The melding photography process is not convincing It couild be done with plenty of dissimilar pictures to trick the mind into believing they could be melded Also whats up with the weird ridge on the right side of the forehead of Jerry's picture
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173319
Perhaps submit your refutation to Plos One, which is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals around
Huh? Pulling a single morphed face off of two images to use as false ID is going to show you what exactly?
JohnM
OK I may be incorrect on what Plos One is saying Do you have the name of the technology you are using and how it has been shown to be infliable
OK I may be incorrect on what Plos One is saying Do you have the name of the technology you are using and how it has been shown to be infliable
OK I may be incorrect on what Plos One is saying
Do you have the name of the technology you are using and how it has been shown to be infliable
There is no name, I am only applying well known techniques and methodology and applying a modern visualization.
JohnM
A no name technology Interesting
Here is a marketing tip John, if you are the inventor of a new breakthrough technology give it a name
I have no interest in marketing something which has no commercial value.
All it's really doing is a direct comparison between two different solid objects and when you have two identical objects then the depth mapping for each individual point on each object is precisely the same regardless of the angle to camera therefore when each point is connected in off centered photos we get perfect rotation but when something is even slightly out of alignment then we can immediately see it. It's like the floating part of an altered image that you get when stereoscopic images are viewed stereoscopically.
Now when applied to this problem we are at an advantage because pretty much by definition we all have our own unique face with each landmark having its own unique position in space and like the celebrity/lookalike examples above there is always a problem using this technique with non identical people.
JohnM
..what on Earth is "infliable"?
Sorry John that was not real marketing advice. I think your little app, or whatever it is, creates a way to blend one picture to another and nothing more
Sorry John that was not real marketing advice.
I think your little app, or whatever it is, creates a way to blend one picture to another and nothing more
Nothing you seem to say is real, but whatever floats your boat.
No worries, your continued incompetent image analysis and complete lack of knowledge of the actual evidence being discussed is on full display therefore your opinion on what constitutes as visual proof is worthless.
JohnM
While you are busy disregarding me you could at least quote me correctly I have never put forward anything as visual proof, nor have I cited anyone claiming there was visual proof that the photos are forgeries. So please do not let me distract you from whatever it is you are supposedly proving
While you are busy disregarding me
you could at least quote me correctly I have never put forward anything as visual proof, nor have I cited anyone claiming there was visual proof that the photos are forgeries. So please do not let me distract you from whatever it is you are supposedly proving
Busy? I spent all of 5 minutes correcting your posts. And trust me if I see stoopid theories being put forth as in 90% of your posts, then I will squash them with computer enhanced analytical science.
JohnM
So...just how tall was Marina anyway?
The parrots' feathers really get ruffled when actual physical evidence of Oswald getting framed appear in the world of the composite Cover-up.
Who can't tell this picture is a fake.......? Does the left side of the face look like Oswald? How about the right? Naahh?
A double hairline... a double lip line....OK the chin isn't square....eyebrow looks like it's painted...one eye looks bigger than the other...and...the sun isn't shining.
That about cover it? Rwwwaaawkk I can hear them already!
(https://i2.wp.com/www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20131118135632_7608-1024x576.jpg)
Get a clue about light & shade, Rembrandt
The main light source comes from Oswald's right
Thus the left side of his face is largely in shadow and cast shadows
I never realized the.......camera they were shot with were found at the Paine's houseI don't believe it was....
This Imperial Reflex camera does not appear in the inventories of Oswald?s possessions seized by the Dallas Police at the Paine address in Irving and the North Beckley room in the Dallas neighbourhood of Oak Cliff. Investigations determined that Oswald owned a ?Russian camera? and an ?American camera?. A Russian-made Cuera-2 camera appeared in the inventories, as did an American-made camera called a Stereo Realist. The Imperial Reflex camera only came to light, in the possession of Robert Oswald, about three months after the assassination and presumably after it had been determined that the Stereo Realist camera could not be linked with the backyard photos.
