshopped in. Your thoughts, Fourbrick?

No, Robo, the angle stays the same. It is the photo which is tilted.

Fourbrick
4th October 2010, 10:14 AM
Well, yes.
I wasn't going to do anything until that was answered...:)

I'd love to see it as well, Tolls.

RoboTimbo
4th October 2010, 12:06 PM
No, Robo, the angle stays the same. It is the photo which is tilted.

No, the posts stay vertical in both pictures, the relationship of the angle of the stair steps changes. How does that happen?

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 04:13 AM
Where was the magically altered comment I made, Dave?

I acknowledge that "magically altered" was my commentary, not your original claim.

Do you agree that according to the shadows shown that Oswald is standing in approximately the same position?

It appears to me that his feet are in approximately the same position but that his stance is very different between the two photographs, being further forward and to his left (our right) in the second photo. The positions of the shadows of his head, being one gate slat to the right in the second photo, appear consistent with this change of stance.

Dave

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 07:57 AM
No, the posts stay vertical in both pictures, the relationship of the angle of the stair steps changes. How does that happen?

Don't know what's in the water in Kansas, but in the first picture the stairpost is 2° off centre to the right.i.e at 92°. In the center picture is at 89° to vertical. The angle between the stairpost and the stairs is constant at 40 ° in all three pictures.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 07:58 AM
It appears to me that his feet are in approximately the same position but that his stance is very different between the two photographs, being further forward and to his left (our right) in the second photo. The positions of the shadows of his head, being one gate slat to the right in the second photo, appear consistent with this change of stance.

Dave

Do you think the middle photo was taken closer to Oswald?

uke2se
5th October 2010, 07:58 AM
Don't know what's in the water in Kansas, but in the first picture the stairpost is 2° off centre to the right.i.e at 92°. In the center picture is at 89° to vertical. The angle between the stairpost and the stairs is constant at 40 ° in all three pictures.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:03 AM

Uke, If I knew that, I would be on The Oprah Winfry show.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 08:05 AM
Don't know what's in the water in Kansas, but in the first picture the stairpost is 2° off centre to the right.i.e at 92°. In the center picture is at 89° to vertical. The angle between the stairpost and the stairs is constant at 40 ° in all three pictures.

I don't know what's in the water in Kansas either, I don't live there. The angle between the steps and the post are about 1-2 degrees different between the pictures. How do you account for that?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:07 AM
I don't know what's in the water in Kansas either, I don't live there. The angle between the steps and the post are about 1-2 degrees different between the pictures. How do you account for that?

The angle between the stairpost and the stair string is constant at 40°.

What made you think the posts were all vertical when they obviously aren't?

uke2se
5th October 2010, 08:13 AM
Uke, If I knew that, I would be on The Oprah Winfry show.

Couldn't you put your well endowed imagination to the problem and try to come up with a reason for why they faked Oswald's picture in such an unnecessarily stupid way?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:20 AM
Couldn't you put your well endowed imagination to the problem and try to come up with a reason for why they faked Oswald's picture in such an unnecessarily stupid way?

Don't do imaginings, Uke, just facts. If I'm proved wrong I'll accept it. Until then ..First things first.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 08:22 AM
Your hypothesis is that someone took pictures of Oswald with those shadows and inserted them into those pictures?

How did the shadows in the croppings of Oswald get different angles?

Fourbrick, you still haven't answered this either.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:27 AM
Fourbrick, you still haven't answered this either.

The shadows are one of the reasons for the arguments.

The shadow of Oswald in the centre picture is about approximately 15° degrees different to the shadow in the first picture. Perhaps you could tell me how that happened in the space of a few minutes.

You still haven't answered why you thought the posts in each picture were vertical.

uke2se
5th October 2010, 08:29 AM
Don't do imaginings, Uke, just facts. If I'm proved wrong I'll accept it. Until then ..First things first.

You've got it backwards. Nobody has to prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument right.

Still, I'm curious as to what motive there would be to create a faked photograph of so poor quality a non-expert like you could figure it out.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:35 AM
You've got it backwards. Nobody has to prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument right.

No. First show they are fake then proceed.

Still, I'm curious as to what motive there would be to create a faked photograph of so poor quality a non-expert like you could figure it out.

When it was done there weren't as many non-experts around in 1963 as there are now to dispute their fakery.

uke2se
5th October 2010, 08:45 AM
No. First show they are fake then proceed.

Yes, that's a way to provide evidence for your argument, as I said. Nobody has to prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument right.

When it was done there weren't as many non-experts around in 1963 as there are now to dispute their fakery.

I'd say there were about 3 billion non-experts then as opposed to above 6 billion now, so you're right about that. However, didn't the vast conspiracy factor in population growth? :D

Why construct such a poor fake when there was no need to? Why not just take the photographs you need for the fake at the same occasion to ensure shadows lined up?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:51 AM
I'd say there were about 3 billion non-experts then as opposed to above 6 billion now, so you're right about that. However, didn't the vast conspiracy factor in population growth? :D

But they couldn't all study the photos the way we can.

Why construct such a poor fake when there was no need to? Why not just take the photographs you need for the fake at the same occasion to ensure shadows lined up?

To back up their contention that LHO had the gun in his garden.

How can there be 15° variation between two shadows in the matter of minutes, Uke. Just answer that.

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 08:54 AM
Do you think the middle photo was taken closer to Oswald?

No, because you only posted two photos. Neither of them was in the middle.

Dave

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 08:57 AM
The shadows are one of the reasons for the arguments.

The shadow of Oswald in the centre picture is about approximately 15° degrees different to the shadow in the first picture. Perhaps you could tell me how that happened in the space of a few minutes.

You still haven't answered why you thought the posts in each picture were vertical.

There is still a 1-2 degree difference between the included angle.

I'm now talking about the shadows of the pictures of Oswald from their original source, if they were in fact cropped. Why would the angle of the shadows be different in the original pictures that Oswald's images were lifted from?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 08:59 AM
No, because you only posted two photos. Neither of them was in the middle.

Dave

Apologies Dave. The one on the right, not the one in the middle. (I'm working on the composite with three photos on it)
Do you think that photo was taken nearer than the left photo?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:01 AM
There is still a 1-2 degree difference between the included angle.

Which included angle is that, Robo?

p.s. I thought your location was Rachel, KS. Is that not in Kansas?

uke2se
5th October 2010, 09:04 AM
But they couldn't all study the photos the way we can.

Do you believe that real experts would be better suited to analyze these photos?

To back up their contention that LHO had the gun in his garden.

But constructing fakes so obvious when it would be so simple to do it right indicates that they wanted people to think the photos were fakes. :eek:

This goes deeper than we ever could have imagined!

uke2se
5th October 2010, 09:06 AM
Apologies Dave. The one on the right, not the one in the middle. (I'm working on the composite with three photos on it)
Do you think that photo was taken nearer than the left photo?

Is there are reason you have started referring to the pictures as "the one to the left" or "the one to the right" instead of "the first" or "the second" like you did at the beginning?

It would seem as you are doing this to avoid people pointing to the fact that you have posted two very different opinions about whether the second photo was taken closer or further away than the first one :D

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:07 AM
Do you believe that real experts would be better suited to analyze these photos?

They have (see previous posts)

But constructing fakes so obvious when it would be so simple to do it right indicates that they wanted people to think the photos were fakes. :eek:

This goes deeper than we ever could have imagined!

Strange things happen in this world.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:09 AM
Is there are reason you have started referring to the pictures as "the one to the left" or "the one to the right" instead of "the first" or "the second" like you did at the beginning?

It would seem as you are doing this to avoid people pointing to the fact that you have posted two very different opinions about whether the second photo was taken closer or further away than the first one :D

Well it seems you are wrong, Uke. The first photo is the one on the left. The second photo is the one on the right ( or if you are looking at the composite of the three photos, the middle one. Understood?

uke2se
5th October 2010, 09:12 AM
They have (see previous posts)

Yes, they have.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/

Strange things happen in this world.

Don't you think it's odd, though? I mean, we're talking about an organization that managed to pop the Prez and a cop, steal the Prez's body and operate on it and basically execute a coup d'etat while blaming it all on a single guy who didn't know jack. Those people would botch faking photos when it would be simpler to get it right than wrong?

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:12 AM
I'm now talking about the shadows of the pictures of Oswald from their original source, if they were in fact cropped. Why would the angle of the shadows be different in the original pictures that Oswald's images were lifted from?

Fourbrick, you edited out this question so that you wouldn't have to answer it. Why would the shadows in the original pictures of Oswald be at different angles? The pictures that you say his images were cropped from.

uke2se
5th October 2010, 09:13 AM
Well it seems you are wrong, Uke. The first photo is the one on the left. The second photo is the one on the right ( or if you are looking at the composite of the three photos, the middle one. Understood?

Yes, I understand that you have posted two different opinions on whether the second photo was taken closer or further away than the first.

It's all in this thread. Just because it falls off the last page doesn't mean it's gone.

:D

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:14 AM
It would seem as you are doing this to avoid people pointing to the fact that you have posted two very different opinions about whether the second photo was taken closer or further away than the first one :D

Do you thnik the second (or right or middle)picture is taken closer to LHO than the first(or left)?

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:15 AM
The shadow of Oswald in the centre picture is about approximately 15° degrees different to the shadow in the first picture. Perhaps you could tell me how that happened in the space of a few minutes.

Rather than assuming we'll take your word for it, could you show us a diagram with your measurement points superimposed over the photographs? That way we can review your calculations directly rather than having to infer them from verbal describtions.

Dave

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:17 AM
Fourbrick, you edited out this question so that you wouldn't have to answer it. Why would the shadows in the original pictures of Oswald be at different angles? The pictures that you say his images were cropped from.

I didn't answer it because it is a stupid question. Tell me why the shadow angles differ by 15° in the two photos.

And you still haven't answered why you thought the posts were vertical in the two photos when they clearly weren't.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:18 AM
Rather than assuming we'll take your word for it, could you show us a diagram with your measurement points superimposed over the photographs? That way we can review your calculations directly rather than having to infer them from verbal describtions.

