REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Barto at January 26, 2016 at 4:35 PM

It's game over and good night for Albert "Dead Man Walking" Doyle. 

Yes Barto. The SS Doyle is limping back to port for urgent repairs.

All 6ft 3in of it.

Here is my analysis. The assumption is that the eye level of the cameraman is about at the level of the top step. It shows the difference in height for someone 5'9" standing at 46' and 50' from the camera. The top graphic shows the positions of the camera car at the time of the shots. I measured the distance to the top centre of the steps to be 46' using the scale in the diagram (not shown).

The angle to the top of the head of a person 5'9" can be calculated and was placed on the graph at bottom. This same calculation can be done at 50' and the difference in the 2 heights determined. I also added Frazier's height (73” in red) and placed at 46'. Although the exact distance between PM and the front of the steps is not known a distance of 4' is reasonable as the diagonal from the back corner to the centre of the steps would be 5.65’. Another possibility might be that the camera was closer than 46’. This would effectively increase the differential. In any event the analysis shows that a 5’9” person standing at the front of the landing would appear about 5.7” (shown in yellow)shorter if standing in the back corner.  

Dedicated to Albert.

Perceptions and Misconceptions of Photographic Evidence

Gale Spring

"Seeing is believing" may be an acceptable way of dealing with photographs on a casual basis. When photographs are required to give a fair and accurate account of a scene or situation, a deeper analysis must be undertaken to determine how, why, when, where and by whom the photograph was created. Problems are often encountered in the interpretation of the image. Technically speaking all photographs "lie"; sometimes by accident and sometimes by deliberate misrepresentation. Using a variety of case studies, this presentation covers areas of difficulty in extracting facts from photographs and what photographs can and cannot reveal.

Mr. Gale E. Spring is an Associate Professor of Scientific Photography at the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. He came to RMIT University in 1988 after 13 years as the Director of Photographic Services for the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Dallas, Texas. From his background in forensic and technical imaging, Gale finds himself involved at all levels of law enforcement, lecturing, consulting and acting as an expert witness in cases involving the interpretation of photographs used in evidence. Gale is the Program Leader of the Southern Hemisphere’s only applied science degree program in scientific photography. The program awards degrees from Bachelor of Applied Science (B.App.Sc) to PhD’s. The program embraces the internationalization of education and has many professional links throughout the world.

http://hesca.net/dallas/daytwo.htm#plenary1

Professor Spring at RMIT

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/staff/gale-spring

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 4:31 AM

Here is my analysis. The assumption is that the eye level of the cameraman is about at the level of the top step. It shows the difference in height for someone 5'9" standing at 46' and 50' from the camera. The top graphic shows the positions of the camera car at the time of the shots. I measured the distance to the top centre of the steps to be 46' using the scale in the diagram (not shown).

 

The angle to the top of the head of a person 5'9" can be calculated and was placed on the graph at bottom. This same calculation can be done at 50' and the difference in the 2 heights determined. I also added Frazier's height (73” in red) and placed at 46'. Although the exact distance between PM and the front of the steps is not known a distance of 4' is reasonable as the diagonal from the back corner to the centre of the steps would be 5.65’. Another possibility might be that the camera was closer than 46’. This would effectively increase the differential. In any event the analysis shows that a 5’9” person standing at the front of the landing would appear about 5.7” (shown in yellow)shorter if standing in the back corner.  

 

 

Dedicated to Albert.

 

Albert will be pleased:D

Greg at January 27, 2016 at 5:22 AM

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 4:31 AM

Here is my analysis. The assumption is that the eye level of the cameraman is about at the level of the top step. It shows the difference in height for someone 5'9" standing at 46' and 50' from the camera. The top graphic shows the positions of the camera car at the time of the shots. I measured the distance to the top centre of the steps to be 46' using the scale in the diagram (not shown).

 

The angle to the top of the head of a person 5'9" can be calculated and was placed on the graph at bottom. This same calculation can be done at 50' and the difference in the 2 heights determined. I also added Frazier's height (73” in red) and placed at 46'. Although the exact distance between PM and the front of the steps is not known a distance of 4' is reasonable as the diagonal from the back corner to the centre of the steps would be 5.65’. Another possibility might be that the camera was closer than 46’. This would effectively increase the differential. In any event the analysis shows that a 5’9” person standing at the front of the landing would appear about 5.7” (shown in yellow)shorter if standing in the back corner.  

 

 

Dedicated to Albert.

 

Albert will be pleased:D

Oh most def

Seems we have 3 different ways that indicate that PM was about 5'9”. Might I add that a woman that tall was 2 standard deviations from the average of 5'3" in 1963. In fact she would have been taller than the average male by one inch.

I still have trouble accepting that the radiator was THAT high.

The thing would reach the botom of my trouser pockets and I am 6 5"

Anyone have a link to this map with the scales?

Fratini says: 

"The radiator was worked out to be 2.5 feet in height." without showing as to how, so unless I am mistaken it's a guess at best....

Ok this is what I could find, but the radiators are a guess at best

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 4:31 AM

Here is my analysis. The assumption is that the eye level of the cameraman is about at the level of the top step. It shows the difference in height for someone 5'9" standing at 46' and 50' from the camera. The top graphic shows the positions of the camera car at the time of the shots. I measured the distance to the top centre of the steps to be 46' using the scale in the diagram (not shown).

