Oswald Picture Not Faked

Len Colby · November 24, 2009

Martin

I don’t think Craig understood you because after saying “sun height in the sky” was one of “the factors that effect the shape and position of the nose shadow” asked you “Exactly WHAT is 33.6 degrees?” He also told you that you “have a problem”. As for Farid without seeing you exchange there’s no way of knowing if he really understood you or if you falsely assumed he did like you seem to have done with Craig

One of us indeed is quite confused and my apologies if it’s me but I don’t think that’s the case. You told Farid

“The sun should hit Oswald's nose at an angle of 33.6 degrees at that time. If you have the time in march, go to Neely street ond proof it. What we see in the "Backyard photos" are a sharp downward angle of some 48° minimum.”

To simplify things you said the angle should be 33.6 degrees but is “48° minimum” in the photo. I.E. the angle is about 14 degrees too steep. But then you seemed to reverse course telling Craig “Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is” later you told me “Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low”

The problem is your explanation as to how you determined what the sun angle is inadequate. To determine this you need to know three things place, date and TIME. You only mentioned the first two which indicates you think they alone are sufficient. To buttress your claims you posted a screen print of the program you used. Unfortunately you set it to the wrong year but that’s a minor problem as presumably the angles were similar 8 years later. It however indicates the sun angle was 56 degrees nowhere near 48 degrees let alone 33.6. It also gives the time of day; the sun was at 56 degrees at 3:54 PM. If you change the time of day the program will give you different sun angles

So explain two things:

1) Do you think the sun angle should have been 33.6 degrees but is 48 degrees in the photo OR the other way round?

2) How did you determine what the sun angle shouldhave been without knowing the time of day?

Craig Lamson · November 24, 2009

Martin
I don’t think Craig understood you because after saying “sun height in the sky” was one of “the factors that effect the shape and position of the nose shadow” asked you “Exactly WHAT is 33.6 degrees?” He also told you that you “have a problem”. As for Farid without seeing you exchange there’s no way of knowing if he really understood you or if you falsely assumed he did like you seem to have done with Craig

One of us indeed is quite confused and my apologies if it’s me but I don’t think that’s the case. You told Farid

“The sun should hit Oswald's nose at an angle of 33.6 degrees at that time. If you have the time in march, go to Neely street ond proof it. What we see in the "Backyard photos" are a sharp downward angle of some 48° minimum.”

To simplify things you said the angle should be 33.6 degrees but is “48° minimum” in the photo. I.E. the angle is about 14 degrees too steep. But then you seemed to reverse course telling Craig “Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is” later you told me “Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low”

The problem is your explanation as to how you determined what the sun angle is inadequate. To determine this you need to know three things place, date and TIME. You only mentioned the first two which indicates you think they alone are sufficient. To buttress your claims you posted a screen print of the program you used. Unfortunately you set it to the wrong year but that’s a minor problem as presumably the angles were similar 8 years later. It however indicates the sun angle was 56 degrees nowhere near 48 degrees let alone 33.6. It also gives the time of day; the sun was at 56 degrees at 3:54 PM. If you change the time of day the program will give you different sun angles

So explain two things:

1) Do you think the sun angle should have been 33.6 degrees but is 48 degrees in the photo OR the other way round?

2) How did you determine what the sun angle shouldhave been without knowing the time of day?

Len, the sun angle at 4:00pm was 33.6 degrees, and my question was rather misleading. What time was the phtoo taken? Martins study is based on the 4pm sun angle and in his model...with his chosen head positions he claim it takes 48 degrees of sun angle to produce the nose shadow. FArid had the same problem until he figured out that tilting the head downward lengthende the shadowffrom the nose. Thats where Martin is now, trying to figure out how to recover.

Now its worth stating that no one really knows for sure the exact time the photos were taken, and thats what my poorly worded question was asking.

If you check this website you can find the position of the sun over the course of the day.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

So what happens if the photo was taken at say 2:00pm? The sun was at 54.7 degrees. 2:30pm? 50.2 degrees 3:00pm? 45 degrees How about 3:30pm...39 degrees.

Martin is guessig at the correct time and then plugging in the angle, He is also guessing at the body and head position. The reality is thats the best that is possible since he can't get much of that data from a 2d photo.

In the end Farid has done it correctly. He looked for a combination of sun, camera and body positons to see if itwas possible to create the shadow patterns seen in the backyard photos. He found that is is possible.

Martins complaint was that Farid moved stuff around until he found a fit. Martin thinks he can model the scene perfectly. He can't. He needs to "move stuff around" just like Farid.

It will be interesting to see where Martin goes from here.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

Len Colby · November 24, 2009

Martin is guessig at the correct time and then plugging in the angle,

The thing is his posts give the impression he is unaware the angle changes over the course of the day as he made no reference to the time. In any case angle in his graphic was different.