Dave

Do you disagree that they shadows are at different angles?

Do you think that the second photo(or right or middle) was taken closer to LHO than the first?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:21 AM
Yes, I understand that you have posted two different opinions on whether the second photo was taken closer or further away than the first.

It's all in this thread. Just because it falls off the last page doesn't mean it's gone.

:D

Can you show me where I posted these two different opinions?:D

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:22 AM
Do you disagree that they shadows are at different angles?

I have no idea how you even choose to define the angles of the shadows. It appears to me that the difference in position of the shadow of Oswald's head between the two pictures is consistent with the difference in position of his head between the two pictures. If you want to convince me otherwise, show your working on a diagram. Is there a problem with that?

Do you think that the second photo(or right or middle) was taken closer to LHO than the first?

My impression was that it appeared to be taken from slightly further away, but this isn't based on any measurements so I may be wrong; it seems of no consequence either way given that none of the possibilities are inconsistent with either real or faked photograph hypotheses.

Dave

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:24 AM
My impression was that it appeared to be taken from slightly further away, but this isn't based on any measurements so I may be wrong; it seems of no consequence either way given that none of the possibilities are inconsistent with either real or faked photograph hypotheses.

Dave

If it was taken further away, Dave, how do you account for the fact that the stairpost in the second (or right or middle) is larger than in the first(or left)

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:26 AM
I didn't answer it because it is a stupid question. Tell me why the shadow angles differ by 15° in the two photos.

And you still haven't answered why you thought the posts were vertical in the two photos when they clearly weren't.

No, it isn't a stupid question, it's simply one that you are unable to answer. Why would the shadows be at different angles in the original photos that you say Oswald was cropped from?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:26 AM
I have no idea how you even choose to define the angles of the shadows. It appears to me that the difference in position of the shadow of Oswald's head between the two pictures is consistent with the difference in position of his head between the two pictures. If you want to convince me otherwise, show your working on a diagram. Is there a problem with that?

Dave

The whole shadow that can be seen is at a different angle, not just his head. Can you account for that discrepancy?

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:29 AM
If it was taken further away, Dave, how do you account for the fact that the stairpost in the second (or right or middle) is larger than in the first(or left)

Like I said, it's of no consequence, so I'm not really interested.

Look, here's the bottom line. You're trying, for some reason, to convince us of something. I've told you what sort of evidence would convince me. Let me tell you now that bickering over irrelevant details, without providing evidence, will not convince me of anything. So, from here on, it's up to you. Show me a diagram overlaid on the photos that demonstrates the difference in shadow angles you claim to see, and I'll take a look at it. Keep on trying to argue without data, and I'll find something better to do.

Dave

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:29 AM
No, it isn't a stupid question, it's simply one that you are unable to answer. Why would the shadows be at different angles in the original photos that you say Oswald was cropped from?

No Robo. If the photos were faked, then they used the cut out of somebody with LHO's head on it and PAINTED in the shadows. See now?

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:30 AM
The whole shadow that can be seen is at a different angle, not just his head. Can you account for that discrepancy?

Yes, he's leaning forward in the second photo, and the light is coming from one side - do the geometry. But all this is pointless until you show me the discrepancy you're talking about.

Dave

Tolls
5th October 2010, 09:30 AM
OK, finally figured out how to do the animation...though there's no guarantee this'll work for everyone (or anyone)!
:)

I've used the upright for the stairs as the guide.

I won't comment anymore in case this hasn't worked.

ETA: Hmm.
Let's try that again.

Tolls
5th October 2010, 09:32 AM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_211704cab53288ea49.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21256)

ETA:
Why is this not working?
If I open the animation here in IE it works fine...

ETA2: It seems to have only taken the first frame...even a Save As on the uploaded image doesn't get me the original back.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:33 AM
Like I said, it's of no consequence, so I'm not really interested.

Look, here's the bottom line. You're trying, for some reason, to convince us of something. I've told you what sort of evidence would convince me. Let me tell you now that bickering over irrelevant details, without providing evidence, will not convince me of anything. So, from here on, it's up to you. Show me a diagram overlaid on the photos that demonstrates the difference in shadow angles you claim to see, and I'll take a look at it. Keep on trying to argue without data, and I'll find something better to do.

Dave

See you Dave. Maybe somebody else will answer the question.

I'm just trying to agree some ground rules before proceeding.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:35 AM
Is that the composite of all three, Tolls?

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:37 AM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_211704cab53288ea49.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21256)

ETA:
Why is this not working?
If I open the animation here in IE it works fine...

ETA2: It seems to have only taken the first frame...even a Save As on the uploaded image doesn't get me the original back.

It works for me when I click on the graphic. You can clearly see that he is standing at two different angles, clearly consistent with his shadow in the background. Thanks, Tolls! This one has been put to bed.

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:37 AM
See you Dave. Maybe somebody else will answer the question.

I'm just trying to agree some ground rules before proceeding.

Typical conspiracist evasion. You're trying to get people to accept your story before you justify it. You're making the claim that the shadow angles differ by 15º, then asking everyone else to account for that discrepancy before you offer evidence for the claim.

Either demonstrate that the shadow angles differ by 15º, or get off the pan.

Dave

Dave Rogers
5th October 2010, 09:38 AM
It works for me when I click on the graphic. You can clearly see that he is standing at two different angles, clearly consistent with his shadow in the background. Thanks, Tolls! This one has been put to bed.

Ouch. Fourbrick, if I were you I'd be seriously embarrassed by now.

Nice work, Tolls.

Dave

TraneWreck
5th October 2010, 09:43 AM
Well, that's that.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:43 AM
Waiting for an answer from Tolls., Is that a composite of all three or two or just one?

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:45 AM
Waiting for an answer from Tolls., Is that a composite of all three or two or just one?

The straws you are grasping at have just gone up in smoke.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:46 AM
The animation is certainly not working for me, so can't agrue. Maybe somebody can help.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:47 AM
What browser do you use, Fourbrick? I have IE in Windows 7 and had to click on the picture in Tolls' post to bring up the link t othe .gif. Then the animation worked.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:48 AM
The straws you are grasping at have just gone up in smoke.

While we're watching the fire, Robo, you might like to answer my question about why you thought the verticals in the two pictures were the same.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 09:49 AM
What browser do you use, Fourbrick? I have IE in Windows 7 and had to click on the picture in Tolls' post to bring up the link t othe .gif. Then the animation worked.

Thanks,. Mozilla Firefox, but I'll try to see if I can get IE to get it working.

grmcdorman
5th October 2010, 09:50 AM
Works in FF 3.6; click on the picture as others have said.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 09:55 AM
While we're watching the fire, Robo, you might like to answer my question about why you thought the verticals in the two pictures were the same.

Moot point now, eh? Like the question you were unable to answer about why the shadows in the original pics were different.

Next?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 10:08 AM
Got it to work but it doesn't settle the shadow problem. The overlay isn't very accurate as the stairpost is not in the same position in both photos. The composite shows that the shadow moves (not the bottom of Oswald as you can only see that in the first (or left) photo. Anybody still tell me how that happens?

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 10:10 AM
Moot point now, eh? Like the question you were unable to answer about why the shadows in the original pics were different.

Next?

Very handy moot points, Robo. helps to get away from answering awkward questions.

Secondly, if you can read, (and did you answer whether you were in Rachel, Kansas or not?) I answered the shadow question above.

I Ratant
5th October 2010, 10:11 AM
The funny thing is that this is quite literally one of the easiest theories to test.

Fourbrick, get a camera, have someone stand in your back yard, take some pictures moving both the camera and the subject slightly, and see what happens.
.
No CTwit even those that live in Dallas would put down the X-box controller and go to Neeley Street on the day in question and take photos.
Too much like work, and.... the results would be very disappointing.
I went to Dallas via AutoCad and a scale model years back.
Note that the Warren Commission didn't have CE-133C. The Dallas Police department held that one back, and had a detective assume the position about 2 weeks later. It was some years before CE-133C became part of the evidence.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 10:15 AM
Very handy moot points, Robo. helps to get away from answering awkward questions.

Secondly, if you can read, (and did you answer whether you were in Rachel, Kansas or not?) I answered the shadow question above.

Fourbrick
5th October 2010, 10:24 AM

As I said previously, Robo, you must have difficulty reading.

Quote " No Robo. If the photos were faked, then they used the cut out of somebody with LHO's head on it and PAINTED in the shadows. See now? (see post 591)

Yes I have just but it doesn't show anything. Does it exist and are you there?

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 10:37 AM
As I said previously, Robo, you must have difficulty reading.

Quote " No Robo. If the photos were faked, then they used the cut out of somebody with LHO's head on it and PAINTED in the shadows. See now? (see post 591)

Yes I have just but it doesn't show anything. Does it exist and are you there?

Saying that the shadows were painted in was stupid so you hadn't answered it. Rachel KS is the fake town from the movie The Ghost and Mr. Chicken.

JimBenArm
5th October 2010, 10:57 AM
Saying that the shadows were painted in was stupid so you hadn't answered it. Rachel KS is the fake town from the movie The Ghost and Mr. Chicken.

Why did you change your location? Huh? I fantasized about you living close to me, and now my dreams are dashed upon the sharp rocks of reality. Much like our JFK Conspiraloons.

RoboTimbo
5th October 2010, 11:04 AM
Why did you change your location? Huh? I fantasized about you living close to me, and now my dreams are dashed upon the sharp rocks of reality. Much like our JFK Conspiraloons.

Had to change it. You were getting competition from one of the other forum stalkers. You're lucky, you know my real location.

uke2se
5th October 2010, 04:04 PM
Can you show me where I posted these two different opinions?:D

Certainly, my good man. Dave Rogers summarizes your two mutually exclusive opinions in this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6391112&postcount=528) post, complete with links to your two mutually exclusive opinions.

uke2se
5th October 2010, 04:06 PM
It works for me when I click on the graphic. You can clearly see that he is standing at two different angles, clearly consistent with his shadow in the background. Thanks, Tolls! This one has been put to bed.