 

The angle to the top of the head of a person 5'9" can be calculated and was placed on the graph at bottom. This same calculation can be done at 50' and the difference in the 2 heights determined. I also added Frazier's height (73” in red) and placed at 46'. Although the exact distance between PM and the front of the steps is not known a distance of 4' is reasonable as the diagonal from the back corner to the centre of the steps would be 5.65’. Another possibility might be that the camera was closer than 46’. This would effectively increase the differential. In any event the analysis shows that a 5’9” person standing at the front of the landing would appear about 5.7” (shown in yellow)shorter if standing in the back corner.  

 

 

Dedicated to Albert.

 

Colin, you are using Wiegman as an example, but Wiegman had a 10mm lens on his filmo cam. and that is a wide angle lens.

edit: Wiegman, according to Sprague, was 75 ft away

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Sprague%20Richard%20E/Item%2071.pdf

How come Shelley's office is twice as big as Truly's?

Yeah Greg that is what I was wondering a few months back while making the movie....how on earth....ha ha

Barto at January 27, 2016 at 6:28 AM

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 4:31 AM

Here is my analysis. The assumption is that the eye level of the cameraman is about at the level of the top step. It shows the difference in height for someone 5'9" standing at 46' and 50' from the camera. The top graphic shows the positions of the camera car at the time of the shots. I measured the distance to the top centre of the steps to be 46' using the scale in the diagram (not shown).

 

The angle to the top of the head of a person 5'9" can be calculated and was placed on the graph at bottom. This same calculation can be done at 50' and the difference in the 2 heights determined. I also added Frazier's height (73” in red) and placed at 46'. Although the exact distance between PM and the front of the steps is not known a distance of 4' is reasonable as the diagonal from the back corner to the centre of the steps would be 5.65’. Another possibility might be that the camera was closer than 46’. This would effectively increase the differential. In any event the analysis shows that a 5’9” person standing at the front of the landing would appear about 5.7” (shown in yellow)shorter if standing in the back corner.  

 

 

Dedicated to Albert.

 

Colin, you are using Wiegman as an example, but Wiegman had a 10mm lens on his filmo cam. and that is a wide angle lens.

edit: Wiegman, according to Sprague, was 75 ft away

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Sprague%20Richard%20E/Item%2071.pdf

I could only find the Wiegman position on the diagram. I assumed that Darnell was close by. I looked at this on Google maps at street level and I think it's pretty close to 40 odd feet. The rest is simple trigonometry taking the los from the camera lens to the top of the head. 46 feet was the adjacent and 5”9" the opposite sides. Then doing the same for 50'. The result when using Frazier's height meant that the difference was doubled....nearly a foot difference between The top of Frazier at the front of the landing to PM at the back corner. The other criticism about TM being behind the glass is inconsequential as the angle to camera means that even behind the glass is close to the same plane as PM in the corner.

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 5:35 AM

Seems we have 3 different ways that indicate that PM was about 5'9”. Might I add that a woman that tall was 2 standard deviations from the average of 5'3" in 1963. In fact she would have been taller than the average male by one inch.

This should earn you the official title of "Aussie troll site punk!"

Congratulations.

ps, the only gender issue is whether you are simply a troll, or trolling like a girl......w/etf that means. All will be revealed.

As one can see the loser JFK researcher will not stop at anything, I doubt if we were to show him a crystal clear Oswald in Darnell shot  he'd accept that ,he'd still argue/troll anyone to death just for him to have a little snicker behind his screen since cowardice is his only forte.

I have not seen him put one iota of real research forward, he has just been using his gob, gobshite Doyle indeed......

I reckon the cold shoulder treatment as at DPF is the best solution me reckons, and Albert "Dead Man Walking" Doyle ought to be treated as such....as a fxxxing dead man!!! 

R.I.P. Albert ''king of trolls and a dead man" Doyle

Pop quiz y'all what would you say position wise Oswald is compared to Frazier?

Equal, one step down, and or more forward???

My take is one step down and therefore more forward.

You know this guy:

I too think he is one step down.

Correct Vinny.

Let me put Tony Fratini's sketch up (without linking to MaCrap's forum) I have amended a few bits.

And disregard the two horizontal lines they are bollox and have no meaning in determining people's height whatsoever.

Oswald is at position C and Frazier is at position B.

Colin Crow at January 27, 2016 at 5:35 AM

Seems we have 3 different ways that indicate that PM was about 5'9”. Might I add that a woman that tall was 2 standard deviations from the average of 5'3" in 1963. In fact she would have been taller than the average male by one inch.

Don't forget footwear.

Three inch heels would skew a 5' 4" womans height to 5'7"

Not that applies to PM but his shoes did have a heel, perhaps an inch?

Barto at January 30, 2016 at 10:15 AM

Pop quiz y'all what would you say position wise Oswald is compared to Frazier?

Equal, one step down, and or more forward???

My take is one step down and therefore more forward.

You know this guy:

C'mon Barto,

They were on the same step

Wesley was wearing a pair of these:  

I saw this diagram of Oswald's alleged "escape" in Posner's Case Closed. I like it for the reason it shows the TSBD in 3D. Right away you can see problems with the official tale (like the nice diagonal run across the Sixth Floor as if were as clear and unobstructed as an empty parking garage).

How does the Gilbride (Second) Floor lunchroom encounter look here? See how far south off the beaten stairway path Baker has to mosey to catch his "glimpse" of the patsy?

Oswald was placed on the Sixth Floor. To get him off that floor, hook him up with Baker, then get his ass out of there – all in 180 seconds – the Gilbride Floor meet-up had to take place.

Only it never did.