Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) On 5/3/2024 at 11:42 AM, Kevin Balch said: Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said: You don't need to be an expert to see that the light was photographically put into the windows...by some hack who did a lousy job. You have no explanation. I do. Still, I’d prefer to have someone familiar with film photography explain if overexposure can cause such an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) On 5/3/2024 at 12:13 PM, Kevin Balch said: Still, I’d prefer to have someone familiar with film photography explain if overexposure can cause such an effect. I Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Whatever it is that's causing it, there seems to be a pattern. I wish Craig Lamson were around to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) I Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Just my thoughts as I didn't dig into this, but to me it looks like a digital enhancement. The alignment is just too good (like Mark indicates, the patterns) vs. a sloppy job in general, not something done in the 1960's. Copy/paste repeated a number of times Way too much contrast to look natural, compare to the real (...) light shining on the box in front I would be worth it just asking the website about the provenance of this photo, was the original a negative, did they scan it, was it a digital photo, what's with the date, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 30 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said: I don't see why people are so resistant to the most obvious explanation here, yet they accept the most bizarre conclusions elsewhere. Your "obvious explanation" assumes an absurd level of micromanagement. And we haven't seen you try to explain the sunlight in the Allan photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) On 5/3/2024 at 1:57 PM, Jean Ceulemans said: Just my thoughts as I didn't dig into this, but to me it looks like a digital enhancement. The alignment is just too good (like Mark indicates, the patterns) vs. a sloppy job in general, not something done in the 1960's. Copy/paste repeated a number of times Way too much contrast to look natural, compare to the real (...) light shining on the box in front I would be worth it just asking the website about the provenance of this photo, was the original a negative, did they scan it, was it a digital photo, what's with the date, etc Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Mark Ulrik said: Your "obvious explanation" assumes an absurd level of micromanagement. And we haven't seen you try to explain the sunlight in the Allan photos. "Absurd level of micromanagement?" They murdered the president. I'm talking about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo, not the Allen photos. The sunlight in the Allen photos is real. The sunlight in the FWST photo is fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 4 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said: "Absurd level of micromanagement?" They murdered the president. I'm talking about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo, not the Allen photos. The sunlight in the Allen photos is real. The sunlight in the FWST photo is fake. It seems to me that the sunlight in the Allan photos makes it less likely that the sunlight in the FWST photo is fake and more likely that it is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) On 5/3/2024 at 2:17 PM, Mark Ulrik said: It seems to me that the sunlight in the Allan photos makes it less likely that the sunlight in the FWST photo is fake and more likely that it is real. Yo Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said: You mean you can't see the difference? Or do you mean something else? Sunlight is sunlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bertolino Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 (edited) On 5/3/2024 at 2:34 PM, Mark Ulrik said: Sunlight is sunlight. " Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 32 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said: Your "obvious explanation" assumes an absurd level of micromanagement. And we haven't seen you try to explain the sunlight in the Allan photos. Especially since he has not explained why a photograph would need to be faked to provide an alibi that would not be deemed necessary for another 3 days or cast doubt on the provenance of the photo. Or show that Roberts told the police about the patrol car in front of Oswald’s rooming house earlier than November 29. I’m wondering if this was an effect of using flash photography indoors against a bright light source through a dirty window and inappropriate shutter speed. How could they do such a half-assed retouching while getting the shadows right on the boxes? I’d like to rule out simpler explanations first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said: "Sunlight is sunlight?" That's your argument? That's why you think the Allen photos prove the FWST photo to be genuine? You accept that the Allen photos were taken during the day, but not that the FWST was (if I understand you correctly)? Do you think Valentine returned in the evening to pose for the FWST photographer? Who then performed some darkroom magic to make it look is if the photo was taken during the day? 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