Based on Don Robardeau's Dealy Plaza map, and the motorcade positions: Darnell is sitting near but slightly to the right of Couch in "camera car 3" (car 10 in the motorcade). Couch's position at the start of his film (probably very close in time to when Darnell started filming, too) is marked of the Robardeau map. Moving a bit up (to account for Darnell sitting right of Couch) and a bit closer to the TSBD (the car 10 was midway thru the turn onto Elm when it stopped), I mark a spot, which would correspond to Darnell's position next to Couch, pixel 433, 534 on Robardeau's map.
The west inside corner of the landing is unfortunately not displayed on Robardeau's map, but thanks to David's information on the dimensions and placement of the landing (from earlier in this thread) we can mark a spot 10 feet deep and 26.6 feet along the south face of the building. That particular pixel is 243, 603 on Robardeau's map. (It correlates to a pixel one down and one right of the end of the small horizontal line in the letter "F" in the phrase "next to Frazier" on Robardeau's map.)
The angle therefore (column->corner->Darnell) is inv.tan ((680-534)/(433-243)) = 33 degrees (rounding down).
Since we can tell from the picture that there's a straight line from Darnell to PP to the corner, PP must also be at the same angle. If we guess that there is 2 feet between the wall and the center of PP's head (it's probably less, cause PP seems small, and if PP is leaning against the wall, it's a lot less), then PP is this far (in a straight line) from the aluminum frame corner:
2 feet / (sin 33) = 2 / .544 = 3.67 feet
PP's distance from the glass window is therefore 3.67 * cos (33) = 3.67 * .839 = 3.08 feet. That must still be on the landing, since we know the landing is 5 feet deep. Since PP is now definitely on the landing, it cannot be Oswald.
If we put PP closer to the wall, i.e. leaning on it, the distance to the corner (and the corresponding distance to the glass window) will be less. In order for PP to be 5.5 feet from the glass (on the first step down), PP would have to be 3.6 feet from the western wall of the landing, i.e. barely able to touch it with out-stretched arms.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Albert Doyle Wrote:Since there's nothing wrong with my science or arguments
Nothing wrong except that it isn't science. It's speculation. You refuse to admit that.
Your THEORY that something could be learned by comparing the elements in the frame is a good one Albert, and if it WAS possible to accurately render the space in three dimensions we could in fact learn something. But it's not. And no amount of claiming you're right because you're right will ever change that. Why you're allowed to proffer this nonsense as being "science" baffles me, but perhaps you amuse the moderators.
You've never shown so directly Michael. Both you and David noticeably skip dealing directly with my arguments only to conclude they are wrong for very general reasons that are not accurate.
I posted some very clear qualifiers based on the internal forensic evidence in Darnell that show why your photogrammetry excuses are not valid and do not take precedence over them. I'm not sure if you and David are aware of it but if you look in this thread you both completely avoided them. You both seem to be positioning yourselves to hide behind David's focal point canard. My forensic arguments overturn that excuse and are better evidence. You're just calling it speculation, but you've had every opportunity to show why. So far you haven't been able to do that. What you are saying is false and my forensic points are connected to very real things seen in Darnell. You are falsely calling that speculation but it isn't. It is based on sound evidence and arguments that you have noticeably been unable to credibly answer. You're stooping to semantics here Michael. Meanwhile my hard science proves Prayer Man can't be leaning against the wall like your mentor Greg Parker suggests. My arguments are connected to firm numbers and science. Yours, semantics. You can't ignore my forensics and then step back and call them speculation.
I have already proven why your claim that nothing can be determined in the portal is wrong by means of the internal forensic identifiers you ignored. Both Unger's and MacRae's film clips both showed Prayer Man at the front of the portal and even with Frazier. The sun illuminating the hand is independent of your focal point obfuscation and is the exact opposite of speculation since the sun plane is a fixed entity in and of itself (that you have failed to answer to). That sun lit hand can only happen at the front of the landing. You haven't even admitted the basic scientific fact that objects at equal distance from Darnell's lens can be directly compared since they exist at the same distance.
