Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

Looking back at post #4, I have to say that the head looks mismatched to the body proportionally in all three Warren Commission shots.

I wonder if we can better judge that by looking at the relation between body and head, and at the proportions of Oswald's body alone, in other torso shots of Oswald - such as the crossed-arms pose photographed after the Bringuer incident arrest, and stills from Oswald's TV interview after the New Orleans radio show.

When it was done by Jack White with the backyard pictures, the head/body did have mismatched proportions.

That was the point of that exercise, to show this fact.

(Thanks to Bernice for the video link to FAKE)

Not positive we can 'prove' a great deal by comparison to/with other LHO photos, but may be worth a try.

And of course jack White used a method that was a complete joke and simply can't be used. We have been over this time and time again with detailed proofs provided that show WHY Whites work was a joke,

Yet the ignorance continues unabated.

[Ray Mitcham]

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards

I'm not sure exactly what parts of the image you are talking about, could you please label them for clarity?

Sigh.... To Oswald's immediate right (our left), there is a vertical stair-post, just behind which and to it's left is the post (partly in shadow) which is the end post of the paling fence which runs behind LHO.

To Oswald's left and behind him is a vertical Fence/wall (just behind the straggly bush) behind which, to it's left, is the paling fence (the first visible one of which is in shadow)

Regards

[Craig Lamson]

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

How can you know how much movement SHOULD occur if you don't deal with ratios or measurements? That's why I asked you about your understanding of the principle of the lever. Its what will help us decide IF you can see the parallax.

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,

A straight line ..IN WHAT DIRECTION? Directly towards the stair post? Directly towards Oswald? Directly toward the exact at center of the image?

(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post,

You are kidding? right? WHY? And how much forward movement movement ( lets first decide what direction) are you talking about here? The movements were are talking about here are very small, in all directions with the forward motion being the greatest. So how much movement do you think would be needed to make the fence post "disappear?

and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

The "gap" between the post and the wall is set by actual distance and parallax will not change this apperence. And and left/right shift between the fence and he wall would require a massive camera move to bee seen due the the very short distance between them (that lever thing again.)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Your assumptions leave a lot to be desired. It appears you are expecting to see changes in 'relationships' that won't change with parallax like this right fence/paling you seem to be talking about. If I have have it correct, the area you defined will not show any movement in relationships unless the camera moves grossly.

But of course that is in fact the. Everything on the right side of the photo is so closely related in distance from each other that the principle the lever demands a huge camera movement for relationships to change visually.

And everything on the left side if the image has a decent spread from from object to rear object but again this spread only produces fraction relationship changes on camera movements. Finding these fractional movements is compounded by poor image quality. Trying to work from a 500x500 pixels image names finding fractionals near impossible.

Given all of this, if you choose to detail and illustrate graphically (your written descriptions leave a lot to be desired)exactly WHERE you expect to see relationship movement and tell show us how much movement you expect, I'll be happy to look again.

But, the long and short of it...you claimed initially that the camera has not moved between frames. Graphics taken from the BY photos show that not to be the case. The camera DID move, and the changes in image perspective cannot be caused by some warping of a single image using a technique like the one suggested by Jack White.

Each BY photo is an individual unit.

[Craig Lamson]

How did McCamy explain the apparent crop line? He said that it was a water spot. Michael Griffith has yet to meet a photographic expert who has seen a water spot run in a straight line. Spots are just that; spots. They are circular in nature. Mee said during the Griffith interview,

“One thing is the sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and then ends at the other side - right where Oswald's head could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed to be a water spot.”

What are the odds that perhaps the only water spot that ever ran in a straight line happened to occur right where one would expect a crop line that forged a chin (that was obviously not Oswald’s) onto his face? How far do we want to stretch coincidence?

I used to have a dark room for B and W photos.

I must have developed about 300 pictures myself.

I never saw a watermark line that one.

Michael Griffith needs to do a better job....

And wow, jimmy d has developed and printed 10 rolls of film! What experience!

So jimmy lets review. What does water do when it is on a vertical surface? Does it always sit as a "spot" or can gravity cause it to run downward? As as the water runs downward, what does it form? Oh yea...lines. Gee is science fun or what? ROFLMAO!

Now lets see if we can find anyone else besides me who has seen watermarks that are linear.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2950.html

jlw

01-11-2005, 08:14

If they're whitish, irregularly shaped streaks, then yes, they're probably from minerals dissolved in the water. The annoying thing about these is that they're almost impossible to remove!... film cleaner etc. will not get them out.

Removing all excess water with a squeegee or fingers helps somewhat, but sometimes I still got drying marks and sometimes I'd scratch the film.

