Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Maybe not, I'm still not clear on your "targets". I'll ask again. Post a simple graphic that shows the items you are talking about.

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?.

Where did I say there was no change in the relationship between the star post and the end fence post? I'm saying the change n perspective and the smallness of the relationship changes are had ti see im the web images, at least what I have available. IN any case there can be no doubt the camera moved between frames.

How did it move? Hard to calculate due to complex perspective changes but it appears to be small step backwards for 133a, mostly in line with the stair post.

Regards

[Craig Lamson]

(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.

I'm so happy for your grandson. I want to be sure exactly what relationships that are your targets, and I simply asked you to produce a graphic that shows your targets. I don't think that too much to ask for the sake of clarity is it?

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?

It was not 'your bad', you were just wrong.

Let's review...

Ray sez:

"No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)"

Opps, you do say "forward...your BAD indeed.

The Argument is over Ray, the camera moved. That you are not happy with what you THINK you should see really means squat. The camera moved, thus ending that argument for fakery.

Oh, what happened to your reading comprehension Ray? There is no mystery. I mentioned Jack White.

Regards

[Greg Parker]

my latest in this shade

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.

So he was wrong. So what, Craig? What do STREAKY water marks have to do with the BY photos? Showing Jim was wrong may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but STREAKY marks have sod all to do with the argument at hand.

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.

The question I asked was "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 he most assuredly DID not answer that. If you want to hang on to the fantasy that he was an idiot, be my guest. Only an idiot would assume he was being asked about a nothing group shot which was OBVIOUSLY posed instead of about the money shot.

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?

It is you who is being silly in hanging on to the fantasy that his late arriving explanation for initially agreeing the shot was posed makes any sense whatsoever.

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

So were some of those in it.

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".

Okay. We seem to agree; you can be fooled. Thanks.

[Gil Jesus]

I was called testify to the authenticity of a series of photographs I had taken. Both parties agreed to treat my testimony as expert.

At least now we all know that although you've spent the last 30 years snapping away as happily as a Japanese tourist you are no more qualified to comment on the authenticity of the BY photographs than other member of this forum.

(And obviously your expert testimony in court has no bearing on this since you were being asked to verify photographs you had taken yourself and not to look for signs of forgery in photographs taken by others because that is something you are not qualified to do)

I think I could also be considered an expert on photographs I myself had taken.

Doesn't make me an expert on photography.

BFD

Edited September 15, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

I think I could also be considered an expert on photographs I myself had taken.

Doesn't make me an expert on photography.

BFD

There can be no doubt you are NOT an expert on photography.....BFD indeed.

[Craig Lamson]

So he was wrong. So what, Craig? What do STREAKY water marks have to do with the BY photos? Showing Jim was wrong may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but STREAKY marks have sod all to do with the argument at hand.

I guess knowing actual FACTS is a foreign concept for you? Oh wait, I forgot. Greg Parker would rather try to infer the thoughts of a dead man instead. Yea, that's the ticket.

[/color][/size]

It is you who is being silly in hanging on to the fantasy that his late arriving explanation for initially agreeing the shot was posed makes any sense whatsoever.

Now that's just funny as all get out. Spoken like a true CT. Man are you a slave to your worldview. A perfect specimen and example of the kinds of people that causes normal folks to snicker when they hear a CT talk...

I've seen the video, and the stills from another photographer. I'm not the least bit concerned about Rosenthal's story. But I tell you what, why don't you go on believing you are in on a secret, because it seems to make you feel so special. And lord knows we all want Greg Parker to continue to feel special.

Okay. We seem to agree; you can be fooled. Thanks.

Yep I'm human, and that's why I prefer to let others learn the facts themselves, instead of simply "believing".

[Craig Lamson]

Yep I'm human

Really?

Really....

[Craig Lamson]

Yep I'm human

Really?

Really....

Are you sure? A human being?

Really. You? Given your worldview its a hard sell.

[Craig Lamson]

Well, why don't you start acting like one? Because from where I'm sitting you're one of only a handful of members who claims to gain some sort of perverse enjoyment out of creating what you believe is perceived distress in other "human beings".

You use destructive and humiliating language such as "explode" and "meltdown" and "embarrassment" when you believe you've scored some warped point against another "human being".

I think you behave like some sort of rabid animal within the confines of this forum. And other forums if you remember what you wrote in a post to me elsewhere?

Oh, and here's some info for you, smart-arse; you know sod-all about my "worldview" or Greg's. FACT.

What, you don't like what I write? Too bad, You are welcome NOT to read it if you choose.