You gentlemen don't realize that you've been out-argued. Your focal point depth perception claim is not a valid dismisser of all evidence in the portal as you seem to think. You cannot credibly hide behind it as you are doing or use it to ignore valid arguments. You are conspicuously using it to avoid admitting that we have made a good case that Prayer Man and Frazier are at a comparable distance from Darnell's lens and that the obvious height difference can be used to credibly dismiss Oswald as being Prayer Man.
A decent idea. Mr. Phipps. I'm all for any fairly rendered application of measurement. This matter shouldn't become mired down into who is right and who is wrong. After all, An innocent, unarmed representative of the People was killed. Exacting a sense of justice for him should be our top priority.
That said, without creating a measurement-commission of sorts, I do think if such measurement confirmation study was actually undertaken that it should be conducted by neutral parties to enhance an unbiased outcome. How we do that poses a real challenge. If I was a casual observer, without any vested interest in an outcome at stake, I would suggest the selection of a seven member panel of non-vested parties, whose compositional make up reflects 3 CT's, 3 LN's and an independent party of impeccable integrity. However, given this very contentious issue, it may be much easier to get the notorious Hell Angels and another biker group together to sing Kumbaya.
Whether that format is possible or even something the research community wishes to pursue is not my call. However, at the very least, a fair minded approach is the best manner to determine measurements (no opinions, just a fair application of all of the available evidence). Set a venue, convene an honest panel, record the proceedings and let the evidence or lack thereof speak for itself (add some women please, we've already smucked up bad enough with all men the last time).
*Still working on a photo image that deserves my full attention before making an accompanying post in the near future. I never noticed that crook in the step before.
This is ridiculous. The geometric triangulation I presented is a neutral party since it is objective science. You ignored it and called it "VooDoo science". You seem to fail to realize that it is valid science that must be answered in the here and now. Like ROKC you call for another analysis in the future under some kind of other terms. You can't do that because the things I wrote require an answer now because of their soundness.
The internal forensic items I posted do credibly locate Prayer Man at the front of the portal. You even admit this. Once you establish Prayer Man is at the front of the portal you must answer to credible science and admit that a direct height comparison can be made. That comparison excludes Oswald as being Prayer Man.
It is ironic that David Josephs claims I am ignorant of photogrammetry when it is obvious I possess the better photogrammetric arguments.
You and neutral, Mr. Doyle--on this particular matter--don't belong in the same sentence, so don't kid yourself (you know who you see standing there, Don't you?) Go ahead, it's okay, say it. Here imagine Vanna White giving you some clues: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Y _ _ _ A _ _
Moving along, Are you afraid to answer Mr. Josephs' more than fair and reasonable questions, especially his valid points about the vanishing act of Mr. Frazier?, now we see him, now we don't. That kind of outright tampering w/evidence should concern a genuine neutral party, operative word on genuine.
Final thought today, Mr. Doyle, but please check in here before noon tomorrow (EST). In the interim, please note the position of KTVT cameraman Don Cook...
*Credit Mr. Hocking (Richard)
particularly the step the greater portion of his center of gravity/weight rests (what is it about that step and extended elbows?). More about that tomorrow, with an additional image that requires adequate time to address in the manner indicative of what the research community deserves (no self-serving opinions, just a fair presentation of the available evidence to evaluate in a neutral manner).
also, What are the chances that you actually takes the time to respond to Mr. Josephs' fair and reasonable questions before I venture back in? Should I dare hold my breath?
Your silence, avoidance is very telling. Huff and puff on phantom measurements with the best of the distorters and distractors, but duck and cower from specific questions from Mr. Josephs and Mr. Cross. Go figure.
Meanwhile, safe travels folks if anyone has special plans to paint the town later tonight, and remember an objective look at Prayer Man is only a click away ---->
http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq no distortions, no distractions, just a fair accounting of who he's not. Not a stranger, nor any of the other TSBD employees--male or female. Therefore...
