More Fake Pictures of Oswald

[Matt Grantham]

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

[Jerry Freeman]

 
..what on Earth is "infliable"?

You cannot fli it. 



 
 

[Jerry Freeman]

Which side was Oswald? Left? Right? Neither?



Kennedy and Tippit were almost a perfect facial match
 
 

 



 
 

 

[John Mytton]

Sorry John that was not real marketing advice. I think your little app, or whatever it is, creates a way to blend one picture to another and nothing more

Sorry John that was not real marketing advice.

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

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 

[Matt Grantham]

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

[John Mytton]

 While you are busy disregarding me you could at least quote me correctly I have never put forward anything as visual proof, nor have I cited anyone claiming there was visual proof that the photos are forgeries. So please do not let me distract you from whatever it is you are supposedly proving

While you are busy disregarding me

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.

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

[Richard Rubio]

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.

[Matt Grantham]

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?