JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: James Hackerott on July 26, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
-
I spent some time this week fitting 3D model renderings to two frames of Wiegman's separate views of the TSBD doorway. The first frame is near the beginning of his film, designated W1 here, and the second 4-5 seconds later (W2) when he was much closer to the doorway. Recent debates in the Prayer Woman thread (Discussion board) concern positioning Mr Billy Lovelady. From W1 to W2 Lovelady drops one step. But, was he on the landing and dropped one step to step 6, or was he initially on step 6 and dropped to step 5? Inquiring minds want to know, as it influences interpretations of features, such as the apparent height, for the infamous Prayer Person. The renderings show Lovelady about midway in the doorway with a red/white checkered shirt. The Wiegman doorway scenes suffer from deep shadow in the background. See General Discussion for a current post on this topic. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.1570.html
There exist various animations made as blinking overlays from the respective film frames. Those animations are derived from photos like W1 and W2 and show the downward step of Lovelady, along with arm movements of the Prayer Person. Those overlays come from different camera positions, such that some scaling, frame rotation, and possibly aspect ratio adjustments are used to make selected features overlap. The purpose of my study is to match 3D models to their reference photos and thus allow positioning of the Lovelady mannequin in each 3D rendering. Once this is accomplished blinking overlays could be made from any point of view, without any distortions.
(https://i.imgur.com/wol2oYp.gif)
These rendered overlays use a Lovelady of height 5' 8.5?, and fit nicely in both W1 and W2. Fitting the mannequins to the photos provides 3D coordinates that can be used for other views of our choice. Both Prayer-Man and Prayer-Woman are positioned for a gender-neutral display.
Conclusion #1
The determined coordinates reveal that first frame shows Lovelady on the landing and one step lower on step 6 in the later second photograph.
-----
Below are four views of an identical scene. The top, from left to right, show the two Wiegman views W1 and W2. The bottom shows a view from near the Altgens6 camera at Zapruder frame 255. Lower right shows the doorway from an elevated viewpoint. The scenes show Lovelady on the landing in the process of dropping one step. The Wiegman film provides the first and last frame with intermediate frames computed by the software.
Conclusion #2
The well known Altgens6 photo was snapped between W1 and W2. A comparison of the four views shows that Lovelady is not on the landing and must be on step 6 in the Altgens6 photo. On step 6 he is correctly positioned with 5' 6? Mr. Billy Shelley behind and to his left in the Altgens photo. The Lovelady model on the landing must lean forward about 4 degrees to avoid the lintel's shadow. Sunlight hits the bottom of Shelley's face. Buell Frazier is the tall guy in the background.
(https://i.imgur.com/8LxIOeu.gif)
-----
The final animation shows Lovelady lowering himself from the landing to the step, again with computer generated frames showing motion. The left side uses a special technique in the software (POV-Ray) called radiosity. This is useful for simulating objects in shadow as the only light source comes from objects nearby, rather than the normal, overall lighting as on the right.
(https://i.imgur.com/5HCz8he.gif)
-
Appreciate the work put into this James.
Two quick observations.
Alan has noted that BL looks to be two steps lower than Frazier and I just wrote that I agreed with him. At the same time, Wiegman suggests he went down only one step.
Also Ruth Dean, after something I saw recently I now think she's west of the railing, I said as much but no comment.
Before I show it to you, could you even imagine it to be true and wouldn't that have to effect your/our Lovelady position as it did to me?
-
Thanks Barry,
Trust me, I've had Ruth Dean East, West and on the railing in my many, many trials. I finally found the East side is a better fit. Also, I don't remember which frame but It looks like Ruth Dean does not seem to have anyone in between her and the camera....and I tried to find the railing, without any luck. It would be great if our super photo workers could find that railing.
The two steps, I believe soundly, does not happen. I'm skeptical of that type of overlay animation that was created from two non-congruent images. They are good for general viewing, but I'm not to sure about quantitative use.
-
Here we go James and you're right it's very tight.
(https://i.imgur.com/OtJuFPf.gif)
With the Wiegman two steps thing, you're advising caution because of the movement of the camera between frames?
-
I've already posted this gif (just removed the latter frame), and added James' animation scaled to 140% of its original size:
The frames I use did not come from Groden's DVD.
They came from the DVD "Death in Dealy Plaza", better quality in my opinion.