Yep, the shadows line up perfectly. Thanks.

Dave Rogers
6th October 2010, 01:31 AM
The composite shows that the shadow moves (not the bottom of Oswald as you can only see that in the first (or left) photo. Anybody still tell me how that happens?

The composite shows that Oswald moves. In the first photo, he's leaning slightly backwards with his feet fairly close together. In the second, he's moved his left foot forward and to his left, and is leaning forward and to his left. As his head moves, the shadow of his head moves with it. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but shadows generally do move when the things move that are casting them. Sorry if that sounds patronising, but your position here is getting so untenable that I can't honestly see what your argument can possibly be at this point.

Dave

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 01:56 AM
Certainly, my good man. Dave Rogers summarizes your two mutually exclusive opinions in this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6391112&postcount=528) post, complete with links to your two mutually exclusive opinions.

Thank you for the link, my good ma. but unfortunately you misunderstand the original post I made.

What I was saying is that IF, in the second picture LHO is bigger than he is in the first then the camera must be closer (otherwise it is an enlargement cropped, which you lot won't accept). If the camera is closer the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post behind it changes (parallax).
I was disputing that the picture was taken closer. Dave just didn't understand.

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 01:59 AM
Yep, the shadows line up perfectly. Thanks.

If the shadows line up perfectly in your animation, Uke, then there is something wrong with your p.c. The two shadows differ considerably.

(Helpful hint. Put your cursor on one edge of the shadow and keep it there and see how the position changes.)

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:04 AM
The composite shows that Oswald moves. In the first photo, he's leaning slightly backwards with his feet fairly close together. In the second, he's moved his left foot forward and to his left, and is leaning forward and to his left. As his head moves, the shadow of his head moves with it. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but shadows generally do move when the things move that are casting them. Sorry if that sounds patronising, but your position here is getting so untenable that I can't honestly see what your argument can possibly be at this point.

Dave

Don't apologise for being patronising, Dave, I'm used to you doing it regularly. Thanks for the lesson on shadows moving, Dave. Only trouble is it isn't only the shadow of his head which moves, but the rest of the body.

If you can't see that there is a differnece in the angle of the shadows of LHO in the two pictures, you have a serious problem.

Dave Rogers
6th October 2010, 02:09 AM
Don't apologise for being patronising, Dave, I'm used to you doing it regularly. Thanks for the lesson on shadows moving, Dave. Only trouble is it isn't only the shadow of his head which moves, but the rest of the body.

If you can't see that there is a differnece in the angle of the shadows of LHO in the two pictures, you have a serious problem.

If you can't see that there's a difference in the angle of Oswald's body between the two pictures, you have a far worse one.

Dave

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:12 AM
If you can't see that there's a difference in the angle of Oswald's body between the two pictures, you have a far worse one.

Dave

Sorry, Dave but the shape of his body doesn't alter the angle of the shadow.

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:18 AM
Hey, Dave, how do you account for what we can see of LHO in the second (right) picture ( i.e. minus the bottom half of his legs, is larger than the whole of LHO in the first (left.) Could it be that the camera is closer?

Tolls
6th October 2010, 02:26 AM
Ouch. Fourbrick, if I were you I'd be seriously embarrassed by now.

Nice work, Tolls.

Dave

Must be my work PC or something (or I'm being dim...:)).

Waiting for an answer from Tolls., Is that a composite of all three or two or just one?

As you can now see it's the original two photos I saw from the end of last week.

Got it to work but it doesn't settle the shadow problem. The overlay isn't very accurate as the stairpost is not in the same position in both photos. The composite shows that the shadow moves (not the bottom of Oswald as you can only see that in the first (or left) photo. Anybody still tell me how that happens?

The overlay is as accurate as you can get. Look at the base of the post and they line up perfectly. What you are possibly seeing as misplaced is that the "brightness" is different between the two, resulting in exacerbated shadows, but the lines of the post match fine.

Sorry, Dave but the shape of his body doesn't alter the angle of the shadow.

Yes it does. In the first (where you can see his feet) he has his weight solidly on his right foot, in the second he has moved more towards his left foot, resulting in the change of angle of the upper part of his body. You can see this in the shadow, as the hip of the shadow is visible at the bottom of that picture and it still lines up with the first one. The upper part of his body has (understandably) moved. Throw in the clear appearance of the rifle shadow...

Anyway, this also shows that the background is not the same (which I believe was one of your arguments).

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:36 AM

It shows just how much the shadows differ.

Yes it does. In the first (where you can see his feet) he has his weight solidly on his right foot, in the second he has moved more towards his left foot, resulting in the change of angle of the upper part of his body. You can see this in the shadow, as the hip of the shadow is visible at the bottom of that picture and it still lines up with the first one. The upper part of his body has (understandably) moved. Throw in the clear appearance of the rifle shadow...

LHO head in the second photo has moved about six inches to the right, based on the centre line through his body. That's not enough to move the shadow line by approx 15°

Anyway, this also shows that the background is not the same (which I believe was one of your arguments).

The main point of my argument is that the shadows are at different angles.

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:38 AM

Fourbrick
6th October 2010, 02:56 AM
Just another question before I have to go. In the third picture (the right one) how do you account for the shadow of LHO's head is on the fence at the back. Has he moved back towards the fence?
Or has the sun gone down?

http://www.thislooksshopped.com/images/oswald3_lg.jpg

See ya.

Tolls
6th October 2010, 03:17 AM
It shows just how much the shadows differ.

Because he moved.

LHO head in the second photo has moved about six inches to the right, based on the centre line through his body. That's not enough to move the shadow line by approx 15°

Then you know squit, frankly.

The main point of my argument is that the shadows are at different angles.

Your "main point" has shifted over the past few pages, so forgive me if they're not as clear as you seem to think. Oswalds shadows are what would be expected between those two photos, considering he is not standing in the same position. If one shadow was on the oppositie side of the body then you might have a point, but they aren't are they? They are on the same side, heading away and to the left from the viewer.

The idea that you can somehow measure the angle (on an uneven ground) to any degree of accuracy is absurd, and worthy of the Moon Hoax.

As for your question to Dave, I assume you mean this one?

Hey, Dave, how do you account for what we can see of LHO in the second (right) picture ( i.e. minus the bottom half of his legs, is larger than the whole of LHO in the first (left.) Could it be that the camera is closer?

The answer is it isn't (assuming you are referring to the two pictures I have animated).

Once the pictures are lined up (based on the post) LHO's eyeline is at approximately 62px. The first (holding the paper to his chest) is about 1-2 px lower, which is nothing. I would try the top of his head, except that's hard to determine on the second (rifle in right hand) due to the shadows, so eyeline is a reasonable substitute.

Dave Rogers
6th October 2010, 04:13 AM
Sorry, Dave but the shape of his body doesn't alter the angle of the shadow.

What an unbelievably ridiculous statement. His body is the thing casting the shadow; of course the shape of his body alters the angle of the shadow. It defines the angle of the shadow.

Dave

erwinl
6th October 2010, 04:40 AM
Just another question before I have to go. In the third picture (the right one) how do you account for the shadow of LHO's head is on the fence at the back. Has he moved back towards the fence?
Or has the sun gone down?
.......................

See ya.

Oswald has moved back a bit.
In the first picture you can see two more or less horizontal bands of shadow on the grass just behind Oswalds right foot. In the third picture the back of his right foot is in the light area between the two shadow bands.
So, Oswald has moved about a foot back towards the fence. About the length of the shadow of his head (which just touches the fence in Photo nr 1).

I removed the picture from the quote, because I'm not allowed to post links yet.

Erwinl

Edit for spelling error

RoboTimbo
6th October 2010, 06:13 AM
Fourbrick, that's Oswald holding his assassination rifle with his revolver on his hip. You've helped demonstrate that the shadows prove it. Job well done to you!

How do you propose to more solidly prove it next?

uke2se
6th October 2010, 07:45 AM
If the shadows line up perfectly in your animation, Uke, then there is something wrong with your p.c. The two shadows differ considerably.

(Helpful hint. Put your cursor on one edge of the shadow and keep it there and see how the position changes.)

Yes, the shadow of Oswald moves slightly, as can be expected when Oswald himself moves slightly. All other shadows line up perfectly. If they don't for you, check your PC.

uke2se
6th October 2010, 07:47 AM
Thank you for the link, my good ma. but unfortunately you misunderstand the original post I made.

What I was saying is that IF, in the second picture LHO is bigger than he is in the first then the camera must be closer (otherwise it is an enlargement cropped, which you lot won't accept). If the camera is closer the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post behind it changes (parallax).
I was disputing that the picture was taken closer. Dave just didn't understand.

It's quite clear what you said, old boy. You were having difficulty keeping track of your own argument, which makes you funny to debate against.
:D

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 04:19 AM
It's quite clear what you said, old boy. You were having difficulty keeping track of your own argument, which makes you funny to debate against.
:D

Glad you are having a laugh. Uke. Can you answer the question I asked Dave, who, for some reason, can't see that everything in the second (or right, or middle- for those hard of understanding) is about 20% larger than in the first (or right). i.e. why do you think this is so.?

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 04:53 AM
.

As for your question to Dave, I assume you mean this one?

The answer is it isn't (assuming you are referring to the two pictures I have animated).

Once the pictures are lined up (based on the post) LHO's eyeline is at approximately 62px. The first (holding the paper to his chest) is about 1-2 px lower, which is nothing. I would try the top of his head, except that's hard to determine on the second (rifle in right hand) due to the shadows, so eyeline is a reasonable substitute.

For your animation, did you have to reduce the second picture to get it to line up with the first, Tolls?

tsig
7th October 2010, 05:31 AM
Glad you are having a laugh. Uke. Can you answer the question I asked Dave, who, for some reason, can't see that everything in the second (or right, or middle- for those hard of understanding) is about 20% larger than in the first (or right). i.e. why do you think this is so.?

