Is this a right arm or a left arm in a historical photo?

[RalphCinque]

There is a famous picture of President and Mrs. Kennedy minutes before he was shot in Dallas that was put on the cover of TIME magazine for the 50th anniversary of the assassination in 2013. It is a very odd picture showing Jackie waving, but her arm doesn't look right in the picture. Is it her left arm or her right? Researchers seem to be evenly divided about that, but having some background in Anatomy, I believe the correct answer is: neither.

 

Please take a look at it and render an opinion. But, could we please limit it to Anatomy students and teachers? I wish only to discuss this on the basis of anatomy. Thank you.

 

http://www.oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/02/i-have-worked-up-these-seven-graphics.html

[StringJunky]

It's her left-hand and the upper arm and elbow is retracted rearwards as she waves, hidden from view by her torso. She's got plenty of room on her left side to do that because she is some way from the door.

 

 

Also, the photographer is likely using a fairly long lens which will compress perspective causing a loss of depth and skewing the apparent relative size.

 

The camera lies, unless the photographer stops it from doing so.

[RalphCinque]

Thank you for responding.

Edited February 23, 2015 by RalphCinque

[Strange]

 

I believe the correct answer is: neither.

 

It is a fake prop arm held by our lizard overlords? (Who don't understand human anatomy.)

Edited February 23, 2015 by Strange

[RalphCinque]

I added some further analysis. It is one weird image. They monkeyed with that arm; that's for sure.

 

http://oswaldinthedoorway.BlogSpot.com/2015/02/lets-assume-that-image-on-right-is.html

Edited February 24, 2015 by RalphCinque

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Pease stop trying to use this as an opportunity to drive traffic to your blog. Outline in this thread why you think your claims to be true, with the photo, or this will be closed. Please also note that this is a science forum, not a conspiracy forum.

[RalphCinque]

Very well. Then, let me ask a related question to another image in the same photograph, which I can post here. So, there will be no routing to my blog, which I was not seeking anyway. I didn't see before how to attach images.

 

This question pertains to Physics, Anatomy, and Biomechanics- areas of science.

 

Focus on the little girl in the pink dress. To my eyes, she appears to be sitting. The way she is configured looks like a sitting posture to me. But, what could she be sitting on?

 

Do you think that the woman who is waving her right arm is supporting the weight of the girl with her left arm? Holding her up? With one arm? Would she be strong enough? How much do you think the girl weighs? So, does the woman have her left arm stuck out and is the girl sitting on it? Because it does look like the girl is sitting on something. And we are seeing none of the adjustments that usually take place when a woman holds a child.

 

Most often, women hold children to the greatest mechanical advantage. And, it comes down to trying to get gravity to work for you, rather than against you. It usually entails leaning in such a way that the weight of the child can be heaped upon the body weight of the woman, such that her strongest bodily muscles (those of her lower extremity, her hips, etc.) can do the work, rather than putting all the load on her relatively weak arms. But, in this case, the woman is doing nothing of the sort. If she's supporting the girl's weight, she is doing it solely with the strength of her left arm and nothing else. She's not recruiting any other muscles. The woman is not leaning at all. I maintain that it would take an uncanny amount of strength to do that.

 

I'll add that another thing that women do is exploit the principle of counterbalance, which is what enables two equally weighted children to remain an aloft on a see-saw without expending any energy. So, in the case of holding a child up, it means leaning opposite to the child, and that creates the counterbalance. I'll attach an example. But obviously, this other woman isn't doing that.

 

So, how is this child being supported?

Edited February 24, 2015 by RalphCinque

[fiveworlds]

So, how is this child being supported?

 

The lady and child is actually an alien. Or exactly the same way as the child in the right hand photo and you can't see the arm. Actually I am pretty sure that same woman is used as an alien in the original men in black movie

Edited February 24, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Phi for All]

What if people move sort of constantly, and the camera only captures an instant, freezing them into positions that they only held for a moment?

[RalphCinque]

No. They're watching a motorcade. And if they were moving significantly, it would have blurred the image. Why try so hard to make excuses to justify this? The girl is obviously in a sitting position with both her knees and hips flexed at close to 90 degrees. That is not the configuration of a child being held. A child being held has no bearing with the Earth. The person holding them becomes like their planet. And so, they orient themselves towards that person. And when I say orient I mean they seek to get support from the person. But, that girl is obviously getting support from something underneath her buttocks. And, it's got to be something firm because she is in a very extended state otherwise. By that, I mean that even though her joints are flexed, she is lengthened otherwise. Look how lengthened her back is. She's doing a good job of "sitting up straight." How could she do that if she were dangling in someone's arms? And how could she be sitting on that woman's arm? First, the woman would not be strong enough, and second, it would not be nearly firm and stable enough for the girl to get the support to lengthen herself like that. Can you sit as tall on a soft pillow as you can on a firm bench?

