David Josephs
-
Posts
6,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
Can’t change physics Ray... the visual effects of 2d images representing 3d space is what causes the anomaly.
You can talk till you turn blue... parallel lines never touch no matter what it may LOOK like in a photo, and shadows converge only towards the source of light... simple physics... adding perspective doesn’t change the physics...
while it may appear that way in your two poles example... light doesn’t work that way.
and it works in reverse too.. the RR tracks don’t get farther apart as they get closer... it’s an illusion, and that’s what you see with your poles... an illusion based on the location of the camera and the fact it is being observed.
Shadows will never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... physical law Ray... not an illusion.
You do understand the act of viewing the phenomenon changes it from how things work in physics to how that photo was composed... two very different things....
we just disagree... please don’t paint me with the same brush as JB, I respect what your point is, I simply don’t see it that way
...
-
This came to mind
-
And Someone generally over-looked was a man who was also at the training camps and involved with the Sturgis crowd... who looked a lot like Oswald...
Primary sources are a bit sketchy... yet I have it on decent authority that Mr. W here could have been involved in the creation of the BYPs...https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilsonS.htm
Some researchers believe that a combination of Interpen members and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This included Wilson, James Arthur Lewis, Roy Hargraves, Edwin Collins, Gerry P. Hemming, David Morales, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Tony Cuesta, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Felipe Vidal Santiagoand William (Rip) Robertson.
-
While there are some shifts between the vertical lines of the ghost image... I think that image was taken just prior to them taking Det Brown on the 29th
based on how the distance between the foreground stair post and rear post is seen in the Det Brown / Ghost image yet not in the 133 series
In each of the 133 series, the posts line up next to each other... IOW the camera is to the right from where the Det Brown image was taken... and the ghost image has the same exact spacing...
For those 2 posts to be in identical places while the size of Oswald and the angles change relative to the backgrounds - means to me the person was added based on the vertical lines we see in the ghost image.. See the gif below.... those look like guidelines to me since the ghost image background, outside these lines, does not match any of the 133 images...
-
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. -
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...
(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 .
-
57 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:
If that is true, perhaps you can explain how these shadows of two vertical poles, both towards and from the sun converge.
[url=https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1]
[/url]
Ray...
In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source...
Where are you putting the source of light in the bottom image of yours?
I mean we have to agree that - putting aside what we SEE - the physical reality of light and shadow tells us that a shadow will lead to the light source when traced back thru that which is creating the shadow...
It would appear that perspective, focal length, and distance play a part in changing that physical fact when looking at 2d images of 3d space...
A shadow cannot emanate from an opaque object without a source of light.... how we see that light in its representative form does not change the fact that the shadows MUST converge back to the source of that light... light doesn't work any other way...
So if you'd like to explain the visual phenomenon of shadows appearing NOT to converge toward the light in a photograph - have at it... kinda like the RR tracks... they do not and will never converge - they only APPEAR to do so based on visual perspective ... I have to assume the same thing is happening in the bottom image of yours...
Light simply doesn't work any other way... and here's the math behind it.... 1) parallel lines never meet & 2) shadows ALWAYS converge to the source of light in 3d space.
"The light rays are actually parallel, but appear to converge to the sun due to "perspective", the same visual effect that makes parallel railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance." http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/air/crp.rxml
"Convergence of the rays will only tell you where the Sun is located on the two-dimensional photograph. To tell where the rays would converge in three-dimensional space, you would need all of the 3D information that is typically concealed by a 2D representation"
-
14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
1. The shadow under the nose appears to land directly under the nose as if the Sun was directly above. But the tip of the nose is not centered because Oswald is looking to his left about 2 degrees. So if you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find a 4 degree angle. Furthermore his head is tilted 3 or 4 degree to the side(Towards the Sun) That eliminates 3 or 4 degrees of shadow angle.
The elevation was about 50 degrees but what determines the shadow angle is less about elevation and more about whether you are facing towards the Sun or not. When you turn 90 degrees away from the Sun you will see all 50 degrees of elevation represented in a nose shadow. But if you turn 90 degrees to face the sun it will be directly above the nose and you will see zero shadow angle. It will fall directly below the nose if all else is equal(No head tilt). So Oswald was facing about 9 degrees away from the Sun and should show about 9 degrees shadow angle under the nose(The increase from zero to 50 degrees shadow as you turn away from the Sun is not proportional. It is about doubled for the first 20 degrees or so. Oswald facing 9 degrees away from the Sun create about 9 degrees of shadow. 4 degrees are visible from nose tip to shadow tip. 3 or 4 more degrees are neutralized because of his head tilt. that is 7 or 8 degrees accounted for and we should see 9, so there is only one degree missing.