So this photo is the key to it all? If you prove it fake then does the trajectory of the bullet change and Oswald disappears from the School Book Depository? Maybe Oswald is a fake and was just a CIA strawman.

And they'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those kids looking at a photo.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 05:39 AM
So this photo is the key to it all? If you prove it fake then does the trajectory of the bullet change and Oswald disappears from the School Book Depository? Maybe Oswald is a fake and was just a CIA strawman.

And they'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those kids looking at a photo.

The photos have nothing what so ever with the bullet trajectory but as I have stated previously, Tsig, if the photos are fake, then it proves there was a conspiracy.

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 05:41 AM
Glad you are having a laugh. Uke. Can you answer the question I asked Dave, who, for some reason, can't see that everything in the second (or right, or middle- for those hard of understanding) is about 20% larger than in the first (or right). i.e. why do you think this is so.?

Why would Oswald's image in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from be different? Why would the shadows be different in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from?

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 05:44 AM
Why would Oswald's image in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from be different? Why would the shadows be different in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from?

You've obviously never heard of retouching, Robo. (By the way you still haven't answered my question)

Dave Rogers
7th October 2010, 05:48 AM
Glad you are having a laugh. Uke. Can you answer the question I asked Dave, who, for some reason, can't see that everything in the second (or right, or middle- for those hard of understanding) is about 20% larger than in the first (or right). i.e. why do you think this is so.?

Let me remind you of something: you're the one trying to prove a point here. Asking everyone else to prove you wrong won't do that; we'll just get bored and talk about something else instead. I've asked you repeatedly to show your working, to place your line of argument on some other basis than that it just looks like that to you. Show me diagrams with measurements, or I'll assume there's a good reason why you won't - namely, that your objections aren't actually supported by the hard data.

At the moment, you're defying everyone to refute a point you haven't even established.

Dave

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 05:53 AM
Let me remind you of something: you're the one trying to prove a point here. Asking everyone else to prove you wrong won't do that; we'll just get bored and talk about something else instead. I've asked you repeatedly to show your working, to place your line of argument on some other basis than that it just looks like that to you. Show me diagrams with measurements, or I'll assume there's a good reason why you won't - namely, that your objections aren't actually supported by the hard data.

At the moment, you're defying everyone to refute a point you haven't even established.

Dave

It's easy, Dave. Print out the three photos and measure them. I know you have problems judging distances but it easy if you really try.

JimBenArm
7th October 2010, 05:54 AM
The photos have nothing what so ever with the bullet trajectory but as I have stated previously, Tsig, if the photos are fake, then it proves there was a conspiracy.

No, the only thing it could possibly prove is that someone altered the photos. It proves nothing else at all.

Dave Rogers
7th October 2010, 05:55 AM
It's easy, Dave. Print out the three photos and measure them. I know you have problems judging distances but it easy if you really try.

Why should I bother? You print out the photos, measure them, and present the measurements. You're the one trying to prove a point; don't be so damned lazy about it.

Dave

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 05:58 AM
Let me remind you of something: you're the one trying to prove a point here. Asking everyone else to prove you wrong won't do that; we'll just get bored and talk about something else instead. I've asked you repeatedly to show your working, to place your line of argument on some other basis than that it just looks like that to you. Show me diagrams with measurements, or I'll assume there's a good reason why you won't - namely, that your objections aren't actually supported by the hard data.

At the moment, you're defying everyone to refute a point you haven't even established.

Dave

I've already stated that everything the second (or right or middle) photo is approx 20% larger than in the first (or left.) You obviously disagree. and I'd like to know why when the proof is before your eyes.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 06:01 AM
Why should I bother? You print out the photos, measure them, and present the measurements. You're the one trying to prove a point; don't be so damned lazy about it.

Dave

Dave, I've told you that everything in the second (or right or middle) is larger than the first (or left). If you can't see that even without printing out the photos then it's useless trying to discuss them with you.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 06:04 AM
No, the only thing it could possibly prove is that someone altered the photos. It proves nothing else at all.

Oh God, they've let you out again.

Why would anybody alter the photos? Doh!

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 06:15 AM
You've obviously never heard of retouching, Robo. (By the way you still haven't answered my question)

I have heard of it. I simply missed where you gave evidence for it in this case. Can you point to the post where you slam dunked the photos as being retouched? Thanks.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 06:17 AM
I have heard of it. I simply missed where you gave evidence for it in this case. Can you point to the post where you slam dunked the photos as being retouched? Thanks.

Have you answered my question yet, Robo? Thanks.

Dave Rogers
7th October 2010, 07:11 AM
I've already stated that everything the second (or right or middle) photo is approx 20% larger than in the first (or left.) You obviously disagree. and I'd like to know why when the proof is before your eyes.

As I've said, the distance from which the photos is taken is utterly irrelevant to any question of whether they're faked or not, so it's no more than a distraction. So, why are you trying to discuss irrelevant trivia when I ask you to offer some evidence? At the moment, my hypothesis is that you read somewhere, or somebody told you, that there are discrepancies in the photographs, but you can't remember exactly what they said, so you're bluffing in the hope that someone will give you some information that you can work from. That hypothesis is very easily falsified; you have only to provide some measurements of the positions of the shadows, compared to their expected positions, and show on a diagram that the two differ significantly, something very easy to do, and that, if you're to be believed, you've already done. If you don't do so, then I'll conclude that my hypothesis is a reasonable one.

Dave

tsig
7th October 2010, 07:17 AM
The photos have nothing what so ever with the bullet trajectory but as I have stated previously, Tsig, if the photos are fake, then it proves there was a conspiracy.

That means that someone had to fake the films on the order of someone else. The conspiracy grows.

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 07:18 AM
Have you answered my question yet, Robo? Thanks.
Yep:
Why would Oswald's image in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from be different? Why would the shadows be different in the original photographs that you say these were lifted from?

Now, which of your posts shows the evidence for the photos being retouched? Thanks in advance. If you have no answer, we'll assume that you never did and we can move on to your next abysmal effort.

Tolls
7th October 2010, 07:22 AM
For your animation, did you have to reduce the second picture to get it to line up with the first, Tolls?

I changed nothing, since the scale appeared the same based on the stairs.
Even if I did have to change the size of one or the other picture in order to get the stairs and post to match how would that change the point that Oswald is the same (give or take a pixel) size in both pictures?

Look at the animation...he is the same height.
I doubt he even moved his right foot between the two shots.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 09:28 AM
That means that someone had to fake the films on the order of someone else. The conspiracy grows.

You're starting to get the gist, Tsig

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 09:29 AM
Yep:

Where Robo?

Now, which of your posts shows the evidence for the photos being retouched? Thanks in advance. If you have no answer, we'll assume that you never did and we can move on to your next abysmal effort.

The evidence is in the photos.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 09:33 AM
I changed nothing, since the scale appeared the same based on the stairs.
Even if I did have to change the size of one or the other picture in order to get the stairs and post to match how would that change the point that Oswald is the same (give or take a pixel) size in both pictures?

Look at the animation...he is the same height.
I doubt he even moved his right foot between the two shots.

Look at the first( or left) and second (or right or middle) photos, Tolls. Is the post in the second( or right or middle) not bigger than in the first post? I make it about 20% bigger, (and before anybody says that you can't see the whole post, I measured those parts of the post which are common to both photos. ) Try it.

Obviously if you reduce the size of photo 2 (or the right one or the middle one) the posts will match.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 09:40 AM
As I've said, the distance from which the photos is taken is utterly irrelevant to any question of whether they're faked or not, so it's no more than a distraction. So, why are you trying to discuss irrelevant trivia when I ask you to offer some evidence? At the moment, my hypothesis is that you read somewhere, or somebody told you, that there are discrepancies in the photographs, but you can't remember exactly what they said, so you're bluffing in the hope that someone will give you some information that you can work from. That hypothesis is very easily falsified; you have only to provide some measurements of the positions of the shadows, compared to their expected positions, and show on a diagram that the two differ significantly, something very easy to do, and that, if you're to be believed, you've already done. If you don't do so, then I'll conclude that my hypothesis is a reasonable one.

Dave

The distance is very relevant, Dave. If the fixed objects in the second (or right or middle- for those of limited understanding) are larger than in the first (or left) then the photo has either been enlarged and cropped in which case somebody has been messing with them, or the camera is closer to Oswald. If the camera is closer to Oswald, then the relationship between the stair post and the fence post behind it , and the relationship between the fence panels and upright to the right of Oswald must change. due to parallax changes. The relationship doesn't change in all three photos. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 09:47 AM
I changed nothing, since the scale appeared the same based on the stairs.
Even if I did have to change the size of one or the other picture in order to get the stairs and post to match how would that change the point that Oswald is the same (give or take a pixel) size in both pictures?

Have you compared the heights of LHO in the first (or left) and second (or right or middle) photos, Tolls. I'd be interested to see why you can't see the part of LHO we can see (i.e. less his feet- again for those of limited understanding) in the second (or right or middle) is larger than the complete LHO is in the first (or left) photo.

Look at the animation...he is the same height.

There wouldn't be if you matched the photos to make an animation.

I doubt he even moved his right foot between the two shots.

That's even better. It puts him in the same position for both photos.

JimBenArm
7th October 2010, 10:02 AM
Oh God, they've let you out again.

Why would anybody alter the photos? Doh!
Yes, why would anyone alter the photos? Is a conspiracy the only reason? Really?

If it is the only reason, then the fact that they haven't been altered should tell you something. Wonder what that is?

I know it's hard, but do try to use your head for something other than a hat-rack.

uke2se
7th October 2010, 10:05 AM
I still don't understand why they would fake the photos in such a poor way when it would have been simpler to do it right. It speaks either about the stupidity of government agencies or the stupidity of conspiracy theorists.

