Forums
Forum Home > JFK > Back Yard Photography | ||
---|---|---|
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
| |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1403 |
Ed, all great points. I'm going to get a set of these backyard pics for further study. I think the top two (side by side) are curious indeed. Need a clear set to have a closer look. If I didn't know any better I'd say that the shadow from the figure falling across the ground has changed to my eye at least when it seems no other shadows have moved. At first I thought my eyes were playing tricks, I also had assumed the figure had moved back a step, but then had a closer look at where the head meets the roof of the garage. It alters too. And just to make it interesting take a close look at the decreased angle of view of the lens on #2 its different IMO and its not just the cropping I'm talking of. I don't know whether thats right but it certainly looks to be the case. Maybe I'm pixel peeping to much.... | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
"decreased angle of view of the lens on #2 its different IMO" | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
Of note is the size of LHO in the images. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1143 |
Ed, Thank you for posting the first verifiable images of "black dog nose man". I do believe this 5'-0" tall version of Lee (or... damn!... is it Harvey!?!! I never can keep them straight!) is the tiny fellow we have been seeing in the vestibule of the TSBD. THIS is the very short Lee!! Who knew he would be found in the BYPs as well. Brilliant work, Ed. Black Dog Nose Man can be put to rest. | |
-- "If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1239 |
I've always shied away from the BYP because I suck at photo analysis. But after the questions raised, I took the three pictures cropped them to focus on three the highlighted areas that seem remarkably the same to me. Shadows and position of leaves and branches – nothing seems to change from image to image. Looks pretty static to me. You be the judge.
Also, the BYP were said to have been taken on March 31, 1963 (per Walt Brown's Chronology). I looked up the weather conditions for Dallas TX (Love) on March 31, 1963 and I got this:
Wind Speed: 17 mph (South) Max Wind Speed: 22 mph
With wind conditions like these at my place, I see vegetation/leaves/braches dancing around, non-stop. I'd expect to see a little more change from picture to picture here.
| |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1013 |
Looks like a single background image with only the figures shadow moving slightly to indicate a small passage of time between "shots". | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1403 |
It doesn't really matter what any of us think really, when the reality is that Lee cannot be 5 feet tall. The Backyard Pics are faked because of that. We have a known quantity. I just want to learn a little more about why and how..... | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1403 |
The more I look at these pics you've done Stan the more I'm inclined to say they're fake. We know Lee was not 5 feet tall but seriously theres more at issue here...someone went to a lot of trouble to implicate Lee with the manipulation of his image and the props we see in these photos. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
Awesome work Terry, Stan and Mick! Terry made me fall out the chair again... BDNM! Hahaha | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
Thanks Steely. As it turns out, on March 31, 1963 (the documented date from Warren Commission files for the backyard photo), one can compute (using a specialized computer program) the maximum solar altitude on the local meridian at noon (for lat. 32 deg 47’ 09” for Dallas, TX) as 57.o deg. This means that if the photo is legit, and conforms to the correct solar meridian crossing on that date, Oswald’s shadow (given his recorded height on his draft card of 5' 9" or 1.74m) can be no longer than 1.12m (3.7'), which sets limits on how far he can be located from the picket fence. My own computer software program that transforms a 2D perspective into a 3D one to obtain projected shadow lengths, shows that the actual length of shadow was more like 2.1 m (6.9'). This shows that at least two of the photos could not have been taken on the same day, if taken at all. Indeed, the massive discrepancy shows fakery ....but which Farid's seemingly superb software can't catch." | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1239 | ||
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1106 |
your killing me Stan!! | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1915 |
Mini-Me eh Mini-Lee:P | |
-- _________________________________________________________________________________ Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/ Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1915 |
Has anyone ever measured that wooden post next to LHO? | |
-- _________________________________________________________________________________ Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/ Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
| ||
Member Posts: 113 |
Looking at the photograph here, it looks pretty low/short... http://www.onthisveryspot.com/pics/spot_1684_761.jpg | |
| ||
Member Posts: 113 |
...then again... | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 402 |
Just a simple measurement from my computer screen shows the overall width of the two 2x4's that are ganged together to form the post itself at 3/8". The height of the post measures 8 1/4" on my computer screen. Without accounting for foreshortening in the horizontal (which there is some since we can see the two faces of the post, but accounting for it would simply make this post calculation shorter since there can only be a slight foreshortening in the vertical, if any) Divide height by width (8 1/4" by 3/8") we get 22 width units for the height of the post. Multiply 22 time 3" (two 2x4's put together is 3" since a 2x4 is 1 1/2" thick) and we get 5'-6" for the post height. I'm sure this is very close and slightly taller than it really is because of the width foreshortening. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 402 |
Actually, if I add a mere 1/32" to the 3/8" width calculation shown above, it shortens the post to 5'-0", so I have to say the foreshortening has a more dramatic effect than I thought. This also brings the 3/8" measurement into closer scrutiny, but with this we are on a track with the order of magnitude of the height of the post being around 5' to 5'-6". | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1143 |
One thing I was looking at was comparing the BYPs to the image of the site four years later (thanks, Smee!) I wondered what the discoloration lines on the ground were and the newly posted image made it clear: electrical lines running overhead. On the left and right are the BYP images from the start of the thread (the third image doesn't show the feet well enough) and the central image is the one taken March 30, 1967. On the left image the three shadows of the wires lay beyond the pale thing on the ground (whatever it is) and the right hand image shows the first line is now well beyond the pale spot. By my estimation of the travel rate of such shadows, it appears there is a fifteen to twenty minute passage of time from the first to the second. Now, what's really odd about this passage of time is that it means the Sun was traveling from behind the photographer to a position more over the head of the person being photographed. The weird thing about this is that the shadow of the figure holding the weapons does not fall onto the base of the fence in the left hand photo (just like in the central frame) but in the right hand frame, the shadow falls on the fence. This latter fact means the Sun was traveling in the opposite direction than the other shadow would indicate. If Lee's shadow has shifted toward the fence, shouldn't the shadow of the lines overhead also have shifted in that direction? Unless my grasp of spatial mechanics is twisted around backward... | |
-- "If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham
| ||
You must login to post.