|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 September 10, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 753
|
Thanks, this is a valuable technique.
No worries. I like reading your posts, you know your stuff and explain yourself really well, i have learnt quite a bit.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 24, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
The head in the backyard photos when viewed with the glasses is absolute, I think. Anyone who understands what you've done can't possibly continue to argue the photos are somehow faked. A very valuable contribution John, thanks.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 26, 2011, 08:50:23 PM
|
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
This is truely interesting stuff, a very unique way of getting another look at the photographs!
-------------------------
-------------------------
It's easier to believe a lie than it is to accept the truth.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 28, 2011, 05:56:50 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2568
|
John M... Please help me understand something... in the third image down... you should notice that Oswald is larger in one of the images than the other due to the distance from the camera changing... yet while all the other parts of the image are larger, his head where it was claimed it was added after the fact is the same size in both... This gif shows the two images superimposed over each other... the face doesn't move or change a bit while it is obvious the rest of the body has moved considerably... Thanks DJ 
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 29, 2011, 07:18:13 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 753
|
John M... Please help me understand something... in the third image down... you should notice that Oswald is larger in one of the images than the other due to the distance from the camera changing... yet while all the other parts of the image are larger, his head where it was claimed it was added after the fact is the same size in both... This gif shows the two images superimposed over each other... the face doesn't move or change a bit while it is obvious the rest of the body has moved considerably... Thanks DJ Hi David The difference can be directly attributed to the science of photogrammetry, where a 2 dimensional object within a picture occupies 3 dimensions in the real world, and must be measured allowing for any angle. I took your nice gif and zoomed in on the face, they are photographed from different distances, the faces are the same height but the width is very much different, the Imperial 620 Duo Lens Camera took photos from waist height and the blue face CE133a was taken from further away, and CE133c was closer so the angle towards Oswalds face got steeper and compressed Oswalds head vertically, which this gif of your gif demonstrates.  I made another gif of the same CE133 a+c and matched the width and you can see the heights vary.  Thanks for making me do this. John M
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 29, 2011, 08:17:35 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 753
|
John M...
This gif shows the two images superimposed over each other... the face doesn't move or change a bit while it is obvious the rest of the body has moved considerably...
Thanks
DJ
David Since these photos, CE133a and CE133c were taken apart vertically, we can create a stereoscopic image of Oswalds face, and if you have a pair of red/blue glasses, you will see that Oswalds face exists as a 3dimensional object within the backyard photos, This would be impossible without making heaps of photos of Oswald from many varying angles, then matching the shadows and positioning in the real world. With computers you still need Oswald from 3 different angles, which match the positioning and lighting of a stand-in, the complications increase exponentially with each additional photo, it would be a huge project now, in 1963 forget it! Oswalds presence within these photos is undeniable. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 02, 2011, 07:44:37 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
David Since these photos, CE133a and CE133c were taken apart vertically, we can create a stereoscopic image of Oswalds face, and if you have a pair of red/blue glasses, you will see that Oswalds face exists as a 3dimensional object within the backyard photos, This would be impossible without making heaps of photos of Oswald from many varying angles, then matching the shadows and positioning in the real world. With computers you still need Oswald from 3 different angles, which match the positioning and lighting of a stand-in, the complications increase exponentially with each additional photo, it would be a huge project now, in 1963 forget it! Oswalds presence within these photos is undeniable. John, I would encourage you to please put this in article format, so I can post it on my website. If time does not allow, I can do it for you so long as you agree and give me permission to do so.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 17, 2011, 05:26:28 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 448
|
Forgive my ignorance on this subject but I have a question.
If you had two identical photos couldn't they be cropped slightly differently and then re sized (made smaller) to give the appearance of being two different photos taken from a few inches apart and then used as a stereoscopic pair?
-------------------------
-------------------------
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
~Andre Gide
Common sense is the least common of the senses.
~Unknown
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
