John Dolva Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) Pat does that mean that this isolation is in order to make a image of the gun that's already there, and not in any way associated with any effort to alter anything. If so, that makes sense. The right hand image is the original, well they both are, and the tape over is an innocent thing. Nothing fishy in any way? Trust you to bring a bit of sanity to the question. It doesn't do to jump to anything either way. I overreacted with 'it doesn't make sense' and interpreted things that apparently aren't there. Possibly the equivalent of software 'masking'. Lee finds a lot of photos in many places. There is absolutely no reason to consider he has manipulated. It's just presented as he found it. Pats explanation, if I understand correctly makes sense. It would explain the discrepancies I see as it is not meant to deceive (which it doesn't) but only to isolate the rifle, possibly for some analysis. Edited January 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) According to a friend who's done professional photo layout, a rubylith mask is taped onto the top of the photo. It allowed a graphic artist to isolate the gun and create an image of the gun by itself. She swears this was totally standard behavior for graphic artists in the sixties. Well into the early 90's actually... Around that time Photoshop 2 or 3 was taking off [thats when Adobe came out with layers -- Painter2 had layers a year before Photoshop got around to them] Yes, it was standard to 'isolate a portion of the picture [by cutting ruby - creating a hole cutter matte] in this case the rifle -- if that's what you were enhancing or correcting and wish NOT to change other parts of the photo. This artist appears to applied the ruby overlay, hasn't isolated [outlined the rifle and removed the ruby covering the entire rifle, yet ... based on the photo presented here I suspect this artist was isolationg the rifle, however if the artist was touching up the rifle and the rifle only, I'd expect to see ruby covering the entire picture, not just the area it presently covers... Jack White can confirm the above or correct me, he's done enough of it, many, many years of experience Edited January 15, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Your conspiracy IS the conspiracy is duly noted - having said that Of course it's easy to do NOW -- the question is: IF the intermediate image (overlay included) is a image from circa. 1963-64 -- somebody's got explaining to do, yes? I agree, David. If it could be shown to be 'real' it could be seen as evidence of something. __________________ I got rid of all traces of the virus after a couple of hours. Still no idea where it came from, the actvation at the moment of download is not conclusive but thought it best not to take risks. __________________ The main thing about the photos is that the left one is not a template for the right one. The idea of taking a photo of a photo of a photo for a transparency to tape on to create a collage to photograph and put together as a presentation that seems to indicate something fishy and for that presentation to be fundamentally flawed, and saving that for it to be discovered years later seems fishy. Any ideas why? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas why? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John; With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious. Tom http://www.parascope.com/nexus/oswaldo/oswald05.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas why? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John; With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious. Tom http://www.parascope.com/nexus/oswaldo/oswald05.htm Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset** to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious.. Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy. EDIT:: just to avoid possibility of misunderstanding: I'm speaking only of my own mind here. Edited January 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas why? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John; With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious. Tom http://www.parascope.com/nexus/oswaldo/oswald05.htm Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious.. Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy. _____________________ Circa 1963-64 mattes material (ruby - color of the transparant mask material) or masks were cut with a knife -- when complete, they were very, VERY accurate -- it appears they (whomever) had not begun the cutting process... btw John, Tom Purvis is quite able discussing Dealey Plaza photos/motion film - backyard photos... Edited January 15, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas why? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John; With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious. Tom http://www.parascope.com/nexus/oswaldo/oswald05.htm Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious.. Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy. _____________________ Circa 1963-64 mattes material (ruby - color of the transparant mask material) or masks were cut with a knife -- when complete, they were very, VERY accurate -- it appears they (whomever) had not begun the cutting process... btw John, Tom Purvis is quite able discussing Dealey Plaza photos/motion film - backyard photos... Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun. In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection. Edited January 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process. Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) Craig Lamson wrote: Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun. dgh01: duh, you think the junior varsity would recieve the call? And, of course hair could be an issue, If the hair is in the forground OVER the rifle -- not the case here In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection. dgh01: who might of examined/inspected this photos in say, 1965? Who knows what lineage this photo has -- who actually cares ---- rotflmfao Edited January 15, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process.Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario? Thats clearly a good possiblilty and the one that crossed my mind when the image was first posted. Craig Lamson wrote:Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun. dgh01: duh, you think the junior varsity would recieve the call? And, of course hair could be an issue, If the hair is in the forground OVER the rifle -- not the case here In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection. dgh01: who might of examined/inspected this photos in say, 1965? Who knows what lineage this photo has -- who actually cares ---- rotflmfao Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process.Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario? Apparent? That's a stretch! I for one don't know, no idea the lineage of the concerned photo -- a fair scenario though that JFK assassination related photo manipulation was alive and well at the time... If the press needed a image of a MC for whatever purposes thats simple, there was plenty of promo material regarding the MC was available - IF they wanted a clear photo of the alledged murder weapon and the concerned image was the only one available -- wallah! Was that the only scenario your friend came too? The only use for the isolated rifle image [speculation of course] ? Edited January 15, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. Edited January 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) Playing Devil's Advocate here, I will ask the question; If the image of the rifle in Day's hand's reflects an attempt to decieve, what would be the implications of that? Here is where it would ostensibly lead to, in my opinion: In Robert Groden's DVD 'JFK - The Case for Conspiracy' it is asserted that the 'Dallas Cinema Associates Film' that was never seen until the last decade or so, contains footage of a rifle being lowered by the Dallas Police from the roof of the TSBD via the fire escape ladder, in which the 'rifle does not have a scope.' I am not privy as to whether this is true or not, but I will add that there is a dillemma for serious JFK Researchers, especially those who approach the 'investigative materials' WC Reports/Exhibits, etc., with the view that 'the official version' of pre/post assassination events were produced 'with the intent' of producing a 'valid historical record.' I, myself and many others, I believe will submit that the 'official story' is nothing but sham history, and that looking at the evidence is not only highly problematic for that reason, but MUST lead you to the approach of breaking the back of the accepted version of history, this is what the most credible books on the assassination have done ala Gaeton Fonzi, Peter Dale Scott, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, William Turner, Dick Russell, David Lifton, Anthony Summers, Larry Hancock etc...with varying degrees of success. All one has to do is read the most credible critiques of said investigative bodies to see a proven pattern of lies, cover-ups, destroyed documents, (with keen attention to who the individuals were destroying the documents) and murders to realize that, in light of that turning around and treating the analysis of the 'evidence,' leads you to nowhere. Thus, in the year 2006 I personally believe that the official version has been destroyed in two key areas. 1. The premise of Lee Harvey Oswald as a 'lone nut Marxist assassin.' 2. The complete destruction of the premise stipulating that 'an individual group,' was responsible for the assassination, a premise that has been popular for quite some time; Cubans, the Mafia, the CIA, Right-Wing Extremists, The Texas Oil interests, etc. The only problem is the clock is ticking.....which works towards the advantage of those who have no interest in the truth coming out, and the disadvantage of those who seek the truth. Edited January 15, 2006 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 "Playing Devil's Advocate here, I will ask the question; If the image of the rifle in Day's hand's reflects an attempt to decieve, what would be the implications of that? Here is where it would ostensibly lead to, in my opinion: In Robert Groden's DVD 'JFK - The Case for Conspiracy' it is asserted that the 'Dallas Cinema Associates Film' that was never seen until the last decade or so, contains footage of a rifle being lowered by the Dallas Police from the roof of the TSBD via the fire escape ladder, in which the 'rifle does not have a scope.' I am not privy as to whether this is true or not, but I will add that there is a dillemma for serious JFK Researchers, especially those who approach the 'investigative materials' WC Reports/Exhibits, etc., with the view that 'the official version' of pre/post assassination events were produced 'with the intent' of producing a 'valid historical record.' I, myself and many others, I believe will submit that the 'official story' is nothing but sham history, and that looking at the evidence is not only highly problematic for that reason, but MUST lead you to the approach of breaking the back of the accepted version of history, this is what the most credible books on the assassination have done ala Gaeton Fonzi, Peter Dale Scott, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, William Turner, Dick Russell, David Lifton, Anthony Summers, Larry Hancock etc...with varying degrees of success. All one has to do is read the most credible critiques of said investigative bodies to see a proven pattern of lies, cover-ups, destroyed documents, (with keen attention to who the individuals were destroying the documents) and murders to realize that, in light of that turning around and treating the analysis of the 'evidence,' leads you to nowhere. Thus, in the year 2006 I personally believe that the official version has been destroyed in two key areas. 1. The premise of Lee Harvey Oswald as a 'lone nut Marxist assassin.' 2. The complete destruction of the premise stipulating that 'an individual group,' was responsible for the assassination, a premise that has been popular for quite some time; Cubans, the Mafia, the CIA, Right-Wing Extremists, The Texas Oil interests, etc. The only problem is the clock is ticking.....which works towards the advantage of those who have no interest in the truth coming out, and the disadvantage of those who seek the truth." __________________________________ "Thus, in the year 2006 I personally believe that the official version has been destroyed in two key areas. 1. The premise of Lee Harvey Oswald as a 'lone nut Marxist assassin.' 2. The complete destruction of the premise stipulating that 'an individual group,' was responsible for the assassination, a premise that has been popular for quite some time; Cubans, the Mafia, the CIA, Right-Wing Extremists, The Texas Oil interests, etc." Well put IMO ___________________________________ Robert, I've just gone through the DCA film and the version I have doesn't show anything like that EXCEPT:It may be an example of 'lingering' or 'retained image' (I don't know exactly what the word is) whereby films 'work' where if you have a series of images flashing at more than 10 per second the eye retains an image of each and blends them into what looks like a smooth movement. the reason this MIGHT be relevant in this case is that when the policemen are on the fire escape, the very next image is of a person with a shotgun over shoulder in approximately the place where the police on the fire escape was the frames previously. So a rapid(normal, not frame by frame viewing) COULD see a police man without, and then with, a rifle. Perhaps this person who saw this told a story that now chinese whisper style is here. (Just a thought only based on the version of the film I have.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints? Back-on-point, still photog - back on point So lurkers stay tuned! ... Edited January 15, 2006 by David G. Healy 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