Dave Rogers
7th October 2010, 10:06 AM
The distance is very relevant, Dave. If the fixed objects in the second (or right or middle- for those of limited understanding) are larger than in the first (or left) then the photo has either been enlarged and cropped in which case somebody has been messing with them, or the camera is closer to Oswald. If the camera is closer to Oswald, then the relationship between the stair post and the fence post behind it , and the relationship between the fence panels and upright to the right of Oswald must change. due to parallax changes. The relationship doesn't change in all three photos. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Yes, I disagree, because Oswald is not an immovable object, but moves between photographs relative to the background. So, once again, you've failed to convince me by not posting any measurements. When, if ever, are you going to get the point of this?

Dave

JimBenArm
7th October 2010, 10:07 AM
I still don't understand why they would fake the photos in such a poor way when it would have been simpler to do it right. It speaks either about the stupidity of government agencies or the stupidity of conspiracy theorists.
Gee, wonder which one I'll pick...

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 10:10 AM
The questions are piling up thick and fast, Fourbrick. Feel free to start with mine.

uke2se
7th October 2010, 10:11 AM
Gee, wonder which one I'll pick...

No real contest, right?

The simplest explanation for all this is that the conspiracy theorists are wrong about the shadows not lining up like they should. They line up just fine when I look at the pictures, so I haven't got a clue what Fourbrick's going on about.

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 10:12 AM
No real contest, right?

The simplest explanation for all this is that the conspiracy theorists are wrong about the shadows not lining up like they should. They line up just fine when I look at the pictures, so I haven't got a clue what Fourbrick's going on about.

To be fair, he doesn't seem to either.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:04 AM
Yes, I disagree, because Oswald is not an immovable object, but moves between photographs relative to the background. So, once again, you've failed to convince me by not posting any measurements. When, if ever, are you going to get the point of this?

Dave

Didn't say anything about Oswald, Dave,. I was talking about the immovable objects in all three photos.

Do you think the second (or right or middle) photo is an enlargement of an original or a picture taken closer to the background?

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:05 AM
Gee, wonder which one I'll pick...

Be careful, Jim, your brain could explode if you try to make a sensible comment.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:07 AM
The questions are piling up thick and fast, Fourbrick. Feel free to start with mine.

After you, Claude.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:08 AM
No real contest, right?

The simplest explanation for all this is that the conspiracy theorists are wrong about the shadows not lining up like they should. They line up just fine when I look at the pictures, so I haven't got a clue what Fourbrick's going on about.

You must be another suffering from spatial awareness. And it's obvious you haven't got a clue.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:09 AM
To be fair, he doesn't seem to either.

Thanks for trying to be fair, Robo, but i know exactly what I'm on about. You ready to answer my question in post 554?

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 11:29 AM
Yes, why would anyone alter the photos? Is a conspiracy the only reason? Really?

If it is the only reason, then the fact that they haven't been altered should tell you something. Wonder what that is?

I know it's hard, but do try to use your head for something other than a hat-rack.

I wonder when he will actually come up with something. We haven't heard from him for a while.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:31 AM
I wonder when he will actually come up with something. We haven't heard from him for a while.

Post 554, Robo.

uke2se
7th October 2010, 11:31 AM
You must be another suffering from spatial awareness. And it's obvious you haven't got a clue.

So, an insult but no evidence? Quite typical, really.

ETA: I really am suffering from spatial awareness. I'm just so aware that I can see the shadows lining up.:D

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:43 AM
So, an insult but no evidence? Quite typical, really.

If you insist that you can't see the difference between the shadows in the two photos (ie. the first (or left) and the second (or right or middle for those who have limited understanding) then there is no use trying to discuss the problem with you.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:46 AM
So, an insult but no evidence? Quite typical, really.

You mean like this

Couldn't you put your well endowed imagination to the problem and try to come up with a reason for why they faked Oswald's picture in such an unnecessarily stupid way?

uke2se
7th October 2010, 11:47 AM
If you insist that you can't see the difference between the shadows in the two photos (ie. the first (or left) and the second (or right or middle for those who have limited understanding) then there is no use trying to discuss the problem with you.

I'll answer it if you promise to answer why the gubmint faked the photos in such a poor way when it would have been easier to do it right.

The second photo appears to be zoomed in. But then again, I'm suffering from spatial awareness. :D

uke2se
7th October 2010, 11:48 AM
You mean like this

No, not like that. That's not an insult, unless you think praise of your imagination is insulting.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:49 AM
Double post

uke2se
7th October 2010, 11:51 AM
Edited: Response to double post.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 11:54 AM
I'll answer it if you promise to answer why the gubmint faked the photos in such a poor way when it would have been easier to do it right.

Who said it was the Gubmint?

The second photo appears to be zoomed in. But then again, I'm suffering from spatial awareness. :D

You think the photo has been enlarged and cropped?

uke2se
7th October 2010, 11:58 AM
Who said it was the Gubmint?

Why did whomever you think faked the photographs fake them in such a poor way when it would have been simpler to do it right?

You think the photo has been enlarged and cropped?

My spatial awareness tells me "no". I would say camera zoom.

Fourbrick
7th October 2010, 12:02 PM
Why did whomever you think faked the photographs fake them in such a poor way when it would have been simpler to do it right?
There is no reason to think the people involved were not stupid.

My spatial awareness tells me "no". I would say camera zoom.

Trouble is the Imperial camera used to take the photos, didn't have a zoom function. Any other ideas?

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 12:03 PM
Post 554, Robo.

Post 640, Brick. Remember, you even answered it but edited out my answer. Now answer the questions or just admit you're pulling a Soily.

RoboTimbo
7th October 2010, 12:05 PM
There is no reason to think the people involved were not stupid.

Trouble is the Imperial camera used to take the photos, didn't have a zoom function. Any other ideas?

Why would Oswald appear larger in one of the original photos that you say these were cropped from?
Why would Oswald's shadow appear to be different in the original photos that you say these were cropped from?
Post 640, Brick.

uke2se
7th October 2010, 12:05 PM
There is no reason to think the people involved were not stupid.

Other than the fact that they orchestrated one of the most complicated cover ups in history.

Do you think that all else being even, is it more or less plausible that those who faked the photographs were stupid enough to make such a huge mistake when it would have been easier to do it right than you being wrong?

Trouble is the Imperial camera used to take the photos, didn't have a zoom function. Any other ideas?

Just so I don't have to chase this down on the internet: evidence please?

/Edit: Never mind, you are correct. Then I would guess Marina took a step forward.

CurtC
7th October 2010, 12:13 PM
Do you think the second (or right or middle) photo is an enlargement of an original or a picture taken closer to the background?It looks to me like the camera was in the same position, but the images are not scaled the same. You've been evasive here - what's your opinion?

If you insist that you can't see the difference between the shadows in the two photos (ie. the first (or left) and the second (or right or middle for those who have limited understanding) then there is no use trying to discuss the problem with you.We're saying that the difference between the two shadows seems to correspond with the difference in how Oswald is standing in those to photos, and there doesn't seem to be anything we can see that would indicate trickery.

Trouble is the Imperial camera used to take the photos, didn't have a zoom function. Any other ideas?I think he meant that the image we're looking at on the Internet was zoomed-in, i.e. enlarged relative to the others.

Where did these scans originate? Do you have reason to think that the images in the link you've posted should all correlate to the same scale relative to the original prints or negatives?

uke2se
7th October 2010, 12:17 PM
I think he meant that the image we're looking at on the Internet was zoomed-in, i.e. enlarged relative to the others.

No, I actually meant camera zoom. Fourbrick is correct that that wasn't it. I doubt it's scaled up either, given the edges of the photos. I'd say either Marina took a step forward, or it was blown up when it was developed.

CurtC
7th October 2010, 12:19 PM
I doubt it's scaled up either, given the edges of the photos.
What do you mean "edges of the photos"?

uke2se
7th October 2010, 12:25 PM
What do you mean "edges of the photos"?

To me, the edges appear "thumbed" as an old photo would be when handled or developed using older technology. I might be wrong about that, of course.

One idea is that when the photos were developed, there was an error in the edge of the film, so the developer simply zoomed in. Simple explanation.

CurtC
7th October 2010, 12:37 PM
To me, the edges appear "thumbed" as an old photo would be when handled or developed using older technology.
I'm not seeing it.

uke2se
7th October 2010, 12:38 PM
I'm not seeing it.

As I said, I might be wrong. It's probably my spatial awareness acting up again. ;)

tsig
7th October 2010, 12:43 PM
You're starting to get the gist, Tsig

Why did they fake the photos? I seem to have lost the plot.

Fake photos

Kill Kennedy

????

BTW who is they?

ETA: it's tsig not Tsig

CurtC
7th October 2010, 12:48 PM
Upon further study here's what I think about the camera position in those photos.

The camera position seems to be the same in photos #1 and #2. If you look at the screen door on the left, where it's obscured by the stairs, there is a little triangle of screen that is showing the same amount in both photos. This indicates that at least the camera was on the same line connecting those two points. Then, just under the landing of the stairs, there is what looks like the bottom-left corner of a window from the neighbor's house. You can see the same amount of that window exposed below the stairway landing in both pictures, indicating that the camera was also on the same line connecting those two points. That nails down the camera position to a fairly small range. It would be nice to have something on the right side of the photo that we could line up, but I don't see anything there we could use.

In the third photo, there is less of that little triangle window-screen showing, and more of the background window showing, which indicates that Marina moved a few inches to her left for this one.

So given all that, I think the scaling of the images is different. I suspect it's probably the scaling of whoever digitally scanned the prints, and not a difference in how the negatives were cropped when the prints were made.

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 01:34 AM
A couple of days ago I asked Fourbrick to present his working in the form of a diagram with measurements, something that should be trivially simple if he's actually done the analysis he says he's done. He's made 48 posts in this thread since then, with not a single measurement from a photograph presented; the nearest he's got to any quantitative data is a general assertion, backed up by nothing at all, that one of the photos shows objects 20% bigger than another. He's then repeatedly asked me to prove his point for him.

I think we can conclude that Fourbrick is never going to present a coherent argument backed up by actual measurements from the photographs. I am now concluding from that that he has never actually done this analysis, and is simply passing on something he has been told elsewhere and is repeating as an act of faith.

