More Fake Pictures of Oswald

[Jack Trojan]

No, Experts say it and JohnM supplies practical examples to prove it.

JohnM

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.

[Jack Trojan]

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.

My gif is as described. I don't dick around with my images like you do.

In the following gif I applied approximately the same lens correction to CE-133b as seen in CE133a.

You applied a lens correction? Please explain. This should be good.

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.

Parallax indicates a change in camera position. Is that what you are claiming?

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.

 

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

[John Mytton]

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.

That's nice, now prove it.

Take a course in this stuff for god's sake so I won't laugh at your naive posts.

Sorry Jack, it has never worked that way, without a shred of evidence you keep claiming that the backyard photos were taken with different cameras now it's up to you to prove it.

Btw good luck because you're gonna need more than a quick google search this time, we want proof not excuses!



JohnM

[John Mytton]

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.

Here we go again, Mr Photogrammetrist/Physicist/Nuclear Scientist/Astronaut and all round Schlub to the rescue! Hooray!
The reason why the morphing comparison works so effectively is the intermediary frames, by definition the mathematical relationship between two identical objects remains constant when photographed from any direction and when these images are combined every point in each three dimensional object in each corresponding frame displays this same identical relationship, thus when two objects are identical we have a smooth rotation whereas when two objects are not alike we don't.

Morphs are a fade that use edge detection and high pass filters to smooth the transition between frames.

 

Wtf? As I said you really don't have a clue!


Here's two images of two faces, are they the same person?



Your simple method of fading yields crap.



Whereas when scientifically morphed the spatial relationship between millions of pixels is constant and we see that it must be the same person.






JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

No, Experts say it and JohnM supplies practical examples to prove it.

Right.  Animated morphs that have nothing to do with facial recognition and yellow blobs that have nothing to do with rifle identification.

[John Mytton]

I don't see ANY SA in CE133-A.

Really?

The 4x4 post next to Oswald in CE-133A shows a distinct and substantial amount of pincushion distortion. Try again!




Hahahahahahaha, you've been schooled little Trojan!



Btw you do realize that the geometric distortion pin cushioning I've shown is not SA which produces a softer image, Right?



JohnM

[John Mytton]

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 and until you have something other than your layman biased opinion as refutation then their proof will stand.



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

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.