|
|
 April 18, 2009, 01:16:36 AM
|
Group: Administrator
Super Member
Posts: 2094
|
I noticed this second car immediately on looking at Rick's latest gif in the JFK Bonus Materials thread. Given the unknown then and now variables, I am still not convinced that we are not seeing the car as I have illustrated in the other thread. I now see a second darker car near the first white colored car. The shadows coming from the car appear to be consistent with the direction of shadows cast on Nov 22nd 1963. I have made an illustration using the last frame from Rick's animation, which to me appears to show a second car. I'm reminded of the old saying..If it looks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck, Flies like a Duck, then it probably is a Duck. In this case, we appear to have 2 Ducks, neither of them being lame. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 05:21:48 AM by Duncan MacRae »
|
-------------------------
An opinion based on something other than fact, is an opinion based on ignorance. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2009, 02:32:22 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2139
|
Robin,
And how the important features in the above photo are located in this crop I made from the Murray photograph ;)
Rick
-------------------------
-------------------------
But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people- John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2009, 03:10:33 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2660
|
Jerry, thank you for GIF and where you may think the car originally was located. hat;; Let us take a look at the images. Sorry, a lot. First here, where you thought it was?  Look, there was 3 train waggons static at the crucial time, on the rails in november 22. You can see this even in Croft in the background.  Jerry, you positioned the alleged car way beyond the LOS from NIX thru the black dot. Far too north. Take a look how it should be. Plus the rails bending began much earlier in 1963. That may be the reason why your are mistaken.  Here once more to make it clear. That is the position of a car can have taken place at maximum distance from behind the fence through our LOS.  Yes, Robin and Rick. You are correct. Murray was actually standing underneath that tree you had identified. Murray was a professionell photographer. I have no idea how he achieved it to shot that photo from that height. He might held his camera overhead. Thats what i sometimes do too.  And here his photo and what is in sight from Murray's location.  Although Murray's lense was placed somewhat higher i can see just a few wheels in sight from his clear point of view behind the fence. Sorry, it's absurd to think a car wheel can be in sight at that location fom NIX based on that angle and based on this car parking situation. I really hope all that does it make clear now for everybody. I can make an exhaustive study like my Moorman#5 article if needed. We have now material enough. Jerry, apart from that i see no car in any elevation or podest in the parking lot anywhere. Did you? Thank you for your clear statement about S.M. Holland. Yes, it should be just noted trivial here. It deserved maybe another Topic. The same for the movement of this black dot behind the fence and how it can move in all that frames. ;D Thats it...and thanks for watching and paying attention Martin
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 03:22:40 PM by Martin Hinrichs »
|
-------------------------
Firework As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginGod bless Emmett Till: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginInsipired by the Movie "Invictus" and Nelson Mandela. What a poem! As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2009, 05:07:07 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
Ah Martin,
You are a clever guy! I thought I knew where you wanted to go with this as soon as I saw you ask for an uncluttered Murray. Very nice work! And you're right, the modern regrading and paving has really changed the topography - I did get my possible location too far forward.
However, I fear you have mistaken Murray's field of view. You've used the train light tower and estimated. But, there is a fixed feature of the landscape at the left. That is where the Stemmons overpass (bridge) ends and the freeway again joins land. That point is at the extreme left of Murray, it defines the left hand limit of his FOV. If we plot that point on a 1967 photo we can see that many distant, possible vehicle locations do not fall within the Murrary field of view. In fact, the area you highlighted in blue does not fall within Murray's view. Therefore we would not expect to see the possible car because it's not in Murray's FOV.
I do however, see a lot of wheel wells in Murray, even if I block out all the ones that would be obscured by a five foot fence. And I see cars parked at all angles. We might have to spend some more time with Murray!
Best to you,
Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 09:59:02 PM by Jerry Logan »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2009, 12:57:35 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2139
|
Ah Martin,
You are a clever guy! I thought I knew where you wanted to go with this as soon as I saw you ask for an uncluttered Murray. Very nice work! And you're right, the modern regrading and paving has really changed the topography - I did get my possible location too far forward.
