+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: The Backyard Photos (/Thread-The-Backyard-Photos)
Re: The Backyard Photos - Ray Mitcham - 06-28-2016
To return to the topic. In the three BY photos, there are shadow lines of overhead cables on the stair post. These shadows progress down the post (C!33A to CE133C), due to the sun getting higher in the sky.
However the shadow of "Oswald" do not get shorter as they should. In fact, they get longer.
Anybody know what causes this phenomenon?
p.s. the three photos were allegedly taken within minutes of each other, but the shadow of the cables move about 6" down the post which would take at least half an hour.
What gives?
Re: The Backyard Photos - Mark Ulrik - 07-02-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:To return to the topic. In the three BY photos, there are shadow lines of overhead cables on the stair post. These shadows progress down the post (C!33A to CE133C), due to the sun getting higher in the sky.
However the shadow of "Oswald" do not get shorter as they should. In fact, they get longer.
Anybody know what causes this phenomenon?
p.s. the three photos were allegedly taken within minutes of each other, but the shadow of the cables move about 6" down the post which would take at least half an hour.
What gives?
Let me take this one, if no one else will.
- The sun was going down, so the sequence is C-B-A.
- How do we reliably compare the length of the shadows? They fall on a 3D surface, and Oswald was moving around.
- The speed with which the cable shadows move up the post depends on the distance to the cables. Is that distance known? Is it important to know how many minutes the event lasted?
Re: The Backyard Photos - Garry Puffer - 07-03-2016
[attachment=33]
[attachment=32]
Re: The Backyard Photos - Ray Mitcham - 07-03-2016
According toMark, " The sun was going down,"
According to Marina Oswald the photo(s) were taken around mid-day.
According to Mark " the sequence is C-B-A."
Please let us know how you know this.
Mark "Is it important to know how many minutes the event lasted?"
Yes, because Marina said it last a couple of minutes.
If the time between the photos is a lot more than that, then she is lying.
Re: The Backyard Photos - Mark Ulrik - 07-03-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:According to Mark, " The sun was going down,"
According to Marina Oswald the photo(s) were taken around mid-day.
According to Mark " the sequence is C-B-A."
Please let us know how you know this.
It's in the HSCA volumes:
"Finally, the shadows in these pictures were also analyzed to determine the sequence in which the photographs were taken. A visit to the Neeley Street site of the backyard photographs established that a person walking up the steps would be walking almost straight east. (180) Given the view shown in the backyard photographs, it is possible to estimate that the camera was aimed about 70° east of north. The shadows in the photographs indicate that the Sun was behind and to the right of the camera . Since this would place the Sun in the southwestern sky, it was afternoon, and the Sun was going down."
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Mark "Is it important to know how many minutes the event lasted?"
Yes, because Marina said it last a couple of minutes.
If the time between the photos is a lot more than that, then she is lying.
How compelling. Are you going to show us your math?
Re: The Backyard Photos - Ray Mitcham - 07-03-2016
I agree that the time was late afternoon. Re my math, not yet, but you seem to agree that the shadow of the cables rose up the post from their position in C133C to C133A due to the sun setting.
Do you agree that from their position of the post that the shadows moved approx 6"? If not what distance do you think the shadows moved?
Re: The Backyard Photos - Mark Ulrik - 07-03-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:I agree that the time was late afternoon. Re my math, not yet, but you seem to agree that the shadow of the cables rose up the post from their position in C133C to C133A due to the sun setting.
Do you agree that from their position of the post that the shadows moved approx 6"? If not what distance do you think the shadows moved?
I don't know. Why not 4 inches?
Re: The Backyard Photos - Ray Mitcham - 07-03-2016
The shadows move about 10% of the height of the post. As the post, relative to Oswald's height (5'9"), is about 5'6", that would make it 6 1/2"
To be 4" the post would have to be 40" high.
Re: The Backyard Photos - Mark Ulrik - 07-03-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:The shadows move about 10% of the height of the post. As the post, relative to Oswald's height (5'9"), is about 5'6", that would make it 5 1/2"
To be 4" the post would have to be 40" high.
I haven't looked too closely, but it looks like less than 10% to me.
Re: The Backyard Photos - Ray Mitcham - 07-04-2016
Perhaps this would help you, Mark.
![[Image: BYcomparison_zpsxib5ko2m.jpg]](http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/BYcomparison_zpsxib5ko2m.jpg.html)
The upper black line shows the shadow on C133A
The lower line shows the comparable position of the shadow on C133C.
Do you agree that Oswald is standing on roughly the same spot in both C133A and C133C?