2. Oswalds right arm is drawn back a bit and that creates more shadow on the biceps from the fold in his short sleeve.
3 and 4. The shadow of the telephone lines cross Oswalds lower body and cross his right hip near his holster. Also his hip is angled back by about 20 degrees which may cause more shadow on his right.
6. The rifle stock and part of the scope were modified by Life Mag because the image was not contrasted well. So we can't really know what was there originally. The telephone line shadows also cross the rifle in that area.
5. Looks like the telephone line shadow on the upper right leg.
5a. I find it hard to evaluate the arm brightness because the exposure, film stock and printing can all distort relationships of dark and light.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...
-
4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:
David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun
Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source..
They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...
-
12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.
Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.
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?
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...
-
Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR...
Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession... which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer
How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977?
Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose... yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position... everything in the background is off... So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images...
And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly...
thoughts?
-
54 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
David, my post was a (I guess lame) attempt at being facetious. In that Bronson frame you can't really see JFK, much less Connally, they are just a blur/blob. The TSBD is not in it. So, I don't think it could be used to support, or disprove Specter's Theory.
Some would think that these reactions are related to the actual "1st shot" which involves the turn onto Elm and Position A...
with Hickey and Rosemary reacting to something hitting the street,,,,
Royce Skelton (on top of the triple overpass), December 17, 1963: “Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building.” [FBI report: CD205]
Mrs. Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “She advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile.” [FBI report: CE2090: 24H525]
Mrs. Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile. She advised she heard two other sounds which sounded like shots from a firearm and noticed blood appearing on the side of the President’s head.” [FBI report: CE2090: 24H525]
Austin Miller (on top of the triple overpass), December 18, 1963: “He heard three shots and also noticed a powder dust spray in the street directly to the driver’s side and rear of the car.” [FBI report: CD205]
[signature] George W. Hickey, Jr. Special Agent, U.S.S.S.
Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-679-X on the left side. As IOO-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car.
-
While most who are posted on that site couldn't conclude the sky was blue on a sunny day, this one does have quite a bit based on reailty...
I am of the opinion that this is describing LEE and not Marina's husband based on what I know of H&L...
Point remains, a great number of those involved were indeed homosexual men... yet I feel that only adds a twist to their group's dynamic as opposed to an impetus for their group...
Add to that, the informant is known to have provided good intel in the past and there is no reason to doubt it...
Below that is a report from Garrison's office by Sciambra....this is from the linked text....
Then a 25-year-old insurance trainee in Baton Rouge, Perry Russo, called a local newspaper to say that he knew Ferrie and had heard him talk about how easy it would be to assassinate a president. He also claimed that Ferrie had said “we” will get Kennedy. He did not mention a plot, nor did he mention Oswald or Shaw. Garrison sent one of his attorneys, Andrew Sciambra, to interview Russo and he hit pay dirt. Russo now claimed that Oswald had been Ferrie’s roommate but that he remembered him having a beard. He also thought he had once seen Shaw with Ferrie at a service station.
Perry RussoRusso also remembered seeing Clay Shaw at the Nashville Street Wharf when he went to see JFK speak in May of 1962. Sciambra’s memo notes that Russo “remembers this guy because he was apparently a queer. It seems that instead of looking at JFK speak, SHAW kept turning around and looking at all the young boys in the crowd. He said that SHAW eventually struck up a conversation with a young kid not too far from him. It was perfectly obvious to him that SHAW stared at his penis several times. He said that SHAW eventually left with a friend. He said that SHAW had on dark pants that day which fit very tightly and was the kind of pants that a lot of queers in the French quarter wear.”
This description did not fit Clay Shaw, who was a very conservative dresser and who wasn’t known for hanging out with young boys. He was way too much of a gentleman to act in an inappropriate way in public.
Russo was brought to New Orleans and administered Sodium Pentothal (a so-called truth serum) and questioned by Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the New Orleans coroner, on February 27th. He was questioned by Assistant District Attorney Andrew Sciambra who “asked him if he could remember any of the details about CLAY BERTRAND being up in FERRIE'S apartment.” A few days later, Russo was then put under hypnosis in sessions with Dr. Fatter, a New Orleans family physician. During the interview, Fatter was quite suggestive:
-
On 2/1/2019 at 5:35 PM, Ron Bulman said:
David, given your years of study of certain aspects of the case, do you see any evidence supporting Arlen Specter's single bullet Theory in this Bronson frame?