I make no apologies for my posts nor the tone of them. I do truly enjoy bursting CT bubbles about the photographic evidence. And it's a pleasure to see it scare the bull crap out of you Lee.

Oh, and thanks again, for yet another "explosion". Made my day.

[Ed LeDoux]

Craig thinks the pics are real...Kinda hard to argue with that, except for the simple pill to swallow that is LHO never ordered a rifle or received one, likewise with the pistol. Yet Craig will measure a fake picture and scream the measurements are correct. Correct for what? A faked photo.

These things escape Lamson...

Plus this notion of someone being a "CT" as Craig puts it. I know he must not read other threads where conspiracy is proven...again these things escape Lamson.

Craig, its only a theory till there is factual evidence shown. Then it is no longer conjecture.

And no we don't want to 'try again', we got it right, you need to.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Ed LeDoux

[Karl Kinaski]

Well, why don't you start acting like one? Because from where I'm sitting you're one of only a handful of members who claims to gain some sort of perverse enjoyment out of creating what you believe is perceived distress in other "human beings".

You use destructive and humiliating language such as "explode" and "meltdown" and "embarrassment" when you believe you've scored some warped point against another "human being".

I think you behave like some sort of rabid animal within the confines of this forum. And other forums if you remember what you wrote in a post to me elsewhere?

Oh, and here's some info for you, smart-arse; you know sod-all about my "worldview" or Greg's. FACT.

What, you don't like what I write? Too bad, You are welcome NOT to read it if you choose.

I make no apologies for my posts nor the tone of them. I do truly enjoy bursting CT bubbles about the photographic evidence. And it's a pleasure to see it scare the bull crap out of you Lee.

Oh, and thanks again, for yet another "explosion". Made my day.

I think it’s you that needs to learn to read, as well as spell.

I said all of this “destruction” you think you cause. All of these “explosions” you think you are responsible for. All of these “meltdowns” you think you create. They are “PERCEIVED”.

In other words – they exist ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

You see, Craig, you create your own context. You imagine all of this stuff happening. You’re one step away from an out and out nut-case. The only thing "scary" about you...

...is your mental-health.

Lamson suffers from solipsism. There is no salvation in this man

In other words: what do you got, if you hang a camera around van Peins neck? - Lamson...

KK

Edited September 16, 2011 by Karl Kinaski

[Craig Lamson]

Craig thinks the pics are real...Kinda hard to argue with that, except for the simple pill to swallow that is LHO never ordered a rifle or received one, likewise with the pistol. Yet Craig will measure a fake picture and scream the measurements are correct. Correct for what? A faked photo.

These things escape Lamson...

Plus this notion of someone being a "CT" as Craig puts it. I know he must not read other threads where conspiracy is proven...again these things escape Lamson.

Craig, its only a theory till there is factual evidence shown. Then it is no longer conjecture.

And no we don't want to 'try again', we got it right, you need to.

Sure you do Ed. Keep the fantasy alive, its all you have.

Yet here we have LHO with a rifle and a pistol, and your "conjecture' about the ordering and receiving gets destroyed.

Funny how that works.

Which is why the big push to make sure the BY photos stay 'FAKE"

Your fear is palpable.

But thanks for playing.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I think it’s you that needs to learn to read, as well as spell.

I said all of this “destruction” you think you cause. All of these “explosions” you think you are responsible for. All of these “meltdowns” you think you create. They are “PERCEIVED”.

In other words – they exist ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

You see, Craig, you create your own context. You imagine all of this stuff happening. You’re one step away from an out and out nut-case. The only thing "scary" about you...

...is your mental-health.

Gotta love it when you need to resort to the "you are crazy" defense. Means your fear has reached unimaginable heights and you no longer have a defense.

Sorry to tell you this Lee, but this is not about Lee Farley or Craig Lamson, its about the BY photos and the application of some very basic principles of photography. For years we have witnessed some of the most silly attempts to prove these images fake. And sadly great swaths of people like Lee Farley 'believed". It was required to keep the fantasy and worldview alive. And we KNOW its a big part of yours. If the photos are not fake you have LHO with the guns you claim he never had. And that is a major destruction of a big plank of your "platform". That's not perceived. That's as real as it gets and it scares the crap out you.

I'm not 'responsible". I simply offer information. Take it our leave it. I don't care. Others will.

You don't think this is having an impact? Just read this thread. The facts can't be debated. The principles can not be debunked. What's left? Attack the messenger. Can you be any more obvious? ROFLMAO!

