New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Chris Davidson]

Don't forget about Bell.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/e8plft

Click on the "Click here to start download from sendspace" link to download file.

chris

Edited March 11, 2013 by Chris Davidson

[Robin Unger]

Don't forget about Bell.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/e8plft

Click on the "Click here to start download from sendspace" link to download file.

chris

Chris

i am just getting a " Scheduled Maintenance " message on that link ?

[Pat Speer]

More from Bill Shelley:

Sounded like a miniature cannon or baby giant firecracker, wasn’t real loud…Sounded like it came from the west…officers started running down to the lumber yards and Billy and I walked down that way. We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end…in the side door into the shipping room…

Since Bill and Billy headed down toward the

tracks and past the grassy knoll, it cannot be

the case that, when Lee told Fritz he was "out

with Bill Shelley in front", he meant AFTER THE

SHOOTING, because Shelly was no longer there.

Lee had been there with Billy Lovelady standing

beside him. Then Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley

immediately took off toward the railroad tracks.

This, of course, is not true. Lovelady and Shelley both testified that they hung out in front of the building for 3 minutes or more before going down to the railroad tracks.

[Lindsay Anderson]

Hi Chris

Could you (or someone else) unpack this for me please - I downloaded the file and have viewed it but cannot immediately see the significance,

Thanks

Don't forget about Bell.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/e8plft

Click on the "Click here to start download from sendspace" link to download file.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Here is the most important frame from the gif sequence. imo

chris

[Lindsay Anderson]

Full Frame Altgens 6

Yes Greg

It is only the you see the full frame, that it really becomes clear, just what a tiny portion of the whole image it is that we are trying to work with.

click on thumbnail

Image Credit: John Woods

Robin, this is a great post,

I already knew that the area was tiny when looking the the overall shot but to see the frame like that really puts it into perspective. I'm guessing the film was 35mm! So a lot smaller even than the image in my web browser.

Is it likely that there may still be detail hidden in the original camera film that could be revealed by further processing (if we had access to the original film) or are the best examples we see online as good as its doing to get, due to the limitations of the original image?

I guess what I am saying is that with digital photography there is a known, finite amount of detail which i believe is equal to the number of pixels captured by the camera. I gather there is likely to be a similar finite level of detail with film, determined the lens, focus and film properties. Have we reached the maximum resolution achievable from this image yet?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Lindsay Anderson]

Here is the most important frame from the gif sequence. imo

chris

Thanks Chis but I still don't know why its important - I'm not saying it isn't - just that my level of knowledge means that it isn't self evident (to me) so I need a little help,

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Lindsay,

Just speculation on my part.

Could the frame from Bell be Lovelady also? Appears to be wearing a red shirt.

Or is it the person on a lower step I pointed out in Towner?

chris

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Robin Unger [...] is deliberately making false assertions, knowing they are

false, but making them anyway to deceive his forum audience . . . . (emphasis added by T. Graves)

[...]

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

It seems to me that you're calling Robin Unger a xxxx here.

I thought it was against Forum rules for one member to call another member a xxxx.

Sincerely and respectfully,

--Tommy

bump

Edited March 12, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Evan Burton]

Jim,

Thomas raises a fair point here. Can you please explain? It seems to me your have skirted too close - if not over - the line.

[Greg Burnham]

Lindsay,

There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely:

All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image

being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself.

If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing

the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules,

but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own

FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY

WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi.

The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing

an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data)

prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi.

The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions.

...

Edited March 12, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[David G. Healy]

Lindsay,

There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely:

All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image

being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself.

If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing

the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules,

but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own

FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY

WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi.

The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing

an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data)

prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi.

The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions.

...

72dpi .jpg/bmp upload format -- standard web imagery norms

[Lindsay Anderson]

Lindsay,

There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely:

All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image

being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself.

If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing

the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules,

but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own

FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY

WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi.

The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing

an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data)

prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi.

The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions.

...

Thanks Greg / David

I never knew that - so for any serious study we need to download the best available photos and view them in an image viewer rather than the browser - Do we have access to such images between us. I know Robin has quite a collection but are these mainly sourced from web pages and therefore subject to the same 72dpi limit.

Also, my question asked if the images we have, in this case altgens6, are as good as we are ever going to get (by this I mean available full size digital images or photographic prints). Is there a possibility that further work on the original documents could reveal some of the detail that is missing from our current reference documents? Is there anything to gain in further study of the actual altgen6 over the copies available to us now.