There's a basic thing that David Josephs doesn't seem to realize. The Darnell shot involves measurements that we are well aware of. Robardeau's map precisely places all the subjects seen in Darnell at very specific known locations. While referring to very general photo focal point science Mr Josephs doesn't realize we can precisely determine the exact focal point perspective in Darnell by simply lining up the objects we see with the known mapped dimensions provided by Robardeau. In other words the focal point perspective of Darnell is right there in front of you. Mr Josephs is often the first use the expression "Who are you going to believe? So and so or your own lying eyes?" I couldn't think of a situation where it applies more.
We can find the lens the WBAP crew used for the shot. I assure you there is no applicable focal point distortion in Darnell that would prevent any obvious direct comparison of the difference in height between Prayer Man and Frazier.
Albert Doyle Wrote:Since there's nothing wrong with my science or arguments
Nothing wrong except that it isn't science. It's speculation. You refuse to admit that.
Your THEORY that something could be learned by comparing the elements in the frame is a good one Albert, and if it WAS possible to accurately render the space in three dimensions we could in fact learn something. But it's not. And no amount of claiming you're right because you're right will ever change that. Why you're allowed to proffer this nonsense as being "science" baffles me, but perhaps you amuse the moderators.
You've never shown so directly Michael. Both you and David noticeably skip dealing directly with my arguments only to conclude they are wrong for very general reasons that are not accurate.
I posted some very clear qualifiers based on the internal forensic evidence in Darnell that show why your photogrammetry excuses are not valid and do not take precedence over them. I'm not sure if you and David are aware of it but if you look in this thread you both completely avoided them. You both seem to be positioning yourselves to hide behind David's focal point canard. My forensic arguments overturn that excuse and are better evidence. You're just calling it speculation, but you've had every opportunity to show why. So far you haven't been able to do that. What you are saying is false and my forensic points are connected to very real things seen in Darnell. You are falsely calling that speculation but it isn't. It is based on sound evidence and arguments that you have noticeably been unable to credibly answer. You're stooping to semantics here Michael. Meanwhile my hard science proves Prayer Man can't be leaning against the wall like your mentor Greg Parker suggests. My arguments are connected to firm numbers and science. Yours, semantics. You can't ignore my forensics and then step back and call them speculation.
I have already proven why your claim that nothing can be determined in the portal is wrong by means of the internal forensic identifiers you ignored. Both Unger's and MacRae's film clips both showed Prayer Man at the front of the portal and even with Frazier. The sun illuminating the hand is independent of your focal point obfuscation and is the exact opposite of speculation since the sun plane is a fixed entity in and of itself (that you have failed to answer to). That sun lit hand can only happen at the front of the landing. You haven't even admitted the basic scientific fact that objects at equal distance from Darnell's lens can be directly compared since they exist at the same distance.
You gentlemen don't realize that you've been out-argued. Your focal point depth perception claim is not a valid dismisser of all evidence in the portal as you seem to think. You cannot credibly hide behind it as you are doing or use it to ignore valid arguments. You are conspicuously using it to avoid admitting that we have made a good case that Prayer Man and Frazier are at a comparable distance from Darnell's lens and that the obvious height difference can be used to credibly dismiss Oswald as being Prayer Man.
Perhaps this will get me banned, or a time out from this forum, but if so, that's fine. You sir are a liar. I am not going to go back to cut and paste the series of accurate and well thought rebuttals to the horse shit you purvey, but they are in this thread and others for all to see. Your contention that you've been ignored, that your "science" is irrefutable is a lie. Your "points" have been completely countered with evidence. The fact that you either ignore them or don't understand them changes nothing. Your "forensic" points are opinion, have no science behind them and are entirely worthless. David's focal point example was not a canard. It was IN FACT science, and any objective observer would have paused to ponder the implications of how the appearance of three dimensional space can be altered in a two dimensional representation by the length of a lens. This is PROVEN SCIENCE. That you call it a canard exposes you for the charlatan you've always appeared to be.