However, I fear you have mistaken Murray's field of view. You've used the train light tower and estimated. But, there is a fixed feature of the landscape at the left. That is where the Stemmons overpass (bridge) ends and the freeway again joins land. That point is at the extreme left of Murray, it defines the left hand limit of his FOV. If we plot that point on a 1967 photo we can see that many distant, possible vehicle locations do not fall within the Murrary field of view. In fact, the area you highlighted in blue does not fall within Murray's view. Therefore we would not expect to see the possible car because it's not in Murray's FOV.
I do however, see a lot of wheel wells in Murray, even if I block out all the ones that would be obscured by a five foot fence. And I see cars parked at all angles. We might have to spend some more time with Murray!
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry said: I do however, see a lot of wheel wells in Murray, even if I block out all the ones that would be obscured by a five foot fence. Morning Jerry. I don't think I would go as far to say a lot, in fact I would have to say there are none. Where, in relation to Murray's current position when he snapped this photo, are you placing the imaginary 5 foot tall fence? Remember the distance involved here between Nix and the fence in the Nix film. You'd run out of real estate, wouldn't you? Or am I missing the point of your statement altogether? Also, are you saying that particular white car seen in Murray which Duncan is using for his car shadow comparison is the second car he sees in Nix frame 093 shock2 Rick
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2009, 01:24:15 AM
|
Group: Administrator
Super Member
Posts: 2094
|
No Duncan, you're wrong ;)
Now could you please place the location of your cream colored car in close proximity & orientaion, not exact, by drawing in a rectangle to the photo I attached in my posting further up this page? You're convinced of its existence...see it and it's wheel plainly in Nix....then it should not be a problem for you at all then hat;;
Rick, you are asking me to do something which I nor anyone else on here can do, simply because we do not know the missing ground level topographical variables for the Nix location and the missing ground level topographical variables in height at ground level from the fence to distant areas of the parking lot, as well as the actual size of the alleged car and the Nix camera lens height at his missing standing height variable location. Re: The shadows..Shadows follow a Universal rule that can not be changed, they point in the same direction at specific moments in time, and moving objects or viewing objects from different angles will have no effect on the direction in which a shadow is cast..That's a fact! I've shown you how the shadows in Nix and Hughes and Murray all agree with each other, and follow this Universal rule. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 03:01:11 AM by Duncan MacRae »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2009, 01:47:59 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2139
|
Also, in the Murray photo of the white car, you'll notice part of that car shadow is being blocked by the head of a woman in the foreground. IF she were not there, we would be seeing that car's shadow cast off to the right SIDE of the car as we view it. But since her head blocks that area, we cannot see it. Just look to the LEFT of the white car in Murray. Even though we cannot see it in your cutout, we DO see the shadows falling off from a car parked to its LEFT. Now...if we look at your "second car" insert into the Nix frame, we see NO shadow cast off from the right hand side of that vehicle. We should be seeing some shadows off from the right hand side of that vehicle hat;;
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 01:49:57 AM by Rick Needham »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2009, 02:52:24 AM
|
Group: Administrator
Super Member
Posts: 2094
|
Duncan,
We all know shadows fall in the same direction at specific moments in time. But the POV we view them from, especially in photographs, is a fact that does come into play. Okay....the Nix frame you've posted, and the insert of your "second car" within that particular Nix frame SHOULD have the shadows falling in the same direction. BUT, the white car insert from the Murray photograph was taken from an entirely different POV. That POV does not match that of Nix. We're talking about two different photographers here in two different locations who are both facing in different directions. Shadows viewed for eithers position will differ on account of each mans POV. So your Murray insert of the white cars shadow is not solid proof and can't be included here. This is the rule of perspective hat;;
Rick, the shadows will not differ at all, only the POV is different, not the shadows.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2009, 07:49:57 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2139
|
Duncan,
You're cream colored car with a wheel showing in just one Nix frame out of a sequence of 23 frames in my animations has serious SIZE issues hat;; The second car you see has no meaning whatsoever IMO.
You're wrong Rick. Part of the wheel shows in every single frame. That's why I presented this slowed down gif which shows the wheel in every frame, not just one as you claim. hat;;  First of all there's no wheel. That's human activity. Secondly, IF there were a wheel, I see many frames where not even a partial wheel shows.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 07:51:34 AM by Rick Needham »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
