Z-317 shows no rearward blowout

[Ray Mitcham]

What's holding up the guy to the right...

Note the difference in the angle his right foot is sticking out to Oswald.

[Jerry Organ]

Adjusted image so the post over his left shoulder is true-vertical. But it makes the post behind his head go off-vertical.

BTW, the angle in your graphic is 7?, not 10?.

[Jerry Organ]

Craig Lamson's graphic showing a 7? tilt when the perspective is corrected. True-verticals were found by Craig on the house, the post behind the left shoulder and the vertical on the far-right of the shed. Other verticals in the picture were not unreliable, including the rough carpentry of the stairway support post, the gate and most of the shed.

[John Iacoletti]

Craig Lamson's graphic showing a 7? tilt when the perspective is corrected. True-verticals were found by Craig on the house, the post behind the left shoulder and the vertical on the far-right of the shed.

Interesting.  I know Craig still lurks here.  How was it determined that these are true verticals?  PM is fine.

[Jerry Organ]

Interesting.  I know Craig still lurks here.  How was it determined that these are true verticals?  PM is fine.

I believe he worked off the assumption that the house verticals were the most accurate.

[Ray Mitcham]

Glad to see that Lamson agrees with me  that Farid was wrong when he said Oswald was leaning at 5˚. If he was wrong in this, then why take his word on his comments on the nose shadows?

[Jerry Organ]

Glad to see that Lamson agrees with me  that Farid was wrong when he said Oswald was leaning at 5˚. If he was wrong in this, then why take his word on his comments on the nose shadows?

As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.

Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.



Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.

[Ray Mitcham]

As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.

Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.



Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.

The world's greatest photographer (IHOO) says that Oswald was leaning at a greater angle the  Farid said, so by default he is disagreeing with Farid. Whether ia m correct or not is immaterial. A lone nutter has agreed  that the so called expert, Farid, was wrong, which is  what I have said all along.