photo alteration by the media

[Jack White]

It's the Yarbrough exhibit. It's downloadable in PDF fomat from NARA (use adobe to cut paste at 100 %)

I've also looked at it at the library in their WC Report (mint 1964 copy). The line etc are there as well(without pdf artefacts) unfortunately I have no way of scanning it without photo-copying first so it would be a waste. If you have a copy of the WC Report, please do a good scan and post.

Do you have a page number or exhibit number? Never mind! I found it.

Jack

Here is a RAW SCAN of the Yarbarough exhibit. It is in B/W only, so I could post

it as large as possible. I also have it as a color scan.

Jack

[John Dolva]

Great, Jack.

The upper line of the lighter stripe is sharper. Perhaps it's a lump of tissue?

The negative will be important.

Another thing is the pant leg. There is no other photo showing Clint's leg bent without the pantcuff riding high. IOW the supposed dark pantleg is not Clints.

And the lack of tread on the other photo showing a very smooth sole needs addressing. Altgens 7 (if a good scan is available) seems to show the underside of the shoe.

As well, I think the observation that it seems to be a left shoe, not a right one has not been satisfactorily countered.

All up: one CANNOT say with certainty that it is Clints shoe.

Edited July 20, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Direct scan from Yarborough exhibit with chroma enhancement

shows:

1. Line is not quite as prominent as Dolva scan, but is there

2. "Heel of shoe" shows detail not seen in other scans; fingers?

Of course, no two halftones are alike, as the screen dots fall

in different places. Though I used a descreening program, the

enlargement is so great that the dots still show, hampering

detail.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks to the Craigster's annoying harping on what the shape is

that he sees as a shoesole, I looked back thru my Corham file

and made this interesting discovery.

Your turn, Craigster.

(Others also feel free to comment.)

Jack

Nice job showing JPG compression artifacts Jack.

Now you have dicked around for another few posts, answer the question. What is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip. Your last answer was that it was a shadow or a reflection..still stand by that? and If so, explain EXACTLY how either would be possible.

Back to you Jack!

[Craig Lamson]

Great, Jack.

The upper line of the lighter stripe is sharper. Perhaps it's a lump of tissue?

The negative will be important.

Another thing is the pant leg. There is no other photo showing Clint's leg bent without the pantcuff riding high. IOW the supposed dark pantleg is not Clints.

And the lack of tread on the other photo showing a very smooth sole needs addressing. Altgens 7 (if a good scan is available) seems to show the underside of the shoe.

As well, I think the observation that it seems to be a left shoe, not a right one has not been satisfactorily countered.

All up: one CANNOT say with certainty that it is Clints shoe.

On the left shoe, right shoe thing...Consider that this shoe is in direct light and is hanging OVER the lower chrome strip. As such it WILL impart a SHADOW and a REFLECTION onto the chrome and the black body of the car. Have you taken this into consideration? Parts of what some of you are considering as the shoe are actually the shadow and reflection of the shoe, creating the illusion that it is a left....

It apppears that the pant leg is not a pant leg but rather a sock, the pant leg is unseen.

It also appears that the upper white area on the shoe is not the sock as other have suggested but rather part of the shoe.

[Jack White]

Because of the Craigster nagging, I spent a long time

looking at photos of the seatback. I have decided that

the answer to his persistent question is A REFLECTION

IN THE TWO CHROME STRIPS of the seat back. Not a

shadow, but a reflection. The stripe thru the shape is

in the dark area of the slit between the two chrome

strips.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Because of the Craigster nagging, I spent a long time

looking at photos of the seatback. I have decided that

the answer to his persistent question is A REFLECTION

IN THE TWO CHROME STRIPS of the seat back. Not a

shadow, but a reflection. The stripe thru the shape is

in the dark area of the slit between the two chrome

strips.

Jack

Wonderful!

Now for the test. Lets see if Jack has a clue or if he needs to buy one.

Please explain exactly how a reflection of the seatback can be found on the triangle shaped lower chrome strip? The side of this strip FACES AWAY from the seatback. Please show us the angle of incidence and angle of reflection REQUIRED for this dark shape to be a REFLECTION of the seatback in the lower chrome strip.

