+- 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: Sean Murphy's research deserves more (/thread-11857.html)
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 15-10-2015
No. I think you are lowering the quality of information on this site by saying that. I think the base image has not been altered at all and if you manage to find the original Darnell frame and analyze it you will find that to be true and you also find Duncan has altered none of the essential film components or their original form and that the things he is showing are valid and are represented in the original (and therefore require the answer you are avoiding).
Michael, you're not seriously offering David's lower quality images in front of Duncan's clearer and sharper ones? That's ridiculous and I contest that it is YOU who has failed to show why Duncan's images and what they show aren't valid or how they are altered as you suggest.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Jim DiEugenio - 15-10-2015
Albert,
You don't see any difference between what David just showed with photoshop and what Duncan/John Mytton did?
Really?
Maybe David should put them side by side.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 15-10-2015
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Albert,
You don't see any difference between what David just showed with photoshop and what Duncan/John Mytton did?
Really?
Maybe David should put them side by side.
You're not answering the points about the original Jim. I find that somewhat uncredible of you.
I believe that if you find the original Darnell frame it will contain the things Duncan points out and therefore refute your unproven claim of alteration. Sorry, but the buttons are there and you aren't answering it. You're not applying science because the buttons are uniform and in a row which proves they can't be random irregularities. When you have 4 all lined up where they should be you're beyond the excuses David is using and into proof. There's no way that Oswald's or any man's shirt was as low as the lowest button - which proves it is a coat and therefore it isn't Oswald. Sorry Jim but your answers show a lack of sophisticated analysis.
David did not answer.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 15-10-2015
FFS. You find JIM uncredible?????????? My god Albert, you, and this is MY OPINION, are either delusional or trolling. There is no logical explanation for your refusal to acknowledge the reasoned responses in this thread.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 15-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:You're not answering the points about the original Jim.Because he's trying to get it through to you that your "original" HAS BEEN HEAVILY ALTERED WHICH DAVID JOSEPH'S EXAMPLES SHOW CLEARLY.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 15-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:No. I think you are lowering the quality of information on this site by saying that. I think the base image has not been altered at all and if you manage to find the original Darnell frame and analyze it you will find that to be true and you also find Duncan has altered none of the essential film components or their original form and that the things he is showing are valid and are represented in the original (and therefore require the answer you are avoiding).
Michael, you're not seriously offering David's lower quality images in front of Duncan's clearer and sharper ones? That's ridiculous and I contest that it is YOU who has failed to show why Duncan's images and what they show aren't valid or how they are altered as you suggest.
I'm going to say this one more time. You clearly don't understand photography, specifically digital photography manipulation. Your assumptions and conclusions are based on a lie - a heavily altered image. That you can't understand that defies explanation.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 15-10-2015
You are right Michael... Albert speaking out his A$$ has become an artform.
Albert - where are the buttons on the image being compared?
What are the two white things by arrows #1 & 2 - since everything you see appears to be part of that person
Do you still not understand pixelization and enlargement?
Here is Darnell and next to it is Altgens, Hughes and Weigman/Couch (I forget which)
Lovelady is in the west corner of the entrance in Hughes, yet only a few moments later he is to the east and looking at the camera as opposed to the limo... and PM now appears... and does not change his spot
even well after the limo is gone as we see in Darnell....
When did Lovelady move from the EAST to the WEST, or is that image in Hughes PM?
Albert - it is painfully obvious you know little if anything about how Photoshop works or digital images. If a separate file is not offered, the best we get is 72dpi from these web pages.
I sometimes increase that to 288, which creates pixelization, and then can play with it until whatever I want to come out, does.
The original, as shown at the right does not offer that shiny white "glasses" spot until you mess with the image, and even then it doesn't until you mess with the pixelization
The image posted above as "button lady" on the left does not compare to the image below, which is smooth. As I mentioned the entire 8mm movie frame is only a few millimeters square, the PM image is a fraction of a millimeter
and yet you want to believe because someone has some photoshop skills they've discovered details which are not there?
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 16-10-2015
David Josephs Wrote:You are right Michael... Albert speaking out his A$$ has become an artform.
Albert - where are the buttons on the image being compared?
What are the two white things by arrows #1 & 2 - since everything you see appears to be part of that person
Do you still not understand pixelization and enlargement?
They might not be there because it is possible it isn't the same woman. I'm not sure. They could be buttons, they could be cloth fastening straps.