[Craig Lamson]

Lindsay,

There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely:

All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image

being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself.

If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing

the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules,

but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own

FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY

WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi.

The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing

an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data)

prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi.

The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions.

...

Thanks Greg / David

I never knew that - so for any serious study we need to download the best available photos and view them in an image viewer rather than the browser - Do we have access to such images between us. I know Robin has quite a collection but are these mainly sourced from web pages and therefore subject to the same 72dpi limit.

Also, my question asked if the images we have, in this case altgens6, are as good as we are ever going to get (by this I mean available full size digital images or photographic prints). Is there a possibility that further work on the original documents could reveal some of the detail that is missing from our current reference documents? Is there anything to gain in further study of the actual altgen6 over the copies available to us now.

More hogwash...

http://www.ideastrai...gResolution.pdf

Monitors: Width x Height Pixels only

Monitor resolution is measured strictly by pixel width and height. Some common settings are

1280x1024, 1920x1080, and even 2880x1800. Different size monitors could be set to the same

resolution, so there is no default ppi

setting for monitors since ppi depends on the monitor

resolution and the physical size of the monitor. For example, a 1920x1080 monitor could be 17

inches (monitor sizes are measured diagonally like TVs) or could be 22 inches, so the actual

ppi would be different for each.

Some repeat the old settings of Mac monitors displaying at 72

ppi and Windows displaying at

96 ppi, that that standard went away years ago with more modern monitors. This information

is inaccurate (since ppi depends on resolution

and size, as mentioned) and should not be used.

That being said, programs

assumea default resolution, so you will still see those numbers used

in software, but it does not reflect reality.

Web & Video Graphics: Width x Height Pixels only

Web Graphics also are measured strictly by X/Y pixels only, usually in relation to a monitor

size. Basically, one image pixel of a web graphic displays on one monitor pixel*. A web graphic

that is 800x600 pixels will completely fill up a monitor set to 800x600, but only fill 25% of the

screen of a monitor set to 1600x1200. A common misconception is that web graphics have a

resolution of 72 ppi, but that is completely inaccurate. An image that is 800x600 pixels at 72

ppi will display in a web browser the same size as a graphic that is 800x600 pixels at 300

ppi—essentially it will take up 800x600 pixels on whatever monitor it is on.

*At Actual Pixels

(100%) in Photoshop also display one image pixel for one monitor pixel.

(Many web-only graphics programs do not assign resolution to graphics and work strictly by

pixel dimensions.)

Video graphics work the same as web graphics except they have some per-determined pixel

settings. A standard-definition video (SD) setting for TV is 720x480 pixels (surprisingly low

resolution compared to print), the high-definition video setting is often 1920x1080 (although

it varies by type of camera). It should also be mentioned that video may have different shaped

pixels; they can be square, vertical, or horizontal. Video editing programs and Photoshop

compensate for the different pixel shape by “distorting” the image on screen.

This is very easy to prove. The following image is a 8000x6546 pixel version of the Moorman drum scan.

www.craiglamson.com/MOORMAN8000.png

It will display full size in a web browser. (you might need to click on the image to expand it). And if you download the file it will display at the same size in a program like Photoshop.

OUTPUT this image at 300 dpi and it will be 26.66"x21.82 inches.

The same image OUTPUT at 72 dpi and it will be 111.11"x 90.91"

So there is no 72 DPI limit on the web. An image will display at the exact same as it was uploaded.

A a point of reference my monitor displays 109 PPI

Edited March 13, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Lindsay Anderson]

Thanks Craig -

Interesting stuff and a great link http://www.ideastrai...gResolution.pdf.

We could maybe do with an area on the forum for FAQ's / Guides / How to's on topics such as this that are to do with research methods and common technical mistakes & assumptions, rather than the assassination debate per se.

My other question relates to the images we have available to us for study and whether we are likely to ever see more detail by going back to original archive material. I realize the answer to this will depend on the image in question so:

Using the best technology and methods available to us today, could further study/processing of the original prints, or better still (i would guess) the film negative for Altgens6 if available, reveal further detail than is available to us now. Or do our our best references already match the limits of the original source material given that even a film negative cannot be zoomed indefinitely to reveal microscopic detail not captured by the camera lens and the film.

Also, my question asked if the images we have, in this case altgens6, are as good as we are ever going to get (by this I mean available full size digital images or photographic prints). Is there a possibility that further work on the original documents could reveal some of the detail that is missing from our current reference documents? Is there anything to gain in further study of the actual altgen6 over the copies available to us now.