We will NOT be grading on the curve.

Added on edit:

Jack really DOES need a clue...here is one...free of charge

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg

Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

One reason I've not responded to the 'overhang' is because I simply don't know what the limo profile is at that particular area.

The shape of the moulding is going through changes, some possibly drastic ones involving a flattening of the chrome strup from an inverted 'U' to a 45 degree angle with a hand hold behind (which could be an other factor as a kind of 'black hole' or less reflective area on the other side of the chrome strip). Also a photo from the Ford museum shows a profile change of the body and chrome just about where the triangle occurs which in that particular photo creates a darker area on the chrome and a distortion of reflections on the body.

Also in the photo with Clint stretching his leg back the toe is inside the gutter. How deep is the gutter at the area in question?

If the toe is inside pressed against the chrome strip on the inside where the chrome strip may be leanoing away from the foot? what then?

I don't know. (Pamela?? help..)

Perhaps it will be a matter of waiting for the negative to appear.

The idea now that it's a sock, not a pantleg and that it no longer is made white by light seems a bit reaching. I see what is meant but its a bit rubbery.

The 'white is shoe' scales the limo to 2/3 of the size. The scaling is wrong.

Alos the sole pattern.

Has a good Altgens#7 appeared to look at the underside of Clints shoe?

Edited July 21, 2006 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

One reason I've not responded to the 'overhang' is because I simply don't know what the limo profile is at that particular area.

The shape of the moulding is going through changes, some possibly drastic ones involving a flattening of the chrome strup from an inverted 'U' to a 45 degree angle with a hand hold behind (which could be an other factor as a kind of 'black hole' or less reflective area on the other side of the chrome strip). Also a photo from the Ford museum shows a profile change of the body and chrome just about where the triangle occurs which in that particular photo creates a darker area on the chrome and a distortion of reflections on the body.

Also in the photo with Clint stretching his leg back the toe is inside the gutter. How deep is the gutter at the area in question?

If the toe is inside pressed against the chrome strip on the inside where the chrome strip may be leanoing away from the foot? what then?

I don't know. (Pamela?? help..)

Perhaps it will be a matter of waiting for the negative to appear.

The idea now that it's a sock, not a pantleg and that it no longer is made white by light seems a bit reaching. I see what is meant but its a bit rubbery.

The 'white is shoe' scales the limo to 2/3 of the size. The scaling is wrong.

Alos the sole pattern.

Has a good Altgens#7 appeared to look at the underside of Clints shoe?

I'll make it easy for you John, show us ANY profile fot the lower chrome strip that allows for the dark shape to be a reflection. Remember, angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. YOu find a profile that works and then lest see if that profile can fitthe limo.

Please show your work that produces limo ar 2/3 scale.

Why is the sock reaching, its exactly what we see in the reverse view of Hill sliding his foot into position. Not "rubbery" at all, its a near perfect match.

Also ther is absolutely NO indication of a handhold in the are in question.

[John Dolva]

I refer you to your post informing JLAllen, that :: yes the knuckles are reflected as suggested

___

You suggest the white is now shoe. You show how.

___

I feel you're projecting your modus inappropriately on to me, Craig. I try not to make statements of importance without something to support them.

Fingerprints, chrome reflectivity reduced, motorcade (Powers)

[Craig Lamson]

I refer you to your post informing JLAllen, that :: yes the knuckles are reflected as suggested

___

You suggest the white is now shoe. You show how.

___

I feel you're projecting your modus inappropriately on to me, Craig. I try not to make statements of importance without something to support them.

Fingerprints, chrome reflectivity reduced, motorcade (Powers)

The shoe is white: I've posted NUMEROUS example of HOW. Its a reflection!

Fingerprints etc..bullxxxx. Noting to reflect in the chrome but the blackness around the car. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Also notice how the "reduced reflectivity of the fingersprints" INCREASES the tone of the dark chrome strip. Pretty standard studio photography trick to making a dark piece of brightwork look bright even thought there is nothing light reflected in it...coat it wilt dulling spray. Fingerprints work the same way, you have it all backwards.

