If the pictures were faked, Marina would not remember taking them.
Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue.
The photos are genuine and the subject is a load of pro conspiracy hogwash.
Why on earth would you leave a trail pointing at forgery.......it is a ridiculous theory. As if you would need a photo of Oswald with his weapons to prove he had them! It is utterly silly. He ordered them via mail and his signature is on the order form and the guns were shipped to his PO Box. One more time why would you need a photo....?
Oh wait, you guys are just having a joke right...?
Patrick asserted, "Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue."
Marina said she only took one photo when there were actually four. And an issue doesn't become an "non-issue" on your say-so, Patrick, or did you think otherwise?
Ray Mitcham stated, "If you can prove the photos are fake, then it proves a conspiracy."
True enough, Ray... But there's also a good possibility someone suggested to Oswald that he pose for those pictures for the exact purpose of linking him to the assassination (and naturally gave him a different reason).
I'm sure Patrick will gripe, "No one knew JFK would be coming to Dallas 8 months later," which is completely immaterial. In all likelihood they were setting up a number of patsies in various major cities JFK would eventually visit. And how more obvious could it be if those pictures were taken just 10 days prior to Nov 22nd?
Patrick said "Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue."
She remembered taking them with a camera which she held up to her eye. It was an Imperial reflex which you don't.
She said it was a black camera. It wasn't -it was grey.
And you believe her?
Don't worry, Ray.... I'm sure Patrick will pull from his arsenal of excuses that Marina was color blind and also confused with numbers in English.
Ray Mitcham Wrote: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.
If I need any help with this, I'll let you know. (Or maybe not.)
Ray Mitcham Wrote: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.)
You're confusing the HSCA with the WC and East with North. It seems the 5˚ right of camera is your own estimate. OK, let's go with that.
Ray Mitcham Wrote: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˚.
The WC deduced that 31 March was the likely date, so I'm not sure why you picked the day before (not that it makes much of a difference).
I don't know why, but I seem to be getting slightly different figures:
Azimuth 245˚ (Elevation 39.43˚) corresponds to 15:28:41.
Azimuth 250˚ (Elevation 34.45˚) corresponds to 15:54:17.
What does this tell us? That the sun would have been directly behind the camera (and Oswald's shadow directly behind him) 25 or 26 minutes after the first photo was taken. This is obviously not what we see in the photos, so thank you for proving that it took significant less than 25 minutes to take all three.
As for the vertical movement of the cable shadows on the stair post, you still haven't told us how you got from 6 inches to an angular movement of several degrees. Let's say the distance between the cables and the post was 10 yards. At that distance, 6 inches would correspond to an angular movement of only about 3/4 of a degree.
Ray Mitcham Wrote: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.
Feel free to prove that Oswald's shadow is longer in 133C. (You can't, of course.)
Ray Mitcham Wrote:If the sun moved 5˚ West, then the shadow of the stair-post would have disappeared behind the stair-post
It doesn't.
But the sun probably moved less than one degree to the West. You proved that yourself.
Ray Mitcham Wrote: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.
See above.
Ray Mitcham Wrote:(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)
I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.
M. Ulrik penned:
*Ray Mitcham wrote:
(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)*
I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.
*********
doesn't matter? Of course you can prove that, correct? So, where's your evidence, champ?
David Healy Wrote:M. Ulrik penned:
*Ray Mitcham wrote:
(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)*
I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.
*********
doesn't matter? Of course you can prove that, correct? So, where's your evidence, champ?
Can't you read? It's doesn't really matter whether it took 3, 4 or 5 minutes to snap those pictures. If you disagree, then please feel free to show us why.
Seems i was wrong about the angle of the sun with if the wires are 30 ' away. At that distance it is about 1˚. My mistake.
However regarding the length of Oswald's shadows in both photos, do you agree that Oswald right foot in C133C is about a toe cap's length back from where it is in C133A?
If not what is your estimate for the difference?