#101
Conspiracy JFK Forum
The Backyard Photos
Re: The Backyard Photos
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Perhaps this would help you, Mark.
The upper black line shows the shadow on C133A
The lower line shows the comparable position of the shadow on C133C.
![[Image: BYcomparison_zpsxib5ko2m.jpg]](http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/BYcomparison_zpsxib5ko2m.jpg.html)
Below is a composite I made some time ago. The horizontal lines are more closely spaced than in your graphic.
shadows133cba.jpg (Size: 64.91 KB / Downloads: 195)
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Do you agree that Oswald is standing on roughly the same spot in both C133A and C133C?
He's closer to the background in C, and his stance is different (possibly more erect).
Re: The Backyard Photos
Could you show the a comparison with the full-length of the stair post so we can compare the relative lengths?
I disagree that Oswald is further back.
Have you noticed how Oswald has his right leg in exactly the same position in each photo. What are the chances of that!
You have already agreed that the sun had sunk in the time that the photos were taken. If the sun had sunk then at the same time, it would also have moved West. Therefore the shadows of the fixed items (e.g. the stair posts and steps) in the photos should have moved East. In C133A, the stair post to the right Oswald should have disappeared behind Oswald. They haven't . Can you explain that?
I disagree that Oswald is further back.
Have you noticed how Oswald has his right leg in exactly the same position in each photo. What are the chances of that!
You have already agreed that the sun had sunk in the time that the photos were taken. If the sun had sunk then at the same time, it would also have moved West. Therefore the shadows of the fixed items (e.g. the stair posts and steps) in the photos should have moved East. In C133A, the stair post to the right Oswald should have disappeared behind Oswald. They haven't . Can you explain that?
Re: The Backyard Photos
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Could you show the a comparison with the full-length of the stair post so we can compare the relative lengths?
No, it was an old graphic, and I'm not interested enough to redo it. I guess you can find a couple of reference points and extrapolate from that.
Ray Mitcham Wrote:I disagree that Oswald is further back.
ab.jpg (Size: 99.1 KB / Downloads: 174)
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Have you noticed how Oswald has his right leg in exactly the same position in each photo. What are the chances of that!
I can see what you mean, but "exactly" is overstating it. Exact matches would indeed have been suspicious; striking similarities less so.
Ray Mitcham Wrote:You have already agreed that the sun had sunk in the time that the photos were taken.
That's a funny way of putting it. Until corrected, you thought the sun was rising.
Ray Mitcham Wrote:If the sun had sunk then at the same time, it would also have moved West. Therefore the shadows of the fixed items (e.g. the stair posts and steps) in the photos should have moved East. In C133A, the stair post to the right Oswald should have disappeared behind Oswald. They haven't . Can you explain that?
Not exactly sure what you mean. Could you rephrase?
Re: The Backyard Photos
Sorry for the delay been away on business.
To help you.
In C133c the sun is at higher than in C133A. This is shown by the shadows of the overhead cables on the stair post.
The shadows of fixed objects in C133C, show that the azimuth of the sun is 250˚ - 5˚ (Warren Commission said the camera was pointing 70˚ North, and sun is approx 5˚ right of camera.)
The shadow of the cables on the stair-post in C133A are approx 6” higher than in C133C.
To achieve, this the sun must have moved 5˚ West. i.e. Azimuth of 250˚, and several degrees lower in the sky.
(See NASA Solar Position Calculator site- <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html</a><!-- m -->
insert “Dallas” 30 March 1963. 15.27.26
Note Azimuth (245˚) and Sun Elevation. (31.88˚)
Then insert time as 15.52.05. Azimuth (250˚) and Elevation (27.53)
Results show that the sun moved 5˚ West and the elevation sank from 31.88˚ to 27.53˚.
Oswald is standing in roughly the same place in both photos.
As the elevation of the sun in C133A is 3.72˚ lower than in C133C, then his shadow should be shorter than in C133A.
It isn't. It is longer.
If the sun moved 5˚ West, then the shadow of the stair-post would have disappeared behind the stair-post
It doesn't.
If the photos were taken from the same position, the shadows of Oswald in all three photos are askew. Oswald's shadow in C133A should be less acute (i.e closer to the line of his body) than in C133B and C133A.
It isn't.
(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)
To help you.
In C133c the sun is at higher than in C133A. This is shown by the shadows of the overhead cables on the stair post.
The shadows of fixed objects in C133C, show that the azimuth of the sun is 250˚ - 5˚ (Warren Commission said the camera was pointing 70˚ North, and sun is approx 5˚ right of camera.)
The shadow of the cables on the stair-post in C133A are approx 6” higher than in C133C.
To achieve, this the sun must have moved 5˚ West. i.e. Azimuth of 250˚, and several degrees lower in the sky.
(See NASA Solar Position Calculator site- <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html</a><!-- m -->
insert “Dallas” 30 March 1963. 15.27.26
Note Azimuth (245˚) and Sun Elevation. (31.88˚)
Then insert time as 15.52.05. Azimuth (250˚) and Elevation (27.53)
Results show that the sun moved 5˚ West and the elevation sank from 31.88˚ to 27.53˚.
Oswald is standing in roughly the same place in both photos.
As the elevation of the sun in C133A is 3.72˚ lower than in C133C, then his shadow should be shorter than in C133A.
It isn't. It is longer.
If the sun moved 5˚ West, then the shadow of the stair-post would have disappeared behind the stair-post
It doesn't.
If the photos were taken from the same position, the shadows of Oswald in all three photos are askew. Oswald's shadow in C133A should be less acute (i.e closer to the line of his body) than in C133B and C133A.
It isn't.
(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)
Re: The Backyard Photos
Are you assuming that the sequence of the shots in time was C133A, C133B, C133C......?
Re: The Backyard Photos
Can you determine the sequence, or are you saying there are issues that would cloud that determination anyway.....?
Re: The Backyard Photos
The back yard photos issue is meaningless. Oswald NEVER went to Mexico City and was also set up to pose with the subsequent alleged murder weapons, even if was him in the pictures
Or as Bugs Bunny would say, "What maroons."
Or as Bugs Bunny would say, "What maroons."
Re: The Backyard Photos
If you can prove the photos are fake, then it proves a conspiracy.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)