I grabbed this image by Chris Bristow from the same EF thread and matched both rulers directly and this perfectly illustrates why you must take into account basic photogrammetry principles when comparing objects. The differences between the intervals are proportionally opposite to each other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7bsNyg7/rifle-ruler1.jpg)
Ray Mitcham originally said that the following comparison was proof that the rifle straps were on opposite sides, then it was pointed out that the EXIT sign was reversed? DOH!
Anyway it's clear that the angles and rotation of the rifle in both photos are not a direct comparison and like the above ruler example, photogrammetry allowances must be applied. This isn't as easy as it seems.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmfPFD2G/rifle-comparison.jpg)
JohnM
I grabbed this image by Chris Bristow from the same EF thread and matched both rulers directly and this perfectly illustrates why you must take into account basic photogrammetry principles when comparing objects. The differences between the intervals are proportionally opposite to each other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7bsNyg7/rifle-ruler1.jpg)
Ray Mitcham originally said that the following comparison was proof that the rifle straps were on opposite sides, then it was pointed out that the EXIT sign was reversed? DOH!
Anyway it's clear that the angles and rotation of the rifle in both photos are not a direct comparison and like the above ruler example, photogrammetry allowances must be applied. This isn't as easy as it seems.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmfPFD2G/rifle-comparison.jpg)
JohnM
Nice work, Mr. Mytton......... QED. Thanks.
Yes, guess what... I was was wrong about the reversing the photo.
Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?
Yes, guess what... I was was wrong about the reversing the photo.
Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?
Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?
The camera at the bottom can only see the image(green line) from its own perspective.
(https://i.postimg.cc/449vJJbM/Image3a.jpg)
JohnM
| (https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/172931652335_/LEE-HARVEY-OSWALD-MUGSHOT-VINTAGE-PHOTO-NEW-ORLEANS.jpg) | (https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9685463.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Pete-Request-Stunning-colourised-photos-bring-black-and-white-shots-from-history-to-life-from-D.jpg) | (https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/a0d1c4f/2147483647/thumbnail/640x420/quality/85/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcom-usnews-beam-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2F57%2F3369c7b2b13f097241864c7d6f85d4%2F49826widemodern_jfk_assassination11_131107.jpg) |
(http://i68.tinypic.com/11w98pu.jpg) Mugshot flipped to be similar to head rotation in 133A |
(https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/president-trump-nc-rally-04-gty-jef-190717_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg)
Does this photo look like the foreground figures are pasted onto them?
I think the photo is authentic. If so, it shows "irregularities" can appear naturally. Both look like they're on a tilt. Arguably the hands are unnatural; the finger's on Trump's left hand are not attached and two on his right hand project. Pence's right forearm is way too small.
Over on the Education Forum Jim Hargrove posted an interesting comparison image of Oswald's rifle with a different scope which I thought was a little off, so I started investigating.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25864-new-drop-dead-visual-proof-that-the-rifle-and-scope-in-the-%E2%80%9Cbackyard-photos%E2%80%9D-ce-133-a-b-c-is-different-from-%E2%80%9Coswald%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D-so-called-rifle-and-scope-ce-139/
Step 1) Since they should be the same object viewed from different angles we can combine the images and see if they line up in 3D space and indeed from the bolt to the barrel end of the rifle, shows perfect rotates but the eyepiece end of the scope was missing and the shape of the rifle butt doesn't appear to match.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KjbVKcS8/c2766-life-backyard800.gif)
Step 2) Track down the source. Jim took the rifle in the Backyard photo from the cover of LIFE magazine and this is when I got suspicious, so a comparison of LIFE's cover and a decent copy of the backyard photo show that in the region of the end of the scope and the curve of the rifle shows no detail, so it's obvious LIFE just guessed and added the end of the scope and a weird specular highlight on the butt that isn't at all seen in the original and indicates a totally different shape. Also to highlight Oswald and his rifle, LIFE partially whited out the fence and bush and if you look closely on Oswald's pants we can see what seems to be the shadow of the scope and from the angle of the other shadows we see that their scope has to be too short.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTjfwKSm/c2766-life-bacckyard1.gif)
CASE CLOSED!
JohnM
Thanks, John for the illustrations proving that it would not be a problem tampering or creating a photo to your liking.
Now get back to the Drawing board and stick to the Drawing board since you have no place in this area of forensics.
Do you understand what's being discussed?, the Life Magazine cover appears fake due to their tampering. The original photo has been examined at the granular level and no alteration was detected, in fact a negative of one of the backyard photos exists which proves that the photo was authentic.Are you saying you had doubt before.?
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/04/Photo_hsca_ex_178.jpg)
Hahahaha!
This is a Public Forum and I will present whatever evidence I like and if you see a problem with my evidence then I will be happy to consider your ideas.
JohnM
"At the granular level"
Right, 1st time ever
A lot of modern-day camera's have 'object focus' capabilities which can cause this effect. It can look 'too' clean cut but still not be a modified photo.
Thumb1:
Q. Are there any differences in the grain pattern in the areas of the body. head, and background on the negative of Oswald?