Was that what you wanted Ron? I figured you might be going somewhere with it...
DJ
-
4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
David, given your years of study of certain aspects of the case, do you see any evidence supporting Arlen Specter's single bullet Theory in this Bronson frame?
No Ron... I don’t. The reason Ford moved the wound was because he wanted it to appear as if the bullet was moving down from back to front. To connect the wound that was there to the front the path RISES from back to front....
There was no connection between the wound described on his back to the gash they claimed was a tracheotomy...
JFK would need to have been bent way over for even the first part of the SBT to work.
The SBT was necessary to account for all the wounds while the FBI’s Shaneyfelt played hide n seek trying to hide all the shots...
-
32 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:
Yes, I have asked if anyone can provide photos of those two people before or after the assassination time frame.
My question to you is how do you know that they can't be provided?
Now I know you're not for real.... move along sir, you've given yourself away...
#9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
#19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. -
1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:
Done those searches years ago, read the topics. You haven't provided anything I haven't seen before.
the thing is - you haven't offered any alternatives....
only criticism for those of us showing you that the films, photos and statements prove it was them to the exclusion of anyone else..Your approach to this question reminds me of something... prove I'm wrong about what you're doing.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum &
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation#9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
#19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. -
12 hours ago, Tony Krome said:
I am yet to see any basis in fact that those two people were actually the "Hesters". The only indications I've seen are circumstantial.
Yeah, really too bad everyone wasn't wearing a name tag for you Tony....
you could try SEARCHING for an answer instead of just declaring you couldn't find anything and there's nothing to be found....
How about these statements from those involved corroborating each other? or is this just circumstantial to you?
John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department. Date Nov 23, 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building.
ALLAN SWEATT, Chief Criminal Deputy, Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Date: Nov 23, 1963
At approximately 12:30 PM, Friday, November 22, 1963, I was standing with a group of Deputy Sheriff's about 30 feat east of the corner of Houston and Main Street on Main Street.
The president's caravan had just passed and about a minute or 2 I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot which sounded to me like a rifle and coming from the vicinity of Elm and Houston street. Several officers and myself from the Sheriff's department ran around the corner and towards Elm Street and Houston and were told that someone had shot at the President. A man by the name of "Hester" told Deputy John Wiseman that the shots had come from the old Sexton building.
20 hours ago, David Josephs said:https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=871&tab=page
These are the FBI reports from the HESTER's... CE1429
You see anywhere the HESTERS themselves were actually interviewed on the 24th or 25th after Charles had already given his affidavit on the 22nd?
-
2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:
David, just as a matter of interest, maybe the Hesters meant that they were on the south side of the original Elm St, which runs just in front of the TSBD. There is/was a grassy slope in between the old Elm St and the new freeway approach Elm St. The fact that they then moved to the north side of the street to the Arcade appears to make sense.
That makes sense Ray....
From Zapruder we see exactly where they were on the pergola to the WEST of the TSBD and yes, just south of Old Elm.
yep... they are directly south of an "Elm" street... and did indeed move north into the Pergola/Arcade
Thanks!
-
And finally, here they are standing up afterward
and where they were when Zapruder tested his camera
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=871&tab=page
These are the FBI reports from the HESTER's... CE1429
You see anywhere the HESTERS themselves were actually interviewed on the 24th or 25th after Charles had already given his affidavit on the 22nd?
-
Getting back to Mr. Butler’s questions related to this image and to show the type of misleading "evidence" he posts
There are problems with this frame based on other photos, films, and witness statements. I’ll start at the top of the scene.
Zapruders: Zapruder and Sitzman are positioned where they are supposed be and doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Stemmons sign: May be a little hard to identify but, it is where it is supposed to be. The Umbrella Man and Latin Man may be out of position based on how you see Zapruder’s filming angle in the Zapruder film.
Hesters: There is a real problem with identifying the Hesters as the people identified as the Hesters in this scene. Jack White, long ago said this couple are the Hesters. He was wrong. According to their testimony they were positioned on the south side of Elm Street and then after the shooting moved to the north side of Elm Street to the Arcade seeking shelter.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXASBefore me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Charles Hester, Address 2616 Keyhole, Irving Age 28 , Phone No. None
Deposes and says:
My wife, Beatrice and I were sitting on the grass on the slope on Elm Street where the park is located.
