Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he. By Jerry Mazza

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson is some thirty years behind me. I did this study in the 70s. While his study is basically accurate

its conclusions are misleading.

My findings doing the same but more comprehensive studies showed that ONLY PHOTOS TAKEN FROM

AN EXTREMELY CLOSE POINT OF VIEW WERE AFFECTED. As the camera is moved to normal viewing

distances and beyond, measurement differences decreased so that at distances over normal (about

10 feet and beyond) the differences were inconsequential. I found that this mattered significantly only

in the case of the photo the DPD took of the MC rifle, propped up on a desktop and photographed

with a wide angle lens from about 6 feet away. This introduced unnatural perspective into the rifle,

making each end appear shorter than the middle. So Lamson is correct, but he implies that this

discredits all of my studies. Nonsense.

With this post of Jacks in mind, I found myself viewing a trailer ladder while on a shoot at a clients factory. I wanted to shoot something outdoors to test White's claim but it is cold and snowy outside now. Seeing I had a perfectly good subject, with basic lighting in place...where it was warm and dry...I went ahead and shot the test photos.

The results quickly put Whites claim to rest.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Don Jeffries

[Chris Davidson]

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

No need Jack, I knew the answer. I just wanted you to put in print. Given the utter failure of your work, I can understand your reluctance.

Now let me show you a little Photo 101. Pay attention, then study the photo that is attached, and then we can all see why your work on the backyard photos fail...and why you got creamed in Washington.

You simply don't have the first clue about any of this.

Craig,

Can you supply the full photo of the top and bottom originals in your comparison?

Was the same ruler used, I noticed a difference in the top photo.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Yes Chris, its the same ruler.

Why don't you just do the test yourself instead of trying in vain to find fakery.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Blair Dobson]

these arguments are always annoying to wade through for a number of reasons, the biggest being the sheer stupidity of the methods being used to refute one theory over another.

lets try this:

-provide me with the best quality pictures/scans/reproductions of the backyard photos that exist within your collections, Jack , Craig, whomever, (uncropped if possible) and the variants.

-provide me with the lens information on the camera that took the backyard pictures.

Lamson, since you seem to be knowledgeable about this subject enough, i'll let you provide these.

i also require the distance from the gate to the film plane.

-provide me with the two shots of the rifle. it is my experience that two different Manlichers were brought into evidence so lets work with both. i then need to have the info on the camera/cameras that took both of those photos with gate and film plane information as well.

-provide me with a flat scan of one of the issues Oswald is holding.

here is the methodology to use in the 21st century:

by bringing the BYP's into a 3d program and applying the lens ratio and formula, i then work from roughly the same distortion that hits the backplate from the gate give or take a few millimeters.

because the difference in inches/centimeters is crucial here, a few millimeters is negligible.

then what i would do is apply that to the magazine he is holding and the rife.

i would then compare all of the extant photos against themselves, then i would add the rifle and the magazines.

because Oswalds height is also disputed, i would use both measurements.

by accounting for the lens distortion, you "rule" out the entire argument posed by your" look at this photo of the ruler" example, which is a straw dog.

the first four inches will not match the last four inches due to lens distortion, but can be made to after lens distortion is accounted for. photoshop can do this rather crudely as well. i wouldn't stand photoshop up in court but a 3d program i would because of its mathematical precision.

if you can provide this information and materials, i will settle this. if you cannot, i suggest you start looking and keep quiet until you can, because the arguments provided in this thread in regards to the BYP's are erroneous at best with Jack's work standing at the front as the most plausible.

the "ruler in segments" argument is problematic, erroneous and flawed simply by virtue of the fact that it omits the very axis/lens distortion information it would need to refute the other argument, which also has missing axis/lens distortion information.

get me this info, i will settle this once and for all. if you cannot provide this information, than you should all refrain from posting "expert" opinions on subjects you can't properly research.

also, Mr Lamson, if you want to be taken seriously, try to correct your spelling mistakes after hamfisting your keyboard in hasty response, otherwise you look semi literate and a much like a person who is not to be taken seriously.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Blair Dobson

[Chris Davidson]

Yes Chris, its the same ruler.

Why don't you just do the test yourself instead of trying in vain to find fakery.

Craig,

I wasn't inferring any type of fakery. It was just an observation about the difference in the two photos.