Nope, even though Oswald has lost some childhood puppy fat, the facial proportions never change. Both Oswalds display the exact same ratios between eyes, nose, ears, chin, forehead and the overall head shape is identical.
In the following rotating morph, Oswald's features are all in perfect alignment, proving beyond all doubt they are the same person.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/6p1zekcy3/woofwoofwoof.gif)
Btw next time before you embarrass yourself, PM me and I can point you in the right direction.
JohnM
Well I'll just Swanee there Di Vinci. Aren't you clever? Obtain a hint on retouching.
So what we had... was a totally incompetent photographer and that shadow just happened to create a perfect line right down the neck. Also, that photograph was retouched and retouched again.
Then, it was colorized [retouching it once more]
Moving on with the Oswald photos....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nh0IbhXjQnA/V594CSGjX9I/AAAAAAAAxtY/rpd7-pNY3TAFozi0G4xYPxaNufjNh_nFACLcB/s640/George%2Band%2BLenny%2Bcollage.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6zzikhRhg2I/V-7fYOkcTyI/AAAAAAAAztE/BrQjw72ANqYwinOUQJzRTw2lMt9j24UQgCLcB/s1600/Collage%2B1194.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1440/862175620_0b9670e633_o.jpg)
Picasso out there? What do you say?...same guys? If so, Oswald looked younger in 1961 than he did in 1958.
Mytton's shtick is to morph two photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are the same person". Then morph two other photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are not the same person". Then claim that his "clear" opinions of the results are "scientific". Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.
Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.
Show us that you know anything about light & shade. And that you even know what I'm talking about.
OK ...apparently, Oswald must have discovered Rogaine before Minoxidil was developed years later ;)
Take a look again at the various hairlines and the cosmetic looking eyebrows.
Mo-jo motion ain't working.
Matt, this procedure is based on the same principle as the iphone facial recognition software and is virtually infallible.
JohnM
Hint: Here's a fade algorithm with 14 lines of code.
function getfadedcolor(Red1, Red2, Green1, Green2, Blue1, Blue2, fs, fn) {
fa1 = (Red2 - Red1) / fs;
fa2 = (Green2 - Green1) / fs;
fa3 = (Blue2 - Blue1) / fs;
cx1 = Red1;
cx2 = Green1;
cx3 = Blue1;
for (var n = 1; n <= fn; n++) {
cx1 += fa1;
cx2 += fa2;
cx3 += fa3;
}
return RGB(cx1, cx2, cx3);
}
I used this simple algorithm to make the following animated gif (what gives with his body BTW?)
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
I used this simple algorithm to make the following animated gif
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2q1tjxw.jpg)
| 133-A | 133-B | 133-C |
Oswald's left shoulder appears to be further back in space relative to the chest-midline in the 133-B picture than in the 122-A picture. This accounts for the difference in the shoulder width.
I also believe the morph...
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
... has the 133-B head a bit smaller than the 133-A head, which would in turn make the left shoulder more narrow to the camera. Not saying the animation sizing was intentional, but there's an amount of subjectivity that could induce error. Since the shadow-cast on the facial features in the two photos vary (due to head tilt), the width of the head might be a more accurate thing to align.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2q1tjxw.jpg)
| 133-A | 133-B | 133-C |
Oswald's left shoulder appears to be further back in space relative to the chest-midline in the 133-B picture than in the 122-A picture. This accounts for the difference in the shoulder width.
I also believe the morph...
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
... has the 133-B head a bit smaller than the 133-A head, which would in turn make the left shoulder more narrow to the camera. Not saying the animation sizing was intentional, but there's an amount of subjectivity that could induce error. Since the shadow-cast on the facial features in the two photos vary (due to head tilt), the width of the head might be a more accurate thing to align.
:-[
The code you presented is a simple fade to white, how do you think that is relevant?
And please explain how your code applies to your gif which is just swapping one set of RGB values for another?