I would suggest, as someone usually does in these threads, that we simply stop engaging with him. He's asking us to examine and counter an argument that he still hasn't actually presented. This is a classic conspiracy theorist smokescreen technique; since we don't actually know, in detail, what his argument is, he can then dismiss any counter-argument as irrelevant, and claim that his theory was never debunked.

I, for one, have no further interest in trying to debunk a vacuum. Unless and until Fourbrick presents actual measurements from the photographs and explains quantitatively the discrepancies between them, my future involvement in this thread will be limited to highlighting the number of posts he has made without doing so.

Put up or shut up time, Fourbrick. Are you too scared to present any actual numbers?

Dave

Tolls
8th October 2010, 03:09 AM
Look at the first( or left) and second (or right or middle) photos, Tolls. Is the post in the second( or right or middle) not bigger than in the first post? I make it about 20% bigger, (and before anybody says that you can't see the whole post, I measured those parts of the post which are common to both photos. ) Try it.

I did nothing to the photos I used. The post and stairs match up when you shift one layer over the other. That's all I did.

Obviously if you reduce the size of photo 2 (or the right one or the middle one) the posts will match.

Nope, I did nothing to the photos you posted.
Whether anyone else did prior to you posting them I have no idea.
But in the pictures I was using, the ones you posted, the post and stairs match up in scale sufficiently closely to say whoever took the photos hadn't moved much at all towards or away from LHO.

Have you compared the heights of LHO in the first (or left) and second (or right or middle) photos, Tolls. I'd be interested to see why you can't see the part of LHO we can see (i.e. less his feet- again for those of limited understanding) in the second (or right or middle) is larger than the complete LHO is in the first (or left) photo.

Look at my bloody animation!
I only moved the layers!
How many times do I have to say this?

Once moved to match the stairs and post (which are clearly the same size in the animation) you have an LHO who is also clearly the same size!

Blimey...this really is the Moon Hoax all over again.
Someone needs to get one of the photo chaps who debunks that in here.

There wouldn't be if you matched the photos to make an animation.

What does that even mean?
I aligned the two photos to match the stairs and post.
They are the same size.
LHO is the same height.

What on earth is your point?

That's even better. It puts him in the same position for both photos.

Yes, which is why he is the same height in both once you align the pictures.

Stick a horizontal rule (easy in Gimp and I expect Photoshop) across his eyes, and they are with a pixel or two.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 03:58 AM
Upon further study here's what I think about the camera position in those photos.

The camera position seems to be the same in photos #1 and #2. If you look at the screen door on the left, where it's obscured by the stairs, there is a little triangle of screen that is showing the same amount in both photos. This indicates that at least the camera was on the same line connecting those two points. Then, just under the landing of the stairs, there is what looks like the bottom-left corner of a window from the neighbor's house. You can see the same amount of that window exposed below the stairway landing in both pictures, indicating that the camera was also on the same line connecting those two points. That nails down the camera position to a fairly small range. It would be nice to have something on the right side of the photo that we could line up, but I don't see anything there we could use.

In the third photo, there is less of that little triangle window-screen showing, and more of the background window showing, which indicates that Marina moved a few inches to her left for this one.

So given all that, I think the scaling of the images is different. I suspect it's probably the scaling of whoever digitally scanned the prints, and not a difference in how the negatives were cropped when the prints were made.

There is something on the right to line up, Curt. Look at the end fence panel (which is in shadow) to the right of LHO (as we look at him.) There is an end post ( of whatever it is- looks like a large panel) with a bush in front of it. These relationship between these two points co-incide with each other in all photographs.

If the relationship between the right stairpost and end fence post stays the same, and the relationship between the end fence panel and the end post to the right stays the same, the camera cannot have been moved towards LHO as at least one of those relationships would have changed. (it's called parallax changes i.e. The apparent displacement, or difference of position, of an object, as seen from two different stations, or points of view.)

For example if the camera was moved forward either the fence post behind the stairpost would have moved behind the stairpost or if that line of sight was kept, then the amount of fence post we could see to the right of LHO would have increased.

Anybody disagree?

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 04:02 AM
I did nothing to the photos I used. The post and stairs match up when you shift one layer over the other. That's all I did.

How come Oswald is larger in the second (or right or middle) photo than he is in the first (or left) photo. Do you deny that fact?

Nope, I did nothing to the photos you posted.
Whether anyone else did prior to you posting them I have no idea.
But in the pictures I was using, the ones you posted, the post and stairs match up in scale sufficiently closely to say whoever took the photos hadn't moved much at all towards or away from LHO.

No they don't.

Look at my bloody animation!
I only moved the layers!
How many times do I have to say this?

Once moved to match the stairs and post (which are clearly the same size in the animation) you have an LHO who is also clearly the same size!

see above comment look at the pictures not the animation.

Blimey...this really is the Moon Hoax all over again.
Someone needs to get one of the photo chaps who debunks that in here.

What does that even mean?
I aligned the two photos to match the stairs and post.
They are the same size.
LHO is the same height.

What on earth is your point?

You must have reduced the second photo to get the size of the post in the second (or right or middle) as the part of the post we can measure in that picture is 20% larger than the same part in the first (or left) photo..

Try printing the two photos out and comparing them. It will only take a minute and cost very little.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 04:17 AM
Why did they fake the photos? I seem to have lost the plot.

Fake photos

Kill Kennedy

????

BTW who is they?

ETA: it's tsig not Tsig

I'm not into guessing who did anything, tsig, just know that the photos appear to be dodgy. I'll leave the who and why to somebody else.

And I apologise for putting a capital T before your name. It is normal custom where I come from to use a capital letter when writing somebody's name.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 04:20 AM
To me, the edges appear "thumbed" as an old photo would be when handled or developed using older technology. I might be wrong about that, of course.

One idea is that when the photos were developed, there was an error in the edge of the film, so the developer simply zoomed in. Simple explanation.

Sounds good, Uke, except that these prints were printed from the original negatives, to the same size (By the way, I see your spatial wareness has improved- at least unlike some other posters on here you can see the difference in size between the two photos)

Belz...
8th October 2010, 04:26 AM
There is no reason to think the people involved were not stupid.

And yet devilishly brilliant when you need them to be.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 04:57 AM
And yet devilishly brilliant when you need them to be.
Maybe, Belz. Depends who they were.:D

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 05:10 AM
Why would Oswald appear larger in one of the original photos that you say these were cropped from?
Why would Oswald's shadow appear to be different in the original photos that you say these were cropped from?
Post 640, Brick.

Post 554 comes before 640, Robo.

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 05:46 AM
Fifty-four posts, and still no measurements.

Dave

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 05:51 AM
Fifty-four posts, and still no measurements.

Dave

I'm working on it, Dave. Just trying to work out the best way to show them.

If I give you the measurements would you believe them anyway? You seem to have difficulty in telling whether a photo is taken nearer or further away from another one. Not an encouraging sign.

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 06:14 AM
Fifty-five. Maybe the time you've spent making contentless, argumentative posts would have been better spent working out the best way to show them.

Dave

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 06:32 AM
Fifty-five. Maybe the time you've spent making contentless, argumentative posts would have been better spent working out the best way to show them.

Dave

Maybe. At least we know you can count.

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 06:38 AM
Maybe. At least we know you can count.

Fifty-six.

Dave

RoboTimbo
8th October 2010, 06:46 AM
Post 554 comes before 640, Robo.

Which means 640 answered 544. See, even you can learn. Congratulations! Now, about those questions that you keep dodging. I'm going to have to go with Dave Rogers on this, you're just a typical CT using typical CT tactics. Until you join the real world and answer some questions, I won't be responding to your childishness anymore.

uke2se
8th October 2010, 06:47 AM

uke2se
8th October 2010, 06:59 AM
I'm working on it, Dave. Just trying to work out the best way to show them.

If I give you the measurements would you believe them anyway? You seem to have difficulty in telling whether a photo is taken nearer or further away from another one. Not an encouraging sign.

...They see me stallin'...
...they hatin'...

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 07:01 AM
double post

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 07:03 AM

Which question, Uke. (57 to help Dave keep count.)

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 07:07 AM
Which question, Uke. (57 to help Dave keep count.)

Fifty-eight, actually.

Dave

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 07:13 AM
Fifty-eight, actually.

Dave

If you include the double post you are correct. (See I don't mind admitting |I'm wrong, unlike certain other posters.)

59 now.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 07:53 AM
O.K., Got a rough tiff file to show. How do I post it?

(60)

catsmate1
8th October 2010, 08:06 AM
Because he moved.

Obviously, how any rational person can't see this I don't know.

You've obviously never heard of retouching, Robo. (By the way you still haven't answered my question)
Yes I think we're all aware of retouching. However what is your evidance the photo has been modified?

A couple of days ago I asked Fourbrick to present his working in the form of a diagram with measurements, something that should be trivially simple if he's actually done the analysis he says he's done. He's made 48 posts in this thread since then, with not a single measurement from a photograph presented; the nearest he's got to any quantitative data is a general assertion, backed up by nothing at all, that one of the photos shows objects 20% bigger than another. He's then repeatedly asked me to prove his point for him.

I think we can conclude that Fourbrick is never going to present a coherent argument backed up by actual measurements from the photographs. I am now concluding from that that he has never actually done this analysis, and is simply passing on something he has been told elsewhere and is repeating as an act of faith.

I would suggest, as someone usually does in these threads, that we simply stop engaging with him. He's asking us to examine and counter an argument that he still hasn't actually presented. This is a classic conspiracy theorist smokescreen technique; since we don't actually know, in detail, what his argument is, he can then dismiss any counter-argument as irrelevant, and claim that his theory was never debunked.

I, for one, have no further interest in trying to debunk a vacuum. Unless and until Fourbrick presents actual measurements from the photographs and explains quantitatively the discrepancies between them, my future involvement in this thread will be limited to highlighting the number of posts he has made without doing so.

