Jim Hargrove Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 "RAFLMAO! You're a crack-up, Steve. The ingeniousness of the doppelganger program never ceases to amaze! Now they can grow and shrink and develop or lose muscle tone as needed! Those boys in the lab were beyond genius... golly,... they were almost up there with Judy Baker in the "clever" stakes...!" // PARKER POST ===================================================================== My point is they seem the same to me. Photos "ABOUT" same time frame. LEE looks like LEE. gaal == Initialism. (Internet slang) rolling on the floor laughing my ass (or arse) off; used to indicate great amusement. ROFLMAO - Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ ROFLMAO (PARKER) ------------------------------------------------------ I just was posting a response to PARKER post # 1575 this thread. // gaal Ahhh…. I see the H&L Hit Squad is ignoring all the inconvenient truths and posting endlessly about the CAP photo taken in the summer of 1955. As always, they declare victory over and over again, but they fail to note this is all a matter of perspective. In the photo, “Lee Harvey Oswald,” shown at the extreme right, is only about half the height of the man at extreme left (left of Ferrie). So if the fellow at the right was a little under six feet tall, that would make Lee just two feet something. Small indeed! But it is a matter of perspective. The differences in perspective seem to decrease moving left to right in the photo, but they still exist. In addition, this photo was taken more than two years after Oswald's height was measured at PS 44 in New York. CE 1384 reproduces Oswald's May 1953 PS 44 health card, showing he was 64-1/2 inches tall (5 feet 4 and a half inches) and he weighed 114 lbs. The CAP photo was taken more than two years later, given other students a chance to grow and catch up. Both Oswalds were less than six feet tall. Classmate Richard Garrett remembered that Oswald “had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school.” And, of course, Oswald's own half-brother refused to go along with the charade, and the Warren Commission, was clearly unwilling to ask him why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 So the assumption here is a boy's height in 7th grade determines his size a few years later... It's your contention that a 5'4" 13 year old could not be a 5'7" 16 year old. (yes Bernie, 'your' is not the same as 'you're' - speaking of linguistic skills). And then become a 5'11' 20 year old. You can show how that's not possible or just keep asking questions with that lost look on your faces like you're making some amazing point here. Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was? Sometimes boys will grow up before filling out. But since you are so sure that's not Lee, I guess it's down to your words versus Palmer. I'll take the guy who was there every time over witless speculation & your faith-based beliefs. But at least now you are trying harder to see the differences between the two people. There's hope for you boys yet. Pay attention David please. It was Greg who wrote a few posts earlier in #1801..."You're the one claiming he went there..." Which is perfectly correct English grammar. GAAL decided to use his expert language skills and correct him in post #1802... "CAP photo small LEE people. Your the one claiming he went there he (LEE) saw smallish , The burden of proof is on you to show when it was he was smallish." Gaal (#1802) Oops! You just don't seem to care how many times you come on here and thoroughly humiliate yourself do you? So, who is the smallest little man in the photo David? Is it 'Harvey' or is it 'Lee'? A straightforward answer would be just dandy. I think the little diddy one looks like LHO. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGor7ZyCawI This is what they were all singing at the CAP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Harvey and Lee disproved ,gaal http://www.instantshift.com/2010/08/24/88-brilliant-examples-of-forced-perspective-photography/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was? Just FYI: Ferrie was recorded on police records as 5'11" or 71". Weight: 190-195lb. (In 1961, I might add.) Edited September 9, 2015 by Stephen Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Thanks Roy... appreciated. So tell me since you seem to be at least reasonable enough to have a serious discussion... Do you understand Depth of field? That objects farther away from the camera appear smaller due to the vanishing horizon concept and depth of field.? By copying and pasting Oswald from his position to next to Ferrie we can see how UNTRUE his size is compared to the others. And in reverse, by copying and pasting Ferrie next to Oswald we can see the true effects of photographic depth of field. (I did not resize either copy) What bothers me most is that seemingly intelligent people want so bad to "Catch us" doing something wrong or being dishonest about H&L and the Evidence that they'll forget some of the most basic rules of reality. They will make up stats and offer faith-based theories about real events with real evidence. Does that boy in the back look like all the LEE childhood photos? Same cheeks and smile to me.... but then again I have so much bias... Anyway, posting this photo with that question just shows how desperate these boys are and how willing they are to go to any lengths to confuse the issues. So tell us boys, what focal length, lens and distances are we talking about in this image which you used to prove your point? It appears to be a higher mm lens making the distances look smaller than they are... Thoughts? Edited September 9, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) So the assumption here is a boy's height in 7th grade determines his size a few years later... It's your contention that a 5'4" 13 year old could not be a 5'7" 16 year old. (yes Bernie, 'your' is not the same as 'you're' - speaking of linguistic skills). And then become a 5'11' 20 year old. You can show how that's not possible or just keep asking questions with that lost look on your faces like you're making some amazing point here. Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was? Sometimes boys will grow up before filling out. But since you are so sure that's not Lee, I guess it's down to your words versus Palmer. I'll take the guy who was there every time over witless speculation & your faith-based beliefs. But at least now you are trying harder to see the differences between the two people. There's hope for you boys yet. Pay attention David please. It was Greg who wrote a few posts earlier in #1801..."You're the one claiming he went there..." Which is perfectly correct English grammar. GAAL decided to use his expert language skills and correct him in post #1802... "CAP photo small LEE people. Your the one claiming he went there he (LEE) saw smallish , The burden of proof is on you to show when it was he was smallish." Gaal (#1802) Oops! You just don't seem to care how many times you come on here and thoroughly humiliate yourself do you? So, who is the smallest little man in the photo David? Is it 'Harvey' or is it 'Lee'? A straightforward answer would be just dandy. I think the little diddy one looks like LHO. Do you? So when I show you and Greg how foolish this attempt is, I don't see either of you rushing to post how WRONG you both are or how poor you both remain at interpreting what a photograph shows or how they work. C'mon Greg, where's the righteous indignation now that you're shown to not have the first clue related to photography? I post a "straighforward" answer Bernie...what do you do? Yep, just as we thought... Nada. not even the class to admit how wrong you are... or how clueless you remain when it comes to the simplest of analysis. Well done little boys... you're batting .000 so far with these rebuttals... but hey, rock on ... Edited September 9, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Illustrating you don't understand photography is appreciated... Once again... distance to the camera and focal length - any clue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 So David Lee is the Thanks Roy... appreciated. So tell me since you seem to be at least reasonable enough to have a serious discussion... Do you understand Depth of field? That objects farther away from the camera appear smaller due to the vanishing horizon concept and depth of field.? By copying and pasting Oswald from his position to next to Ferrie we can see how UNTRUE his size is compared to the others. And in reverse, by copying and pasting Ferrie next to Oswald we can see the true effects of photographic depth of field. (I did not resize either copy) What bothers me most is that seemingly intelligent people want so bad to "Catch us" doing something wrong or being dishonest about H&L and the Evidence that they'll forget some of the most basic rules of reality. They will make up stats and offer faith-based theories about real events with real evidence. Does that boy in the back look like all the LEE childhood photos? Same cheeks and smile to me.... but then again I have so much bias... Anyway, posting this photo with that question just shows how desperate these boys are and how willing they are to go to any lengths to confuse the issues. So tell us boys, what focal length, lens and distances are we talking about in this image which you used to prove your point? It appears to be a higher mm lens making the distances look smaller than they are... Thoughts? This isn't photo analysis. It's a kindergarten mosaic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Illustrating you don't understand photography is appreciated... Once again... distance to the camera and focal length - any clue? Taking all things into account, LEE Oswald is the shortest person in the photo. Admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Who played with this photo? Why is Oswald's head and whole body bigger than Ferrie's? Look at the original in post # 1610. --Tommy Edited September 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Illustrating you don't understand photography is appreciated... Once again... distance to the camera and focal length - any clue? Yawn...! Then explain why he is still dwarfed by those stood to his right and who are the same distance away from the camera. If LHO were stood 20 or 30 feet behind the entire group you would definitely have a point. But he isn't. And if he were as big and husky as you keep having to prove (otherwise, once again H&L bites the dust) that would shine through regardless of camera angle. No camera angle will show Sly Stallone looking like Woody Allen, however much you warble on about perspective. What an irony that you of all people should be banging on about perspective. You could do with a bucket-load yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Yo Greg... how about telling us what was done to manipulate the image they way it was? Or did you find it manipulated that way somewhere and think it looked like the actual photo? When we match these two, supposedly identical photos, by sizing Ferrie correctly in both... WTF Greg...? You posted the correct photo in your first attempt... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=105#entry313831 so we know you have the correct image... why distort it to make your wrong assumption and question appear not as ridiculous as it was? edit - so tweedle dee shows up to show off his intelligence as well... maybe learn the first thing about photography before you open your yap..? That you cannot even tell how skewed and resized and distorted Greg's follow-up image is only shows how little you understand. Go back to sleep. Edited September 9, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Who played with this photo? Why is Oswald's head and whole body bigger than Ferrie's? Look at the original in post # 1610. --Tommy bumped Edited September 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts