+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Operation forty pic (/thread-12853.html)
Operation forty pic - Scott Kaiser - 11-07-2014
Dawn Meredith Wrote:I am so sorry I began this thread. How does arguing about who is in this photo advance this case? Tosh said it's him.
I move that this thread be locked as it has become a place for SK to try to demonstrate that he knows it all and the rest of us are clueless.
::headbang::
Respectfully
Dawn
Dawn, I have NO need to demonstrate anything, frankly, I have way more knowledge, perhaps, in anything regarding this case, Watergate or simply history in general then you. ::dancing guy::
For the last time, it's Frank Sturgis, I'm glad there are a few sensible folks here who know what I've been saying all along. BTW, Dawn! Have I not told you I'm "Batman!" There you have your truth!
Gee whizz in-fact why don't we just believe everything everyone has tolds us about the assassination, recently I heard Jackie killed Jack, how would I know Dawn, because they "told" me so, lol.... Oh Lord, open their eyes, for they are blind!
Operation forty pic - Scott Kaiser - 11-07-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:If you have a "front on" picture of Plumlee with eyes open I can get a pixel ratio between width of nose (at the specific point crossed by the coat) and distance between pupils. That may not be a perfect biometric measurement but it might be more consistent with one or the other of them. Small numbers of pixels in these photos means a higher margin of error.
Data: Hide photo: eyes 18 pixels, nose 5 pixels, ratio =~.278
Sturgis photo: eyes 22 pixels, nose between 6, 6.5 pixels, ratio = .272-.295 (from post above)
Sturgis photo (from below) eyes 49 pixels nose 14 pixels, ratio = .286
Plumlee photo eyes 25 pixels nose between 6.5, 7 pixels, ratio= .26 - .28
found this one, is it him?
heres a better photo of Sturgis for pixel counting
Neither of them are excluded by the pixel counting. Sturgis' nose is almost too wide to be the hiding man, and Plumlee's is almost too narrow. I do note that Plumlee's eyes in the color photo appear to be darker than blue. (if that's really him).
The hiding man in the original photo has his face angled slightly to the right of the camera, which would tend to make the measured ration slightly larger than the actual nose size. Plus, if that jacket is exerting any pressure on the nose it would look wider not narrower. After looking at the Sturgis mug shot, pixel counting favors Plumlee as the hiding man.
If this guy isn't Plumlee then maybe you have a more pixel friendly photo of him from the front with eyes open.
Edit: Using .pdf of Plumlee from below post I get a ratio of .283, still close enough to be the hiding man but far closer to Sturgis than I expected. So at this point the nose/eye ration is kind of a toss up, with Plumlee's being closer but both falling within any pixel counting range of error of the Hiding Man. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
This is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about, this photo of Sturgis was during his Watergate era, my father and Frank had a wicked fight in our backyard sometime in 1970-71, and my father kicked Sturgis' ass busting up his face pretty bad, Frank left before the cops came to our house I wouldn't have been surprised if Frank' nose got busted, you know, there are so many things you folks just don't know, and what really gets me is that you THINK you know it all, unbelievable!
Operation forty pic - Scott Kaiser - 11-07-2014
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I know Plumlee well and met with him for many years. I have photos of him from all through his life. That is him...and he has admitted it is him [but that alone doesn't absolutely mean it is so!!!] He has named the date and the occasion to me - and even that Hopsicker got wrong or was told wrong. Eye color/shade is the easiest thing to tamper with in a photo and we know how intelligence-related photos can be tampered with - but can also just change with ambient lighting and flash, etc. Besides, knowing the nature of the meeting and the others there, Plumlee would fit, and Sturgis would not. In your google search url above, even that photo is listed! Check out the hairline and face structure. If it is not Plumlee, it is someone other than Sturgis...but my bet and belief and word from Plumlee is it is Plumlee.
Plumlee
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=6086&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6086&stc=1)
Sturgis
I suppose Franks droopy eyes and sitting next to Gonzalez! Has nothing to do with Frank in this photo, when in-fact Plumlee didn't even know Gonzalez yet right? Tell me, why do you, Peter, Dawn and Drew not see that? Why do you keep overing looking the facts? You still have not answered my question Peter is it because you have some kind of vested interest in Tosh being in this photo, I can then understand why your only argument of your facts is "He told me so" and that's good enough for you and Dawn? Remind me to never ask either one of you to do any research from me! Gee wizz.
Operation forty pic - Scott Kaiser - 11-07-2014
Oh, not to mentioned that the person covering his face has more of a brillo pad type of hair while Plumlee's hair is long well groomed, and appears he used a lot of gel... Give me a break!
Operation forty pic - Michael Cross - 11-07-2014
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Thanks for those photos Scott. The shape of the area where the forehead and nose merge - including the transition to the eyebrows - does not look like Sturgis to me. Layman's opinion though. Much more like Plumlee.Peter Lemkin Wrote:I know Plumlee well and met with him for many years. I have photos of him from all through his life. That is him...and he has admitted it is him [but that alone doesn't absolutely mean it is so!!!] He has named the date and the occasion to me - and even that Hopsicker got wrong or was told wrong. Eye color/shade is the easiest thing to tamper with in a photo and we know how intelligence-related photos can be tampered with - but can also just change with ambient lighting and flash, etc. Besides, knowing the nature of the meeting and the others there, Plumlee would fit, and Sturgis would not. In your google search url above, even that photo is listed! Check out the hairline and face structure. If it is not Plumlee, it is someone other than Sturgis...but my bet and belief and word from Plumlee is it is Plumlee.
Sturgis
I suppose Franks droopy eyes and sitting next to Gonzalez! Has nothing to do with Frank in this photo, when in-fact Plumlee didn't even know Gonzalez yet right? Tell me, why do you, Peter, Dawn and Drew not see that? Why do you keep overing looking the facts? You still have not answered my question Peter is it because you have some kind of vested interest in Tosh being in this photo, I can then understand why your only argument of your facts is "He told me so" and that's good enough for you and Dawn? Remind me to never ask either one of you to do any research from me! Gee wizz.
Operation forty pic - Bob Prudhomme - 12-07-2014
Hi Scott
If we agree with you, will you drop this pointless and insignificant discussion and go on to discuss the more important aspects of the case, or is your purpose in being on this forum to keep the majority of the discussion on pointless and insignificant topics? There seems to be a lot of this on JFK forums these days, and one has to wonder if it is not all part of a bigger plan.
Operation forty pic - Magda Hassan - 12-07-2014
Yep. This thread is not progressing to anywhere useful. This is the dead end we are at: Scott says it is Sturgis though it doesn't seem to look like Sturgis and wont/can't say who the others are. Everyone else (except Hopsicker) says it is Tosh. Tosh says it is Tosh. It looks like Tosh. It will be locked from now on to give us all a chance to move from the quagmire on to more productive things.