JohnM
Hi Jerry, yes of course you are right and the original head ratios are indeed different. The wide-angle effect makes Oswald's head in 133-A stretch vertically as compared to the more centered head in 133-B thus exposing Trojan's gif. Btw imo this alone makes any image manipulation virtually impossible because not only do you have to match Oswald's lighting you have to match his position within the frame to allow for the appropriate image distortion.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/i8tayoktn/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
JohnM
You also don't write code I see. RGB1 is photo 1 and RGB2 is photo 2. A color is interpolated between 2 corresponding pixels according to the frame number (fn). Say you want 12 intermediary frames for your fade. Divide (RGB1 - RGB2) / 12 then multiply this increment by the frame number and add it to RGB1. This is the pixel color for your fade frame. Get it?
Yeah like I said your gif just swapped one set of RGB values for another, so what?
JohnM
Wrong again. These photos were supposedly taken from the same approx. distance from the camera so they should have similar distortion. There should also be less spherical aberration near the center of the lens (the sweet spot). I don't see ANY SA in CE133-A. That 35mm Cuera 2 camera must have had a decent lens on it.
The guy [lower middle]...the official wikipedia photo of Lee Harvey Oswald...looks nothing to me like the other guys.
Do the Mad Jack Mytton magic motion on these..................................
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZIIo19yn62c/hqdefault.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFkQEfzYinh9z2BY5tHHwRtwX8twmn0zL-zxnjRtqDRNo1RZNq) (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LMAc7WKMP2c/hqdefault.jpg)
They're all Oswald, no magic required.
JohnM
Yawn! I really don't know where to start, you are so out of your depth it ain't funny.
(507) Additionally, photographs were made of a manikin head with an Imperial Deluxe Reflex duo lens camera similar to the Oswald camera, placing the image of the head in various positions from the center of the negative to the edges. The purpose of this was to illustrate the effect such variations in placement have on the shape of the image of the head in order to explain the differences in head shapes in photographs CE-133A, CE-133B, and, CE-133C, observed when the high-contrast color transparencies were superimposed. A black and white contact print of three negatives (fig. RIT 21-8) shows the manikin head in the center of the photograph, near the top (tilting the camera down), and near the top left corner (tilting the camera down and aiming it, to the right). Placing the image of the head off the lens axis causes it to be elongated in a direction radiating away from the center of the photograph. Thus, the head at the top of the photograph is stretched vertically and the head in the corner is stretched diagonally. This change in shape can be seen on the contact print but the heads were also enlarged on high-contrast film and contact color transparencies were made so that direct comparisons could be made by superposing green and magenta pairs of the three images. (fig. RIT 21-9).
(508) This change in shape is known as the wide-angle effect and it occurs with all conventional camera lenses including normal, wideangle, and telephoto, but it is most obvious with short focal length wide-angle lenses. In addition, pincushion distortion, which is evident in the curved reproduction of straight subject lines, and the altered perspective, which is evident in the convergence of vertical subject lines when the camera is tilted, slightly affect the shape of the head. (The differences in sharpness of the images of the manikin head when placed in the center and near the edges of the photograph is further evidence of curvature of field observed in photographs made with the Oswald camera.) Thus, the difference in height to width proportions of the heads in CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133C can be explained in terms of these effects since the tilt of the camera changed between the photographs, thereby placing the head in different positions. Of the three effects mentioned, the wide-angle effect, has the greatest influence on the shape of the head. Since the wide-angle effect applies only to three-dimensional objects, it would not alter the shape of the two-dimensional head on a photographic poster or print, which has been suggested as a way off faking the photographs of Oswald. Thus, the presence of this effect in the backyard picture is another item of evidence negating the likelihood of fakery.
https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html
JohnM
Nope. The head is distorting but from ear to ear stays consistent. It might be undersized by no more than 1-2%, which is far less than the body is oversized. Here is the proof. I scaled the same photos relative to Oswald's leg length instead and applied the same algorithm.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
There is only 1 conclusion I come to, and that is CE 133-A was shot with a different camera than the rest. Otherwise, the spherical aberration of the lens and quality of this photo clearly does not match the others. Oswald immediately claimed it was a fake, which probably meant a darkroom creation where a print of CE 133-A was photographed with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. This camera was not originally found with Oswald's possessions by the DPD. And this is not to be confused with Oswald's Minox spy camera or his superior 35mm Russian Cuera 2 camera, which was probably the camera that took the original CE 133-A.
