Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[John Mytton]

Adobe Suite can morph any two pictures without correlation, to size, scale, or perspective.
That's not very honest, John

As usual you don't even know what you are talking about, the size and scale by definition are exactly the same because they are both referencing the exact same structure. Duh!
And obviously the perspective is different because the photos were taken from two different positions and this cross referencing is how we can ascertain what has changed or what remains the same.

Here's another example of Capasse's belief that almost everything has been altered to fit his twisted misguided agenda. This post from JFK Boards highlights how Capasse has no idea of how perspective affects images.

"I extracted this frame from a video awhile back, not sure if it was this one,
regardless, they are not in the same position at the same time.
....- frames sequentially removed?"

https://jfk.boards.net/thread/369/compare-zapruder-nix

The answer of course to anyone that understands perspective is that both Hill and Jackie are in the EXACT same position, another piece of blatant misinformation from Capasse's Forum. "JFK Boards" is full of this crap like Altgens has been altered, Backyard photos are super imposed, Lovelady was NOT in the doorway and even lane markings on Elm street have been altered for goodness knows what reason? JFK Boards is unfortunately pushing all types of these unfettered lies.



BTW the Capasse quotes and images are taken completely unaltered from Capasse's Forum and I have provided a link back to the source, and is defined as "fair use" and as your "Forum" proclaims [research copy for educational purposes]. So don't go crying to Duncan like you always do, ya big baby!

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

I haven't said any of those things.
That is your meltdown - not mine.

OK, gotcha - sorry.

I have moved you to the column "No altered documents, no lies, no predetermined Lone Nut conclusion, everything is real."

You might be uncomfortable with some of the other people in that column - Bugliosi's name is right before yours - but you've stated your position, and I shall respect it.

Oh, dear, I'm descending into silliness, and I had so hoped to maintain a kinder, gentler, more statesmanlike facade in my dealings here. Well, I'll close now before I resurrect the Caped Factoid Buster or Beloved Swami and run completely amuck. (My new avatar is the face from the Shroud of Turin, just in case anyone was wondering.)

[Michael Capasse]

Moving boxes in the crime scene

[Michael Capasse]

As usual you don't even know what you are talking about, the size and scale by definition are exactly the same because they are both referencing the exact same structure. Duh!

JohnM

Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing

[John Mytton]

Moving boxes in the crime scene

This is just getting sillier and sillier, of course they moved boxes, they had to check the boxes for fingerprints. They don't just leave the boxes there in perpetuity that's just absurd. BTW what do you think you are proving and where does this inanity lead you?

Alyea took film of the sniper's nest on the first day and this was broadcast on WFAATV in the afternoon of the same day, note the positions of the rifle rest box.



Day confirms that CE 715 is the original sniper's nest and note again that the rifle rest box is in the same position.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.



Day also confirms that CE733 and CE734 is the official recreation from the 25th(because the original boxes were being forensically analysed) and again note the rifle rest box is in the same position.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 733 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the southeast corner of the sixth floor at the window where the shooting apparently occurred. The boxes in front of the window, to the best of our knowledge, in the position they were in when we arrived there on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. So 733 represents a reconstruction in that sense, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about Exhibit----
Mr. DAY. This, by the way, was taken on November 25, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. All right. What about 734?
Mr. DAY. That is another view of the same boxes shown in 733.
Mr. BELIN. In 734 you can also see this juncture of the south and east walls of the sixth floor where you say the bag was found; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.





And here we see the orientation of Oswald's hand prints facing down Elm street.




From Alyea to CE715 and on to CE733 and CE734 we have total consistency of the rifle rest box, which is also consistent with Powell and Dillard's outside photos. And again I ask what point are you trying to make??

BTW why do you never answer questions and just keep inserting already thoroughly disproven nonsense, it's the old "I have no answers but what about this and this and this...." Yawn!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing

Twist it anyway you want.

You're so far out of your depth, I don't have to twist anything, we aren't talking about combining two disparate locations but both photos taken by Dillard and Powell represent exactly the same building, the exact same windows and the exact same boxes, all morphing does in the following example is show the link between each brick, each window and each box.



BTW your ideas about perspective are perfectly exemplified by your Nix/Zapruder observation above and your subsequent laughable analysis of Jackie and Hill on the trunk of the Limo, so before you erroneously critique my images, go back to school and do a little study in spatial relationships and perspective, and perhaps you won't embarrass yourself even further.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Wow! great picture of the crime scene huh?