Put up or shut up time, Fourbrick. Are you too scared to present any actual numbers?

Dave
Well said Dave.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 08:11 AM
Obviously, how any rational person can't see this I don't know.

Yes I think we're all aware of retouching. However what is your evidance the photo has been modified?

Well said Dave.

Welcome to the discussion, Catsmate. Nice to see a new face, although not very welcoming from first viewing.

See above post

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 08:24 AM
O.K., Got a rough tiff file to show. How do I post it?

(60)

Needs to be a .bmp, .jpg or .gif, I think - Windows Paint will convert.

Dave

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 08:35 AM
Needs to be a .bmp, .jpg or .gif, I think - Windows Paint will convert.

Dave

Thanks, Dave. Now it's a BMP file. How do I post it on here?

Dave Rogers
8th October 2010, 08:49 AM
Thanks, Dave. Now it's a BMP file. How do I post it on here?

Go to the advanced posting window. On the right, under "My Images", press "Quick Upload" and follow the instructions; that'll upload the file. Then, go to "Pick", which will open the image chooser window. Be careful here, because the software inserts the image at the current cursor location, and if that isn't in the post window it won't work right. Best way is, once you've got the image chooser window open, click in the post window where you want the picture to go, then double-click the image in the image chooser window. It took me a while to get that one right.

Dave

uke2se
8th October 2010, 09:00 AM
Which question, Uke. (57 to help Dave keep count.)

Why did the fakers fake the evidence in such a poor way that it would have been simpler to do it right?

And no, them being stupid isn't an acceptable answer given the fact that you give them the blame for one of the most successful and longest running cover ups in history.

Is it possible, just possible, that you are wrong about the shadows in the photos and that there was no conspiracy?

Belz...
8th October 2010, 09:16 AM
Maybe, Belz. Depends who they were.:D

****. I really love sophistry sometimes. :rolleyes:

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 09:16 AM
Why did the fakers fake the evidence in such a poor way that it would have been simpler to do it right?

And no, them being stupid isn't an acceptable answer given the fact that you give them the blame for one of the most successful and longest running cover ups in history.
No idea at all, Uke. I'm just trying to find out if the pictures are fake.

Is it possible, just possible, that you are wrong about the shadows in the photos and that there was no conspiracy?

Indeed, and it would put one part of the conspiracy theory to bed if the pictures were genuine.

The shadows is only one part of the anomalies that are in the photos. e.g.Amongst other discrepancies, in the second (or right or middle) photo, LHO should be taller than he is in in the first (or left) photo. He's actually shorter. Any idea why?

p.s. I'm trying separately to upload my bmp file but it's taking ages to get permission off JREF apparently.(it says "sending a request to JREF")

uke2se
8th October 2010, 09:30 AM
No idea at all, Uke. I'm just trying to find out if the pictures are fake.

Indeed, and it would put one part of the conspiracy theory to bed if the pictures were genuine.

The shadows is only one part of the anomalies that are in the photos. e.g.Amongst other discrepancies, in the second (or right or middle) photo, LHO should be taller than he is in in the first (or left) photo. He's actually shorter. Any idea why?

p.s. I'm trying separately to upload my bmp file but it's taking ages to get permission off JREF apparently.(it says "sending a request to JREF")

Well, the we are kinda stuck until you can get your analysis uploaded. If you're having trouble with uploading to JREF, try http://www.imageshack.us. It's an image hosting site and you can just hotlink the image from there.

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 09:41 AM
Well, the we are kinda stuck until you can get your analysis uploaded. If you're having trouble with uploading to JREF, try http://www.imageshack.us. It's an image hosting site and you can just hotlink the image from there.

Thanks, Uke, went on there but the message says "JREF file too too big to load."

Any other ideas?

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 09:47 AM
****. I really love sophistry sometimes. :rolleyes:
Not sophistry, Belz. I don't know who did it, if it was done, so how could I possibly comment what their abilities are?

Fourbrick
8th October 2010, 09:48 AM
Uke. Is it possible to compress the file in anyway to send it via Imageshack?

uke2se
8th October 2010, 10:39 AM
Thanks, Uke, went on there but the message says "JREF file too too big to load."

Any other ideas?

Convert the image to a JPEG. You lose a bit of quality but you get the file size down.

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 06:39 AM
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6817/jref1.jpg

In the above (poor resolution - accept my apologies) photo, I have erased un- necessary parts in order to reduce the size of the file as the original without the omissions was too large to send. I have added nothing (except where noted) and I have moved nothing.

In the photos, I have noted where the relevant points as such:

x represents the length of the stairpost visible in both photos.

“1x” is the stairpost in photo 1. “2x” is the stairpost in photo 2

“1y” is the height of LHO in photo 1 “2y” is the height visible of LHO in photo2.

“2x” is 19% larger than “1x”. “ 2y” is 9.6% larger than “1y”

The angle of the shadows is shown by the two lines.

Angle CAB is 47°, angle ABC is 119° therefore angle ACB ( angle of shadow must be 14°)

I have drawn in where, according to scale, I think LHO’s foot should be in photo2.

My contention (and for your info, Dave, I have never seen this particular scenario discussed anywhere else.) is this.

If LHO and the stairpost (particularly those two items- other fixed objects are also 19% larger in photo2 than in photo 1) are both larger in photo 2, either the camera was moved closer to LHO the camera, or the original negative was enlarged.

As the camera did not have a zoom feature, is there any other reason for the difference other than the two items above?

Sorry guys, seesm I have not been able to get the right size from Imageshack but if you view the image you will see it quite clearly. (Unless somebody can tell me how to reduce the size)

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 06:47 AM
Convert the image to a JPEG. You lose a bit of quality but you get the file size down.

RoboTimbo
9th October 2010, 06:57 AM
If LHO and the stairpost (particularly those two items- other fixed objects are also 19% larger in photo2 than in photo 1) are both larger in photo 2, either the camera was moved closer to LHO the camera, or the original negative was enlarged.

As the camera did not have a zoom feature, is there any other reason for the difference other than the two items above?

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 07:09 AM

In that post he said "It would be nice to have something on the right side of the photo that we could line up, but I don't see anything there we could use." I answered him in post 697.

Please try to keep up., Robo.

uke2se
9th October 2010, 07:20 AM
Now I see what you're talking about, Fourbrick. The position of the shadow of LHO's right foot has shifted when compared to his head, making the shadow appear to fall in another angle. This would seem to clench it that the shadow was faked...

... except that it doesn't.

You see, LHO's foot and LHO's head has also shifted compared to each other. Their positions are not fixed, so the angles are meaningless. As an example, use the same exact method and measure the angle from LHO's left foot instead. You will find that the angle has shifted there as well, but in the other direction.

The shadow hasn't shifted at at all. Only the line from Oswald's foot to his head.

I would like to thank you for bringing your measurements into the discussion. It was much easier to spot your mistake when I could see your work.

RoboTimbo
9th October 2010, 07:22 AM
uke2se took care of it.

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 07:24 AM
Now I see what you're talking about, Fourbrick. The position of the shadow of LHO's right foot has shifted when compared to his head, making the shadow appear to fall in another angle. This would seem to clench it that the shadow was faked...

... except that it doesn't.

You see, LHO's foot and LHO's head has also shifted compared to each other. Their positions are not fixed, so the angles are meaningless. As an example, use the same exact method and measure the angle from LHO's left foot instead. You will find that the angle has shifted there as well, but in the other direction.

The shadow hasn't shifted at at all. Only the line from Oswald's foot to his head.

I would like to thank you for bringing your measurements into the discussion. It was much easier to spot your mistake when I could see your work.

I finally found out to post it, Uke :D.

Ignoring the shadows problem for the time being, looks like we may have to agree to disagree. Do you have any comment about the relationship etc of the two photos?

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 07:29 AM
Quote by Robo

"You've drawn your lines with two different reference points. Your 2X bottom point isn't the same as the bottom point of your 1X. It looks like you're using a reference point that is the shadow falling across the upright but the shadow has moved down the post."

No, I haven't Robo. the line at the bottom of the post is at the point of the plant (or whatever the round object is at the bottom of the post is- it's certainly not a shadow)

Fourbrick
9th October 2010, 07:36 AM
Now I see what you're talking about, Fourbrick. The position of the shadow of LHO's right foot has shifted when compared to his head, making the shadow appear to fall in another angle. This would seem to clench it that the shadow was faked...

... except that it doesn't.

Sorry, Uke but on the either of the photos there is no right foot shadow.

You see, LHO's right foot and LHO's head has also shifted compared to each other. Their positions are not fixed, so the angles are meaningless. As an example, use the same exact method and measure the angle from LHO's left foot instead. You will find that the angle has shifted there as well, but in the other direction.

The shadow hasn't shifted at at all. Only the line from Oswald's foot to his head.

Disagree, Uke. The relationship between LHO's foot and his head only appears to have changed by about six inches (the distance from his left ear to the right side of his nose). You probably haven't allowed for the angle of the second photo being three degrees anti-clockwise to the first photo. If you take a centre line from the centre of LHO's foot in the first photo to the middle of his head, and the same in the second you will see what I mean.

[/QUOTE]

uke2se
9th October 2010, 07:37 AM
I finally found out to post it, Uke :D.

Ignoring the shadows problem for the time being, looks like we may have to agree to disagree. Do you have any comment about the relationship etc of the two photos?

Yes. Using the first picture as a baseline, the second one appears to have the camera moving somewhat forward, tilting slightly up. Consistent with a step forward, the photographer leaning ever so slightly backwards, possibly stepping on a step or the like. It's impossible to tell without a thorough analysis of the surrounding grounds.

uke2se
9th October 2010, 07:40 AM
Sorry, Uke but on the either of the photos there is no right foot shadow.

Sure there is. It's right under the heel where you got one of your two points for your line.

Disagree, Uke. The relationship between LHO's foot and his head only appears to have changed by about six inches (the distance from his left ear to the right side of his nose). You probably haven't allowed for the angle of the second photo being three degrees anti-clockwise to the first photo. If you take a centre line from the centre of LHO's foot in the first photo to the middle of his head, and the same in the second you will see what I mean.