Thanks for the link note I posted one that gave similar info in another post. Both should be helpful for Martin he can plug in the correct decade for starters!

EDIT -Typos fixed

Edited November 24, 2009 by Len Colby

Len Colby · November 28, 2009

Martin your claims have been shown to be faulty. You should either defend them or retract them.

Martin Hinrichs · November 28, 2009

Martin your claims have been shown to be faulty. You should either defend them or retract them.

Len, i don't what you do the whole day. But i'am working. And this the some 18 hours each day these weeks.

When i have the time (and i take all i need) i show the forum members (not in particular you) that i'am absolutely correct.

Christian Frantz Toussay · November 28, 2009

Just a question. Has anyone here read A Deeper, Darker Truth yet? It covers the work of Tom Wilson and was written by Donald T. Phillips. Amazon has it for $25.15 (free shipping).
Adele

It is being discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14895

This new DISINFORMATION is a DIRECT response to the new book on Wilson's work....and I have word more will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Jack White, and others, long ago proved the photos fakes....and the constant finding over time of new versions [as well as how and where the 'first' and 'only' originals were found] strengthens that. More versions 'out there'. Can't say more. Only the blind or cognitively impaired believe those photos were taken by Marina, and not composite fakes.

Peter, I tried to send this to you as a personnal msg, but yr box is full, so I am posting it here....

For the other posters here, what I am trying to say is that is possible to duplicate, and maybe enhance Wilson's work: I have done it and can send what I found to anyone interested.....

Peter,

tks for yr reply. I only found it today because my PC crashed just afer I sent you this msg. I lost my hard disk but no prblm since I have a back up file (I learned to do this after losing all files after contacting Jack white a few years ago...)

I have contacted you because I precisely want to share this methodology: as explained, I am a 54 year old man, and not very computer friendly: I bought my first PC in 98', and only have a basic, need-to-know approach of computers.

I have also no knowledge or expertise in optics or photography.

The methodology is arch simple, and can be used by anyone above the age of 8. No hard math or sohisticated computer needed.

As I explained, I first designed the process as a thought experiment on how to enhance data processing in market or social studies.

Basically, I was looking for a way to retrieve what we call "weak signals", ie information present within the studied data, but so weak as to make them invisible or seemingly unimportant.

Of course, a photograph is also only a finite set of information (just as a market study or a behavorial research), so I reasoned that, theorically, the method could be applied to photographs and film with valid results.

That's just what I did, and in the beginning it was only for me a way to ease off after a hard day, or to tackle the assassination from a new angle, since my interest in the case is mainly historical and sociological (I believed at the time that the logistics of the hit were just very secondary to the overall understanding of the case).

You cannot imagine what I went thru when I got the firt meaningful results, circa 2000: I first looked for reasonable explanations (but could find none...), I tried to convince myself that I could not possibly have suceeded where reknown experts using state of the arts technology had failed.: I took my first discovery (the DalTex shooter) and re started from scratch (the original Altgens) and got exactly the same results, only better....

Now I have studied most of the assassination pictures and each of my discovery, even when apparently "incredible" (like for instance the uniformed shooter in the Sniper's Nest) withstand scrutinity and analysis.

I am of course OK to send you any material you might need to evaluate my work: my objective when I initially tried to alert serious researchers to what I had found was to get them to duplicate my results. It turns out that either I am not a good "seller" or that the JFK reaserch community is like any scientific community, much unwilling to accept brutal paradigm shifts....Probably a mix of both...

If that's OK, give me an e-mail adress where I can sent u processed images. I can of course send you a CD or DVD: since the process is iterative, a simple diaporama will show you how the image slowly appears, step after step.

This is how the process works:

1) I theorized that what you can extract as information from any support (including pictures) is only limited by your capability to extract it

(that is basically Wilson's claim: with superior technology, he was able to "see" things unvisible to others, or so he claimed)

2) from this, I theorized that ANY "reading" (interpretation) of the data (with the exception of special effects readings) was legit and valid, and would contain valuable information that might be invisible in the original "reading" of the data (for instance, the original Altgens)

3) I then theorized that if it was possible to read / view all the different, pertinent "readings" of the original data AT THE SAME TIME, you should theorically obtain a richer, more complete reading of the information being studied.

4) the main argument against this method was that each "reading" (or duplicate version) of the photograph was likely to contain "noise", ie artefacts unrelated to objective data.

But I reasoned that statistically the odds of a meaningless artefact (ie, a black pixel on a white surface) showing twice at the exact same place in two different "readings" of the original picture was abysmal, and could in fact also be countered by regularly re-injecting the original picture into the loop.