`

Edited September 16, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson suffers from solipsism. There is no salvation in this man

In other words: what do you got, if you hang a camera around van Peins neck? - Lamson...

KK

I guess that the facts are just too tough for karl to handle and argue. Imagine that.

[Ed LeDoux]

Craig, no one avoids the point with as much arrogance as you do.

So you are saying that you cannot tell where Oswald moved in relation to Marina?

And then you say that you do not know because you cannot figure out where he was at first?

Well, then did he move at all?

Can you answer that obvious one?

Jim, is reading really that hard for you or is it just that words mean nothing.

Heck you are totally oblivious to the point.

Lets try and and I'll talk r e a l l y slow so maybe you can understand (fat chance but what the heck)

The photos are in 2D space jimmy,( that means they are flat)

The scene was 'in the world' (that means the everything in the scene occupied a specific place in 3d space)

Since all we have to look at is a 2d depiction of a 3d scene ( that flat thing jimmy) we don't have enough "clues" to decide the actual way Oswald occupies the 3d space ( that means how he actually stood in the real world jimmy)

Since we have no way of knowing HOW he stood in one photo it is impossible to tell how he actually moved to get to his position in the second image. (That means we don't know exactly how he stood..in either picture. jimmy)

And that of course is why it is impossible to do a "recreation" based on a 2d image...you can't get the 3d aspects correct, you can only guess.

I can't tell you how Oswald moved at accurately, in 3d space ( that would be the world jimmy, the 2d photos ( that would be the flat things jimmy)don't give us enough data.

Of course Oswald moved, we just can't say HOW MUCH or WHERE TO (you do understand those worlds don't you jimmy?) with any degree of accuracy. (that means getting it really close jimmy)

Now why don't you tell us I'm wrong and prove it to use by showing us exactly how the body on the backyard photos moved from one photo to the next.

This should be HIGHLY amusing to say the least!

LMAO...

WRONG!

This is where Lamson lets it slip he cannot tell ANYTHING from the backyard photos.

See if a person moved in 3d space and was captured on 2d film he would be able to show his movement relative to his last position also captured in 2d.

These measurements Craig is so found of trotting out fail him at this point when he should be using them.

But he can't!! Why?

Is it because it was not as he claims a true 2d image of a 3d object?

He is wrong in telling Jim "Of course Oswald moved, we just can't say HOW MUCH or WHERE TO with any degree of accuracy." Where in one post he will intimate great accuracy in trying to show these photos are real, except here where they really would show something by the measurements of the movement of the person in the photo. Lamson the 'expert' slips on his own tongue. Sorry buddy your expertise is sorely lacking you here.

Lamson has no idea how to recreate a 3D space from a 2D image. Yet he will profess great knowledge of flat 2D images, how every minute detail would change with things like perspective, etc, etc... yet this exercise is beyond him..? I don't think it is. I think he would show problems with the images when he begins actually recreating the WORLD that these images appear to represent. Craig must bury head in sand every time a 3D-2D converter is shown to him.

Similarity measurements between 3D objects and 2D images are useful for the tasks of object recognition and classification. The authors distinguish between two types of similarity metrics: metrics computed in image-space (image metrics) and metrics computed in transformation-space (transformation metrics). Existing methods typically use image metrics; namely, metrics that measure the difference in the image between the observed image and the nearest view of the object. Example for such a measure is the Euclidean distance between feature points in the image and their corresponding points in the nearest view. (This measure can be computed by solving the exterior orientation calibration problem.) In this paper the authors introduce a different type of metrics: transformation metrics. These metrics penalize for the deformations applied to the object to produce the observed image. In particular, the authors define a transformation metric that optimally penalizes for “affine deformations” under weak-perspective. A closed-form solution, together with the nearest view according to this metric, are derived. The metric is shown to be equivalent to the Euclidean image metric, in the sense that they bound each other from both above and below. It therefore provides an easy-to-use closed-form approximation for the commonly-used least-squares distance between models and images. The authors demonstrate an image understanding application, where the true dimensions of a photographed battery charger are estimated by minimizing the transformation metric

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F34%2F10562%2F00491630.pdf%3Farnumber%3D491630&authDecision=-203

How long is that rifle in the picture? How would you know? You can't measure a man, how are you going to measure the rifle? Rifle moves between pictures. Does it get longer? Does "LHO" move between pics? How do you know? Does he change height, weight, race...where do your measurements fail you??

Oh and This IS HIGHLY amusing to say the least! Please Please continue.

All the best, Ed