JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
Jerry Freeman:
The frame in question---------------------------
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Ray Mitcham on August 21, 2018, 02:45:04 PM ---Why did he study just one photo?
And his report is based on poor conclusions.
"Hany Farid report3.3. Posture
?It has been argued that Oswald is leaning so far to the left as to be physically implausible. Our 3-D model allows for arbitrary views of Oswald?s body and measurements of his posture. Shown in Figure 7 are four renderings of Oswald?s body taken from the front, back, and left and right sides, each of which look qualitatively reasonable. The tilt of Oswald?s body was measured to be a physically plausible five degrees from vertical.?
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
--- End quote ---
"Look qualitatively reasonable".
How scientific.
Barry Pollard:
--- Quote from: Jerry Freeman on August 21, 2018, 07:23:10 PM ---The frame in question---------------------------
--- End quote ---
"Where's Myers when we need him?"
The cashew shape that some think is evidence of the real rear blow-out.
I think that would be his ear on the right, rather than the damage seen in earlier frames??
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Ray Mitcham on August 21, 2018, 02:45:04 PM ---Why did he study just one photo?
And his report is based on poor conclusions.
"Hany Farid report3.3. Posture
?It has been argued that Oswald is leaning so far to the left as to be physically implausible. Our 3-D model allows for arbitrary views of Oswald?s body and measurements of his posture. Shown in Figure 7 are four renderings of Oswald?s body taken from the front, back, and left and right sides, each of which look qualitatively reasonable. The tilt of Oswald?s body was measured to be a physically plausible five degrees from vertical.?
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
--- End quote ---
10˚ ?
Tell me Ray, how did you arrive at a physically implausible 10˚?
Btw I truly don't understand where all this goes, are you saying that when they took the photo of their "Oswald" that he was he was leaning on a post or maybe he was held up with skyhooks?
JohnM
John Iacoletti:
Is that a gouge I see in that umbrella?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version