This along with all the other shenanigans that the DPD where up to in the darkroom, including re-enactments and a curious cutout of CE 133-C, which was never submitted into evidence nor found with Oswald's possessions, makes the BYPs highly suspect. The fact that the DPD only leaked CE 133-A, which was the money shot where you could actually read the name of the commie lit, means they were an integral part of the conspiracy. They sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy with the BYPs, planted the gun in the TSBD, arrested him in record time, interrogated him in private and took no notes, then led him to his assassin who did the killing for them to gave them plausible deniability. This is why they didn't kill him in the theater. I could go on and on but you get the picture. ;)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2jEn5iP0_Ivf-vQKd1G96sqTgB4vwkDxi6RcrDCaik2FcNvFzRJXFh7895HSFzOW) 133-A | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UMQv9bGy86sHFKCacZ3zMldl6H7olD0peMeR2kquxv3XpnaHUOFzmCPrYS3lhasU) 133-B |
Wrong again. These photos were supposedly taken from the same approx. distance from the camera so they should have similar distortion. There should also be less spherical aberration near the center of the lens (the sweet spot). I don't see ANY SA in CE133-A. That 35mm Cuera 2 camera must have had a decent lens on it.
I'm out of MY depth? :D I've read it already and maybe you should try reading it too. The HSCA photogrammetrists dropped the ball on this one. They did not do a comparative study between A, B and C, except to say a slight tilt will distort the "head" at the periphery of the lens due to the wide-angle effect. Otherwise, let's see how they replicated the effects we see in the BYPs with their surrogates.
The WAE doesn't explain the differences in spherical aberration over the entire photo. Nor does it explain the high quality image of Oswald's head when it was no where near the sweet spot of a very poor quality lens. Instead when the head was well within the sweet spot for CE133-B, it was fuzzy, while the entire image area for CE133-A was of superior quality. The HSCA never commented on the significance of that aspect.
The HSCA made a lot of generalized conclusions based on the high variance of distortion on the lens of the Imperial Reflex. They claimed that practically anything was possible since the lens was of such poor quality. It wasn't so crappy for CE133-A, tho. The others were fuzzy at best, however, the HSCA didn't focus on this aspect. There was negligible distortion with CE133-A and gross distortion with Oswald's "head" in B & C, but not over his entire body and all from a slight tilt due to the wide-angle effect. Right. Also, CE133-A had every indication of being a photo of a print. The HSCA were discounting that ALL of the photos were derived from photos of prints, not just CE133-A. Just the money shot was faked because that's the shot that they leaked.
Besides, when did you start believing the HSCA about anything? Did you believe them when they concluded that Oswald probably didn't act alone?
The WAE doesn't explain the differences in spherical aberration over the entire photo.
The assumption that all these two poses ought to have produced identical results is telling. The 133-A photo has the least amount of distortion because it's the only one of the three that has the subject centered and most of his body equidistant from the film plane.
How about you provide some real world examples of Wide-angle effect and Spherical Aberration and then tell us how you feel that it applies or doesn't apply to the backyard images because so far you're not really making sense.
JohnM
I'm out of MY depth? :D I've read it already and maybe you should try reading it too. The HSCA photogrammetrists dropped the ball on this one. They did not do a comparative study between A, B and C, except to say a slight tilt will distort the "head" at the periphery of the lens due to the wide-angle effect. Otherwise, let's see how they replicated the effects we see in the BYPs with their surrogates.