Irregardless, they are always scaled.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Model.gif)
-
Chris,
Thank you for the GIF overlay. Are you using this to demonstrate the two steps Barry asked about? Do I remember that it was overlays of Wiegman and Darnell that gave the two step look? I would very much like to make renderings of the Wiegman and Darnell frames at any size you would like to play around with if you like. Let me know.
I do agree about using the best frames available. I did look at DIDP before, and checked again just now. I did not use those Wiegman frames because they are cropped versions of Groden's. I don't know but Groden's could be cropped some too. Anyway, for the type of photo matching I'm using it's necessary to have uncropped frames to be able to determine camera position, among other things.
-
Barry,
Yes, movement of the camera will make overlays impossible to be 100% accurate. Maybe you can post the two step video here if you like and I will study it.
-
I've already posted this gif (just removed the latter frame), and added James' animation scaled to 140% of its original size:
The frames I use did not come from Groden's DVD.
They came from the DVD "Death in Dealy Plaza", better quality in my opinion.
Irregardless, they are always scaled.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Model.gif)
Thanks for this, Chris (and of course to James too).
The Frazier model is in completely the wrong position here.
-
Reply to Alan
Thanks Alan,
You may be right abut Frazier not where I show him. I can't find him (with any confidence) in my enhancement. Do you have a better location for him?
(https://i.imgur.com/axEpjN8.jpg)
-
Reply to Alan
Thanks Alan,
You may be right abut Frazier not where I show him. I can't find him (with any confidence) in my enhancement. Do you have a better location for him?
(https://i.imgur.com/axEpjN8.jpg)
Here he is, James. I've put a small dot on his left cheek. His distinctive hair contour is visible.
(https://i.imgur.com/X4teK5H.jpg)
The height discrepancy between Frazier and Lovelady---as in the Wiegman-Darnell blend that Chris prepared---is simply too great for Lovelady to be on the landing also.
-
James,
the difference between BL and Frazier appears to be more than one step as Alan observed.
(https://i.imgur.com/gDXdtzn.jpg)
Also, on your Altgens view.
You have Lovelady coming down to meet his position for Ike's photo but that doesn't appear correct.
His position in Altgens is the highest we see him and he's in the that same position in Wiegman IMO because we still see a slight leaning, then it's from from that position he goes down to a lower step.
-
The slight lean that suggests it's within a couple seconds of Altgens to me,
also compare Lovelady to Shelley above and in Altgens, it looks very similar.
So this is the highest we see him.
(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)
-
Here he is, James. I've put a small dot on his left cheek. His distinctive hair contour is visible.
(https://i.imgur.com/X4teK5H.jpg)
The height discrepancy between Frazier and Lovelady---as in the Wiegman-Darnell blend that Chris prepared---is simply too great for Lovelady to be on the landing also.
Alan & Barry,
I've taken a Wiegman frame from DiDP, a 5 frame composite of the doorway, your Frazier Id and my POV rendering. All three of the frames show the Frazier inside of your red circle, as well as the blue dot. I can't see why you feel my modeled Frazier is in a completely wrong position? Maybe a few inches to low? Please be patient to examine this new GIF and offer some thoughts.
(https://i.imgur.com/8sfVnaK.gif)
-
James,
let me try again in case my question was lost or not clear enough.
In your view from Altgens, you have Lovelady coming down from the landing to meet his obligation for Ike's image, why?
Hughes(and perhaps Towner too) suggests he moved up the steps.
(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)
-
James,
the difference between BL and Frazier appears to be more than one step as Alan observed.
(https://i.imgur.com/gDXdtzn.jpg)
Also, on your Altgens view.
You have Lovelady coming down to meet his position for Ike's photo but that doesn't appear correct.
His position in Altgens is the highest we see him and he's in the that same position in Wiegman IMO because we still see a slight leaning, then it's from from that position he goes down to a lower step.
Hi Barry,
Barry, you beat this posting by about 20 minutes as I wrote it before I saw your last post.
Let me discuss the Altgens simulation in a little more detail. I think we are dealing with three distinct time periods beginning with the first Wiegman doorway views of Lovelady (W1 landing)-Altgens6 (step 6) -Wiegman (W2 step 6). In other words, Wiegman does not actually catch Lovelady in the Altgens6 location. So for that short period between W1 and W2 there is time for Lovelady to step into the Altgens6 position and then shift slightly eastward for his Wiegman position before W2 starts.