Here's what you get if you reverse the comparison and reduce the size of the larger scale to fit the smaller.

That's a reduction to 35.9%.

I think Blair is on the right track.

chris

[Blair Dobson]

nice work chris.

another thing i might mention is that with the basic height information, i can also project with almost perfect accuracy the angle at which the "Oswald" is standing.

if i wanted to go further, i can also tell you by reverse ray tracing the light in the fence tell you which shadows may be painted in and which match and don't match.

the simple fact the the heads in both shots are 99% identical tells me they are fake.

the fact that of all the things Oswald may or may not have said that day, he said the BYP's were fakes also stands out in my mind.

but i will be reasonable and accept that, for discussion and research sake that they may NOT be fakes...

from that point i will look at the data and we will see.

rather than get on here and blast Jack, i would rather do research, show MY work and possibly admit i was wrong or right and not just bandy others work as gospel and throw garbage like pictures of rulers around as evidence of any kind and then use that as fuel to demean someone.

(also, comparing a moon shot and and Oswald shot is like comparing a bag of cornmeal to a bag of bolts..they may both be bags and they may both have something in them but the similarities not only end there, they end in all technical aspects as well..really weak stuff...)

the simple photoshop job Chris put up shows the "ruler rule" is as i have stated before to be total unscientific bunk...

feel free to post up those rv ladder pics without all the lines as i can blast that idiotic assertion to hell as well.

if you would like to discuss the logarithmic properties of focal lengths, depth of field and lens distortion in regards to the BYP's and what is essentially a stereoscopic reconstruction exercise in regards to these photos ; how to pull them from a 2D space into a measurable 3d space and back with spatial data , i would love to see what you have to say....my guess from most of the prattling twaddle here is nothing...

i have only seen Jacks work and without aid of computers again, this is pretty close to what i already believe.

so, i will check in in a few days and see what materials have arrived to either prove or disprove the validity of the BYP's as being fakes or not.

again, i will assume that the inability to provide such materials means we won't have to wade through more of this infantile and unscientific minutiae from people unfit to comment because they neither grasp the concepts they are arguing nor are they able to scientifically back up these nutty claims with research and common sense.

in short, proof ...

see you in a few days...

Edited February 28, 2010 by Blair Dobson

[Craig Lamson]

"get me this info" - "provide me with" -"provide me with".... "get me this info, i will settle this once and for all"

" i would rather do research, show MY work and possibly admit i was wrong or right and not just bandy others work as gospel and throw garbage like pictures of rulers around as evidence of any kind and then use that as fuel to demean someone."

Wow Dobson, Anything else we can "provide" for you? But hey, instead of flapping your gums, why not actually do that research you seem proud and willing to do? Mihgt be a nice ghange on your part. Your record here is pretty barren in regards to actually doing anything.

And of course in you missed the basic point. You simply can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize then, either in part or in total, and expect the results to have any validity. The shots of the rulers and the ladder are simple graphic demonstrations of WHAT HAPPENS when you do it.

I'm sorry if that simple concept escapes you.

White (and many other) make LOTS of claims based on this flawed methodology. You have a problem in pointing out flawed methodology?

Dobson sez:

"feel free to post up those rv ladder pics without all the lines as i can blast that idiotic assertion to hell as well."

That will be a neat trick considering you have not "blasted" anything up to this point....

But again I await your detailed computer analysis of the background photos and the rifle. Let us know when you have something. Until then you might want to refrain from making "expert" pronouncements until you have actually produced some WORK. Just a friendly suggestion mind you.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I wasn't inferring any type of fakery. It was just an observation about the difference in the two photos.

Here's what you get if you reverse the comparison and reduce the size of the larger scale to fit the smaller.

That's a reduction to 35.9%.

I think Blair is on the right track.

chris

Thanks for proving my point once again. You can resize them any way you want, by section or in total and they will not match...thats the entire point.

It's a USELESS method to check the size of objects between different photos and any claims based on such work is invalid. The amount the sizing change will vary will based on many factors, but it will change regardless. It's called perspective....

As for Dobson, more power to him if he wants to do the work he suggests.

However his post and his thoughts do not change the concept that this little graphic demonstration presents, and nothing he said has refuted it...

Edited February 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Blair Dobson]

Craig,

I wasn't inferring any type of fakery. It was just an observation about the difference in the two photos.

