single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[Fourbrick]

No idea what time it is. I didn't say I measured any angles.

 

[Rich_C]

Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

They're not. I don't know what you are looking at.

In both photos the shadow of Oswald's head is around the base of the 4th or 5th board of the fence. It's closer to the 5th board on the 2nd photo, but it looks like Oswald has shifted very slightly to the right.

The photographer (who we know was Marina) has obviously taken a step to her left between photos. But you can see Oswald's shadow is in the same place in relation to the fence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Really? If the photographer changed his/her position, why does the relationship between the Post supporting the Stairs and the fence end post to the left of both photos, not change?

Well, the photo on the left is very clearly taken from further away than the photo on the right. Oswald's stance is different in the two photos - his upper torso is at a different angle, in any case - so it's not surprising that the shadow of his upper torso is at a different angle too. It's difficult to tell for certain, but he appears to be leaning slightly towards the camera in the right hand photo, and he's certainly leaning a little more to his left to counterbalance the weight of the rifle to his right; since the sun is coming from his left, then leaning forwards will make his shadow move to his left, our right, as we see in the photo. We can't compare the angle of the shadow of his legs because that part of the shadow isn't visible in the right hand photo.

Also, the light is coming from almost directly behind and above the photographer, so she probably had to hold the viewfinder fairly close to her eye to see it clearly. Or had you already conceded that point?

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

So who is the witness you are relying on for this information?
Would it be the same person you quoted in post #456 and characterized as;
So we can't rely on witness testimony, but you can when it is convenient to prop up your theories?

Ranb

You can't have it both ways Ranb. Either the pictures are fake, or the witness was telling the truth. If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

 

[uke2se]

If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

They haven't. They are in the same place. The angle of the camera has moved, as has Oswald.

 

[JimBenArm]

No idea what time it is. I didn't say I measured any angles.

Of course not. You'd have to find someone to do it for you.

 

[Fourbrick]

Well, the photo on the left is very clearly taken from further away than the photo on the right. Oswald's stance is different in the two photos - his upper torso is at a different angle, in any case - so it's not surprising that the shadow of his upper torso is at a different angle too. It's difficult to tell for certain, but he appears to be leaning slightly towards the camera in the right hand photo, and he's certainly leaning a little more to his left to counterbalance the weight of the rifle to his right; since the sun is coming from his left, then leaning forwards will make his shadow move to his left, our right, as we see in the photo. We can't compare the angle of the shadow of his legs because that part of the shadow isn't visible in the right hand photo.

No the second photograph is taken from the same place. (If the camera had moved forward the relationship between the stair post and the fence post would have changed. No matter which way he leans his shadow will fall at the same angle. If he leans forward, the shadow shortens. If he leans backwards, the shadow lengthens. If he leans either side the shadow will lean the same way.

Also, the light is coming from almost directly behind and above the photographer, so she probably had to hold the viewfinder fairly close to her eye to see it clearly. Or had you already conceded that point?


Dave

Certainly haven't. If the sun was coming from behind her then there would have been no need to hold the camera higher to shade it from the sun.


If you compare all three photos, you will see that the relationship between the stair post and the fence post stays exactly the same in them all. This is almost impossible to achieve with a hand held camera, especially if it is moved forward as you say it was to take the second photo.

 

[Fourbrick]

Of course not. You'd have to find someone to do it for you.

God, have they let you out again?

 

[uke2se]

This is almost impossible to achieve with a hand held camera, especially if it is moved forward as you say it was to take the second photo.

You make it seem as if she was trying to achieve it. She wasn't. It happened.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Okay, let's see what reference points we can use. In the first photo, Oswald's head is in line with the left hand post behind the gate, and the shadow of his head is in line with the third vertical board of the gate. In the second photo, Oswald's head is to the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective - and the shadow is in line with the fourth board. So it looks to me like the shadows are at the same angle.

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

Not so. However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

 

[uke2se]

Okay, let's see what reference points we can use. In the first photo, Oswald's head is in line with the left hand post behind the gate, and the shadow of his head is in line with the third vertical board of the gate. In the second photo, Oswald's head is to the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective - and the shadow is in line with the fourth board. So it looks to me like the shadows are at the same angle.

Dave

This anomaly hunting crap is just so tedious. I mean, let's just assume the premise for a moment, how does the "fake photos" hypothesis explain it? The anomaly is still there.

 

[uke2se]

Not so. However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

How did they achieve that by faking the photos?

 

[Ranb]

You can't have it both ways Ranb. Either the pictures are fake, or the witness was telling the truth. If the witness is telling the truth, how come the shadoes have moved so far in a couple of minutes?

You keep evading my questions. You want us to believe a person you suggest is not a reliable witness, then you presume that the photos were taken within a few minutes of each other and offer no evidence to back it up.

If Oswald changed position, then the shadows move. Rather basic isn't it?

Ranb

 

[Fourbrick]

You keep evading my questions. You want us to believe a person you suggest is not a reliable witness, then you presume that the photos were taken within a few minutes of each other and offer no evidence to back it up.

You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.

If Oswald changed position, then the shadows move. Rather basic isn't it?

Ranb

Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

 

[JimBenArm]

God, have they let you out again?

My awesomeness cannot be contained.

 

[uke2se]

Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

And the angle doesn't move.

However, assuming that you're right, how does claiming the picture is fake explain this anomaly?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not so.

What do you mean, not so? I've explained my reasoning as to why the shadows were at the same angle. All you've done is assert that they're not. So far, I'm the one providing the reasoning; you're just engaged in blatant knee-jerk denial.

However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

Typo in my post; the second appears to be taken from further away, but not much. If it was taken at a slightly further point along the line bisecting the angle between the stair-post and the end fence post, the relationship would remain the same.

Dave

 

[TraneWreck]

You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.



Off course they do, Ranb, but the angle of the shadows doesn't.

Easy , isn't it?

The perceived angle of shadows will change, sometimes dramatically, depending on your position. Because you haven't used actual science when attempting to discern the location of the sun in both pictures, you're just expressing ignorant incredulity.

If you read the hilarious testimony involving your buddy who apparently stared at the pictures for 15 years and never bothered to use actual investigative methods, you'll notice the questioner asking him about specific techniques. These techniques allow people to determine facts from a photograph that aren't obvious from an uneducated glance.

In addition to the fact that we have no idea how much time transpired between the two photographs (maybe they went inside for some lemonade before finishing, maybe they had trouble with the camera and took 15min to figure it out, maybe they both had strokes and froze for a half hour, who knows?), looking at the staircase and fence, it's clear that Oswald's wife wasn't in the same place. Such a move can alter the way a shadow will look compared to other shadows.

Just look at the shadows in this recording:



If the guy with the camera moved to the left or right, you would notice that many of the shadows would appear to move closer or farther from one another. It's called perspective. I don't understand it well, which is why it's nice that there are experts in the world. They do not agree with you.

 

[Fourbrick]

What do you mean, not so? I've explained my reasoning as to why the shadows were at the same angle. All you've done is assert that they're not. So far, I'm the one providing the reasoning; you're just engaged in blatant knee-jerk denial.

You said that his head "was the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective" If his head is closer to the camera then the relationship between the Stair post and the fence post changes.

Typo in my post; the second appears to be taken from further away, but not much. If it was taken at a slightly further point along the line bisecting the angle between the stair-post and the end fence post, the relationship would remain the same.

If the second photo was taken further away, as you say, then it has been cropped, (otherwise you would see more of Oswald not less.) If it was cropped, who cropped it?