Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout  (Read 11038 times)

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2018, 07:02:13 PM »
Advertisement
What's holding up the guy to the right... ???

Note the difference in the angle his right foot is sticking out to Oswald.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2018, 07:02:13 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2018, 07:33:06 PM »




Adjusted image so the post over his left shoulder is true-vertical. But it makes the post behind his head go off-vertical.

BTW, the angle in your graphic is 7?, not 10?.

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2018, 02:46:31 AM »


Craig Lamson's graphic showing a 7? tilt when the perspective is corrected. True-verticals were found by Craig on the house, the post behind the left shoulder and the vertical on the far-right of the shed. Other verticals in the picture were not unreliable, including the rough carpentry of the stairway support post, the gate and most of the shed.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2018, 02:46:31 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10814
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2018, 06:50:40 PM »
Craig Lamson's graphic showing a 7? tilt when the perspective is corrected. True-verticals were found by Craig on the house, the post behind the left shoulder and the vertical on the far-right of the shed.

Interesting.  I know Craig still lurks here.  How was it determined that these are true verticals?  PM is fine.

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2018, 07:18:51 PM »
Interesting.  I know Craig still lurks here.  How was it determined that these are true verticals?  PM is fine.
I believe he worked off the assumption that the house verticals were the most accurate.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2018, 07:18:51 PM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2018, 06:00:57 PM »
Glad to see that Lamson agrees with me  that Farid was wrong when he said Oswald was leaning at 5˚. If he was wrong in this, then why take his word on his comments on the nose shadows?

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2018, 07:50:33 PM »
Glad to see that Lamson agrees with me  that Farid was wrong when he said Oswald was leaning at 5˚. If he was wrong in this, then why take his word on his comments on the nose shadows?

As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.

Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.



Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2018, 07:50:33 PM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2018, 12:20:40 PM »
As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.

Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.



Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.

The world's greatest photographer (IHOO) says that Oswald was leaning at a greater angle the  Farid said, so by default he is disagreeing with Farid. Whether ia m correct or not is immaterial. A lone nutter has agreed  that the so called expert, Farid, was wrong, which is  what I have said all along.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 12:34:03 PM by Ray Mitcham »