So what I came up with, basically, is a process akin to an almost infinite refining method, where you create a loop which is "fed" with an infinite nbr of variations of the original version of the original picture, that can all be seen simultaneously. Imagine, for instance, a club sandwich made of sevral hundreds (or thousands, in some cases) duplicate versions of a picture, laid out on transparencies, that you can examine AS ONE SINGLE IMAGE.

Each of these duplicate is a valid reading of the data in its own right, even though it may only be partial. The accumulation of so much valid information should enable the researcher to extract more "truth" from the original document.

In simple words:

1) take the best picture you have

2) create duplicates using the normal, basic setting of yr photo software (I work with ArcSoft, and use Kneson for enlargements), not the special effects that might distort the original data

3) use these duplicates as transparencies to be placed over the original picture, thus creating a new duplicate each time, duplicate that can also be put into the loop, and so on ad infinitum.....

The end result is an extraordinary refining of the data studied, which goes way beyond what should be normally expected of a classic photo enhancement: see for instance the Hughes frame showing the DPD shooter in the Sniper's Nest, compared to the original Hughes frame I worked with. Or note, for instance, that colors seem to appear even in B&W pictures (I will send you a picture of the Fence shooter accomplice)

Although I hate to say this, it is possible that what I have found may pertain to some unknown or up to now neglected property of the photographic medium, akin to holography (as you know, holograms use a totally different way to store information than classic photographs: if you break a hologram in 2 pieces, what you get is 2 smaller holograms, not a single hologram broken in two...)

I of course tried to find out whether my methodology was something totally new or not: I found out that something similar (though not identical) is used by NASA contractors to enhance space probes images, though they work with negatives only ( I regularly work with negative also, being a valid "reading" in my book...).

From what I read, NASA scientists say this method is used to "see" through the ground and extract information invisible to the naked eye.

Sounds a lot like Wilson's claim to me, don't you think?

Hope I have not been too long, but I think this is important.

If you think it would be necessary for us to meet, it can be arranged.

If you'd like to examine my material, I can send you some of my results, either by mail, or a complete study on DVD.

As I stated, my objective is having serious rearchers evaluate my results, and most importantly duplicate them for themselves.

You asked specifically about the Moorman picture: I got my results using the process described above.

I worked with 2 versions of the Moorman: the 4 Day in November version, which is where I found the shhoter and his accomplice (and also a striking image of BDM behind the retaining wall) and the Relman Morin version (from a rather obscure book) a version which I used to work on the rear headwound, with spectacular results.

this post is quite long, so I'll let it at that, and I wil send you some more pictures in another one

Tks again for yr reply

Dean Hagerman · November 28, 2009

Just a question. Has anyone here read A Deeper, Darker Truth yet? It covers the work of Tom Wilson and was written by Donald T. Phillips. Amazon has it for $25.15 (free shipping).
Adele

It is being discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14895

This new DISINFORMATION is a DIRECT response to the new book on Wilson's work....and I have word more will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Jack White, and others, long ago proved the photos fakes....and the constant finding over time of new versions [as well as how and where the 'first' and 'only' originals were found] strengthens that. More versions 'out there'. Can't say more. Only the blind or cognitively impaired believe those photos were taken by Marina, and not composite fakes.

Peter, I tried to send this to you as a personnal msg, but yr box is full, so I am posting it here....

For the other posters here, what I am trying to say is that is possible to duplicate, and maybe enhance Wilson's work: I have done it and can send what I found to anyone interested.....

Peter,

tks for yr reply. I only found it today because my PC crashed just afer I sent you this msg. I lost my hard disk but no prblm since I have a back up file (I learned to do this after losing all files after contacting Jack white a few years ago...)

I have contacted you because I precisely want to share this methodology: as explained, I am a 54 year old man, and not very computer friendly: I bought my first PC in 98', and only have a basic, need-to-know approach of computers.

I have also no knowledge or expertise in optics or photography.

The methodology is arch simple, and can be used by anyone above the age of 8. No hard math or sohisticated computer needed.

As I explained, I first designed the process as a thought experiment on how to enhance data processing in market or social studies.

Basically, I was looking for a way to retrieve what we call "weak signals", ie information present within the studied data, but so weak as to make them invisible or seemingly unimportant.

Of course, a photograph is also only a finite set of information (just as a market study or a behavorial research), so I reasoned that, theorically, the method could be applied to photographs and film with valid results.

That's just what I did, and in the beginning it was only for me a way to ease off after a hard day, or to tackle the assassination from a new angle, since my interest in the case is mainly historical and sociological (I believed at the time that the logistics of the hit were just very secondary to the overall understanding of the case).

You cannot imagine what I went thru when I got the firt meaningful results, circa 2000: I first looked for reasonable explanations (but could find none...), I tried to convince myself that I could not possibly have suceeded where reknown experts using state of the arts technology had failed.: I took my first discovery (the DalTex shooter) and re started from scratch (the original Altgens) and got exactly the same results, only better....