The WAE doesn't explain the differences in spherical aberration over the entire photo. Nor does it explain the high quality image of Oswald's head when it was no where near the sweet spot of a very poor quality lens. Instead when the head was well within the sweet spot for CE133-B, it was fuzzy, while the entire image area for CE133-A was of superior quality. The HSCA never commented on the significance of that aspect.
The HSCA made a lot of generalized conclusions based on the high variance of distortion on the lens of the Imperial Reflex. They claimed that practically anything was possible since the lens was of such poor quality. It wasn't so crappy for CE133-A, tho. The others were fuzzy at best, however, the HSCA didn't focus on this aspect. There was negligible distortion with CE133-A and gross distortion with Oswald's "head" in B & C, but not over his entire body and all from a slight tilt due to the wide-angle effect. Right. Also, CE133-A had every indication of being a photo of a print. The HSCA were discounting that ALL of the photos were derived from photos of prints, not just CE133-A. Just the money shot was faked because that's the shot that they leaked.
Besides, when did you start believing the HSCA about anything? Did you believe them when they concluded that Oswald probably didn't act alone?
There was negligible distortion with CE133-A and gross distortion with Oswald's "head" in B & C,
You guys keep getting it backwards. You must show it was possible with real world examples. I can't show you how it wasn't possible, which is what the HSCA was up against.
Feel free to get into the weeds with some photogrammetry, if you dare.
Good luck!
JackT
Nope. The head is distorting but from ear to ear stays consistent. It might be undersized by no more than 1-2%, which is far less than the body is oversized. Here is the proof. I scaled the same photos relative to Oswald's leg length instead and applied the same algorithm.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
There is only 1 conclusion I come to, and that is CE 133-A was shot with a different camera than the rest. Otherwise, the spherical aberration of the lens and quality of this photo clearly does not match the others. Oswald immediately claimed it was a fake, which probably meant a darkroom creation where a print of CE 133-A was photographed with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. This camera was not originally found with Oswald's possessions by the DPD. And this is not to be confused with Oswald's Minox spy camera or his superior 35mm Russian Cuera 2 camera, which was probably the camera that took the original CE 133-A.
This along with all the other shenanigans that the DPD where up to in the darkroom, including re-enactments and a curious cutout of CE 133-C, which was never submitted into evidence nor found with Oswald's possessions, makes the BYPs highly suspect. The fact that the DPD only leaked CE 133-A, which was the money shot where you could actually read the name of the commie lit, means they were an integral part of the conspiracy. They sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy with the BYPs, planted the gun in the TSBD, arrested him in record time, interrogated him in private and took no notes, then led him to his assassin who did the killing for them to gave them plausible deniability. This is why they didn't kill him in the theater. I could go on and on but you get the picture. ;)
Wow Jack, you're all over the place you've been going to great lengths to point out all these discrepancies and now when faced with the prospect of actually supporting your nonsense you've revealed that you don't have a clue.
The HSCA supported all their conclusions with science and practical examples whereas your just a Big Mouth who barely knows how to use Google!
Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.
Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.
Which is exactly what your gifs do. Oh, you thought your gifs somehow tracked the facial features like facial recognition does, didn't you? :D
Iacoletti, it's about time you came to grips with reality, you're basically just a Bum who has no technical expertise in any aspect of this case yet you continually set yourself as some sort of Ultimate Arbiter and with absolutely no evidence you keep giving us your "false appeal to your own personal opinion" as scientific refutation, you're just embarrassing yourself.
JohnM
Prove him wrong
Iacoletti, it's about time you came to grips with reality, you're basically just a Bum who has no technical expertise in any aspect of this case yet you continually set yourself as some sort of Ultimate Arbiter and with absolutely no evidence you keep giving us your "false appeal to your own personal opinion" as scientific refutation, you're just embarrassing yourself.