 

Look, this is a Science forum, and I came here because I expected to find people with an education in Anatomy and Physiology to look at this from a kinesthetic perspective. Is there anybody here who meets that qualification? And can we save the wisecracks for drinking time?

 

And I have another question concerning this hand. The person is waving at the limo, and the hand is visually obscured on the right side. But, there are no visual obstructions through the length of the hand from wrist to fingertips. Therefore, why do the fingers look so short and blunted, like that of an amputee. I'll provide a normal hand for comparison. Remember, this is a Science forum. It's not for clowning around. Thank you.

Edited February 25, 2015 by RalphCinque

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moving to speculations.

 

Ralph. You are claiming you are seeking a scientific explanation but to all intents and purposes it seems that you are clear in your mind what the outcome should be and not open to more mundane explanations. Take a while to google "Mother holding Child" - quite apart from the pleasant pictures you will be struck by the enormous variety of poses. The straight pose of the woman in white is unusual - but maybe she knew from her mother than propping a baby against the hip can lead to back-ache for years to come.

 

Unless members wish to continue to discuss or you bring some evidence (other than "this looks wrong") to the debate then the thread will soon be locked.

 

DO NOT respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair. Responses in thread will just be hidden.

 

[CharonY]

 

No. They're watching a motorcade. And if they were moving significantly, it would have blurred the image. Why try so hard to make excuses to justify this?

 

Sorry, you do not understand photography. Shutter speed (among others) control for subject movement. Note that the motorcade is in focus and shows no motion blur. The lady is actually blurry, but it is likely because she is out of focus (i.e. the focus point is closer than the hyperfocal distance). It is not strong, but noticeable as everyone else around her are also starting to get out of focus. The right hand at least shows slight motion blur, but it is also going to move faster than the body during shifting.

 

The hand in the foreground is almost sillier, the subjects are way out of focus (i.e. too close to the camera in this case) and also waving around. Motion blur is here exacerbated as it is close to the camera (or to put it differently, the hand moves through more distance across the frame for a given time). Both issues (out of focus, motion blur) contribute to that expected artifact.If they were headbanging, you would wonder why the people appear to have deformed heads.

 

Considering the time it is likely that Kodachrome film was used (pretty much the dominating color film in the US market at that time, at least afaik). Either 25 or 64 (both daylight film). Assuming it was a somewhat sunny day the shot would be done typically with around 1/125th shutter speed and f-stop around f/8-f/16. At that speed small movement is certainly frozen, whereas only rapid ones can start to generate blur. Shifting body weight will be frozen.

 

In the end this is a physics question, and you may want to read up on hyperfocal distance to understand when blur occurs and how shutter speed freezes motion.There are actually some means to guesstimate the distance, but I guess that would not really be very interesting at this point.

Edited February 25, 2015 by CharonY

[swansont]

 

And I have another question concerning this hand. The person is waving at the limo, and the hand is visually obscured on the right side. But, there are no visual obstructions through the length of the hand from wrist to fingertips. Therefore, why do the fingers look so short and blunted, like that of an amputee. I'll provide a normal hand for comparison. Remember, this is a Science forum. It's not for clowning around. Thank you.

 

Depth of field, related to the diffraction of light. The camera is not focused on that hand, it's focused on the president. There are also shadows which change the appearance.

 

Hold up a thin object (thinner than pencil) vertically, a few cm from your eye, and look at a distant object. If it's thin enough it will almost disappear, other than some blurriness. Better yet, look through a window screen and focus on something in the distance.

 

That just how optics works.

[StringJunky]

 

Sorry, you do not understand photography. Shutter speed (among others) control for subject movement. That being said, the lady is blurry relative to the motorcade. But that can also be background blurring setting in which one could figure out by knowing the distance, focal length and aperture setting. The right hand at least clearly shows motion blur, but it is also going to move faster than the body.

 

The hand in the foreground is almost sillier, the subjects are out of focus (i.e. too close to the camera in this case) and also moving. Artifacts are expected for that. It is a physics question, not an anatomy question.

Like I said earlier,:the camera lies. As for inserting body parts, I don't think even Ansel Adams could have dodged and burned them in that seamlessly; especially in colour.

[swansont]

That is not the configuration of a child being held.