Here's what you get if you reverse the comparison and reduce the size of the larger scale to fit the smaller.

That's a reduction to 35.9%.

I think Blair is on the right track.

chris

Thanks for proving my point once again. You can resize them any way you want, by section or in total and they will not match...thats the entire point.

It's a USELESS method to check the size of objects between different photos and any claims based on such work is invalid. The amount the sizing change will vary will based on many factors, but it will change regardless. It's called perspective....

As for Dobson, more power to him if he wants to do the work he suggests.

However his post and his thoughts do not change the concept that this little graphic demonstration presents, and nothing he said has refuted it...

ok...here we go Lamson;

first off, your assertion is wrong. they will match, do match and can match.. your entire methodology is flawed and any 15 year old kid who got an A in geometry will tell you why...no one proved your point....there is no point to prove because you haven't added in any variables.

"this distorted 2 dimensional photograph of a ruler shows that it is a distorted 2 dimensional photo! CASE CLOSED!!"

thanks Newton....

post your photos up without the inane red lines, i will match them perfectly in 3D space.

in fact, over the next few days i might even whip up a tutorial of my own...

i suggest you brush up on your Euclidean geometry and geometry in general. then i suggest you read a few books on perspective in art as well...

your vague rebut is priceless and shows you to be intellectually and educationally unfit to post in threads about photography.

if what you are suggesting were true, not only would the entire science of biometrics be useless, geometry, surveying, architecture and most forms of construction would be out the window. we would indeed be living in flat huts on flat planes.

we would also be unable to find them because all of our maps would be wrong as well..lost in flat huts on a flat earth...

let me post some fact here for you.

by comparing two photographs and agreeing on "discernible constants", you can INDEED draw a a number of conclusions that are reproducible mathematically in both 2D space and 3d space.

also, by factoring in the variables (what you uselessly call and fail to describe in any detail as "many factors") such as lens dimension and camera specs (to be brief) one can then start to map similarities.

lets leave out for now that you lack the understanding to mention, qualify or posit any coordinates outside of 2D space in your argument about RULERS here...

if i were to take a single picket from the fence in both the BYP fotos, map them both MATHEMATICALLY AND GEOMETRICALLY, i could then take both photos and line them up congruently and thus show the differences between them.

this isn't open to your interpretation, this is math. a number of medical and architectural software companies rely on this daily..otherwise, people would die and buildings would collapse...

here is the methodology..

-take the backgrounds of the extant BYP's..all of them...map them into 3d SPACE. (this is simply done by picking a picket from the fence, one of the beams on the staircase and a few of the stair planks..)

these objects i have specified i might add, have a pretty high degree of being accurately measurable in 2D space because they follow a few certain rules...2x4's, 2x12's (the stairs for example) are all pretty standard. by this i mean the lumber.

the staircase alone sets a good example for distances, heights and constant geometry within the pictures. computing the distance to the fence from the post then becomes quite simple, thus the height and depth of the backgrounds become constants that can be compared throughout the various shots..MATHEMATICALLY...

from there, it gives you all the measurements needed withing the space..the ground, the fence, the wall of the house, the wall of the house in the background..

this will then allow one to measure not only Oswald, but the rifle, the magazine, the hem of his trousers....

USING MATH...

and of course...using three dimensions WHICH YOUR INANE AND IDIOTIC RULER ARGUMENT DOES NOT USE...

again, all of this would then prove in 3D space that these photographs are fakes or not.

but please, feel free to rebut what i have just posted...

your ruler argument again, because it is erroneous and intellectually irresponsible, proves nothing.

use your methodology to provide a better example.

and i mean YOUR methodology, not a cut and paste from someone else post.

show YOUR work.

also, it would be nice if someone would post some decent quality snaps of the BYP's here so i can whip up an example....Lamson obviously can't provide any measurements, HQ photos or anything other than a ruler photo and a picture of someones RV...

Lamson, you need to either brush up or shut it.

please stop talking nonsense.

my next trip here will be to obliterate your ruler position entirely..

post the materials people, i will map them up and show you the results...

[Blair Dobson]

"get me this info" - "provide me with" -"provide me with".... "get me this info, i will settle this once and for all"

" i would rather do research, show MY work and possibly admit i was wrong or right and not just bandy others work as gospel and throw garbage like pictures of rulers around as evidence of any kind and then use that as fuel to demean someone."