A. No inconsistencies could be detected between the areas mentioned with examination of the original negative through a 30X magnifier, on normal contrast enlarged prints, or on high contrast enlarged transparencies (figs. RIT 9--1 A and B).
https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html
(https://i.postimg.cc/7P9FW5CM/10grainanalysis.jpg)
JohnM
Thumb1:
Q. Are there any differences in the grain pattern in the areas of the body. head, and background on the negative of Oswald?
A. No inconsistencies could be detected between the areas mentioned with examination of the original negative through a 30X magnifier, on normal contrast enlarged prints, or on high contrast enlarged transparencies (figs. RIT 9--1 A and B).
https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html
(https://i.postimg.cc/7P9FW5CM/10grainanalysis.jpg)
JohnM
Thanks John for the solid photographic evidence.
And in case anyone is wondering about Oswald's squared off chin in the backyard photo, it's the result of an overhead light source.No, I think it's global warming.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3w5NcF1d/Ossychin-zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
JohnM
No, I think it's global warming.
"Overhead light source" That is a crazy explanation and has been used to cover every anomaly. Try again
The overhead light source creates dark shadowed eyes, a triangular shadow under the nose and a squared off chin. Case Closed!
JohnM
The overhead light source creates dark shadowed eyes, a triangular shadow under the nose and a squared off chin. Case Closed!
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t58BdRt/oswald-square-chin.jpg)
JohnM
Mr Mytton,
If you insist on posting doctored comparison photos, at least have the common decency to include a disclaimer explaining what you did and why you did it, then simply declaring victory and calling it a day. Nice try but no cigar Mr. Mytton. Very dishonest of you to attempt this.
Mr Mytton
All fake and you know it. Come clean already and explain to the good viewers what you did here, why you did it and what you're trying to achieve by posting altered images? There's a way out of this and I will leave it up to you to reveal that, and while you're at it, please apologize to the good viewers who may not be aware of your deliberate intent here. I'll give you a few days time to do this so you can attempt to save face, however, when that time runs out, you will force my hand into revealing what is really going on here and what you so out rightly tried to get away with. I would rather not go that route by posting the obvious proof of this forgery however. Would you want me to do that? You have 48 hours to come clean, after that, all bets are off.
Mr Mytton,
Oh I can prove it Mr. Mytton, but per my offer, I will wait on you for the allotted amount of time, 48 hours to be precise, in order to give you a chance to clear your conscience as well as your reputation, whatever that may entail. The ball is in your court Mr Mytton, I do hope you see your way clear to fessing up to what you've done here. That is all I have to say on the matter for now.
Oh I can prove it Mr. Mytton
but per my offer, I will wait on you for the allotted amount of time, 48 hours to be precise,
in order to give you a chance to clear your conscience as well as your reputation, whatever that may entail.
The ball is in your court Mr Mytton
I do hope you see your way clear to fessing up to what you've done here.
That is all I have to say on the matter for now.
Mr Mytton,
If you insist on posting doctored comparison photos, at least have the common decency to include a disclaimer explaining what you did and why you did it, then simply declaring victory and calling it a day. Nice try but no cigar Mr. Mytton. Very dishonest of you to attempt this.
Mr Mytton,
You could use some time away from JFK stuff for awhile too see my previous post to Mr. Chapman advising same.
Really? The BYP your comparing the film clip to is bogus in it's entirety as the BYP is FAKE.
I never said YOU altered it, quite the contrary.
You can't use the BYP as a premise of your argument, because the entire premise is FAKE and therefore any outcome is wrong.
The only person showing any aggressive emotion is you, you were the one who called me dishonest and all I wanted from you is some evidence but instead you keep attacking me.Excuse this interruption Mytton, but think about your compulsive behavior not to mention the intense denial you possess seen through these lame arguments you produce from only God knows where
Non thread creating disruptors will be suspended from posting for a to be determined period of time.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
JohnM
Mr Chapman,
It's been nice conversing with you as well. Take some B Vitas and take some time away from JFK stuff, it's eating you alive. I can see it as I have seen it before. Take up a relaxing hobby, something other than JFK for awhile. I used to suffer from JFK burnout, so I know how terrible you must feel as you post. Been there done that. Go get some much needed R and R. Don't forget the B Vitas and be well.
So let me get this straight this entire time your argument for me being dishonest is that, I know that the Backyard photos are fake but I still use them as proof that they are real, is that right?
JohnM
So you're not a professional photographer, portrait and/or figure painter, or a longtime published illustrator. And you can't point out where JohnM has faked anything.
You talk the talk. Lets see you walk the walk...
Reported.
Reported.No direct member referral = No offence....................... Carry on.
No use. He has a whole room full of square chin pictures ::)
"Overhead light source" That is a crazy explanation and has been used to cover every anomaly. Try again
Excuse this interruption Mytton, but think about your compulsive behavior not to mention the intense denial you possess seen through these lame arguments you produce from only God knows where
It's undeniable, it's Oswald and he's holding the weapon that murdered the President.
Show us what's 'lame' about John's arguments regarding light & shade.Right, he doesn't have an argument and that is lame. Now break the news to him.