 

We all know that children being held remain perfectly still. No squirming at all, so any position they're in is one they've been in for a long time.

 

Sheesh.

[Phi for All]

No. They're watching a motorcade. And if they were moving significantly, it would have blurred the image. Why try so hard to make excuses to justify this?

 

It's been a while since my daughter was that young, but I remember moving almost constantly while holding her on my hip. It wasn't a significant movement, more of a rocking my weight from one foot to the other. At that age, it keeps them from wiggling themselves.

 

And btw, I think the one working to justify something in this thread is you. But you aren't working hard. Your evidence is inconclusive, and your Appeal to Incredulity is worthless as support. You're basically saying that people watching a motorcade always hold still for the camera, and you can't think of any other way this picture could have happened naturally. When given a reasonable explanation with supportive evidence, you toss it aside as a justification. That's not what a true skeptic does.

 

I agree with CharonY, this is a physics question, not anatomy.

[CharonY]

Like I said earlier,:the camera lies. As for inserting body parts, I don't think even Ansel Adams could have dodged and burned them in that seamlessly; especially in colour.

 

Actually, I would say that the photographer lies, as he controls the elements that create the final impression. The camera just captures the light under the given settings. I do not quite understand the inserting body part thingy. With dodge and burn you just locally change exposure, how would you insert elements into a photo (do you mean as shadows?). Or am I misunderstanding something...?

[StringJunky]

 

Actually, I would say that the photographer lies, as he controls the elements that create the final impression. The camera just captures the light under the given settings. I do not quite understand the inserting body part thingy. With dodge and burn you just locally change exposure, how would you insert elements into a photo (do you mean as shadows?). Or am I misunderstanding something...?

The camera lies, if left to its own devices.

 

Think about trying to add a bit of another image - photoshopping sixties-style - to a photo, you'd have to blend the 'joins'.

Edited February 25, 2015 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

I see what you mean. Just have not heard it referred to as dodging and burning. For the rest I will just say that I disagree that device is capable of lying, it will just produce data based on a given input and leave it at that (and even then you typically have to at least activate the device).

[swansont]

I see what you mean. Just have not heard it referred to as dodging and burning. For the rest I will just say that I disagree that device is capable of lying, it will just produce data based on a given input and leave it at that (and even then you typically have to at least activate the device).

 

Depends on how pedantic you want to be. The camera lenses are not perfect and introduce distortions, you are projecting onto a flat sensor or film, which also causes distortions, and film or sensors may not accurately record the color and intensity, and also have noise. And you are recording a 2D image of a 3D source, so there is inherently going to be lost information. OTOH, you can calibrate and account for some of these effects.

[StringJunky]

 

Depends on how pedantic you want to be. The camera lenses are not perfect and introduce distortions, you are projecting onto a flat sensor or film, which also causes distortions, and film or sensors may not accurately record the color and intensity, and also have noise. And you are recording a 2D image of a 3D source, so there is inherently going to be lost information. OTOH, you can calibrate and account for some of these effects.

And it only has one 'eye'. 'Lying' implies intent to deceive, so it's a bit strong but I meant in terms of information fidelity; one has to understand and make the necessary corrrections to impart the intended information to the viewer of the picture.

[swansont]

It also adds ten pounds, which is unsavory at best.

[Sensei]

There is a famous picture of President and Mrs. Kennedy minutes before he was shot in Dallas that was put on the cover of TIME magazine for the 50th anniversary of the assassination in 2013. It is a very odd picture showing Jackie waving, but her arm doesn't look right in the picture. Is it her left arm or her right? Researchers seem to be evenly divided about that, but having some background in Anatomy, I believe the correct answer is: neither.

 

Please take a look at it and render an opinion. But, could we please limit it to Anatomy students and teachers? I wish only to discuss this on the basis of anatomy. Thank you.

 

http://www.oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/02/i-have-worked-up-these-seven-graphics.html

 

See is not waving, but holding car's window by left hand..

 

See has bracelet or watch on forearm (find another photo with her left forearm with watch).

 

There is no controversy in this photo at all.

 

ps. I didn't waste time on reading entire thread, so excuse me if somebody already pointed this out..

[StringJunky]

It also adds ten pounds, which is unsavory at best.

Yes, there's a lot of parameters to account for and adjust to make a picture tell the 'truth'. I had a Tamron SP90 lens that was ruthlessly detailed though on close-up portraits... so I had to make it lie with flattering effects

[Delta1212]

Out of curiosity, I just took out my phone and was able to easily reproduce the "I can see the shoulder and forearm but not the upper arm" look from the photo myself within a matter of seconds.