Wow Dobson, Anything else we can "provide" for you? But hey, instead of flapping your gums, why not actually do that research you seem proud and willing to do? Mihgt be a nice ghange on your part. Your record here is pretty barren in regards to actually doing anything.

And of course in you missed the basic point. You simply can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize then, either in part or in total, and expect the results to have any validity. The shots of the rulers and the ladder are simple graphic demonstrations of WHAT HAPPENS when you do it.

I'm sorry if that simple concept escapes you.

White (and many other) make LOTS of claims based on this flawed methodology. You have a problem in pointing out flawed methodology?

Dobson sez:

"feel free to post up those rv ladder pics without all the lines as i can blast that idiotic assertion to hell as well."

That will be a neat trick considering you have not "blasted" anything up to this point....

But again I await your detailed computer analysis of the background photos and the rifle. Let us know when you have something. Until then you might want to refrain from making "expert" pronouncements until you have actually produced some WORK. Just a friendly suggestion mind you.

"And of course in you missed the basic point. You simply can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize then, either in part or in total, and expect the results to have any validity. The shots of the rulers and the ladder are simple graphic demonstrations of WHAT HAPPENS when you do it."

no. again you fail. this is what happens when someone who has no idea what they are talking about uses a straw dog to explain something.

you are patently wrong. i have explained why. this is done all the time by police departments, the FBI, forensic investigators, legal firms, architectural firms, motion picture and special effects companies...

BECAUSE two photographs of the same subject have a number of things in common that are measurable and as such, the incongruities become demonstrable to enough of a degree that you can not only match them, you can tell the spherical details of both the lenses.

it works backwards and forwards which is why it is reliable. as long as there is enough data in one place, it can be extruded in another. the variables can be accounted for, qualified and quantified as constants of similarity or difference and then you get your sum total.

but you don't seem to understand using a logical methodology, so this will fall on deaf ears...

because something doesn't exist in your scope of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is invalid... you prove the very scope of your intellect with every post.

again, rather then get your apron in a knot, show your work on the photos and provide those materials.

"provide me, get me" etc etc.. nice.

so you are too busy photographing RV's to post a pic..ok..the idea was more to see what material you were working from.

in a real world scenario where people work on something (a double blind or a contrast and compare scenario) usually work from the same set of materials... this provides constants and precludes the kind of bickering that is rampant on these boards...the point of asking for these materials is to rule out the usual bickering over minutiae... "i have a drum scan..i have so and so's such and such and they are wrong"

this is a fine example of you being diffuse and not being able to "put up".

what i have posted or not posted here on this board has nothing to do whatsoever with what i am asserting here..it has no bearing whatsoever. the fact that you would go down that kind of road again shows you to be not very bright i am afraid.

"i have more posts on the board" or "i have more jam jars in my cupboard!" mmm you sure showed me...

but you keep on with your childish diffusion here..

you apparently don't like to be outted for not being very bright in this subject.

i also like how you suddenly start to mention perspective in this argument.... interesting...

but lamson, please show another alternative theory that supports your great work and contribution to the board here...specifically in regards to this subject.

what materials are you working from?

what equipment are you using?

what is your background in photography?

where did you acquire this material from?

what make is your ruler?

post the answers to those questions up for me there Lamson..show me what you have...

it's my guess you have nothing....

i await your next post, it's typos, it's diffusion and it's lack of background...

you are doing a poor job at defending your theory here. in fact, in two posts you fail miserably...and then you get all cryaby and petty..

is your next argument that i don't have enough posts on the board?

[Craig Lamson]

"get me this info" - "provide me with" -"provide me with".... "get me this info, i will settle this once and for all"

" i would rather do research, show MY work and possibly admit i was wrong or right and not just bandy others work as gospel and throw garbage like pictures of rulers around as evidence of any kind and then use that as fuel to demean someone."

Wow Dobson, Anything else we can "provide" for you? But hey, instead of flapping your gums, why not actually do that research you seem proud and willing to do? Mihgt be a nice ghange on your part. Your record here is pretty barren in regards to actually doing anything.

And of course in you missed the basic point. You simply can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize then, either in part or in total, and expect the results to have any validity. The shots of the rulers and the ladder are simple graphic demonstrations of WHAT HAPPENS when you do it.