I put 5'8.5? Lovelady on step 6 for Altgens6 because of the similarity of the pose of his head against that of 5'6? Shelley (see post #1184 in the Prayer Woman thread). This step 6 scenario does not require, but could accommodate a slight amount of leaning - if you think there is some leaning. All of this IMHO.
-
Thanks James,
I agree that your positioning of Lovelady for Altgens looks very good with Shelley but I would suggest that in W1, there is no difference and yet you obviously dissagree. I don't quite understand why yet sorry. I was just asking Brian why he thought Wiegman comes perhaps 3-4s after Altgens, I think 1-2s later, now you are saying Wiegman came first because you see Lovelady higher than he is in Altgens. and it's W2 that is closest to Altgens, again I don't understand why, perhaps sometime you could point these differences out visually.
I think in W2, BL is back on the same step he was for Hughes, two up from Jones, whether that's on step 4 or 5 though I'm not sure.
-
James,
the difference between BL and Frazier appears to be more than one step as Alan observed.
(https://i.imgur.com/gDXdtzn.jpg)
Also, on your Altgens view.
You have Lovelady coming down to meet his position for Ike's photo but that doesn't appear correct.
His position in Altgens is the highest we see him and he's in the that same position in Wiegman IMO because we still see a slight leaning, then it's from from that position he goes down to a lower step.
The Texas Two Step...
Barry and Alan, I suppose I should eat my hat, but would rather eat Ruth Dean's hat. I had purposely modeled her height to represent the apparent height to the top of her hat, but exaggerated it a few inches. I now represent her matching eye levels. That looks more natural.
Then I placed Lovelady on the landing, 1 step down and 2 steps down and animated that versus a Wiegman W2 frame. I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6. Sorry for any trouble this might have caused anyone.
p.s.
I might consider adding 2? to Frazier's height, based on past and now personal enhancements from the deep shadow of the doorway. But that would make him about 6'3?. Do we have a hard number for his height?
p.p.s
I also remodeled the horizontal aluminum frame by changing it from a slender cylinder to a box shape with more width. That may help visualization of Frazier in doorway. Disguised warning, don't use Frazier's height for quantitative estimations in this model at this time.
(https://i.imgur.com/aV2FKXQ.gif)
-
Thanks James,
I agree that your positioning of Lovelady for Altgens looks very good with Shelley but I would suggest that in W1, there is no difference and yet you obviously dissagree. I don't quite understand why yet sorry. I was just asking Brian why he thought Wiegman comes perhaps 3-4s after Altgens, I think 1-2s later, now you are saying Wiegman came first because you see Lovelady higher than he is in Altgens. and it's W2 that is closest to Altgens, again I don't understand why, perhaps sometime you could point these differences out visually.
I think in W2, BL is back on the same step he was for Hughes, two up from Jones, whether that's on step 4 or 5 though I'm not sure.
Barry, I think for him to be on the landing puts him too high. He appearns taller than Shelly then. I suppose the argument is Lovelady leans enough to lower his chin below Shelley's. I find that difficult to believe. I will try to re-test this, but it will require some surgery on my mannequins to be able to bend at the waist. I will check out the Hughes frame too when I can.
Best Regards
-
The Texas Two Step...
Barry and Alan, I suppose I should eat my hat, but would rather eat Ruth Dean's hat. I had purposely modeled her height to represent the apparent height to the top of her hat, but exaggerated it a few inches. I now represent her matching eye levels. That looks more natural.
Then I placed Lovelady on the landing, 1 step down and 2 steps down and animated that versus a Wiegman W2 frame. I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6. Sorry for any trouble this might have caused anyone.
p.s.
I might consider adding 2? to Frazier's height, based on past and now personal enhancements from the deep shadow of the doorway. But that would make him about 6'3?. Do we have a hard number for his height?
p.p.s
I also remodeled the horizontal aluminum frame by changing it from a slender cylinder to a box shape with more width. That may help visualization of Frazier in doorway. Disguised warning, don't use Frazier's height for quantitative estimations in this model at this time.
(https://i.imgur.com/aV2FKXQ.gif)
Thanks for your continued work on this, James Thumb1:
In W1, Lovelady is approximately at the height of Frazier's chin:
(https://i.imgur.com/ArNxdTo.jpg)
In W2, he goes down another step:
(https://i.imgur.com/OzcscKE.jpg)
-
Thanks for your continued work on this, James Thumb1:
In W1, Lovelady is approximately at the height of Frazier's chin:
(https://i.imgur.com/ArNxdTo.jpg)
In W2, he goes down another step:
(https://i.imgur.com/OzcscKE.jpg)
I increased Frazier to 6'3? per enhanced frames, and redid the overlays. It looks to me like landing for W1 and step 5 for W2.