But as I said, the foot is not a fixed point in comparison with the head, so of course the angle will differ. As any navigator knows, shift a position of a point slightly and the angle drawn through the point to a baseline will vary greatly, depending on the distance between the points.

Dave Rogers
9th October 2010, 08:21 PM
Disagree, Uke. The relationship between LHO's foot and his head only appears to have changed by about six inches (the distance from his left ear to the right side of his nose). You probably haven't allowed for the angle of the second photo being three degrees anti-clockwise to the first photo. If you take a centre line from the centre of LHO's foot in the first photo to the middle of his head, and the same in the second you will see what I mean.

Well, there are a number of things that strike me here, the first of which is that you're taking no account whatsoever of LHO's stance in terms of leaning towards or away from the camera, which on its own will affect the shadow angle; if you don't believe me, try it yourself with a torch and a piece of paper.

Secondly, if the second photo is, as you say, taken from three degrees anti-clockwise with respect to the first, that will result in a difference in the angles of the shadows. If the photographer has taken a step to her right between taking the photos, then the angle of the shadow will be reduced in the second photo.

Thirdly, it's quite clear that LHO's head is directly above his foot in the second photo, but to our left of it in the first. Again, that will lead to a reduction in the angle of the shadow.

You're looking at two different two-dimensional projections of two different three-dimensional objects and trying to reduce them to a single-parameter comparison, which is always extremely risky. The number of relevant parameters here include the positions of Oswald's feet, the angle at which he's standing both parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight, and the position of the camera, all of which are free variables. You need more information than a single number.

Dave

Fourbrick
10th October 2010, 08:49 AM
Secondly, if the second photo is, as you say, taken from three degrees anti-clockwise with respect to the first, that will result in a difference in the angles of the shadows. If the photographer has taken a step to her right between taking the photos, then the angle of the shadow will be reduced in the second photo.

I'll allow the 3° if it pleases you, Dave. That now makes the angle about 12°. If the photographer took a step to her right the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post behind it, and the upright Panel post and the fence paling to the right of LHO would have changed. They haven't.

Thirdly, it's quite clear that LHO's head is directly above his foot in the second photo, but to our left of it in the first. Again, that will lead to a reduction in the angle of the shadow.

Unfortunately in my second photo, I can't see LHO's right foot.

You're looking at two different two-dimensional projections of two different three-dimensional objects and trying to reduce them to a single-parameter comparison, which is always extremely risky. The number of relevant parameters here include the positions of Oswald's feet, the angle at which he's standing both parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight, and the position of the camera, all of which are free variables. You need more information than a single number.

Dave

You are quite right, Dave. Unfortunately, these are all I have to work on. Luckily two dimensional projections don't affect the measurement of vertical objects if they are plumb.

However, let's for a minute forget about the discussion about the shadows. Now that I have provided you with the info requested, maybe you will answer the question I asked earlier. Do you think the fact that the items mentioned (stairpost and LHO amongst others) are larger in the second photo than the first that this is due to the camera being closer or the original negative being enlarged and cropped? Or do you think there is another reason?

Fourbrick
10th October 2010, 08:56 AM
Yes. Using the first picture as a baseline, the second one appears to have the camera moving somewhat forward, tilting slightly up. Consistent with a step forward, the photographer leaning ever so slightly backwards, possibly stepping on a step or the like. It's impossible to tell without a thorough analysis of the surrounding grounds.

Uke, if the camera was tilted up for the second photo, the vertical lines in the photo. i.e. the stair post and the post to our right of LHO. would diverge at the top.They don't.
If the photographer took a step forward, then the parallax view of the stairpost/fence post,to our left, and the Panel post/ the fence paling, behind it to our right, would have changed. They haven't. Same goes if she had stood on a step.

Handy thing parallax.

Fourbrick
10th October 2010, 09:02 AM
Just for interest, have you noticed how LHO was shown to be standing almost vertical in the third (or right) photo, by angling the whole of the photo at angle of about 5° from vertical. If you straighten the photo up, and put a vertical line fromthe centre of his right leg, you will see that the line misses his left ear by by some inches. As somebody has previously stated, it is almost impossible to stand in that position. Try it.

uke2se
10th October 2010, 11:03 AM
Uke, if the camera was tilted up for the second photo, the vertical lines in the photo. i.e. the stair post and the post to our right of LHO. would diverge at the top.They don't.
If the photographer took a step forward, then the parallax view of the stairpost/fence post,to our left, and the Panel post/ the fence paling, behind it to our right, would have changed. They haven't. Same goes if she had stood on a step.

Handy thing parallax.

You can't tell either of those from your analysis. We are talking about such a small angle of difference that it would be hard to notice it in real life, let along a 50 year old photograph.

I suggest you do some practical experiments. You say a relative is a photographer. Recreate the Oswald pictures with roughly the same amount of horizontal and vertical lines for reference, and with a similar (needs not be exact) shadow position. My bet is that if you recreate it well enough, you won't see any divergence or parallax view change.

uke2se
10th October 2010, 11:06 AM
Just for interest, have you noticed how LHO was shown to be standing almost vertical in the third (or right) photo, by angling the whole of the photo at angle of about 5° from vertical. If you straighten the photo up, and put a vertical line fromthe centre of his right leg, you will see that the line misses his left ear by by some inches. As somebody has previously stated, it is almost impossible to stand in that position. Try it.

I'd like to see some evidence that it's nearly impossible to stand in that position. I just tried it in front of a mirror, and I got a pretty close match. His position shows the weight of the rifle, his body compensating.

Dave Rogers
11th October 2010, 12:49 AM
I'll allow the 3° if it pleases you, Dave. That now makes the angle about 12°.

No, no, no, no, no! How can I explain to you that that's a really, really clueless calculation? You're ignoring every possible effect of three-dimensional geometry, and assuming that angles projected on to a two-dimensional plane are unchanged. It's a problem in three-dimensional geometry, and you're being far too simple-minded in trying to express it as a two-dimensional one.

Look, imagine you're taking a photograph of a post whose shadow makes an angle of 45º on the ground. The photograph will show that angle as much, much greater than 45º, because the ground is seen at an oblique angle; the component of the shadow parallel to the line of sight is foreshortened, whereas that perpendicular is not. If you move the camera angle 45º so that the shadow points directly away from the camera, it will therefore have appeared to change by far more than the camera angle, and you've got a whole new conspiracy theory.

You are quite right, Dave. Unfortunately, these are all I have to work on. Luckily two dimensional projections don't affect the measurement of vertical objects if they are plumb.

Shadows are on the ground, and therefore horizontal, or close to it. Everything about your analysis is completely worthless for that reason alone.

However, let's for a minute forget about the discussion about the shadows. Now that I have provided you with the info requested, maybe you will answer the question I asked earlier. Do you think the fact that the items mentioned (stairpost and LHO amongst others) are larger in the second photo than the first that this is due to the camera being closer or the original negative being enlarged and cropped? Or do you think there is another reason?

I have no way of knowing, and a wealth perfectly innocent explanations for both possibilities. Marina Oswald could have taken the two photos from slightly different vantage points, or someone could have enlarged and cropped one or both of the photos, either to aid clarity in presenting the evidence, or in a fraudulent attempt to manufacture evidence for a conspiracy theory. Without knowing the full history of the photographs, I have no way of knowing. Again, it's up to you to demonstrate that there's something here that should be worthy of consideration.

Dave

Tolls
11th October 2010, 01:44 AM
How come Oswald is larger in the second (or right or middle) photo than he is in the first (or left) photo. Do you deny that fact?

Yes. Because as I said I stuck the horizontal rule based on his eyeline, and it's on the same level (give or take a pixel) in both, after lining up the stairs and post.

No they don't.

The top of the post is in the same spot (it's the main guide I used, so no surprise there). Looking down the post there's something at the foot of the post to the left (blobby thing). That is also in the spot whent he photos ar overlayed. The post is the same length...ergo the photos are scaled the same wrt the post, and therefore LHO because he is approximately in line with the post (as best as can be determined in 2d).

Which is built using the photos you provided, and I did no scaling on them...simply overlaid one over the other. You see, that's how you compare things like pictures in this modern day and age...you overlay them and spot the changes. You don't rely on your eyes to do the job.

Try it, Gimp's free after all.

see above comment look at the pictures not the animation.

They're the same pictures!
One is overlaid on the other so they can be compared.
Looking at the animation (made from the pictures) is looking at the pictures...it's also a damn sight more accurate.

You must have reduced the second photo to get the size of the post in the second (or right or middle) as the part of the post we can measure in that picture is 20% larger than the same part in the first (or left) photo..

Try printing the two photos out and comparing them. It will only take a minute and cost very little.

Nope.
I did nothing.
I moved the one layer over the other.

This was the picture I used, posted by you (http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF).

If you take the animation you can use Gimp to see the two layers and check that the second is the same scale as the one in that gif.

Fourbrick
11th October 2010, 03:39 AM
Yes.

Which is built using the photos you provided, and I did no scaling on them...simply overlaid one over the other. You see, that's how you compare things like pictures in this modern day and age...you overlay them and spot the changes. You don't rely on your eyes to do the job.

Try it, Gimp's free after all.

They're the same pictures!
One is overlaid on the other so they can be compared.
Looking at the animation (made from the pictures) is looking at the pictures...it's also a damn sight more accurate.

Nope.
I did nothing.
I moved the one layer over the other.

This was the picture I used, posted by you (http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF).

If you take the animation you can use Gimp to see the two layers and check that the second is the same scale as the one in that gif.

Tolls Look at the photos in the link you have provided above. Is LHO different sizes in each photo?

Fourbrick
11th October 2010, 04:13 AM
http://img412.imageshack.us/i/rightphoto1.jpg/

Photo showing the relationship of the right panel post to the fence behind it. It's the same in all three photos.

Anybody diagree?