Knuckles: YES the ANGLES WORK! Please note exactly WHERE the knuckles are reflected and then note the shape of the chrome strip at that point. Then TRY and understand angle of incidence equals angle of reflectiion. See Wiki if needed.

Show WHAT angles of the chrome strip will reflect the seat! Here is a clue, its going to take a chrome angle somewhere in the range of 20 degrees or less to place a reflection that close to the bottom of the chrome strip.

There is no indication that the chrome strip flattens to that extent. Just the opposite is true.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

The knuckles are lower than the seat in height. Besides all that, I don't know (as I've already stated) that it is a reflection or shadow at all.

Is it known whether the Limo used in the Irish trip earlier that year is the same? (Pamela?) If so I can show flatness, otherwise it appears hinted at in close scrutiny of images posted.

Fingerprints:: not bullxxxx.. rather indicative of SShand. There was a running board along the side of Limo when delivered. It was removed. It's reasonable to expect handholds, and thus fingerprints and the cleaning/polishing of same reduces reflectivity over time.

[Craig Lamson]

The knuckles are lower than the seat in height. Besides all that, I don't know (as I've already stated) that it is a reflection or shadow at all.

Is it known whether the Limo used in the Irish trip earlier that year is the same? (Pamela?) If so I can show flatness, otherwise it appears hinted at in close scrutiny of images posted.

Fingerprints:: not bullxxxx.. rather indicative of SShand. There was a running board along the side of Limo when delivered. It was removed. It's reasonable to expect handholds, and thus fingerprints and the cleaning/polishing of same reduces reflectivity over time.

SHeesh..are you really this dense or are you just playing stupid?

The knuckles are also MUCH CLOSER (in lateral distance) to the top arc of the lower chrome strip. ANGLE of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Please ATTEMPT to show flatness. But good luck none of the images I have seen indicate any change in profile for the triangle chrome strip as it moves backwards from the door jamb. In addition the reflective nature of the chrome and WHAT IS REFLCTED IN IT shows that no change in shape is taking place in the area in question. A number of photos show that quite clearly. Quite simply you have screwed up.

Fingerprints ARE bullxxxx. Your ignorance of the subject matter is showing. Again find ONE image that shows handholds...one. Don't give me "reasonable to expect" Cleaning is not going to reduce the reflectivity of the chrome...sheesh, ever cleaned the chrome on your car? Did it stop reflecting light.

No all of this is very simple, you simply cant deal with how a reflecition works. And instead of actually LEARNING you are grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to save face.

[Robin Unger]

Altgens 7 Crop for John.

Click on the photo for enlargement.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

Take it as given::: I'm both stupid and dense, and throw in delusded and disreputable as well. OK?

_____

Projection:: Perhaps you think I'm trying to 'win' something? It would explain some pf the strange, rather offensive comments ( Stupid, Dense, Scewded up, Ignorant, Save face. These reasons belong to you. Keep them), . Or perhaps you choose regard the whole thing as a 'debate' of sorts? Again that reason for being belongs to you. Keep it.

______

There exists interest in seeing if it can be known what is in that area.

______

The reference to fingerprints is merely to show that there may very well be a handhold reason for the dark patches on the Powers photo. Pick a patch of chrome on your car a scrub it particularly vigorously everyday for a year Pretend on the odd occasion to be incompetent and use a cutting compond and then check reflectivity and compare it to the rest. I'm not suggesting the garage attendants are that incompetent (perhaps pretend its me doing it), merely offering it as one reason.

All that aside, however, there is a reason for a change in reflectivity of that area.

If you (again) look closely at that area you can see the width of the chrome changing. This photo is taken from more above. The top edge is straight while the lower edge bows inwards for what may be the area of the hand hold or whatever is causing the dark patches on the Powers photo. There are contour changes going on in that area,

Much closer? Really? Please show on a cross sectional diagram of the area. Perhaps you're talking about the finger joints.

The change in 'the shoe is white' to 'all the white is shoe and the dark is not pantleg but sock' is the 'reaching' 'rubbery' component. When checking scale I think you'll find a need for an alternative.

__________

Thank's Robin.

Edited July 21, 2006 by John Dolva