I'm sorry if that simple concept escapes you.

White (and many other) make LOTS of claims based on this flawed methodology. You have a problem in pointing out flawed methodology?

Dobson sez:

"feel free to post up those rv ladder pics without all the lines as i can blast that idiotic assertion to hell as well."

That will be a neat trick considering you have not "blasted" anything up to this point....

But again I await your detailed computer analysis of the background photos and the rifle. Let us know when you have something. Until then you might want to refrain from making "expert" pronouncements until you have actually produced some WORK. Just a friendly suggestion mind you.

"And of course in you missed the basic point. You simply can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize then, either in part or in total, and expect the results to have any validity. The shots of the rulers and the ladder are simple graphic demonstrations of WHAT HAPPENS when you do it."

no. again you fail. this is what happens when someone who has no idea what they are talking about uses a straw dog to explain something.

you are patently wrong. i have explained why. this is done all the time by police departments, the FBI, forensic investigators, legal firms, architectural firms, motion picture and special effects companies...

BECAUSE two photographs of the same subject have a number of things in common that are measurable and as such, the incongruities become demonstrable to enough of a degree that you can not only match them, you can tell the spherical details of both the lenses.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT, once again in case you missed it. IN THIS case Jack and others simply resized photos and made claims. Quite stupid really, and my tests, SHOW HOW THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY WHITE AND OTHERS fails. So sorry dobson, you FAIL once again. They failed perspective 101. And you in your haste to look smart, failed perception 101.

it works backwards and forwards which is why it is reliable. as long as there is enough data in one place, it can be extruded in another. the variables can be accounted for, qualified and quantified as constants of similarity or difference and then you get your sum total.

but you don't seem to understand using a logical methodology, so this will fall on deaf ears...

No, you don't seem to understand the point of the exercise.

because something doesn't exist in your scope of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is invalid... you prove the very scope of your intellect with every post.

And we can see once again this has blown completely over your head.

again, rather then get your apron in a knot, show your work on the photos and provide those materials.

Geeze, why don't YOU provide something other than your inability to understand the topic at hand. Your posting history makes it quite clear you don't have that which you request from others. Step up the the plate Dobson or are you just all hot air? I don't really care a whit about the subject of the rifle, other than to show the methodology used by White was flawed. And you have said the very same thing. I just don't think you knew you did that. As for the backyard photos there is material here in this thread and elsewhere to backk my positons on hte subject of the BYP's. Feel free to peruse it.

"provide me, get me" etc etc.. nice.

so you are too busy photographing RV's to post a pic..ok..the idea was more to see what material you were working from.

No, I'm just not your gopher. You what something, get it yourself.

in a real world scenario where people work on something (a double blind or a contrast and compare scenario) usually work from the same set of materials... this provides constants and precludes the kind of bickering that is rampant on these boards...the point of asking for these materials is to rule out the usual bickering over minutiae... "i have a drum scan..i have so and so's such and such and they are wrong"

this is a fine example of you being diffuse and not being able to "put up".

No, its a simple example of you missing the entire point in the first place in your rush to look "expert".

what i have posted or not posted here on this board has nothing to do whatsoever with what i am asserting here..it has no bearing whatsoever. the fact that you would go down that kind of road again shows you to be not very bright i am afraid.

"i have more posts on the board" or "i have more jam jars in my cupboard!" mmm you sure showed me...

No, I simply pointed out the obvious, and available to anyone who can search, that you are nothing but hot air, all bs and no action.

but you keep on with your childish diffusion here..

you apparently don't like to be outted for not being very bright in this subject.

i also like how you suddenly start to mention perspective in this argument.... interesting...

Your are so right, Blair Dobson can't understand the basic concept at play here and yet he claims to have "outed" someone. Simply amazing. BTW, is perspective beyond your understanding too?

but lamson, please show another alternative theory that supports your great work and contribution to the board here...specifically in regards to this subject.

But Dobson, why not show us, in detail WHY the work I posted is wrong in the first place. Of course that means you need to understand it in the first place. Oh btw, your handwaving will no longer cut it. We will need actual work FROM you as well. Have at it dobson.

what materials are you working from?

You have then.

what equipment are you using?

A Canon camera.

what is your background in photography?

I've done a litttle

My little bit of photography experience

where did you acquire this material from?

