JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on June 18, 2018, 03:37:32 AM

Title: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 18, 2018, 03:37:32 AM
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)

 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 04:52:10 AM



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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 05:05:38 AM
 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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 05:14:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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



Matt, this procedure is based on the same principle as the iphone facial recognition software and is virtually infallible.

(https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/iPhone-X-Face-ID-Projection.jpg)

How about you provide two faces that are perhaps celebrity lookalikes and let's see just how similar two faces can actually be.



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 05:27:34 AM
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173319
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 05:36:08 AM



Even when the best celebrity lookalikes are directly compared to their chosen celebrity the list of facial differences becomes obvious and instead of smooth rotation we simply have a face being pulled in random directions.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/s2oh3a56z/matt_damon.gif)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/89cda11xn/obamalookalike.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 05:45:09 AM
 Perhaps submit your refutation to Plos One, which is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals around
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 05:53:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173319






Huh? Pulling a single morphed face off of two images to use as false ID is going to show you what exactly?



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 06:01:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps submit your refutation to Plos One, which is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals around







No worries, sounds like a great idea.



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 06:22:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login





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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 06:34:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 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



Quote
OK I may be incorrect on what Plos One is saying

Yep.
 
Quote
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.
Btw what on Earth is "infliable"?



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 06:39:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 
There is no name, I am only applying well known techniques and methodology and applying a modern visualization.



JohnM

A no name technology Interesting
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 06:52:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A no name technology Interesting






How does making up a name make a difference?,
Someone somewhere has to apply advanced scientific principles to current methodology to create a more visual representation and that person is me!



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 07:14:25 AM
 Here is a marketing tip John, if you are the inventor of a new breakthrough technology give it a name
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 18, 2018, 08:49:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 18, 2018, 11:14:24 AM
Wiki should have used the conventional mug shot instead of the one below for their Oswald portrait. He has a triple hair line...we are back to a squarish jaw [sun must be shining] and a fat face.
Maybe John Mutton can use that no name technology trick on this one too.
On an ID card this guy's name is A J Hidell.. far left picture then far right [Dallas mug shot]
 The guy in the middle must be Oswald's basketball coach.




(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e6/OswaldinMinsk.jpg/220px-OswaldinMinsk.jpg)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBiD79cY24E-krcmJNWbN0BMEFdjTSRHshtbqe1b5iFhTTwvSDzg)
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 18, 2018, 03:38:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




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

 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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 18, 2018, 04:31:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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

(http://www.allsmileys.com/files/crawler-smileys/emotions/18.gif)

Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 18, 2018, 08:32:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 
..what on Earth is "infliable"?

You cannot fli it. 



 
 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 19, 2018, 02:45:38 AM
Which side was Oswald? Left? Right? Neither?

(http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/DOD%202%20copy.jpg)

Kennedy and Tippit were almost a perfect facial match
 (https://pbenjay.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/kennedy-tippett.gif?w=500)
 

 



 
 

 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 19, 2018, 03:01:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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



Quote
Sorry John that was not real marketing advice.

Nothing you seem to say is real, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote
I think your little app, or whatever it is, creates a way to blend one picture to another and nothing more

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 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 19, 2018, 03:51:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on June 19, 2018, 04:09:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 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


Quote
While you are busy disregarding me

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.

Quote
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

For a start just since yesterday, you had no idea how the backyard photos were composed and made some dumbass comment about Marina's abilities, you presented some silly off topic article about false ID's which had absolutely no correlation with this discussion, your BY cutout analysis is illogical to say the list and on and on you go, your incompetence is on continuous display for all to see.
So again your image analysis abilities are simply amateurish and mindlessly skewed towards your fantasies but good for you, it must be really neat living in Wonderland.



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Richard Rubio on June 19, 2018, 04:51:37 AM
HSCA brought in experts to look at them. Maybe, even some high number, dozens, they said the photos are real. Most conspiracy theorists accept these as real.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Matt Grantham on June 19, 2018, 05:03:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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

 What has been the hold up until now?


 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 22, 2018, 05:17:28 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/92/75/f4927590199d40cca9291647f498813b.jpg)

So...just how tall was Marina anyway?

