David Josephs Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 That's amusing Bernie - I thought you were not interested in what I wrote and was not going to engage... Just can't help yourself I guess. I am far from cornered - Only those with very limited sight can't see how so much of these issues are connected. I posted everything there was not know about that image. The original and why it was not on the H&L.net site and what was done to create that clear final image. It obviously did not appear in the paper like that. That it was pasted atop the actual image in that paper is the result of someone's work to understand what was going on - (like the image of Ozzie and Robert with the baby - Robert was added in after the fact) What you still have not bothered addressing is the bone in GP's throat - that the CIA was the LIKELY SOURCE for the image used in that article. (That the website has the pasted version up is a situation Jim is changing... at the core though the overlay IS the same image as in that paper... as John Woods' images I posted shows. DSL claims it was Robert in possession of his brother's photos from the Marines... but there is no proof for that at all. Furthermore, the image is obviously not our little Oswald, not even close. The photo in Sept 1959 of LEE holding a rifle comes from that time before Harvey leaves for Russia (top right in collage) and when Lee was with Robert. If Robert has any photos they are of LEE and not the man in Russia or who Ruby killed. So it is your contention that the man at the top right and the top left are the same person.... Shoulders, size and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Randy.. Unless you are going to use photogrammetry these illustrations of Stan's measuring distances on a 2d surface representing 3d space are woefully inadequate to form any real conclusions. I do not offer measurements since we do not know the scale of each photo - I simply show the slope of shoulders or the differences when overlaying the faces... One with a hat and one with a beard is what makes conluding these images are the same person so hard. The images I posted do not have those differences - Photogrammetry is as old as modern photography, can be dated to the mid-nineteenth century, and its detection component has been emerging from radiolocation, multilateration and radiometry while its 3-D positioning estimative component (based on modeling) employs methods related to triangulation, trilateration and multidimensional scaling. In the simplest example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale (s) of the image is known. This is done by multiplying the measured distance by 1/s. Algorithms for photogrammetry typically attempt to minimize the sum of the squares of errors over the coordinates and relative displacements of the reference points Can you tell us the distance from the camera in each, the focal length, the lenses used, etc...? Without them it's just a matter of resizing the photos to match and placing some lines on the images. 2d images of 3d life cannot be reconciled with pixel counts and same length lines... simply does not work that way. I take the subjectivity out of it by not making measurement claims - just observational claims and overlays. I took your two images and lined up the red and green vertical lilnes and then put black bars at the top of each line. As you can see, the yellow lines do not remain in the same place - this is not indicative of them being different people but of the impossibility of using 2d lines to measure 3d space. I can resize the image from the right to match - but that's the whole point.. we do not know the history of the photos or how they relate to each other... The BYP are a little better since it's the same camera yet the focal lengths are different, slightly, so there is no way to get the photos to match exactly. It is these "quick and dirty" methods of comparison that winds up leading to incorrect conclusions. Edited May 19, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 That's amusing Bernie - I thought you were not interested in what I wrote and was not going to engage... Amusing is right. That was Bernie's point. You're AVOIDING engagement with the subject of this thread. Anyone can connect anything to anything - if they have a vivid enough imagination - or are so lacking in insight that they cannot comprehend that the "connection" is only in their own mind. My challenge on the height issue still stands. Advice I received was that the USMC does not measure people on the way out. You need to show evidence that the advice I got was wrong. Until then, let's try and address the actual and very specific subject of the thread? The FW Star-Telegram ran a story on LHO's "defection". It carried a photo of LHO taken while in the Marines (THAT photo is NOT the subject of the thread - it deserves it's own thread. It was most likely supplied by Robert Oswald who supplied a photo of himself to the same paper). Then decades later, White and Armstrong come along. Armstrong acquires a copy of the Star-Telegram story. White meanwhile is compiling photo montages of LHO through various periods of his life. He and Armstrong designate some to be Lee and others to be "Harvey". Among them is a much tampered with version of the original photo used in the Star-Telegram story. It is designated as "Lee". The catch is that they claim it should be "Harvey" since "Harvey" was the one who "defected". This faked up photo (FRamkenstein Oswald) then has the effect of bolstering the "Harvey" and Lee" theory. White