Absolutely Provably Fake Photograph Of Officer Valentine On 6th Floor

[Jean Ceulemans]

48 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

The alignment is too good? I guess you did not notice the "wood" between the panes of "glass."

I was talking about the very straight lines, typical in selecting when not using freehand.

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:54 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

I was talking about the very straight lines, typical in selecting when not using freehand.

H

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:53 PM, Mark Ulrik said:

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?

 

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Jean Ceulemans]

6 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

How do you explain the weird "wood" between the panes of "glass?"

A sloppy job IMO

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

I’ll have to reread chapter 5 of Dino Brugioni’s Photo Fakery.

Incidentally, Brugioni is convinced that the backyard photos are genuine.

[Jean Ceulemans]

Something I don't get is why does the front box show the natural way of sun shining on it (a little fading from light to dark), that certainly suggests the photo being made during daytime

I agree somebody added enhanced light to the windows (in a sloppy way).

But as the light on that front box looks natural... odd....  

 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/3/2024 at 3:13 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

I agree somebody added enhanced light to the windows (in a sloppy way).

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 5/3/2024 at 9:13 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

Something I don't get is why does the front box show the natural way of sun shining on it (a little fading from light to dark), that certainly suggests the photo being made during daytime

I agree somebody added enhanced light to the windows (in a sloppy way).

But as the light on that front box looks natural... odd....  

 

 

 

Compare to the enhanced light on the other box near the window, there's even signs of "accidental" pasting next to it on the wall...

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Donald Willis]

14 hours ago, Richard Bertolino said:

Your explanation is plausible, but mine explains the sighting of car 207 by Earlene Roberts, so I think mine is better. There seems to have been some genuine confusion over what number floor "The Sniper's Nest" was found on. Also, a witness named Ewins or Euins or something told Sgt. Harkness and James Underwood that the shooter had been on the 4th or 5th floor, handing over another key to the Key Stoners. Keystone Kops are not incompatible with conspiracy. Also, taking into consideration that the DPD investigation of Car 207 was laughably ridiculous, links the Car 207 whereabouts issue to the Valentine whereabouts issue, and that is left unexplained by your interpretation.

 

[Donald Willis]

To continue my reply to Richard Bertolino... If you can enlarge the page I just posted, about 10 minutes ago, you'll see that I have Oswald coming in to N. Beckley about 12:51 and alighting at the 1000 block.  So, rooming house, about 12:52.  Leaving it, about 12:55.  Now to switch to Hill/Valentine:  Hill radios dispatcher about 12:48:  "Hill & Valentine en route to Elm & Houston".  Arrival time there: circa 12:51.  And they did arrive there, as shown in a photo on jfkinvestigators.wordpress.com.  Hill interacts at the TSBD with Insp. Sawyer and a third-floor suspect, going up to & back down from the 3rd floor, with the suspect.  No way, then, that he can be on Beckley before, say, 1:05, after Oswald has left.  Even if a third officer borrowed their car, it's doubtful he could have been there between 12:51 & 12:55...

[Tony Rose]

Photo analysis is the most intriguing and worst documented aspect of the case. And people get so het up about it.

Now, somebody tell me why that open container has light on the side opposite the window?

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I still don’t agree with your thesis but I have to admit that I can’t explain this part of the photo. Is there a photography expert that can explain the “bleed over” that overlaps the pillar?

Bright glaring light sources in the background can bleed over onto objects in the foreground because glare has lots of diverging light rays. Some of the diverging light rays coming off the window would strike the back of the pillar and never make it to the camera. But rays diverging at a lesser angle would just skirt by the edge of the pillar and continue on to the camera film.
   Because they are still diverging from the pillar to the camera film they end up overlapping with the image of the pillar on the film. Diverging rays are also why a glaring spot will look larger than the object casting the glare.
 This image on the pillar appears strange because the vertical edge is very sharp. Multiple rays diverging at slightly different angles should cause the edge to be soft since the differently diverging rays are landing on the film at slightly different places. But adjusting the contrast can take a fuzzy line and make it look sharper. I think it can also be inherent in the particular settings used in an enlarger when copies are made.
 I would have assumed the little triangle shadows were just an artifact created from the corners of the dark window frame eliminating some angular glare. But one triangle appears on the top right side of the box and is nowhere near a corner.
   All the triangles have almost the same angle of 45 degrees and I would have assumed the 90 degree angles of the window frame corners are the reason. But the triangle on the the top of the box in the center has a vertical window frame piece while the box itself is 7 degrees tilted, yet that triangle has the same angle as the others. That is odd.
  Just spit balling here, but Polaroid lens filters were used in the sixties and would have been a good choice for this photo as the Sunlight was glaring through the window.
  The lines/windows in sunglass Polaroid filters are positioned horizontally in the frame to eliminate diverging rays on the vertical axis because the Sun is generally above the viewer and the glare/reflection from the Sun mostly bounces back along the vertical axis towards the Sun. If you are driving in the direction of the Sun the Polaroid is most effective. But much less effective when the Sun is off to the side. If you are driving toward the Sun and tilt your head 45 degrees to the side the glare cutting effect goes away because the lines/windows in the lens need to be perpendicular to the Sun to have the full glare cutting effect.  On cameras the filter can be rotated to match the position of the Sun.
 Just guessing here but maybe the the corners of the window frame eliminate diverging rays from above and to the side and the Polaroid filters additionally eliminates diverging rays spreading vertically. But that does not explain the triangle that appears on the top right side of the box in the window. I found one old film of the 6th floor window that showed a very slight triangle effect in the corners which give a partial explanation. 
 The twisted window frame on the right side of the box maybe due to light being reflected off the side of the box facing the window and striking the window frame where it is especially reflective or where the angle of the paint happens to point directly back to the camera. Like a chip of paint that is hanging off the frame and sending a reflection to the camera that makes that part of the frame disappear. 
  
 

Edited May 4 by Chris Bristow

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Tony Rose said:

Photo analysis is the most intriguing and worst documented aspect of the case. And people get so het up about it.

Now, somebody tell me why that open container has light on the side opposite the window?

Cardboard is a poor but not totally ineffective reflective surface so it is not surprising that the adjacent box would reflect a small portion of the large amount of light coming through the window onto the box. The boxes were often bound with tape which is also somewhat reflective. I also think the photo was taken with a flashbulb.

[Kevin Balch]

24 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Bright glaring light sources in the background can bleed over onto objects in the foreground because glare has lots of diverging light rays. Some of the diverging light rays coming off the window would strike the back of the pillar and never make it to the camera. But rays diverging at a lesser angle would just skirt by the edge of the pillar and continue on to the camera film.
   Because they are still diverging from the pillar to the camera film they end up overlapping with the image of the pillar on the film. Diverging rays are also why a glaring spot will look larger than the object casting the glare.
 This image on the pillar appears strange because the vertical edge is very sharp. Multiple rays diverging at slightly different angles should cause the edge to be soft since the differently diverging rays are landing on the film at slightly different places. But adjusting the contrast can take a fuzzy line and make it look sharper. I think it can also be inherent in the particular settings used in an enlarger when copies are made.
 I would have assumed the little triangle shadows were just an artifact created from the corners of the dark window frame eliminating some angular glare. But one triangle appears on the top right side of the box and is nowhere near a corner.
   All the triangles have almost the same angle of 45 degrees and I would have assumed the 90 degree angles of the window frame corners are the reason. But the triangle on the the top of the box in the center has a vertical window frame piece while the box itself is 7 degrees tilted, yet that triangle has the same angle as the others. That is odd.
  Just spit balling here, but Polaroid lens filters were used in the sixties and would have been a good choice for this photo as the Sunlight was glaring through the window.
  The lines/windows in sunglass Polaroid filters are positioned horizontally in the frame to eliminate diverging rays on the vertical axis because the Sun is generally above the viewer and the glare/reflection from the Sun mostly bounces back along the vertical axis towards the Sun. If you are driving in the direction of the Sun the Polaroid is most effective. But much less effective when the Sun is off to the side. If you are driving toward the Sun and tilt your head 45 degrees to the side the glare cutting effect goes away because the lines/windows in the lens need to be perpendicular to the Sun to have the full glare cutting effect.  On cameras the filter can be rotated to match the position of the Sun.
 Just guessing here but maybe the the corners of the window frame eliminate diverging rays from above and to the side and the Polaroid filters additionally eliminates diverging rays spreading vertically. But that does not explain the triangle that appears on the top right side of the box in the window. I found one old film of the 6th floor window that showed a very slight triangle effect in the corners which give a partial explanation. 
 The twisted window frame on the right side of the box maybe due to light being reflected off the side of the box facing the window and striking the window frame where it is especially reflective or where the angle of the paint happens to point directly back to the camera. Like a chip of paint that is hanging off the frame and sending a reflection to the camera that makes that part of the frame disappear. 
  
 

I agree about the bleed but also confused about the sharp edges.

The negative itself would have to be examined. It would also be helpful to look at similar photos to see if the effect is there.

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:56 PM, Tony Rose said:

Photo analysis is the most intriguing and worst documented aspect of the case. And people get so het up about it.

Now, somebody tell me why that open container has light on the side opposite the window?

 

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino