Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 23, 2005 4:47:41 GMT -4
Again, I beg to differ. You're image does not properly line up JFK and Connally relative to the right side of the limo. You need to look at Zapruder frame 236 as I posted, to see that Connally has even put his left hand on the right side edge of the limo. He is brushed right up to the inside right of the limo. In the below frame you can see JFK's head is to the inside left of Connally. And, the rough trajectory I put in also shows that there is no way Connally would be to the left of JFK. Er... that's his elbow
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 23, 2005 5:16:06 GMT -4
I think JFK is even to the left of Connally, as their lines of sight below indicates. And, the fact the shot would come from behind and to the right of the limo, would make JFK even more to the left side of Connally. Not physically possible. The back seat of the car has a raised buffer in the centre of the backseat and with Connally turned the way he is, his torso is on the left of his seat, towards the centre of the car. The only way that Kennedy could have been further left than that would have been to be seated in the centre of the car on top of the buffer a very uncomfortable place to be seated. The footage shows that he is seated beside the side of the car, that puts him on Connally's right. By the way, that car is inspectable by the public, it's in the Henry Ford Museum. Remember that what you see in the imge is 2D (poor) representation of a 3D situation. Things that appear to be inline or not inline or positioned in a 2D way, don't hve to be positioned in that way in 3D. This is a problem that Jack White often has with his picture analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 23, 2005 8:17:13 GMT -4
I think JFK is even to the left of Connally, as their lines of sight below indicates. Turbonium: As an ex-professional photographer who has been taking photographs since 1968 and whose job often involved analysing photos, I can confidently say that your photo-analysis skills are lousy, and you have a great deal to learn before you could ever describe yourself as competent at it. The red and green lines you drew for Kennedy's sight-line mean absolutely nothing -- they merely create an illusion that suits your point of view. Extend them through to the right-hand edge of the picture and a different picture is produced. And you have Connally's sight lines outside the framework on the side of the car next to the back of Kellerman's seat. What a joke! It's clear to me that PhantomWolf knows more about photo analysis than you do. At least he drew his green lines at the right sort of angles, taking into acount the perspective of the movie frame. One of your thick red lines misses Connally's shoulder by a great amount and the other starts at Kennedy's elbow, which is well to the side of his shoulder. Just as with your "bare arm on the moon" nonsense, "LOOKS LIKE" doesn't mean "IS." I look at claims that you and Jack White make about photos and, unlike you guys, often say to myself, "There isn't enough information here in just this one photo to make such a judgement." And using fuzzy or digitally-doctored images to "analyse" is about the dumbest thing anyone can do.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 23, 2005 9:44:08 GMT -4
And you have Connally's sight lines outside the framework on the side of the car next to the back of Kellerman's seat. What a joke! I totally missed that, but yes your exactly right. Those lines as bad as trying to do photo analysis of this: Well I wouldn't claim to be all that great at it, but I have had a splattering of art training and we had prespective and how to represent a 3D world on a 2D peice of paper drummed into us. Some of that rubs off when looking at photos.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 25, 2005 20:13:48 GMT -4
As an ex-professional photographer who has been taking photographs since 1968 and whose job often involved analysing photos... It's clear to me that PhantomWolf knows more about photo analysis than you do. At least he drew his green lines at the right sort of angles, taking into acount the perspective of the movie frame. OK kiwi - if this is the correct analysis, where do you see JFK's sightline compared to Connally's? You think JFK's head is positioned to the right of Connally's? Please give us the benefit of your expertise and show how that would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 26, 2005 9:12:09 GMT -4
OK kiwi - if this is the correct analysis, where do you see JFK's sightline compared to Connally's? You think JFK's head is positioned to the right of Connally's? Please give us the benefit of your expertise and show how that would be the case. I don't "see" JFK's sightline anywhere because there isn't enough information in that one photo -- it is small, fuzzy, lacking detail, and full of faults -- to do it accurately. I could study information that might enlighten me as to the respective positions of the people, but that's not the point. The point I've tried to make is, don't attempt photo-analysis if you're not thoroughly competent to do the job. Kennedy appears to have his eyes closed, so how can we work out his line of sight anyway? How do we know he is not looking down toward Connolly's shoulders? Jackie is possibly looking at JFK, but as we can't see any eyes, how can we judge anyone's line of sight? To me it seems pointless to try. I didn't say that I think JFK's head is positioned to the right of Connally's. From the information that's available, I'd guess that they're roughly in line, but it's only a guess. They could easily be a head-width apart.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 26, 2005 9:20:08 GMT -4
OK kiwi - if this is the correct analysis, where do you see JFK's sightline compared to Connally's? You think JFK's head is positioned to the right of Connally's? Please give us the benefit of your expertise and show how that would be the case. The correct analysis? You're kidding -- that's real Jack White stuff. You've again drawn another illusion, this time a "vertical" line from JFK's protruduing elbow to a part of the car that's forward of where he's sitting. In reality, that line would project forward and possibly outward at it's bottom end to touch that part of the car. To be fair, the image is mine. I was trying to predict roughly where Kennedy's elbow crossed over the edge of the car as as to see if I could get a very basic idea of where he was seated. It was never mean to be more than a rough estimate based on perspective and probable body positions.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 26, 2005 9:27:19 GMT -4
Oops, sorry PhantomWolf. I noticed it was your photo after posting and deleted the first paragraph before I saw your post. I think that early on in the Zapruder film JFK had his right forearm resting on the side of the scar.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Aug 26, 2005 21:51:22 GMT -4
As I noted, the position of Connally in front of JFK - he is shown to the left side of JFK, well away from the right side of the limo. The Zapruder still, and other images, show Connally is aligned directly in front of JFK, to the right side of the limo.What you should keep an eye out for, Turbonium, are other home movies taken during the parade. A couple of these caught the limo from the direct front or rear, which makes it easier to judge how far inboard Connally was. For example, here is a frame from the Muchmore film taken as the limo turning onto Houston. I marked Connally with a red arrow because the quality of this capture is not great: Connally's position as seen in the Muchmore filmIn case you were not aware of how Dale Myer's created his models and aligned them to the Zapruder frames and other photos, here is his website: www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htmThis page has an example overlay: www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htmThe advantage of using the Zapruder film for model alignment is that because the limo is traveling across Zapruder's field of view, successive frames form stereo pairs. The successive frames, in other words, encode 3D information about the scene. If Myers had his Connally model positioned wrong, it would drift out of alignment with the film over time. And the crosshairs are aimed at JFK's back, which is correct for the evidence (JFK's shirt, jacket and entry wound 5 to 6 inches down the back)), but this contradicts the single bullet theory. The SBT depends on the bullet exiting JFK's throat, without hitting bone. Note that Myers' clothing models are too crude to handle the bunching of JFK's jacket that you see in the films and photos. What Myers has done is simply raised the top of the collar up to the hair line. That gives the impression that the crosshairs are far down the back. See these pages to view trajectory from other camera angles: www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htmwww.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 27, 2005 3:07:04 GMT -4
Oops, sorry PhantomWolf. I noticed it was your photo after posting and deleted the first paragraph before I saw your post. I think that early on in the Zapruder film JFK had his right forearm resting on the side of the scar. LOL! Selective criticism, proven. Even I didn't compare you to Jack White, PhantomWolf! Of course, it was a jab intended for me - if it had been my photo analysis, kiwi would have left his comments on the board. Thx for owning up to your post, PW. I respect you for doing that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 27, 2005 3:50:54 GMT -4
Oops, sorry PhantomWolf. I noticed it was your photo after posting and deleted the first paragraph before I saw your post. I think that early on in the Zapruder film JFK had his right forearm resting on the side of the scar. LOL! Selective criticism, proven. Even I didn't compare you to Jack White, PhantomWolf! Of course, it was a jab intended for me - if it had been my photo analysis, kiwi would have left his comments on the board. Well not really, he deleted it because it wasn't wasn't relevant to you, the criticism was still right, well maybe not quite as bad as Jack's. As I stated the vertical line was done in a hurry and was basically an educated guess to where his elbow crossed the line of the car. Kiwi's point is right, the positioning is wrong, and it should be further back as Kennedy's elbow would be to the right of the car side and forward of his shoulder, thus a straight vertical line from that position isn't totally perfect for the job. I d think it's close than Jack would have gotten it, but at the same time, I recognise Kiwi's photo anlysis is better than mine and so wuld deffer to his knowledge over mine. Thx for owning up to your post, PW. I respect you for doing that. I have no problems in owning up to my work because if I make a mistake and I'm called on it, I learn things. I try and get things as correct as I can, but if I screw up, well at least I shouldn't do it gain.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 25, 2005 11:09:51 GMT -4
I really hate to bump this thread, but this was just too irresistable!
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Dec 1, 2005 14:10:43 GMT -4
And you have Connally's sight lines outside the framework on the side of the car next to the back of Kellerman's seat. What a joke! I totally missed that, but yes your exactly right. Those lines as bad as trying to do photo analysis of this: OMG!!! MC Escher's paintings are a HOAX!!!!! There's no way those shadows are right!!!!!111!!!
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 4, 2005 10:27:36 GMT -4
I really hate to bump this thread, but this was just too irresistable! LOL they forgot the Mossad, the KGB, anti-Castro Cubans, the MIC, George W. Bush and Richard Nixon
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 4, 2005 11:12:25 GMT -4
...and space aliens.
|
|