...and then the cherry picking begins.
  that didn't take long

Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No

Cherry Picking? How dare you, what you have done here is the most evil cherry pick of them all, have you no shame?

Not trusting Capasse, I read Studebaker's testimony and what Capasse has done is intentionally taken what Studebaker said completely out of context, here's the full quote and everybody note that the quote Capasse cherry picked is that Studebaker didn't have the better pictures on him at that time! Studebaker repeatedly says that the same configuration that Day said were not moved, Studebaker also agrees that the boxes are positioned exactly as they originally came across them.

Mr. BALL. Do you have any pictures of the boxes before they were moved other than those you have showed me?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just these two.
Mr. BALL. Just the two that show the cartons, and those are Exhibits A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. We have probably got one down there I can get you that is a lot better print than that. If you want a better print, I can get it for you.
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Was that before any of them were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That picture right there is the one that shows them, and the other pictures show them before they were moved.
Mr. BALL. You mean Exhibit A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. A and B.
Mr. BALL. Do you have a picture that shows the boxes themselves, just shot of those boxes in the window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. This one, Exhibit A, shows that - this is the exact - now this print here isn't too good, but you can see the indentation in this box right here. This is before it was ever moved, and right down below here, you can see a staple on another box or another negative, this isn't too good a negative here. If I had known what you wanted, I would have brought you a better print - picked out a better print.





Here's Lt. Day totally agreeing with what Studebaker said.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.



And as for Capasse's falsely described restaged sniper's nest,



Studebaker tells it like it is.

Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," was that taken by you?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit D," for identification)
Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box.
Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.



And as does Lt. Day.

Mr. BELIN. In 724 there are boxes in the window. Were those boxes in the window the way you saw them, or had they been replaced in the window to reconstruct it?
Mr. DAY. They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They weren't put back in any particular order.
Mr. BELIN. So 724 does not represent, so far as the boxes are concerned, the crime scene when you first came to the sixth floor; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: Had all of the boxes of the stack in 724 been replaced there or had any of the boxes been in a position they were at the time you first arrived at the building, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not been placed in the proper position or approximate position at the time we arrived.



"the bullcrap piles up so fast in this Forum, you need wings to stay above it".

JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground. "Carried this way" is a perfectly natural way for someone to describe this scenario, meaning "dangling down toward the ground." "Carried" in this context does not inevitably (or even reasonably) mean "in his left hand." That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground

Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys. 

This is the same old argument being repeated over and over with no resolve. I have no problem seeing the problem with Linnie May’s ever-changing story. She was protecting her brother who she knew had no involvement.  Neither did Capasse and Iocaletti have a problem seeing it. What do you think is the reason for their bizarre interpretations? They get what it means. and you don't, instead believing in a 27 inch long package?

“That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.”

That is exactly the point. He would have been if the bag was 27 inches and him carrying it the way it was described.  It is all about “and the bottom he carried it this way”, “and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”. Think of her statement as being from the ground up, not the top down. She always returned to describing the bag almost touching the ground.

If you believe the bag was 27 inches long, how does LHO get the rifle to the TSBD? You do not need to disassemble the rifle to get it to fit in the bag.

 The answer is:

Yes, to being bent over, if the bag is 27 inches long

No, to being bent over, if the bag is 42 inches long.

This was Linnie's very first statement on the bag.
FBI 11/22

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

 
 She changed her estimation to support her brother but not her description of how it was being carried. She cannot describe him carrying a 27 inch bag the same way as a 42 inch bag and the rifle almost touched the ground. 

The 12/2 FBI statement has him carrying it even different yet. Thumb down like a baseball player instead of thumb up like John’s depiction. Which is what everyone has assumed.

The WC witness statements are riddled with answers, like hers, that contradict other answers. JBC and Nellie, A Rowland, Hickey, Kellerman, etc. The inconsistency in their answers is how they showed they were changing their stories, and their statements were somewhat unreliable. They do not pass any judgement on JBC and Nellie but instead reveal their inconsistencies on key points. 

Read her statement the way she stated it without a bias. Her description of how the bag was being carried confirms it was longer than 27 inches.

The basis of her testimony was he gripped the top and carried the bottom. Two very different actions.