A more Oswald looking Oswald....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCZ706cW5A5nrB7dVrndUvxJYceZT4AiXXbsmVSS4DIH_YWe4i)

Another 'look alike'? If this is Lee..he really changed. That's exactly what Robert Oswald said.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5005cf71e4b059c85b977f11/t/56518660e4b03de1aca5f03b/1448183393076/t_1962.jpg)
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Tom Sorensen on June 22, 2018, 10:21:00 AM
Another 'look alike'? If this is Lee..he really changed. That's exactly what Robert Oswald said.

So did Marina, it seems... ???
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on June 22, 2018, 04:04:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So...just how tall was Marina anyway?


5' 3"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=162&tab=page
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Tom Sorensen on June 22, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
5' 3"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=162&tab=page

Scary!

Can't wait for JohnM to do his thing on Marina.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 23, 2018, 04:00:45 AM
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2014-Josephs/pic11.gif)
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 23, 2018, 06:37:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 23, 2018, 08:57:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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

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.

 
 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 26, 2018, 11:06:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I never realized the.......camera they were shot with were found at the Paine's house
I don't believe it was....
Quote
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.

This is the Fake Pictures thread not the BackYard stuff  ;D 

Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 12, 2018, 12:33:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Royell Storing on July 12, 2018, 12:56:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


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

                 Congrats Mytton. You have officially joined the ranks of Leroy Blevins.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 12, 2018, 01:22:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.


Show us that you know anything about light & shade. And that you even know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 12, 2018, 03:03:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.



(http://Mytton's shtick is to morph two photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are the same person".)

I don't declare anything, the images speak for themselves.   ;D

(https://s15.postimg.cc/6p1zekcy3/woofwoofwoof.gif)

In the following two morphs between two very close celebrity lookalikes and the original celebrities, the immediate obvious differences demonstrate just why this form of graphical comparison is so damn effective!

(https://s15.postimg.cc/s2oh3a56z/matt_damon.gif)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/89cda11xn/obamalookalike.gif)

Quote
Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.

Exactly, that's the fundamental foundation for this advanced computerized imaging technique, the relative distance of each facial feature from the camera between two people in two photos are by definition mathematically identical therefore when the same person is morphed every consecutive frame reflects the fact that there is a direct relationship between each set of millions of individual pixels

The Apple iphone uses the exact same methodology, it takes a depth mapped photo of someone's face and stores this digital data for comparison with a live face, the same information can be unlocked by viewing two images stereoscopically or combined into easier viewing in a morph.

(https://apple.insidercdn.com/gallery/22846-28164-22825-28087-snapchat-face-id-l-l.jpg)

Much like a human fingerprint, our unique faces can be broken down into a complex 3D shape and from whatever angle all these individual features in 3D space will always be in the exact same ratio.

(https://byteshunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/facial_recognition-100245056-primary.idge_.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 12, 2018, 06:43:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 13, 2018, 01:44:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us that you know anything about light & shade. And that you even know what I'm talking about.

How can someone know what Chapman is 'talking about' when he doesn't even know himself?
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 01:53:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.



What the heck are you looking at, Oswald's dramatically receding hairline at the temple and resulting combover is clear in the arrest photo.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/6p1zekcy3/woofwoofwoof.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 02:11:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Matt, this procedure is based on the same principle as the iphone facial recognition software and is virtually infallible.

JohnM

 :D This is absolute BS and confirms that you know squat about image analysis or facial recognition. Else pls explain how a "fade" effect is based on the same principle as facial recognition. This should be good.

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)

All fading/morphing algorithms are based on this simple methodology of interleaving images.

How many lines of code do you think are required for infallible facial recognition technology?

Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Michael Capasse on July 13, 2018, 03:59:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

this procedure is based on the same principle as the iphone facial recognition software and is virtually infallible.

JohnM

(http://www.learntarot.com/bigjpgs/cups07.jpg)
 :D

Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 13, 2018, 05:04:47 PM

(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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 09:56:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


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)





Quote
I used this simple algorithm to make the following animated gif

 :-[

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


Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 10:07:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(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.

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.  ;)

Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 10:15:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(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.




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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 10:17:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 :-[

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

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?
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 10:20:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



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

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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 10:41:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 10:51:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yeah like I said your gif just swapped one set of RGB values for another, so what?

