More Fake Pictures of Oswald

[John Mytton]

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..................................

 

 

They're all Oswald, no magic required.



JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

They're all Oswald, no magic required.

JohnM

Means Mad Jack can't do it

 

[Jack Trojan]

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? 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?

[Jerry Organ]

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.



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. 

133-A

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.



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.

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.

[John Mytton]

I'm out of MY depth? 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.

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

[Jack Trojan]

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.

[Jack Trojan]

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

[John Mytton]

I'm out of MY depth? 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,

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



JohnM