What Mr. B seems to forget is there is a BIG difference between unsigned FBI accounts which have been shown to be less than reliable in representing what witnesses actually said and SIGNED AFFIDAVITS… the statements which the HESTER’s did not see or sign were created:
By Special Agent DOYLE WILLIAMS and HENRY J. OLIVER Date Dictated 11/25/63
as opposed to the signed affidavit of Nov 22nd of Charles HESTER.Beatrice Hester said in an FBI statement of 11-25-63 said she was standing south side of Elm Street.
“…Mrs. HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw president KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter...”
Charles Hester said much the same as his wife in a FBI statement of 11-25-63 about being on the south side of Elm Street.
“…HESTER stated he saw the President slump in the seat of the car and that he heard two shots fired drom what appeared to be a building located on the corner of Elm Street and Houston Street. He Stated he and his wife were almost in a direct line of the fire and he immediately grabbed his wife and shoved her to the ground. He stated hethereafter immediately escorted his wife across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter... “
If this is true the people identified as Hesters are not the Hesters in this Bronson frame. The situation worsens when you realize there is no one on the south side of Elm to identify as Hesters. This is a sure sign of photo alteration and witness tampering.
Newmans and Chisms: The next problem involves the identification of Bill and Gayle Newman and John and Faye Chism. These two couples should be easy to identify in any photo or film. The Newmans have two children with them and the Chisms have one.
That’s not the case in this Bronson frame. The two couples that are supposedly the Newmans and the Chisms each have only one child. Neither of the two women shown are holding a smaller child who would not be able to walk. The people identified as Chisms has the woman holding a camera and taking a photo. What happened to her camera and film?
Mannequin Row: In the Zapruder film there are 19 people standing between the R L Thornton freeway sign and the Stemmons freeway sign. Most of those 19 people are not shown in this Bronson frame.
Umbrella Man and Latin Man: The problem here may not be a problem depending on how one sees that these two people are shown in the Zapruder film.
In Bronson this pair seems to be behind the Stemmons sign. But, this may simply be camera angle differences.
Presidential Limousine: The limousine is approaching the position where the first shot is about to happen or has already happened to some which is pretty much the official story. This scene nullifies the statement of Bill Newman on 11-22-63 and the Hesters as already discussed.
Bill Newman said on 11-22-63:
“…Today at about 12:45 pm I was standing in a group of people on Elm Street near the west end of the concrete standard when the President's car turned left off Houston Street onto Elm Street…”
Does Mr. B understand that in the BRONSON image, WEST is to the left, North at the top?
And,
“…Then the car sped away and everybody in that area had run upon [sic] top of that little mound. I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb…”
By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. – Bill Newman
These two statements put Bill Newman at the corner of the TSBD where the “concrete standard” is. The “garden” behind Newman is the Pergola or Arcade as called by others.
No sir they do not… If he has said the EAST END… maybe….
Recognizable People: On the south side of Elm Street is a recognizable people such as Mary Moormna, Jean Hill, Toni Foster, the Brehms, and the Babushka Lady.
Unrecognized People: There are 9 people I put question marks on hoping someone can identify who they are.
Other than you, why should we care who these people are; additionally, why don’t you try to ID them yourself?
The overall question is can this Bronson frame be considered real and trustworthy or altered and not trustworthy? Is our interpretation of some the elements correct or not correct?
Yes Mr. B, the Bronson frame does not conflict with what we see in other frames...
In reality, the overall question remains, who do you think you're fooling here?….
-
Thanks guys....
I fully understand that in many cases opinions form the theories on which research and experimentation is performed...
Moderators are not here to dissuade baseless opinions from appearing on these pages...
WE are.
If your opinions cannot stand the light of day - or the simply "how did you get there?",
it's the opinion that needs reconsidering...If you can't even do that...or even let yourself read the work of those who do and can....
why are you here?
-
I WENT THRU THE THREAD AND DID NOT SEE MENTION OF THIS UNDATED REPORT FROM THE RELEASE....
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32423543.pdf
IT'S A VERY DETAILED CHRONOLOGY OF ZRRIFLE, QJWIN AND THE MAFIA'S PLOTS TO KILL CASTRO...
[/url
Backyard Photo Observation
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The key word you have here Ray is APPEAR. The shadows APPEAR TO CONVERGE.... and only because of perspective.
In the real world with real physics and without perspective... parallel lines continue on infinitely the same distance from each other...
Ask yourself a LOGIC question Ray.... with a single source of light - regardless of how big, or how far, the shadows created by that light source will only converge in the direction of the light... Look at my other image....
the light source is in front of the camera... the shadows of the fence CONVERGE due to distance and perspective... If I was to stand to the side of the shadows, they'd all appear straight.
You truly need to understand this illustration to understand perspective...