|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 10, 2020 12:43:19 GMT -5
Sorry but it "is" a fact that the height of the person in the Upham tintype is within a fraction of an inch of 5' 8". I only said "give or take" because I can't be certain it is exactly 5' 8" vs. 5'8.25" for example He "was" very close to 5' 8". He was not 5' 3' etc. Simply not possible unless that tintype is not really BTK. I measured from the the sole of his shoe, not from the floor. The resulting 5'8" would not change if the floor was unloved or anything like that. As for the hat, I measured to the top of where his head would be.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Mar 10, 2020 12:59:53 GMT -5
The sole of the shoe doesn't take into account the heel which obviously pushes the sole closer to the floor? The rifle measurement also wouldn't be accurate if it was placed on uneven ground perhaps maybe higher or lower than the standing person?As for the hat, we can't guess where it was positioned on billy's head so we can't use it as an option. How tall was brushy in stocking feet? Bet you don't know?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 10, 2020 16:53:25 GMT -5
OK, I'll try one more time and then I'm done with this. I measured the rifle itself and created a graph showing inches and feet, like a ruler. I then sized that ruler so if matched up with the correct length of the rifle. It wouldn't have made any difference what position the rifle was in or whether the ground was uneven. I simply measure the length of the rifle. Once I had a ruler that showed the rifle at the correct length, I placed that at the sole of his boot at the heel area, not from the floor or ground. By doing this the heel of the boot was not included in the measuring. This is the closest to him standing in his stockings as possible. No, I don't know how low on his head the hat was placed. I simply measured to the position where the top of his head would be. Yes, I could have been off by a fraction of an inch but what we're talking about here is a 5 inch discrepancy over whether he was about 5' 8" or whether he was 5' 3". I can tell you I am extremely certain he was much closer to 5"8" than 5' 3". Maybe if I have time in the next few days I'll do that whole test over again so I can post it, so you can see for yourself that it is accurate within a fraction of an inch. BTK was right about 5' 8" tall.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeyta on Mar 10, 2020 23:06:07 GMT -5
One thing that might need to be considered when using the rifle as a scale, Is whether it is a rifle or a carbine. I think there were three different variants of the Winchester model 1873. I think the rifle had a 24” barrel and the carbine had a 20” barrel.
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Mar 11, 2020 3:42:14 GMT -5
I think its clearly the 1873 rifle which everyone used except John Wayne - and the croquet stick had one standard size...
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Mar 11, 2020 13:12:53 GMT -5
OK, I'll try one more time and then I'm done with this. I measured the rifle itself and created a graph showing inches and feet, like a ruler. I then sized that ruler so if matched up with the correct length of the rifle. It wouldn't have made any difference what position the rifle was in or whether the ground was uneven. I simply measure the length of the rifle. Once I had a ruler that showed the rifle at the correct length, I placed that at the sole of his boot at the heel area, not from the floor or ground. By doing this the heel of the boot was not included in the measuring. This is the closest to him standing in his stockings as possible. No, I don't know how low on his head the hat was placed. I simply measured to the position where the top of his head would be. Yes, I could have been off by a fraction of an inch but what we're talking about here is a 5 inch discrepancy over whether he was about 5' 8" or whether he was 5' 3". I can tell you I am extremely certain he was much closer to 5"8" than 5' 3". Maybe if I have time in the next few days I'll do that whole test over again so I can post it, so you can see for yourself that it is accurate within a fraction of an inch. BTK was right about 5' 8" tall. whilst following on from your normal patronising self, surely the measurement would be more accurate from the toe rather than a heel. If a foot is in a heeled boot it is obviously in a raised position. As for 5'3 I never agreed with that but a convenient 5'8 play's straight into the old fraudsters hands of which your somewhat smitten. Arkansas 1879!!
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Mar 11, 2020 13:25:04 GMT -5
Oops, how big is the heel?
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Mar 11, 2020 20:16:03 GMT -5
Even Brushy himself said "Tom was a big fellow, me and Jessie were small"
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 15, 2020 14:46:28 GMT -5
"more accurate from the toe rather than a heel."
NOT at all. Measuring from the toe would have made him taller, not shorter. I measured from the sole of the heel, not including the heel of the boot itself. I'm not sure what part of this is so hard to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 15, 2020 16:20:50 GMT -5
OK, I need some help on this. I'm redoing my attempt to measure Billy' height accurately and I need to know for sure how long that rifle is that he's holding in the photo. Do we have any experts that can give me a definitive answer to that question? Thanks so much.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Mar 16, 2020 14:02:49 GMT -5
OK, I need some help on this. I'm redoing my attempt to measure Billy' height accurately and I need to know for sure how long that rifle is that he's holding in the photo. Do we have any experts that can give me a definitive answer to that question? Thanks so much. As I understand the Winchester was 'give or take ' 39 inches. Pat Garret owned a 73 Winchester that had the barrel shortened. I'm not saying that the one in billy's tintype is not the original size but it could have been customised maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 23, 2020 0:14:34 GMT -5
Here's my re-created measurement graphic. I make no claim it is perfect. A measurement down to the fraction of an inch is probably not even possible. But I do believe it illustrates there is no way Billy was only 5' 3" tall. I used two rulers overlayed on the photo. Both rulers at the same scale. One measures the rifle including the 13" pull and the 39" overall length. The other measures Billy's height from the bottom of his foot at the heel to the approximate top of his head. For the sake of full disclosure and at the risk that some viewers will only question the result I must also talk about "depth". When an object appears further from a camera it appears smaller. The rifle is being held slightly forward of the center line of Billy's body which means the ruler for the rifle had to be very slightly lengthened to accommodate for that difference. I did that by placing the ruler first at floor level at Billy's heel and then moving it to his toe position, also at the floor, and then lengthening that ruler just slightly so it would reach the same height in both positions. I believe the result is very accurate though probably not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Mar 23, 2020 14:28:54 GMT -5
Wayne, if you don't mind me asking, if you keep all your measurements exactly the same against the right handed image but then switch only Billy to the left handed image, I don't think you're red lines will match.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 23, 2020 17:03:32 GMT -5
Leeb,
That really shouldn't make any difference. If I flipped the images I'd just have to put the rulers on opposite sides from where they are now and the measurements would stay the same. Thanks for asking though.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 24, 2020 8:37:46 GMT -5
Rufus,
The assertion being addressed from earlier in this thread was that he was much shorter at 5' 3". I believe my graphic shows that is not true. It was important to me that we determine that because "if" he was only 5' 3" then it would prove beyond any doubt that the 5' 8" Brushy was not BTK. Your experiment supports my conclusion, so thanks for sharing. BTK was likely within an inch of 5' 8" tall just as Brushy was.
|
|