Here is a foolproof method for drying 120 or 135 B&W roll film without leaving watermarks, scratches or streaks. It’s a bit labor intensive but will be worth the effort.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-74190.html

05-10-2009, 16:11

Hello,

I just ran my first roll of Arista Edu Ulta 200 through my M2 and then developed in Diafine (first time developing, too). I used Arista Flo wetting agent (diluted 1+100 using tap water) in my last step of the development process and then hang to dry. After the film was dried, I could see streaks of water marks on my negatives..., wouldn't the Arista Flo suppose to prevent such water marks on negatives? Should I use distlled water instead of tap water??

Can I wash the negatives to get rid of the water marks? Any suggestions, please?

Thanks,

-hyokjae

http://learning-photography.net/film-negatives/how-to-clean-negatives/

How to clean negatives: Once you have the hang of processing your own film, cleaning negatives should be a simple step at the end of processing. After you’re done with all the steps in processing, developing, fixing, and using hypo clear, you will rinse your tank with running water for 10 minutes or use the Ilford method for washing which is more economically-minded. However, streaks happen. Watermarks happen. And dust always happens. Or you might find old negatives that require your attention.

Streak marks are less severe than watermarks. I find that I often get streak marks even with Photo Flo , most likely because my film is not being dried at the appropriate rate.

sheesh jimmy, can you insert you foot any deeper into your mouth? ROFLMAO!

And the CT ignorance continues unabated.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Parker]

How did McCamy explain the apparent crop line? He said that it was a water spot. Michael Griffith has yet to meet a photographic expert who has seen a water spot run in a straight line. Spots are just that; spots. They are circular in nature. Mee said during the Griffith interview,

“One thing is the sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and then ends at the other side - right where Oswald's head could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed to be a water spot.”

What are the odds that perhaps the only water spot that ever ran in a straight line happened to occur right where one would expect a crop line that forged a chin (that was obviously not Oswald’s) onto his face? How far do we want to stretch coincidence?

I used to have a dark room for B and W photos.

I must have developed about 300 pictures myself.

I never saw a watermark line that one.

Michael Griffith needs to do a better job....

And wow, jimmy d has developed and printed 10 rolls of film! What experience!

So jimmy lets review. What does water do when it is on a vertical surface? Does it always sit as a "spot" or can gravity cause it to run downward? As as the water runs downward, what does it form? Oh yea...lines. Gee is science fun or what? ROFLMAO!

Now lets see if we can find anyone else besides me who has seen watermarks that are linear.

http://www.rangefind...php/t-2950.html

jlw

01-11-2005, 08:14

If they're whitish, irregularly shaped streaks, then yes, they're probably from minerals dissolved in the water. The annoying thing about these is that they're almost impossible to remove!... film cleaner etc. will not get them out.

Removing all excess water with a squeegee or fingers helps somewhat, but sometimes I still got drying marks and sometimes I'd scratch the film.

Here is a foolproof method for drying 120 or 135 B&W roll film without leaving watermarks, scratches or streaks. It’s a bit labor intensive but will be worth the effort.

http://www.rangefind...hp/t-74190.html

05-10-2009, 16:11

Hello,

I just ran my first roll of Arista Edu Ulta 200 through my M2 and then developed in Diafine (first time developing, too). I used Arista Flo wetting agent (diluted 1+100 using tap water) in my last step of the development process and then hang to dry. After the film was dried, I could see streaks of water marks on my negatives..., wouldn't the Arista Flo suppose to prevent such water marks on negatives? Should I use distlled water instead of tap water??

Can I wash the negatives to get rid of the water marks? Any suggestions, please?

Thanks,

-hyokjae

http://learning-phot...lean-negatives/

How to clean negatives: Once you have the hang of processing your own film, cleaning negatives should be a simple step at the end of processing. After you’re done with all the steps in processing, developing, fixing, and using hypo clear, you will rinse your tank with running water for 10 minutes or use the Ilford method for washing which is more economically-minded. However, streaks happen. Watermarks happen. And dust always happens. Or you might find old negatives that require your attention.

Streak marks are less severe than watermarks. I find that I often get streak marks even with Photo Flo , most likely because my film is not being dried at the appropriate rate.

sheesh jimmy, can you insert you foot any deeper into your mouth? ROFLMAO!

And the CT ignorance continues unabated.

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

[Craig Lamson]

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

You really need to learn to read Greg, you are embarrassing yourself. I suggest you look again.

These quotes are in response to a specific post, namely the one I have quoted in my reply.

As I stated quite clearly to the question about the so called line...

LAMMY,

are you also going to say, like the HSCA, that its a watermark above the ersatz chin?

You've never seen a watermark that extended the full width of a medium format negative jimmy? I have, and its not uncommon. Heck have you ever ever PROCESSED a medium format b/w negative jimmy?