JohnM

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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 10:52:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.




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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 13, 2018, 10:59:02 PM
 
The guy [lower left]...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)
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 13, 2018, 11:08:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 13, 2018, 11:26:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


They're all Oswald, no magic required.

JohnM

Means Mad Jack can't do it :D

 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 13, 2018, 11:39:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



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

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?
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 13, 2018, 11:53:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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

Oswald's feet placement is further away from the camera in 133-A than in 133-B -- less of his body fills the photo in 133-B than in 133-A. His left shoulder is pulled backwards in space in 133-B. His head and torso are leaning camera-right in 133-A but in 133-B, it's camera-left. The head in 133-A is closer to the tip of the right shoulder; in 133-B, the head is closer to the tip of the left shoulder.

In each picture, the arm that holds the rifle has the most pronounced shoulder.

(http://i67.tinypic.com/nl969t.jpg)

If one compares the two images with an approximate equal head size and include more area, the shoulder widths (tip-to-tip) are similar. It's only when one isolates the left shoulder that there's some sort of unusual appearance.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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 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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 14, 2018, 12:36:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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?





Quote
The WAE doesn't explain the differences in spherical aberration over the entire photo.

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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 14, 2018, 01:14:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

You are talking about 2 differnt things:

1) You think the foreshortening effects on Oswald's image height are due to his leaning back in 133-C. The foreshortening effects on image height varies with the cosine of the lean angle from vertical. IOW, if Oswald was leaning back in 133-C by 15 degrees, then his apparent height on film would only be reduced by ~3%, which was not the case.

2) You think the focal range of the lens was so small that Oswald's lean angle put his head out of focus relative to the rest of his body. Problem with that is that the entire photo was out of focus while all of 133-A was in focus. But this is a red herring anyway.

The trick is to scale both images of Oswald to synchronize the camera position from him. But that doesn't work with these photos. When I scaled his legs to the same length, the backgrounds matched up ok, (except for the SA) but the height differences were well beyond any level of distortion you would expect to see with a slight camera tilt.

Both effects can cause distortion, just not to the degree we see here unless a really funky lens was used. All your claims might be supported if you experimented yourself with an old Imperial Reflex camera. Until then there is no way to explain away the discrepancies between 133-A and B,C with a slight camera tilt and a slight lean. Distortion isn't more prominent in the sweet spot than the periphery of a lens and CE133-A showed no signs of being shot with a wide angle lens because it had minimal spherical aberration.

The discrepancies might be explained away if the distances from the camera were different and a zoom lens was used for 133-A, but Oswald is very close to the same scale in both photos which means they were taken from the same spot in the yard. But clearly the cameraman was closer to Oswald in 133-A or the camera height was different. The only way to reconcile that is a print of 133-A was photographed with the Imperial Reflex. Otherwise, the actual photos taken with the IR camera just didn't cut it with the DPD.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 14, 2018, 01:28:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


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

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
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 14, 2018, 03:59:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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?


Quote
There was negligible distortion with CE133-A and gross distortion with Oswald's "head" in B & C,

Really, so you're saying that all three photos show different amounts of distortion, prove it!



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 14, 2018, 04:08:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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





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!



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 14, 2018, 04:59:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.  ;)




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?



JohnM
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 15, 2018, 08:42:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 15, 2018, 08:45:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.

Prove him wrong
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 15, 2018, 10:28:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.







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 
Title: Re: More Fake Pictures of Oswald
Post by: John Mytton on July 16, 2018, 08:14:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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




This is the image 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.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/qmtbbylxn/applefaceid.gif)

Now to make it easier to comprehend my theory I've used a face with dots pasted on and these images are an example of  the same data the apple software uses to unlock a three dimensional matching image.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/3vfnc71cb/Motion_capture.jpg)

In the following gif I used your fading technique and all we get is a jumbled mess.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/fagpukq7v/motioncapturefade.gif)

But by using my methodology we go far beyond your crude fade code and now we are looking at a program which utilizes millions of lines of code to truly unlock the mathematical perfection of a precise match between millions of spatially co-ordinated depth-mapped pixels.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/8k08l486z/motioncapture.gif)



JohnM