JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 30, 2019, 12:48:26 AM
-
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
-
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.
-
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
Yes, guess what... I was was wrong about the reversing the photo.
Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?
-
Nice work, Mr. Mytton......... QED. Thanks.
Hi Mark, thanks but I really have to thank Chris Bristow for going to the trouble of actually photographing his 36 inch rulers at different angles and in doing so illustrating a simple photogrammetry principle that still eludes the average CT.
In the following image the reason that the same corresponding inches don't match is that when the ruler is angled each corresponding inch is a different distance from the camera, so due to perspective the inches that are angled closer to the camera and due to perspective each inch that's proportionately closer to the camera will be progressively closer together and therefore when each ruler is the compared we see that each inch can't be a 1 to 1 match
So in conclusion when two photographs of the same object is directly compared the difference in perspective must be calculated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7bsNyg7/rifle-ruler1.jpg)
JohnM
-
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.
It takes a man to admit he was wrong, I won't mention it again! Thumb1:
Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?
We can see the rifle itself in the darker photo was photographed with the butt angled closer to the camera and as expected some slight non corresponding lens distortion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJ04JggB/rayriflerotation.gif)
JohnM
-
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
-
The camera at the bottom can only see the image(green line) from its own perspective.
(https://i.postimg.cc/449vJJbM/Image3a.jpg)
JohnM
You're a clever ole bastard. Cheers mate. :D Thumb1:
-
I'm impressed that the "NEW! Drop-dead visual proof" was dismantled so quickly. Really high quality work John. Thumb1:
-
And so what makes all this stuff "new"? Tweak here and twitch there (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
(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.
At first glance it looks like they are stuck on but having a closer look, the uncannily precise positioning of the background crowd makes the edges around Trump's jacket and the top of Pence's head ad jacket really stand out. I'm also guessing some sharpening/edge enhancer tool was used.
JohnM
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks, John for the illustrations proving that it would not be a problem tampering or creating a photo to your liking.
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.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/04/Photo_hsca_ex_178.jpg)
Now get back to the Drawing board and stick to the Drawing board since you have no place in this area of forensics.
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
-
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.
(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
Are you saying you had doubt before.?
"I will present whatever evidence I like"
I get it, only what evidence you "like". Why would I think any different from someone who has not authenticated anything?
"At the granular level"
Right, 1st time ever hahaha good one
-
"At the granular level"
Right, 1st time ever
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
-
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.
Thanks!
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.
-
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
You are having a conversation with yourself. Show me some proof. Boring
-
Thanks John for the solid photographic evidence.
Hi Steve yeah, when you have the original negative it's all over red rover!
There's telltale signs of grain differentiation when any two images are combined, the first problem is at this microscopic granular level you can't just cut out Oswald's head and stick it on someone else because unless Oswald's face/chin/whatever was taken at the exact same distance then the grain size that makes up the photos will be different and without the the same angle of sun on the Oswald face composite, then we have another problem.
Also at this microscopic level you can see the bleeding between edges which with traditional cut and pasting would require a fair amount of post processing which would further degrade the film grain and make it nothing like similar original film stock.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7P9FW5CM/10grainanalysis.jpg)
It's undeniable, it's Oswald and he's holding the weapon that murdered the President.
(https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/backyard.jpg)
JohnM
-
Here are some screen shots from Executive Action 1973 and before computers this is pretty much how photo compositing was done and straight away you can see that lighting, grain size, focus and edges are all going to be impossible to massage into the perfect microscopic grain distribution of the original negative.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13vRGJQw/osw-ald-cut-and-paste.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXYLTPc0/osw-ald-cut-and-pastea.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYXPfK0L/osw-ald-cut-and-pasteb.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7P9FW5CM/10grainanalysis.jpg)
JohnM
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3w5NcF1d/Ossychin-zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
JohnM
-
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.
(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
-
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
Tell us what's 'crazy' about it, Rembrandt.
-
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
-
The overhead light source creates dark shadowed eyes, a triangular shadow under the nose and a squared off chin. Case Closed!
JohnM
Yep even someone who only takes holiday snaps knows the problem of photographing faces when the unclouded sun is high in the sky. If you want a more flattering look move you subject to a softer light or use some reflective or artificial light. In '63 when we had to wait hours or even days to collect our pictures from the processing lab it wasn't always possible for a shutter bug to judge what the resulting photo might look like. Anyway Oswald got images that met his needs.
-
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
Rembrandt van Rijn (artist) and Bill Chapman (artist) concur.
And that's the first and last time you'll see the two of us mentioned in the same sentence.
-
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.
How dare you accuse me of being dishonest?, the evidence is out there and I'm guessing you've seen the following clip a bazillion times but never understood the significance of the images that you were looking at.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d01dnNGb/stoopidd-Jeff.gif)
And as Steve points out above, most photographers know that the sun can be your friend but can also be your enemy.
Hollywood has used harsh overhead lighting for years to emphasize that strong masculine look, it's not a secret.
Notice the shadowed eyes, the triangular shadow under the nose and the squared off chins.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y966ZGyg/squarechinsa.jpg)
CASE CLOSED!
JohnM
-
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.
Ok, if you can prove I have altered any of the above images then I will take a weeks holiday and if you can't prove I altered any image then you quit this Forum, never to return.
Waiting..............
JohnM
-
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
You've had plenty of time to refute my work, but so far all I see is a lot of accusations.
but per my offer, I will wait on you for the allotted amount of time, 48 hours to be precise,
I don't accept your offer, either post your evidence or Rack Off!
in order to give you a chance to clear your conscience as well as your reputation, whatever that may entail.
Get a life!
The ball is in your court Mr Mytton
No, it's up to you to prove I altered images and so far you are failing quite badly.
I do hope you see your way clear to fessing up to what you've done here.
No, it's not my integrity that's at stake here, it's yours!
That is all I have to say on the matter for now.
It's obvious you've got nothing, go away.
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.
Kindly point out the photos you consider 'doctored'. Btw, are you a professional photographer, portrait and/or figure painter, or a longtime published illustrator by any chance?
-
Mr Mytton,
You could use some time away from JFK stuff for awhile too see my previous post to Mr. Chapman advising same.
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.
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
-
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.
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
-
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.
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
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
-
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 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...
-
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
Frank Sinatra's chin, source-light squared.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QNYs59Vf/Frank-takes-it-on-the-chin.png)
-
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...
So, this creep turns up accusing members of "posting doctored comparison photos" of being "very dishonest" and threating to expose them in 48 hrs unless they admit their 'guilt'!! All because in his opinion the BYP are fake. The irony of this nut-job handing out medical advice is incredible. I only hope they keep the poor guy in a very strong straightjacket.
:D :D :D
-
Reported.
:D :D :D
-
Reported.
No direct member referral = No offence....................... Carry on.
-
"Overhead light source" That is a crazy explanation and has been used to cover every anomaly. Try again
No use. He has a whole room full of square chin pictures ::)
-
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
Show us what's 'lame' about John's arguments regarding light & shade.
-
It's undeniable, it's Oswald and he's holding the weapon that murdered the President.
Too bad that nobody has actually proven that this is the same weapon or even which weapon "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.