If you have not your opinion is pretty much worthless.

But I digress. I don't have the negative to examine so I can't comment.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

Now on to the next strawman...

Why would the center of the chin be a "perfect place to crop"? And WHY wold a forger use a straight line for a join?

First the center of the chin would be a poor choice for a cut and join. First why remove the subjects CHIN? Unless the chin shape you are grafting to is correct you add a discrepancy.

Second the area UNDER the chin is in shadow, a far better place to make a blend that is harder to detect.

And why a straight line? A cut and join make in an irregular fashion is much harder to detect.

Wanna try again?

[Greg Parker]

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

You really need to learn to read Greg, you are embarrassing yourself. I suggest you look again.

These quotes are in response to a specific post, namely the one I have quoted in my reply.

As I stated quite clearly to the question about the so called line...

LAMMY,

are you also going to say, like the HSCA, that its a watermark above the ersatz chin?

You've never seen a watermark that extended the full width of a medium format negative jimmy? I have, and its not uncommon. Heck have you ever ever PROCESSED a medium format b/w negative jimmy?

If you have not your opinion is pretty much worthless.

But I digress. I don't have the negative to examine so I can't comment.

Hmmm. So your pointing to a photo forum discussion on STREAKS had no real purpose in relation to Jim's post about the fine line seen across the chin?

I'm still awaiting your response on this, btw, regarding the Iwo Jima photo:

The photographer was asked in Guam if the photo was posed. He replied in the affirmative. But then it won him a Pulitzer IRRC, and all of a sudden, he started claiming that when he answered "yes, it was posed", he thought he was being asked about a group photo taken after the flag raising. Yeah, sure. Now why would he think that he was being asked if an obviously posed photo was in fact, posed, let alone assume that he was being asked about any other photo except the one that was causing the big flap?

And did it not go on to be handled by the Marine's Public Relations people? Do you understand that the term "Public Relations" was coined as a euphemism for "Propaganda"?

And to this, which tells us something about the value of experts:

There was a photo taken of fairies in a garden in the early part of the 20th Century. It was not uncovered as a fake until the '70s. And it was NOT exposed by "photo analysis experts" but by someone recognizing the fairies as looking exactly like those in a particular children's book. That's 60 years of "experts" being unable to show pictures of fairies for chrissakes were fakes! You think you can't be fooled? Think again.

[Greg Parker]

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

Now on to the next strawman...

Why would the center of the chin be a "perfect place to crop"? And WHY wold a forger use a straight line for a join?

First the center of the chin would be a poor choice for a cut and join. First why remove the subjects CHIN? Unless the chin shape you are grafting to is correct you add a discrepancy.

Second the area UNDER the chin is in shadow, a far better place to make a blend that is harder to detect.

And why a straight line? A cut and join make in an irregular fashion is much harder to detect.

Wanna try again?

Ask Mee. He's the expert quoted by Jim on this. It sure as hell doesn't look like a STREAK.

[Ray Mitcham]

A straight line ..IN WHAT DIRECTION? Directly towards the stair post? Directly towards Oswald? Directly toward the exact at center of the image?

What in your mind does "FORWARD in a straight line" mean?

You are kidding? right? WHY? And how much forward movement movement ( lets first decide what direction) are you talking about here? The movements were are talking about here are very small, in all directions with the forward motion being the greatest. So how much movement do you think would be needed to make the fence post "disappear?

How do you know that "the movements we are talking about" are very small? Where are your measurements? .

The "gap" between the post and the wall is set by actual distance and parallax will not change this apperence. And and left/right shift between the fence and he wall would require a massive camera move to bee seen due the the very short distance between them (that lever thing again.)

"The gap between the post and the wall is set by the actual distance" What he heck does that mean? "and the parallax will no (sic) change this apperance (sic)"

Says who?

"And and (sic) left/right shift between the fence and he (sic) wall would require a massive camera move to bee (sic) seen due the the very short distance between them"

What is "the very short distance between them" in your opinion?

Regards,

[Ray Mitcham]

Your assumptions leave a lot to be desired. It appears you are expecting to see changes in 'relationships' that won't change with parallax like this right fence/paling you seem to be talking about. If I have have it correct, the area you defined will not show any movement in relationships unless the camera moves grossly.

From your comments above, it would seem I'm not the only one making assumptions. You obviously haven't got it correct.

But of course that is in fact the (sic). Everything on the right side of the photo is so closely related in distance from each other that the principle the lever demands a huge camera movement for relationships to change visually.

And everything on the left side if the image has a decent spread from from object to rear object but again this spread only produces fraction relationship changes on camera movements. Finding these fractional movements is compounded by poor image quality. Trying to work from a 500x500 pixels image names finding fractionals near impossible.

So, because there is no change in the parallax of the stair-post and the end fence post, are you saying the camera moved forward diagonally left (in the direction of the Stair-post)? Or aren't you prepared to say which way you think it moved?.

Regards

[Ray Mitcham]

(your written descriptions leave a lot to be desired)

It's funny. I expected you to say that, so I asked my 15 year old grandson to look at the photographs and then look at what I wrote in answer to your query, He said he understood what I meant completely. Maybe it's not my written descriptions that leave a lot to be desired but your reading comprehension.

But, the long and short of it...you claimed initially that the camera has not moved between frames. Graphics taken from the BY photos show that not to be the case. The camera DID move, and the changes in image perspective cannot be caused by some warping of a single image using a technique like the one suggested by Jack White.

You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been

more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White?

Regards

[Ray Mitcham]

Problems with link

Edited September 14, 2011 by Ray Mitcham

[Craig Lamson]

If this is your argument - claiming multiple random STREAKS are the same thing as a single thin line appearing right across a perfect spot for crop, then I may have to reassess my belief you deserve a spot on the witness stand.

You really need to learn to read Greg, you are embarrassing yourself. I suggest you look again.

These quotes are in response to a specific post, namely the one I have quoted in my reply.

As I stated quite clearly to the question about the so called line...

LAMMY,

are you also going to say, like the HSCA, that its a watermark above the ersatz chin?

You've never seen a watermark that extended the full width of a medium format negative jimmy? I have, and its not uncommon. Heck have you ever ever PROCESSED a medium format b/w negative jimmy?

If you have not your opinion is pretty much worthless.

But I digress. I don't have the negative to examine so I can't comment.

Hmmm. So your pointing to a photo forum discussion on STREAKS had no real purpose in relation to Jim's post about the fine line seen across the chin?

Sheesh density becomes you. jimmy says watermarks can only be round and no one has every seen linear marks. I pointed out he was wrong....Your embarrassment continues.

I'm still awaiting your response on this, btw, regarding the Iwo Jima photo:

The photographer was asked in Guam if the photo was posed. He replied in the affirmative. But then it won him a Pulitzer IRRC, and all of a sudden, he started claiming that when he answered "yes, it was posed", he thought he was being asked about a group photo taken after the flag raising. Yeah, sure. Now why would he think that he was being asked if an obviously posed photo was in fact, posed, let alone assume that he was being asked about any other photo except the one that was causing the big flap?

And did it not go on to be handled by the Marine's Public Relations people? Do you understand that the term "Public Relations" was coined as a euphemism for "Propaganda"?

Wow, is your face turning red from your continuing embarrassments? NO one but the photographer can answer the question you asked, and he did. Now you expect me to somehow read his mind (even though he is dead and buried) and somehow divine his true thoughts? Can you be any more silly Greg?

And wow, a superb photos was used for PR. I'm stunned I tell you..stunned...ROFLMAO! You are really comical Greg.

And to this, which tells us something about the value of experts:

There was a photo taken of fairies in a garden in the early part of the 20th Century. It was not uncovered as a fake until the '70s. And it was NOT exposed by "photo analysis experts" but by someone recognizing the fairies as looking exactly like those in a particular children's book. That's 60 years of "experts" being unable to show pictures of fairies for chrissakes were fakes! You think you can't be fooled? Think again.

I agree, no one is perfect, even a "expert".

[Craig Lamson]

A straight line ..IN WHAT DIRECTION? Directly towards the stair post? Directly towards Oswald? Directly toward the exact at center of the image?

What in your mind does "FORWARD in a straight line" mean?

Forward ..in a straight line...TOWARDS WHAT? That still remains unanswered, btw.

You are kidding? right? WHY? And how much forward movement movement ( lets first decide what direction) are you talking about here? The movements were are talking about here are very small, in all directions with the forward motion being the greatest. So how much movement do you think would be needed to make the fence post "disappear?

How do you know that "the movements we are talking about" are very small? Where are your measurements? .

How do we know? Simple. The visible Parallax tells us so. And now suddenly YOU ask for measurements. Now I don't care who you are that funny...

The "gap" between the post and the wall is set by actual distance and parallax will not change this apperence. And and left/right shift between the fence and he wall would require a massive camera move to bee seen due the the very short distance between them (that lever thing again.)

"The gap between the post and the wall is set by the actual distance" What he heck does that mean? "and the parallax will no (sic) change this apperance (sic)"

Says who?

It means just what it says.

"And and (sic) left/right shift between the fence and he (sic) wall would require a massive camera move to bee (sic) seen due the the very short distance between them"

What is "the very short distance between them" in your opinion?

Less than 2 feet. Providing we are talking about the same things.

Regards,