These are is images that the Apple face id sees, all these little dots are used to create a depth map of someone's face and since our faces are all unique this form of identification is virtually infallible.
Careful or John may resort to using his "strawman" rebuttal or the devastating "LOL" as in "Oswald's rifle - LOL."
Btw what on Earth is "infliable"?
"Expert" said it, "Mytton" believes it, and that settles it.
This is all very interesting and technical sounding...
Calling it "Oswald's rifle" doesn't actually demonstrate that it was Oswald's rifle.
No, Experts say it and JohnM supplies practical examples to prove it.
JohnM
Your gif is not taking into account the wide-angle effect. In the original prints CE-133A and CE133B we see that Oswald was in differing parts of the frame and subsequently was affected by the predictable lens distortion.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/i8tayoktn/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
In the following gif I applied approximately the same lens correction to CE-133b as seen in CE133a.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/s1jeknny3/ossy_ce133b_correction.gif)
Even though there is a number of parallax changes between CE 133A and CE133B the following comparison shows the stairs and the fence and etc to be almost aligned.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/bdrwi60wb/ossy_ce133b_correction2.gif)
Now when we take into account the wide angle effect and the differing positions of Oswald and Marina we see that Oswald's head when in the same position of the frame becomes the same shape and he is the same size.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/e7v1vksrv/ossy_ce133b_correction3.gif)
Btw are you sure that there is different lens distortions in the backyard photos?
Yes, I am sure. Take a course in this stuff for god's sake so I won't laugh at your naive posts. Still waiting for some photogrammetry from you to back up your BS.
JackT
Yes, I am sure.
Take a course in this stuff for god's sake so I won't laugh at your naive posts.
Mytton you are such a joke. Your morphs do NOT track facial features, otherwise, explain how the algorithms work smart guy. Morphs are a fade that use edge detection and high pass filters to smooth the transition between frames. But rest assured that every intermediary frame is BULLSHlT and useless for analysis! But you are just a wannabe photo-analyst that found the Morph button on your GIMP app. Otherwise, you know squat about how any of this works. So STFU because you are out of your league and a disservice to the JFK Forum.
Morphs are a fade that use edge detection and high pass filters to smooth the transition between frames.
No, Experts say it and JohnM supplies practical examples to prove it.
I don't see ANY SA in CE133-A.
and yellow blobs that have nothing to do with rifle identification.
Sorry John, but a team of photographic experts determined the rifle in the backyard photos was C2766
No they didn't. There is no better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the "Oswald Did It" position than that its proponents have to lie about the evidence in order to make their arguments.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToMWITXM4riRheMTb6wSYzwAmIxxsmjEkDynRyN0PbdTOOnlvu) (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8avDUfmrm-WMkev92EZX3bNZbK7NPow7_lV1PyVMXtV2cU30B)
The same two guys or the same 2 two guys?
Hint- The hairline gives it away ;)
It's obviously the same photo which has been flipped horizontally.You are so bright I'll bet your mama calls you sunny.
You are so bright I'll bet your mama calls you sunny.
Try and get a life.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToMWITXM4riRheMTb6wSYzwAmIxxsmjEkDynRyN0PbdTOOnlvu) (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8avDUfmrm-WMkev92EZX3bNZbK7NPow7_lV1PyVMXtV2cU30B)
The same two guys or the same 2 two guys?
Hint- The hairline gives it away ;)
You know something about a rabbit hole? You just lift up it's tail and there it is.
rabbit hole
You know something about a rabbit hole? You just lift up it's tail and there it is.
There is no better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the "Oswald is innocent' position than that its proponents have to lie, cherry pick, misrepresent, and misinterpret the evidence in a pathetic attempt to make their idiotic arguments.
So that's what you fell into headfirst. OK.How many times did you have to edit that one? :-\
Did you create the reverse image for that photo? If not where did you find it?
How many times did you have to edit that one? :-\
Just lift the rabbits tail ...it was there all the time.
.... pass off fake photos..So you do admit that they are fakes Thumb1: I've been trying to show that all this time.
So you do admit that they are fakes Thumb1: I've been trying to show that all this time.
.... even a trained monkey could see ....So you admit you are just another trained monkey Thumb1:
I know of course that the pictures are reversed ..that they are fake
How cute: "I know you are but what am I?"
When did I ever make the claim that Oswald is innocent? Your inability to show that he was guilty (even by lying about the evidence) is your problem, not mine.
'lying'*
Says the guy who claimed Oswald's kids were too old to need a babysitter (and thereby falsely attaching a sinister motive to Ruth's presence)
And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.
As I've said many times before, I've never said I could prove anything here. I've never gotten any further than 'probably'... just the same as the WC's 'probably' and the HSCA's 'likely'... despite your insistence that those bodies somehow had to prove Oswald guilty.
*According to your interpretation of the evidence, or the actual evidence? You, who tells us what witnesses really saw, or didn't see. We are not impressed.
And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.
Agreed, all these guys like to pretend that they're big shot lawyers and make believe that they're Oswald's defence attorney, it's actually quite comical.
Says the guys who always rant about how they think this or that piece of tainted evidence would be "admissible in court". Says the guys who always quote Bugliosi's prosecuting attorney rhetoric like "prohibitive probability" and "consciousness of guilt" and make believe they are him. Even make sycophantic videos about it, and post dozens of cheesy photographs of their idol.
It's actually quite comical.
Even make...videos about it...
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Stop the BS, you didn't have a clue.I don?t know what your problem is, but I?m guessing it?s hard to pronounce.
You've got your nose so far up Vince's ass you're gasping for air.
I don?t know what your problem is, but I?m guessing it?s hard to pronounce.
You've got your nose so far up Vince's ass you're gasping for air.& needs to save that breath for the inflatable date ::)
Every time you see Bugliosi's name you go Stark Raving Bonkers and start frothing at the mouth and you say I've got the problem, OK champ!
The melding photography process is not convincing It could be done with plenty of dissimilar picturesI'll say ... call this guy either Donald Putin or Vladimir Trump-----
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2018_06/813255003_Oswald-Harveysquareshoulders-LEEdroppedshoulders-moreexamplesincollage.thumb.jpg.18272493737ada97d59209feb400311b.jpg)
Who did you steal this junk from? No credit given?Now I'm a thief.. posting photos that have been in the public domain for 55 years.
Now I'm a thief.. posting photos that have been in the public domain for 55 years.
"Credit"? .... Let's give it to your bud ~~~~~ John Mytton! ~~~~~~ Let's see him do his morph thing with the shoulders...............................
Also, what a difference a suit makes huh?
Cheers
Well duh, clothes make the man ......Then you should put this on...
Ostensibly
How tall was Oswald?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d7F2w-9z42E/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/pix/lucy1.jpg) | (http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/pix/lucy2.jpg) | (http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/pix/minsk4.jpg) |
I should point out, that the two color photographs are not exact matches for the original Oswald - Marina photo. There was no way of determining the exact camera position in the original photoAnd all I wrote was how tall was this guy?
Jerry OrganPerhaps...however, just what are you doing here but regurgitating your own decades-old stuff?
? on: Today at 01:34:46 PM
Do basically you lazily roam about conspiracy websites regurgitating decades-old junk-claims?
This? Maybe?
Marina is about six inches shorter than Oswald
Astounding with all the information available 54 years after the event that ?phony? pictures/photos are still being discussed. The CT case has gone nowhere and they just revert to the same old garbage. Year after year, it simply never changes.Why are you here then? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Simple. I enjoy seeing how long you people continue your stupidly. Clear enough for you?"continue your stupidly"? Try proofreading your posts there.
What do YOU believe the continued study of the photographs will provide to you? Enlighten the forum.
From that link....And all I wrote was how tall was this guy?Perhaps...however, just what are you doing here but regurgitating your own decades-old stuff?