does not tell people that the photo has been massively retouched. Then further down the track, the Harvey and Lee site is constructed. White's Frankenstein creation ends up covering the photo used in the Star-Telegram story and is portrayed as the one one used in that story. It appears on the site for many man many years - but of course, Armstrong claims he knows nothing about it - It was all the work of the webmaster. Except the webmaster claims not to know how it happened either. White knew that Armstrong had the original story. Armstrong knew White was using the Frankenstein image in his montage and BOTH knew the Frankenstein image was platered over the Star-Telegram story on the H & L site. To put in fonts and colors that the H & L crowd can understand - It is FRAUD. Deal with the FRAUD, David, instead of attempting to change the damn subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 this from the HSCA :Typical discrepancies in ]might were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. // Valenti ================================================================================================= Many ex military men commit Federal crimes. The FBI would not like inaccurate Biometric data from the DOD. The HSCA panel ? I don't have a 100 % belief in them.GAAL ]]]]]]]]]]]] http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/not-in-the-book-the-photographic-panel-of-the-hsca/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 this from the HSCA :Typical discrepancies in ]might were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. // Valenti ================================================================================================= Many ex military men commit Federal crimes. The FBI would not like inaccurate Biometric data from the DOD. The HSCA panel ? I don't have a 100 % belief in them.GAAL ]]]]]]]]]]]] http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/not-in-the-book-the-photographic-panel-of-the-hsca/ http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n5/full/0801233a.html International Journal of Obesity (No doubt a part of COINTELPRO!) "...Self-reported height, meanwhile, is consistently overreported, particularly in older adult populations, and men generally overreport to a greater degree than women..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 this from the HSCA :Typical discrepancies in ]might were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. // Valenti ================================================================================================= Many ex military men commit Federal crimes. The FBI would not like inaccurate Biometric data from the DOD. The HSCA panel ? I don't have a 100 % belief in them.GAAL ]]]]]]]]]]]] http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/not-in-the-book-the-photographic-panel-of-the-hsca/ http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n5/full/0801233a.html International Journal of Obesity (No doubt a part of COINTELPRO!) "...Self-reported height, meanwhile, is consistently overreported, particularly in older adult populations, and men generally overreport to a greater degree than women..." I have no doubt at all is COINTELPRO, Bernie. Look at the initials... JOO! C'mon.... that can't be coincidence. Anyhow, I'm still waiting for an actual cite (as opposed to an opinion) regarding men being measured on the way of the USMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 Meanwhile... can someone PLEASE make Don happy and address the FRAUD issue?? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 this from the HSCA :Typical discrepancies in ]might were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. // Valenti ================================================================================================= Many ex military men commit Federal crimes. The FBI would not like inaccurate Biometric data from the DOD. The HSCA panel ? I don't have a 100 % belief in them.GAAL ]]]]]]]]]]]] http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/not-in-the-book-the-photographic-panel-of-the-hsca/ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=566220&fileId=s1368980002000782 "...Results: Spearman rank correlations between self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI were high. Height was overestimated by a mean of 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.34) cm in men and 0.60 (0.51–0.70) cm in women..." - Cambridge Journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 To put in fonts and colors that the H & L crowd can understand - It is FRAUD. Deal with the FRAUD, David, instead of attempting to change the damn subject. You appear to be giving it your best shot... Get in touch with White's estate and John Armstrong and sue them... What exaclty constitutes your pound of flesh on this one Greg - looks to me like there is no one on this forum or even the internet who you desire to speak to about the subject. White is gone and JA doesn't care who you are... you're just spitting into the wind... maybe, just maybe if you worked on your own stuff and posted it for others to rip apart there would be a little balance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 p health.PNG this from the HSCA :Typical discrepancies in ]might were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. // Valenti ================================================================================================= Many ex military men commit Federal crimes. The FBI would not like inaccurate Biometric data from the DOD. The HSCA panel ? I don't