(https://i.imgur.com/8h6Bnt6.gif)
-
James,
let me try again in case my question was lost or not clear enough.
In your view from Altgens, you have Lovelady coming down from the landing to meet his obligation for Ike's image, why?
Hughes(and perhaps Towner too) suggests he moved up the steps.
(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)
Here you go Barry. 5th step looks about right. Normal light vs radiosity.
(https://i.imgur.com/MGAvelN.gif)
-
I've already posted this gif (just removed the latter frame), and added James' animation scaled to 140% of its original size:
The frames I use did not come from Groden's DVD.
They came from the DVD "Death in Dealy Plaza", better quality in my opinion.
Irregardless, they are always scaled.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Model.gif)
James, added your latest(Frazier at 72.5inches) to the above.
Scaled to 165% and rotated 2 degrees CCW to fit your previous (third frame in sequence)version.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/James-Revise.gif)
-
James, added your latest(Frazier at 72.5inches) to the above.
Scaled to 165% and rotated 2 degrees CCW to fit your previous (third frame in sequence)version.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/James-Revise.gif)
That's appreciated Chris. Actually, I added 2? to the 73? inches for a total of 75? I used previously. I don't know if we have a hard number for his height. I can't tell in your graphic if he is hitting the top of his head in the real frame ? it's pretty dark there.
One thing I wanted to mention to you about the DiDP Wiegman frames. I mentioned that they were cropped and afterward I overlaid it on the Groden frame and the DiDP frames are about 84% by area. Not so bad by itself, but more disturbing is the aspect ratio of those frames are about 4% squashed in the vertical dimension. 4% on a 6' figure would decrease about 3? to the apparent height. I had to increase the vertical by 4% to match the Groden frame. If not adjusted first then after the frame is rotated that wrong aspect ratio is present at different amounts in all directions. And if the overlay frames are also rotated differently it could confusing. It could be that may not affect how you are scaling those images, but it might be something to thing about. :)
-
If I was 4 percent off in the vertical, because I used 2 common people for scaling between both frames, I can live with that.
I believe a 4 percent vertical stretch would have a negligible effect on the smaller background figures.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/4percent.gif)
-
James, fifth step for Hughes also, I got it, tyvm.
Your animation suggests that Lovelady came down two steps, from the landing to the 5th step but the difference between the real Lovelady and your model on the 6th step does not appear to be near the 7" height of a riser. It's looks to be about 3", so do you think that the movement of Wiegman's camera could turn a drop of 14"(2 steps) into 7"?
Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?
-
Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?
If interested, start with third post down:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,103.0.html?PHPSESSID=p4v4erfe6r7ui4pgsou2j0oou5 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,103.0.html?PHPSESSID=p4v4erfe6r7ui4pgsou2j0oou5)
-
James, fifth step for Hughes also, I got it, tyvm.
Your animation suggests that Lovelady came down two steps, from the landing to the 5th step but the difference between the real Lovelady and your model on the 6th step does not appear to be near the 7" height of a riser. It's looks to be about 3", so do you think that the movement of Wiegman's camera could turn a drop of 14"(2 steps) into 7"?
Barry, I'm too whipped tonight to think about that. Please review my latest comparison animations and we can take questions up tomorrow.
Summary W1/W2
Alt6/Bird's-eye
A1 Lovelady Landing-standing = W1
A2 Lovelady Landing-leaning 35deg Altgens positioned ? no Wiegman equivalent
B1 Lovelady 1 step down #6 Altgens positioned ? no Wiegman equivalent
B2 Lovelady 2 steps down #5 = W2
Each animation
Altgens6 is not synced to any Wiegman doorway frames.
Lovelady is on the landing in W1
Lovelady is on the 2nd step down #6
(https://i.imgur.com/KjNQnDy.gif)
Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?
-
... I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6.
...
James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else. Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.
-
James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else. Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.
Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.
Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO. I do value the feedback you and others offer.
-
Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.
Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO. I do value the feedback you and others offer.
Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea :)
-
Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea :)
Thanks for the heads-up...seems trouble is my middle name lately.
How about my last ani-collage in post #26. It cycles in order Landing, Landing-leaning 35deg, step 6 in an Altgens position, and step 5. Lovelady on 6 and Landing leaning share essentially the same 3D space. How to tell the difference? IDK
-
James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else. Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.
Barry, James,
I hate to be a bore (!) but there is still a large issue here with the placement of Frazier in W1:
(https://i.imgur.com/4MXE2dL.jpg)
The blue line extends approximately from his chin. He is clearly much higher than, and at a much greater distance back from, Lovelady than in any of James' simulations. Given that we know pretty well the two men's actual heights, I can't for the life of me see how they can both be on the landing.
-
Hi Alan,
hopefully James will fix that and some of the other small details in the near future,
the distance between those two men in his model for example and the shadow hitting Lovelady's head.
When I saw BL on step6 for Altgens it looked good immeadiatly but the BL on the landing in Wiegman I'm still struggling with.
James, have you ever seen the Powers and Dillard images that both show the boxes in the SN put into motion by John Mytton?
That's what I was thinking of, similar to what you did with Lovelady sliding onto the lower step.
An animation that goes from Wiegman to Altgens that may rule out the 6th step for BL in W1.
I'm yet to be convinced your opinion is the correct one for W1, sorry.
Again for Altgens I had np, why would anyone doubt that? It just Syncs/Cinques/Sinks.
-
Barry, James,
I hate to be a bore (!) but there is still a large issue here with the placement of Frazier in W1:
(https://i.imgur.com/4MXE2dL.jpg)
The blue line extends approximately from his chin. He is clearly much higher than, and at a much greater distance back from, Lovelady than in any of James' simulations. Given that we know pretty well the two men's actual heights, I can't for the life of me see how they can both be on the landing.
Alan,
I've created three sets of Wiegman W1 vs Altgens6 at the landing, 6in East and 12in East.
For each set Lovelady leans from his approximate waist from 0-35deg. Please review and pick one or two that best match your Lovelady to Frazier observation.
p.s. I hope you and others have means to step through these as single frames. Maybe there is a better way to display these?
20180805 ani-collage1
(https://i.imgur.com/Cn8NVp0.gif)
-
Hi Alan,
hopefully James will fix that and some of the other small details in the near future,
the distance between those two men in his model for example and the shadow hitting Lovelady's head.
When I saw BL on step6 for Altgens it looked good immeadiatly but the BL on the landing in Wiegman I'm still struggling with.
James, have you ever seen the Powers and Dillard images that both show the boxes in the SN put into motion by John Mytton?
That's what I was thinking of, similar to what you did with Lovelady sliding onto the lower step.
An animation that goes from Wiegman to Altgens that may rule out the 6th step for BL in W1.
I'm yet to be convinced your opinion is the correct one for W1, sorry.
Again for Altgens I had np, why would anyone doubt that? It just Syncs/Cinques/Sinks.
Hey Barry, don't sweat the shadow on BL. Than is fixable with 4deg lean forward. I removed that when doing the 0-35deg leaning comparisons I just posted in #33.
Sure, I saw that morphing by John. Of course I tried it with my software and was quite pleased with his work vs mine. Good job. Now for what you are requesting I need to know a few more details. Are you looking for a 'morph' from W1 to W2, or W2 to Altgens6 or something else?
Before I do, please remove my name from the W1 short list for now :D. More to come...
-
Alan,
I've created three sets of Wiegman W1 vs Altgens6 at the landing, 6in East and 12in East.
For each set Lovelady leans from his approximate waist from 0-35deg. Please review and pick one or two that best match your Lovelady to Frazier observation.
p.s. I hope you and others have means to step through these as single frames. Maybe there is a better way to display these?
20180805 ani-collage1
(https://i.imgur.com/Cn8NVp0.gif)
I'm afraid none of them do, James. The Wiegman frame does not (IMO) show Lovelady bending forward to any great extent, and each standing-straight Lovelady is simply too high, and too close, in relation to Frazier's head:
(https://i.imgur.com/BikT2cm.jpg)
We seem to be looking at different Fraziers in W1! To replicate the actual relationship of BL and BWF in W1, why not simply put BL down on step 1?
-
I'm afraid none of them do, James. The Wiegman frame does not (IMO) show Lovelady bending forward to any great extent, and each standing-straight Lovelady is simply too high, and too close, in relation to Frazier's head:
(https://i.imgur.com/BikT2cm.jpg)
We seem to be looking at different Fraziers in W1! To replicate the actual relationship of BL and BWF in W1, why not simply put BL down on step 1?
Alan, thank you for your observations- I fully agree. However, if Lovelady is on the landing he is too tall. If on step 6 he is too short. Goldilocks tells us we are seeing the process of Lovelady taking that step. Please compare this animation with your frame showing the line connecting Frazier's chin area to Lovelady's top of head. That frame is rotated some and has aspect issues, but not so much as to change the results.
(https://i.imgur.com/01KWoyp.gif)
p.s.
I'm sorry Alan. I still have Frazier where I've had him for some time. Overlays of your frame with Frazier's head with my renderings basically fit where I place him. Will you please give me your reason for thinking him so far off?
-
James,
Billy's big lean in Altgens is to his left, not forward(did you say, you had trouble replicating that in your models? If so don't worry).
Anyway, his legs would not be and are not visible from Ike's position(but again no big).
Regarding the possible morth.
Altgens to Wstep6 was what I was requesting because I don't see the difference in Lovelady and Shelly in W1 and Altgens,
that is, it looks about the same to me, can you persuade me otherwise?
Also for Alan's benefit, perhaps you should do a close up of BL's and BWF's heads in the images and your model so we can see what the difference/trouble is.
I was looking at PMvBL in your latest post and they seem to line up with Wiegman only when Lovelady is about to hit the 6th step,
if you brought BWF forward in that frame that might be a match all around(I'm restricted to plain eyeballing it atm, don't expect any sudden overlays).
-
James,
Billy's big lean in Altgens is to his left, not forward(did you say, you had trouble replicating that in your models? If so don't worry).
Anyway, his legs would not be and are not visible from Ike's position(but again no big).
Regarding the possible morth.
Altgens to Wstep6 was what I was requesting because I don't see the difference in Lovelady and Shelly in W1 and Altgens,
that is, it looks about the same to me, can you persuade me otherwise?
Also for Alan's benefit, perhaps you should do a close up of BL's and BWF's heads in the images and your model so we can see what the difference/trouble is.
I was looking at PMvBL in your latest post and they seem to line up with Wiegman only when Lovelady is about to hit the 6th step,
if you brought BWF forward in that frame that might be a match all around(I'm restricted to plain eyeballing it atm, don't expect any sudden overlays).
Hey Barry,
Thanks for those clarifications. I'll respond in reverse of your comments.
I looked at Alan's Frazier image and shifted him 3? eastward so he is closer to the vertical door frame as seen in Wiegman and will leave him there.
I made a morph of the Altgens to W1 but its not a good presentation because much of the view is blocked by plaza objects. I did make a fly-by morph of the doorway as seen from the Elm Extension. I hope that gives a view to your liking.
As for the leftward lean that helps, but does not work just on its own. But combining a leftward lean of about 10deg with a forward bend of about 31deg gives a favorable Altgens and W1 view IMO. All on the landing. It also solves Alan's observation of Frazier's approximate chin level with BL.
201808081603 Altgens to W1 BL focus
(https://i.imgur.com/JOZGDU6.gif)
-
Man that is some fantastic looking work, thank you kindly James.
Now let me try and take it all in... :o
Ok, like you said it's not exactly what I was after but right now who cares? Love it and that lean is really working.
-
Hi James,
Thanks for all the detailed work you put into this animation, it gives everybody an excellent view of everything. This thread ahouid have more views and more activity.
-
Hi James,
Thanks for all the detailed work you put into this animation, it gives everybody an excellent view of everything. This thread ahouid have more views and more activity.
Agreed.
Animation like this is way beyond me but it's great to see researchers striving together towards a common goal.
Wish I could contribute.
Keep up the good work guys.
-
Hi James,
Thanks for all the detailed work you put into this animation, it gives everybody an excellent view of everything. This thread ahouid have more views and more activity.
Thanks for the good words Rick. I stepped barefoot onto a fire ant nest with this thread, but learned much along the way.
-
Agreed.
Animation like this is way beyond me but it's great to see researchers striving together towards a common goal.
Wish I could contribute.
Keep up the good work guys.
Hi Dan,
I appreciate your comments. In the end the doorway seemed a black hole that I’d never be able to leave. In a sense the black hole won as I’ve made several trips to Dealey Plaza with laser measure in hand checking dimensions of that doorway :).
-
Good post James.
I can see that You have put a lot of work into the animations.
(https://scontent.fadl7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/292791068_532414832010707_6241960536773308681_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=mpl--wGH6LwAX-UIvIf&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl7-1.fna&oh=00_AT_TTBWmIB6xEgrRZqPC6T49DClQ6tEpzQ9spV8AvIqPUg&oe=62E5A7DF)
-
Good post James.
I can see that You have put a lot of work into the animations.
(https://scontent.fadl7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/292791068_532414832010707_6241960536773308681_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=mpl--wGH6LwAX-UIvIf&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl7-1.fna&oh=00_AT_TTBWmIB6xEgrRZqPC6T49DClQ6tEpzQ9spV8AvIqPUg&oe=62E5A7DF)
Thanks Robin!
I'm, hopefully, putting final touches to my 3D doorway, and I will for sure use this wonderful photo for testing. I've never seen this one.
James
-
James the TSBD entrance image came from the "Nat Pinkston Collection" 6th floor museum website..
https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects (https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects)
-
I did this Wiegman composite to show the standing locations of the TSBD employees.
They were spread out from the corner of the TSBD wall across to the concrete island traffic light.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Wiegman_composite.jpg)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/X78MHwV1/Lovelady-and-man-wiegman-shadow.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Man Under Green Arrow: We don't see any of his right shoulder because his body is turned west
Man Under Red Arrow: We don't see any of his right shoulder (or any of the right side of his body), even though his body is not turned west (as evidenced by the fact that under his chin we can see all that white of his exposed tshirt)
Both men are in unobstructed sunlight.
Remarkable!
-
Good post James.
I can see that You have put a lot of work into the animations.
(https://scontent.fadl7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/292791068_532414832010707_6241960536773308681_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=mpl--wGH6LwAX-UIvIf&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl7-1.fna&oh=00_AT_TTBWmIB6xEgrRZqPC6T49DClQ6tEpzQ9spV8AvIqPUg&oe=62E5A7DF)
Fantastic photo, Mr Unger---------thank you! Thumb1:
-
Your welcome Alan
I only discovered the image 2-weeks ago.
"Nat Pinkston Collection" 6th floor museum website..
https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects (https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects)
-
Your welcome Alan
I only discovered the image 2-weeks ago.
"Nat Pinkston Collection" 6th floor museum website..
https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects (https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/37775/nat-pinkston-collection/objects)
Thumb1:
-
I've never seen this one.
I haven't either. The building in the far background [with the fire escape] I believe is the Dallas Hotel.
It was torn down and the Dallas County Courthouse built to replace it.
This means that the picture predates Nov '63 when the DCC was under construction.
That is a '61 or '62 [model?] right in front of the steps.
-
I haven't either. The building in the far background [with the fire escape] I believe is the Dallas Hotel.
It was torn down and the Dallas County Courthouse built to replace it.
This means that the picture predates Nov '63 when the DCC was under construction.
That is a '61 or '62 [model?] right in front of the steps.
Hi Jerry,
I think that building with a fire escape is now a La Quinta hotel. The Dallas County Courthouse is offset eastward and not visible in the Pinkston photo.
(https://i.imgur.com/tcqVOWt.jpg)
-
Is that Oswald's coke?
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZS7WVcM/TSBD-inside-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/6yP2SKjS)
-
I haven't either. The building in the far background [with the fire escape] I believe is the Dallas Hotel.
It was torn down and the Dallas County Courthouse built to replace it.
This means that the picture predates Nov '63 when the DCC was under construction.
That is a '61 or '62 [model?] right in front of the steps.
Photo of the entrance to the Texas School Book Depository building
Object number2003.006.0023
ClassificationsPhotographs
Creator Federal Bureau of Investigation
DateNovember 1963
Type of ObjectPhotograph (b&w)
Credit LineNat Pinkston Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza
Dimensions4 x 5 in. (10.2 x 12.7 cm)
DecriptionBlack and white photographic print of the entrance to the Texas School Book Depository building from inside the lobby. The photo was taken in November 1963 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as evidence in the days following the assassination of President Kennedy. The photograph shows a glass door and wall in the center with the corner of Houston and Elm Streets visible outside. There are radiators inside the lobby on both sides of the doorway. There are several groups of people as well as automobiles visible through the windows and door.
Collections
-
I did this Wiegman composite to show the standing locations of the TSBD employees.
They were spread out from the corner of the TSBD wall across to the concrete island traffic light.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Wiegman_composite.jpg)
Thanks for posting this Robin.