I made it

what make is your ruler?

its just a standard Lufkin metal yardstick

post the answers to those questions up for me there Lamson..show me what you have...

There you go.

it's my guess you have nothing....

i await your next post, it's typos, it's diffusion and it's lack of background...

you are doing a poor job at defending your theory here. in fact, in two posts you fail miserably...and then you get all cryaby and petty..

is your next argument that i don't have enough posts on the board?

No , I have no "theory". Just unimpeachable fact that the method used by White and Fetzer is flawed. You have done nothng to refute it. In fact you don't even understand the meaning of the work. Instead you have attempted to show some sort of "expert" status by wildly waving your hands. Good job, if looking like a bird was your intent.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I wasn't inferring any type of fakery. It was just an observation about the difference in the two photos.

Here's what you get if you reverse the comparison and reduce the size of the larger scale to fit the smaller.

That's a reduction to 35.9%.

I think Blair is on the right track.

chris

Thanks for proving my point once again. You can resize them any way you want, by section or in total and they will not match...thats the entire point.

It's a USELESS method to check the size of objects between different photos and any claims based on such work is invalid. The amount the sizing change will vary will based on many factors, but it will change regardless. It's called perspective....

As for Dobson, more power to him if he wants to do the work he suggests.

However his post and his thoughts do not change the concept that this little graphic demonstration presents, and nothing he said has refuted it...

ok...here we go Lamson;

first off, your assertion is wrong. they will match, do match and can match.. your entire methodology is flawed and any 15 year old kid who got an A in geometry will tell you why...no one proved your point....there is no point to prove because you haven't added in any variables.

"this distorted 2 dimensional photograph of a ruler shows that it is a distorted 2 dimensional photo! CASE CLOSED!!"

thanks Newton...

Ok here we go dobson. First, its not "MY" methodology, it's Whites and Fetzers. If you can't understand this VERY BASIC point about this discussion you are toast. You words are simply meaningless since you can't even understand argument.

post your photos up without the inane red lines, i will match them perfectly in 3D space.

in fact, over the next few days i might even whip up a tutorial of my own...

Sheesh, WHO CARES ABOUT 3D SPACE in this instance. Lerts review this ONE MORE time in hopes it finally seeps into the space between your ears.

White takes a photo and compares it to another photo taken with a different camera to subject distance. These are two 2d objects. He resized a section of one photo to a similar section of another. He then says, look, the two don't match in size (overall or sectional) therefore the images are a forgery.

His methodology is faulty. Thats the point. USING HIS METHODOLOGY, I showed in graphic detail HOW wrong it is. Now I know in your rush to sound and look important you missed this simple point. It has been explained to you more than once. One can only surmise the reason you cannot grasp this simple concept. Your failure however does not bode well for your continued postings.

Thanks for the offer to match then up in 3d space, too bad you don't understand why its not required.

i suggest you brush up on your Euclidean geometry and geometry in general. then i suggest you read a few books on perspective in art as well...

I'm fine thank you. You however might want to bunch up on basic reading skills.

your vague rebut is priceless and shows you to be intellectually and educationally unfit to post in threads about photography.

Your inability to understand a very simple argument and your puffery is really what is priceless.

if what you are suggesting were true, not only would the entire science of biometrics be useless, geometry, surveying, architecture and most forms of construction would be out the window. we would indeed be living in flat huts on flat planes.

we would also be unable to find them because all of our maps would be wrong as well..lost in flat huts on a flat earth...

let me post some fact here for you.

by comparing two photographs and agreeing on "discernible constants", you can INDEED draw a a number of conclusions that are reproducible mathematically in both 2D space and 3d space.

also, by factoring in the variables (what you uselessly call and fail to describe in any detail as "many factors") such as lens dimension and camera specs (to be brief) one can then start to map similarities.

lets leave out for now that you lack the understanding to mention, qualify or posit any coordinates outside of 2D space in your argument about RULERS here...

Dude, nice handwaving. Too bad you STILL miss the point of the exercise. Since this is Whites METHODOLOGY you are harping on the wrong person. Has that simple point escaped you...again?

if i were to take a single picket from the fence in both the BYP fotos, map them both MATHEMATICALLY AND GEOMETRICALLY, i could then take both photos and line them up congruently and thus show the differences between them.

this isn't open to your interpretation, this is math. a number of medical and architectural software companies rely on this daily..otherwise, people would die and buildings would collapse...

Hate to keep harping on your lack of simple understanding but did you notice all WHITE did was simply resize two images taken from different camera to subject distances and claim them fake. The rulers and rv show HIS methodology. WHITES methodology. Gee, it's why he got burned to the ground in Washington. I simply used his methods. You are harping at the wrong guy. Maybe you should learn to read.

here is the methodology..

-take the backgrounds of the extant BYP's..all of them...map them into 3d SPACE. (this is simply done by picking a picket from the fence, one of the beams on the staircase and a few of the stair planks..)

these objects i have specified i might add, have a pretty high degree of being accurately measurable in 2D space because they follow a few certain rules...2x4's, 2x12's (the stairs for example) are all pretty standard. by this i mean the lumber.

the staircase alone sets a good example for distances, heights and constant geometry within the pictures. computing the distance to the fence from the post then becomes quite simple, thus the height and depth of the backgrounds become constants that can be compared throughout the various shots..MATHEMATICALLY...

from there, it gives you all the measurements needed withing the space..the ground, the fence, the wall of the house, the wall of the house in the background..

this will then allow one to measure not only Oswald, but the rifle, the magazine, the hem of his trousers....

USING MATH...

Great, please have at it. I've no problem at all seeing your work on the BYP's. Maybe you can beat M.H. to the punch.

and of course...using three dimensions WHICH YOUR INANE AND IDIOTIC RULER ARGUMENT DOES NOT USE...

Sheesh, you ramble on and on and still the simple point eludes you. The ruler methodology is WHITES and FETZERS.

again, all of this would then prove in 3D space that these photographs are fakes or not.

but please, feel free to rebut what i have just posted...

I have no problem at all with using the proper methods to measure the rifles and the backyard photos. In fact, I would welcome seeing your work in this regard. Please let us know when you have it ready.

your ruler argument again, because it is erroneous and intellectually irresponsible, proves nothing.

No, its not erroneous and intellectually irresponsible, and it proves exactly what it was intended to prove. That it was erroneous and intellectually irresponsible for WHITE and FETZER to use it. Thats not too hard for you to understand now is it?

use your methodology to provide a better example.

and i mean YOUR methodology, not a cut and paste from someone else post.

show YOUR work.

I did show my work, that proves WHITES and FETZERS methodology was incorrect. YOU have it ALL BACKWARDS! Its not my methodology you have your shorts in a bunch about, its WHITES and FETZERS. Thanks so much for the validation of the work I presented. I know that was not your goal but you did it anyways. Thanks.

also, it would be nice if someone would post some decent quality snaps of the BYP's here so i can whip up an example....Lamson obviously can't provide any measurements, HQ photos or anything other than a ruler photo and a picture of someones RV...

There you go again, wanting someone esle to be your gopher. Sheesh....

Lamson, you need to either brush up or shut it.

please stop talking nonsense.

my next trip here will be to obliterate your ruler position entirely..

I can't wait for you to destroy WHITE AND FETZER.

Its amazing to see s YOU spewing the nonsense here. YOU don't understand the argument. YOU don't know who you are arguing against. YOU can't read. Maybe you better brush up or shut it.

post the materials people, i will map them up and show you the results...

Edited March 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Gentlemen,

Please don't snipe at each others intellectual capabilities. Demonstrate your claims and argue why you think you are right and the other is wrong (as you have been doing) but please try not to insult each other.

Thank you.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Sheesh, WHO CARES ABOUT 3D SPACE in this instance. Lerts review this ONE MORE time in hopes it finally seeps into the space between your ears.

Ah, and thats the reason why you've paid so much attention to Hany Farids 3D work on the backyard photos? LOL

Great, please have at it. I've no problem at all seeing your work on the BYP's. Maybe you can beat M.H. to the punch.

Blair, this initials that Craig Lamson used as M.H is actually me.

Don't stop posting because of Craigs provocation attempts. Don't let you intimidate.

Evan, thats a wise word.

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

Sheesh, WHO CARES ABOUT 3D SPACE in this instance. Lerts review this ONE MORE time in hopes it finally seeps into the space between your ears.

Ah, and thats the reason why you've paid so much attention to Hany Farids 3D work on the backyard photos? LOL

Martin

This is all a bit too hard for you to follow Martin.