have a 100 % belief in them.GAAL ]]]]]]]]]]]] http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/not-in-the-book-the-photographic-panel-of-the-hsca/ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=566220&fileId=s1368980002000782 "...Results: Spearman rank correlations between self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI were high. Height was overestimated by a mean of 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.34) cm in men and 0.60 (0.51–0.70) cm in women..." - Cambridge Journal http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(02)00708-5/abstract Results "Self-reported heights at Time 1 and Time 2 were highly correlated, and the mean difference between height at Time 1 and Time 2 was small. Results were similar for self-reported weight at Time 1 and Time 2 and body mass index (BMI) calculated from these values. Although self-reported values of height, weight, and BMI were highly correlated with their measured values, on average, students over reported their height by 2.7 inches and underreported their weight by 3.5 pounds. Resulting BMI values were an average of 2.6 kg/m2 lower when based on self-reported vs. measured values. The percentages of students classified as “overweight” or “at risk for overweight” were therefore lower when based on self-reported rather than on measured values. White students were more likely than those in other race/ethnic groups to over report their height, and the tendency to over report height increased by grade. Female students were more likely than male students to underreport their weight." Can we put this to bed now Steven? Men/boys lie about their size. Ask any woman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 To put in fonts and colors that the H & L crowd can understand - It is FRAUD. Deal with the FRAUD, David, instead of attempting to change the damn subject. You appear to be giving it your best shot... Get in touch with White's estate and John Armstrong and sue them... What exaclty constitutes your pound of flesh on this one Greg - looks to me like there is no one on this forum or even the internet who you desire to speak to about the subject. White is gone and JA doesn't care who you are... you're just spitting into the wind... maybe, just maybe if you worked on your own stuff and posted it for others to rip apart there would be a little balance here. I don't want to speak to anyone about it? You're joking? I started a thread for that purpose. Wrong way around as usual. No one wants to discuss it with me, is what you must have meant. And we all know why that is. But if if you don't want to talk about it, why are you even on this thread? You're not just here to disrupt it are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) maybe, just maybe if you worked on your own stuff and posted it for others to rip apart there would be a little balance here. John hasn't posted his book online. He has posted his evidence files. Someone else has put up a website dedicated to his theory. However, whenever something on that site becomes problematic, the auto response from the webmaster is Armstrong had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, my research is scattered over 15 years and multiple forums and websites for anyone to tear apart. You don't need to fork out a hundred bucks to do it. I have made my share of mistakes along the way, taken my knocks, learned my lessons and honed my skills. I am absolutely cocksure (as Don would put it) that my 3 volumes will stand the test of time because they will withstand the best shots anyone can give them. They will also contain more REAL new and RELEVANT material than any other book on the case ever published. Edited May 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Harvey and Lee is available here, https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a thanks to Robert Morrow, who linked to his book box in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19886 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 Harvey and Lee is available here, https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a thanks to Robert Morrow, who linked to his book box in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19886 Thanks David. Not quite what this was about. DJ was complaining that I should post my work online "for others to rip apart". Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that. I have been doing that for 15 years. So yes - you don't have to fork $100 for his book. But even that's not Armstrong's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 What exaclty constitutes your pound of flesh on this one Greg Pound of flesh: "The figurative use of the phrase to refer to any lawful but nevertheless unreasonable recompense dates to the late 18th century." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/284400.html Since I am not after any recompense or damages, your turn of phrase is highly offensive and should be retracted. But I will tell you what I want because it isn't for me. What I want is for Armstrong's benefit as well as that of the jfk "community". I want him to repudiate his theory so that no further mayhem is caused by it. This will be good for the community, and in the long term, it could mean he will be remembered as the donor of a substantial body of research to the world, instead of as the inventor of a theory propped up in part by fraudulent behavior. The alternative of course, is to do nothing and hope I go away. But we both know that's not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now