Michael Cross Wrote:Perhaps this will get me banned, or a time out from this forum, but if so, that's fine. You sir are a liar. I am not going to go back to cut and paste the series of accurate and well thought rebuttals to the horse shit you purvey, but they are in this thread and others for all to see. Your contention that you've been ignored, that your "science" is irrefutable is a lie. Your "points" have been completely countered with evidence. The fact that you either ignore them or don't understand them changes nothing. Your "forensic" points are opinion, have no science behind them and are entirely worthless. David's focal point example was not a canard. It was IN FACT science, and any objective observer would have paused to ponder the implications of how the appearance of three dimensional space can be altered in a two dimensional representation by the length of a lens. This is PROVEN SCIENCE. That you call it a canard exposes you for the charlatan you've always appeared to be.
*edit for spelling.
You're just opinionating harder Michael.
Please, go back and show where I lied or was disproven by David's way too irrelevant and unrelated focal point science.
Read my last post about Darnell's lens and Robardeau's map and stop hiding behind your totally disconnected and unrelated 3d in 2d bluff. You are simply not answering my internal forensic qualifiers that disprove what you're saying. I accused you of ignoring them and you responded by ignoring them again. Drew doesn't seem to have any problem admitting it.
Really, obvious ROKC proxies should not be allowed to lower the quality of this board. You got away with this last time. This time the science you are bloviating around disproves you.
Alan Ford Wrote:On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, your height "evidence" is built upon quicksand
You've been invited to show so. Please do so in direct response to the specific facts I listed as I described them.
You got away with this last time. So far you are not answering what I wrote short of saying "quicksand" (I think you've already defaulted).
If you honestly answered what I wrote you would realize 1) There is no getting around the fact Prayer Man is in the same arc curve as Frazier in distance from Darnell's camera. Therefore there's no excuse for not making a direct height comparison between the two. 2) There's no getting around the fact there's a 6-7 inch difference in height between the two subjects. Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges.
You are forcing moot points vs proven facts.
I'm only going to do this once Albert.
Your photographic understanding and analysis is severely flawed. You're using your eyes to judge distance and size in a 2d representation of 3d space.
You are plain and simply - wrong about your conclusions which are based on a severely faulty process... eyeballing.
Maybe you think there's "no excuse for not making a direct height comparison" but you remain the only one not understanding the concepts of light, lens, focal distance and angles.
I posted the Ferrie/Oswald camp image to show that items at the front of an image cannot be compared to images anywhere else on the image without understanding photogammetry.
No Albert the sun does not revolve around the earth even though it appears that way as the sun moves thru the sky.
You cannot measure distance of any sort - accurately - within a photo - without that math.
That you dont understand the difference between the front or back of something is again, not our fault but your poor understanding and/or application of basic photographic rules.
1) the same arc? where do you get this gobbledee-goop?
Do you understand that higher focal lengths cause more distortion in the image? The greater the distance as well...
When you move Wesley over without a shift in depth you can easily see that he cannot be compared to PM - the depth is wrong and he is distorted when moved next to someone farther away.
2) Since you cannot compare distances and lengths within a photo using 2d analysis you need to understand why you remain so incredibly wrong about the images you are analyzing and coming to conclusions which are completely worthless.
you then write: "Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges"
Which is yet an even more egregious error in measurement within a photo and yet another version of the topic you butcher terribly.
Albert - we're all terribly sorry that reality and physics, light and 2d representation of 3d space confuses you so that you need to refute facts with tautology and non-sequitur.
If you want to continue to spout nonsense about your measuring skills and techniques - enjoy yourself... if others wish to debate with you about this have at it.
You might as well be pointing out that we will fall off the world when we reach the horizon because ships you visually watch disappear once they cross over.
Astute observation yet similarly incorrect once you have the facts
This post refuted everything Albert asserts. Everything.
