Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Fixed.  Same day, a few seconds apart, looking away from and into the sun.  Lines converge away from viewer in both directions.  

 

https://thevirtualinstructor.com/onepointperspective.html

fence 2 (1) (3).jpg

fence 1 (1) (1).jpg

Which is what I said when I posted my photos of the vertical poles. Seems you agree.

 

Anybody can prove it to themselves with two poles and some sunshine.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

LOL, I may have misunderstood you Ray.  Sorry for that.  

 

Did you miss this post?  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy.

The notion I mentioned earlier of an idee fixe is defined as "an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period". 

You can not reason with Ray on this subject.  I generally reach a Gump point where in the movie Forrest says "That's all I got you say about that"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

Did you miss this post?  :)

 

Sorry, Michael. I did miss your post. I must have been posting at the time you posted. Thank you for agreeing with me. Now perhaps you could try to educate John Butler.

 

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy.

The notion I mentioned earlier of an idee fixe is defined as "an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period". 

You can not reason with Ray on this subject.  I generally reach a Gump point where in the movie Forrest says "That's all I got you say about that"

"Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy." Apparently not as much as your need, John.

On which point about the shadow direction do you disagree with me, John?

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has come up several times in past months, and each time has devolved to two opposing camps effectively talking past each other. I have pointed out that an expert panel was convened for the HSCA to specifically examine the backyard photos. While not expressly endorsing their findings, I have noted that their techniques for examination were common accepted practice (I.e. not junk science), and that I am not aware of a substantive critique of their conclusions.

Re-examining this work may assist in moving forward some of the observations addressed on this forum, as it would provide a common framework for discussion - rather than a constant stream of unrelated photos trying to establish points which remain disputed.

Here, for example, can be found the panel’s discussion of shadows and the vanishing point as relates specifically to the backyard photos. The panel created reference charts, which can be referred to, and make the claim that the shadows in the photos “were determined to be directionally consistent.” If there are flaws in this claim, there is at least a common reference (the charts) which can be critiqued, and this might assist in breaking down the divergent camps.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=173&tab=page

This report in general features a lot of relevant and interesting technical discussion of the BYP. For the record, I am very critical of the HSCA’s BYP presentation, but that is directed more at the top of the panel’s hierarchy and less at the technical crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure if you were aware, but LIFE retouched that image quite extensively...

You may wish to compare what you see with what they did...  other magazines also took liberties and retouched this image for publication...

WH_Vol21_0240a%20%20where%20LIFE%20retou

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks I had not seen a comp of the touch up before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Thanks I had not seen a comp of the touch up before.

I need an answer to the following;

Is there anyway possible, with techniques utilised in the 60s, that a human body with shadows were superimposed over a photograph of the backyard at Neely St?

In other words, the original photo of the backyard at Neely St was existing, possibly from September, and the rifleman with Oswald's head was integrated with that existing photo

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

I need an answer to the following;

Is there anyway possible, with techniques utilised in the 60s, that a human body with shadows were superimposed over a photograph of the backyard at Neely St?

In other words, the original photo of the backyard at Neely St was existing, possibly from September, and the rifleman with Oswald's head was integrated with that existing photo

Thanks

 

of course it was possible. The fact that the body in the pic has a drop shadow in the first place is an indication (suggests it's a composite).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

of course it was possible. The fact that the body in the pic has a drop shadow in the first place is an indication (suggests it's a composite).

 

The lines were there BUT... only at higher resolution and using gradient enhancement.... IOW, the composite was done VERY well...
now, who do we know who has access to expert forgers and photographic manipulators...

:secret

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i .e ., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations) . (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 4, 2019 at 3:05 PM, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

133962474_Image3-Oswald-BYP-ghost-COPY-misalignment.thumb.jpg.034f024f272fe5918cce510699899dd1.jpg

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

762949527_BYPwithstandinin133-cpose-shadowsbetraythefakedimage.thumb.jpg.54fab7b6fe5226c2232100e8bf37d143.jpg

There is something interesting in the photo of the fence in the bottom right of Joseph's post. The ends of the fence have lines showing the angle but if you drew lines on the next two slats  the angle decreases. If you used the two slats nearest the center slat the angle is almost zero. We know the Sun is too far away for the angles to change by that much.And we know each set of slats would point to a different elevation for the Sun. I think this demonstrates the relative nature of angles depending  on your pov. 
 If you go into google Earth and position yourself far above Dealey you will find that every single lamppost shadow is angled in the exact same direction. the shadows on the tracks above the triple are no different than lamppost shadows near Houson St. There is no convergence. This means seeing lines converge back to the Sun is always a matter of perspective. 
 We all know that if you measure the azimuth of the Sun then walk 20 feet West you still measure the same angle. We know that when you drive down the street the Sun follows you. It maintains the same angle or azimuth relative to you. In any scenario all the positions(Like the post or Oswald) all have the Sun shinning from the same angle. This means that when we do an overhead diagram we have to have the Suns rays hitting everything from the same azimuth. We cannot have rays diverging from the Sun when doing a diagram from above. 
  This subject of backyard shadows tends to get muddled as it goes forward. We never resolve anything. If we disagree on such a basic point as divergent or parallel rays from the Sun we will just go round and round. 
 If we can agree on non divergent rays from the Sun we can move foreword. If not it we are stuck. 
 

 


 

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PREYER : I wanted to send this transcript along to you immediately. We initiated a detailed analysis of the Oswald holding the rifle photos by Detective Superintendent Dlalcolm Thompson who ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He is also an ex-president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. In short, he knows what he's talking about. As you will see, he is sure that it is a fake photo-a montage of three separate pictures . Naturally, I'll be using him in our film, but I wanted your committee to have this information directly

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?
Mr. Thompson. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
 

 

The lines were there BUT... only at higher resolution and using gradient enhancement.... IOW, the composite was done VERY well...
now, who do we know who has access to expert forgers and photographic manipulators...

:secret

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i .e ., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations) . (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph .

thanks David. Also, see here for an example of early compositing of a still image:   http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy8.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you will see, he (Dlalcolm Thompson) is sure that it is a fake photo-a montage of three separate pictures

Could he be talking about;

1. The background photo

2. The rifleman

3. Oswald's head

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This topic has come up several times in past months, and each time has devolved to two opposing camps effectively talking past each other. "

Yeah, that's generally what happens when Ray brings up his converging shadows argument.  He is just misdirecting the conversation and he usually succeeds in taking people away from a topic under discussion for awhile.

Tony Krome's topic is about when the BYPs were taken not converging BYP shadows vs conflicting shadows arguments.  The conversation has been misdirected.

People are preferring to talk about converging shadows rather than confront Tony's well reasoned argument on the probability that the BYPs were taken in September, 1963 rather than March, 1963.   

If he is correct, I think he made a good case, then that brings up all kinds of possibilities concerning the planning of the assassination, the manufacture of evidence, the selection and assignment of a Patsy, the positioning of assets prior to the assassination, the framing of the Patsy, and other considerations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...