NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos”...

[John Mytton]

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.

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

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

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.



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

[John Mytton]

"At the granular level"

Right, 1st time ever

 

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



JohnM

[John Mytton]

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

[Steve Howsley]

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



JohnM

Thanks John for the solid photographic evidence.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

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



JohnM

You are having a conversation with yourself. Show me some proof.  Boring

[John Mytton]

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.



It's undeniable, it's Oswald and he's holding the weapon that murdered the President.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

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.









JohnM