You guys may be tired of explaining things to Albert, but explain it to me. How on earth do you think that a significant alteration of image size is possible from a camera distance of 90 feet (based on Robardeau's map) where the two people are within, at most, three feet difference in distance of each other? At most, you have a true image size differential of .02 degrees (inv sin (1/90) - inv sin (1/87)), which, at a distance of 90 feet, amounts to .38 inches in height. Clearly that cannot account for the height discrepancy between Frazier and PM.
If you had some sort of funky lens/focus combination that could distort and elongate the perspective about 20 times normal at a distance of 90 feet, wouldn't it be obvious looking at the rest of the picture?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
12-03-2016, 01:37 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 02:18 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Drew Phipps Wrote:You guys may be tired of explaining things to Albert, but explain it to me. How on earth do you think that a significant alteration of image size is possible from a camera distance of 90 feet (based on Robardeau's map) where the two people are within, at most, three feet difference in distance of each other? At most, you have a true image size differential of .02 degrees (inv sin (1/90) - inv sin (1/87)), which, at a distance of 90 feet, amounts to .38 inches in height. Clearly that cannot account for the height discrepancy between Frazier and PM.
If you had some sort of funky lens/focus combination that could distort and elongate the perspective about 20 times normal at a distance of 90 feet, wouldn't it be obvious looking at the rest of the picture?
If you read the thread I made both those points previously and they were ignored. That's what I meant by the photogrammetry these men were citing was with me if you follow-through on it. By the very photo science they cite the most difference any lens distortion could cause would be a fraction that would still not disprove the numbers involved. But anyone could look at Darnell and see there is no such exaggerated expansion that David is using as an excuse to not answer this simple evidence. No competent camera man would shoot in an exaggerated lens setting. Not only that but since Prayer Man is at the front of the landing there is no such perspective shift at all. Not even a fraction. These men are desperately trying to make this about me but any credible analyst will see the arguments exist in objective science and are totally separate from any personal attribution.
The opponents' argument is basically that since extreme depth perception and relative size distortions can occur between various lenses that therefore no analysis of any photo is possible. This is obvious rubbish since we have more than adequately provided evidence like the common lens used by news camera crews back then as well as the plainly apparent perspective seen in Darnell throughout the photo that seriously narrows down the possibilities.
They'll ignore them when you ask them too Drew because you simply don't understand how stupid you are and how much more aware of the sophisticated science the opponents are. ::laughingdog::
Michael Cross Wrote:2) Since you cannot compare distances and lengths within a photo using 2d analysis you need to understand why you remain so incredibly wrong about the images you are analyzing and coming to conclusions which are completely worthless.
you then write: "Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges"
Which is yet an even more egregious error in measurement within a photo and yet another version of the topic you butcher terribly.
Albert - we're all terribly sorry that reality and physics, light and 2d representation of 3d space confuses you so that you need to refute facts with tautology and non-sequitur.
If you want to continue to spout nonsense about your measuring skills and techniques - enjoy yourself... if others wish to debate with you about this have at it.
You might as well be pointing out that we will fall off the world when we reach the horizon because ships you visually watch disappear once they cross over.
Astute observation yet similarly incorrect once you have the facts
This post refuted everything Albert asserts. Everything.
Who do you think you're fooling with this Michael?
If you simply used your mind instead of automatic doubt you would see David's first point is absurd. He claims that no comparison of distance and length is possible in 2d photos. That's stupid. You could take Darnell and calibrate some of the objects measured and charted by Roberdeaux and plot them out in the 2d Darnell photo. You just gullibly swallow this absurd statement by Josephs and run with it.
Meanwhile Mr Josephs mocks my suggestion that the aluminum frame behind Prayer Man's head was a serious forensic landmark. David pronounces that I have butchered my analysis terribly by suggesting it. Meanwhile Drew has made a very intelligent scientific argument using that very landmark. It is similar to the one I made and both you and Mr Josephs ignored.
You're cheerleading Michael. You are also making a false statement when you say David's reply refutes me. It's silly. We're way past that.