Now I have studied most of the assassination pictures and each of my discovery, even when apparently "incredible" (like for instance the uniformed shooter in the Sniper's Nest) withstand scrutinity and analysis.

I am of course OK to send you any material you might need to evaluate my work: my objective when I initially tried to alert serious researchers to what I had found was to get them to duplicate my results. It turns out that either I am not a good "seller" or that the JFK reaserch community is like any scientific community, much unwilling to accept brutal paradigm shifts....Probably a mix of both...

If that's OK, give me an e-mail adress where I can sent u processed images. I can of course send you a CD or DVD: since the process is iterative, a simple diaporama will show you how the image slowly appears, step after step.

This is how the process works:

1) I theorized that what you can extract as information from any support (including pictures) is only limited by your capability to extract it

(that is basically Wilson's claim: with superior technology, he was able to "see" things unvisible to others, or so he claimed)

2) from this, I theorized that ANY "reading" (interpretation) of the data (with the exception of special effects readings) was legit and valid, and would contain valuable information that might be invisible in the original "reading" of the data (for instance, the original Altgens)

3) I then theorized that if it was possible to read / view all the different, pertinent "readings" of the original data AT THE SAME TIME, you should theorically obtain a richer, more complete reading of the information being studied.

4) the main argument against this method was that each "reading" (or duplicate version) of the photograph was likely to contain "noise", ie artefacts unrelated to objective data.

But I reasoned that statistically the odds of a meaningless artefact (ie, a black pixel on a white surface) showing twice at the exact same place in two different "readings" of the original picture was abysmal, and could in fact also be countered by regularly re-injecting the original picture into the loop.

So what I came up with, basically, is a process akin to an almost infinite refining method, where you create a loop which is "fed" with an infinite nbr of variations of the original version of the original picture, that can all be seen simultaneously. Imagine, for instance, a club sandwich made of sevral hundreds (or thousands, in some cases) duplicate versions of a picture, laid out on transparencies, that you can examine AS ONE SINGLE IMAGE.

Each of these duplicate is a valid reading of the data in its own right, even though it may only be partial. The accumulation of so much valid information should enable the researcher to extract more "truth" from the original document.

In simple words:

1) take the best picture you have

2) create duplicates using the normal, basic setting of yr photo software (I work with ArcSoft, and use Kneson for enlargements), not the special effects that might distort the original data

3) use these duplicates as transparencies to be placed over the original picture, thus creating a new duplicate each time, duplicate that can also be put into the loop, and so on ad infinitum.....

The end result is an extraordinary refining of the data studied, which goes way beyond what should be normally expected of a classic photo enhancement: see for instance the Hughes frame showing the DPD shooter in the Sniper's Nest, compared to the original Hughes frame I worked with. Or note, for instance, that colors seem to appear even in B&W pictures (I will send you a picture of the Fence shooter accomplice)

Although I hate to say this, it is possible that what I have found may pertain to some unknown or up to now neglected property of the photographic medium, akin to holography (as you know, holograms use a totally different way to store information than classic photographs: if you break a hologram in 2 pieces, what you get is 2 smaller holograms, not a single hologram broken in two...)

I of course tried to find out whether my methodology was something totally new or not: I found out that something similar (though not identical) is used by NASA contractors to enhance space probes images, though they work with negatives only ( I regularly work with negative also, being a valid "reading" in my book...).

From what I read, NASA scientists say this method is used to "see" through the ground and extract information invisible to the naked eye.

Sounds a lot like Wilson's claim to me, don't you think?

Hope I have not been too long, but I think this is important.

If you think it would be necessary for us to meet, it can be arranged.

If you'd like to examine my material, I can send you some of my results, either by mail, or a complete study on DVD.

As I stated, my objective is having serious rearchers evaluate my results, and most importantly duplicate them for themselves.

You asked specifically about the Moorman picture: I got my results using the process described above.

I worked with 2 versions of the Moorman: the 4 Day in November version, which is where I found the shhoter and his accomplice (and also a striking image of BDM behind the retaining wall) and the Relman Morin version (from a rather obscure book) a version which I used to work on the rear headwound, with spectacular results.

this post is quite long, so I'll let it at that, and I wil send you some more pictures in another one

Tks again for yr reply

Frantz

Please post some of the pictures of your work on the forum for all of us to see

Thanks

Dean

Craig Lamson · November 28, 2009

Martin your claims have been shown to be faulty. You should either defend them or retract them.

Len, i don't what you do the whole day. But i'am working. And this the some 18 hours each day these weeks.

When i have the time (and i take all i need) i show the forum members (not in particular you) that i'am absolutely correct.

So, you had a conversation with Farid, what did he do wrong, in your opinion?

Christian Frantz Toussay · November 28, 2009