But while impugning my ability I find it interesting that you avoided my technical argument. That argument says that the things that MacRae is pointing out as buttons can't be freak irregularities because they appear in a precise uniform pattern that can't be random. Irregularities would have to be random. Since there's 4 of those buttons and they show up exactly where buttons would be we are past claiming they are some kind of photo blemish. You therefore owe an explanation for them. The reason they are important is because the lowest button is located in a position that would be too low for any clothing Oswald was wearing and therefore excludes him as Prayer Man.
I have to protest some obvious hypocrisy here. While many persons have said the photos are too blurry to use or photoshopped I see David has had no problem locating what he calls white spots. Those spots may be the upper collar of a coat and ear. However since David can clearly see those spots I would ask him to explain what the dark spots are next to those white spots? I think it is pretty obvious that they are hair, and since the lowest of those dark spots is beneath the neck that would mean Prayer Man has long hair. David's asking the wrong questions here. The dark spots are what he should be curious over. And I don't need to be condescended to David, I understand pixelation and enlargement. I also understand you haven't answered my arguments.
David Josephs Wrote:Albert - it is painfully obvious you know little if anything about how Photoshop works or digital images. If a separate file is not offered, the best we get is 72dpi from these web pages.
I sometimes increase that to 288, which creates pixelization, and then can play with it until whatever I want to come out, does.
The original, as shown at the right does not offer that shiny white "glasses" spot until you mess with the image, and even then it doesn't until you mess with the pixelization
The image posted above as "button lady" on the left does not compare to the image below, which is smooth. As I mentioned the entire 8mm movie frame is only a few millimeters square, the PM image is a fraction of a millimeter
and yet you want to believe because someone has some photoshop skills they've discovered details which are not there?
You're not answering the point. The features MacRae showed were not altered in any way. If I'm reading what you wrote above correctly you're saying a different pixel setting creates quirks that are a product of the pixel change and not present in the actual original. I seriously don't think that's correct. By the way, you can just make out the buttons in your middle picture. So I find amusing that while you offer this down-talking explanation that the buttons you're saying were photoshopped are faintly visible in your own image (which means they are there and are there in the original)
The reason you're wrong, David, is because the buttons are in uniform order where they should be on the coat. If they were the product of pixel alteration they would be random. The odds of them randomly appearing in the correct uniform order of buttons exactly where they should be is astronomical and you haven't answered the better argument here. Those buttons are there and they appear where buttons should be, and you haven't given an adequate explanation for it.
I also think the eyeglass frame is just the product of a better image and better contrast setting bringing them out and nothing more. You're trying to obfuscate this David instead of answering what's there. I actually think it is you who lacks the correct understanding of the valid photo method MacRae used.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 16-10-2015
And the "reason" you remain wrong is that you dismiss the reality related to photographic limitation and pixelization.
We DO explain these anomolies Albert... they are a result of photoshop manipulation with light curves, brightness and contrast as well as a number of other tools you obviously remain oblivious about and can't seem to use google to learn something.
I posted this once before and will do so again to illustrate my point
THERE IS NO KNEELING PERSON THERE... but I can sure make it look like that...
BLACKDOG MAN IS NOT A WOMAN AND BABY... yet I can make it look like that too.
When all we have is less than a square MILLIMETER of information on an moving film, details like buttons and glasses are impossible... these images come from photographs with larger negatives and much better resolution and I can STILL make objects appear which are not there...
So please Albert... give it up. I appreciate Duncan's attempt here to take the focus away from this being Oswald by claiming he sees a woman... reconcile the movements of Lovelady from Hughes to Darnell..
Why does he appear in the PM location when the limo turns the corner yet is not there just a few seconds later?
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 16-10-2015
David Josephs Wrote:And the "reason" you remain wrong is that you dismiss the reality related to photographic limitation and pixelization.
We DO explain these anomolies Albert... they are a result of photoshop manipulation with light curves, brightness and contrast as well as a number of other tools you obviously remain oblivious about and can't seem to use google to learn something.
-snip-
So please Albert... give it up.
No David, repeating the pixelation canard isn't going to get you out of answering my technical argument, nice try but no.
You're not answering the point and the overly-general stuff you're bluffing with doesn't cut it.
Directly answer how pixel freaks could line up in perfect conformity like the buttons MacRae has shown? You're threatening your own credibility by giving an answer like that.
How did tricks and quirks of photo enlargement end up making buttons in perfect order right where they should be? You don't answer a lot of what I write. For instance you ignored my pointing out that even your own photo showed the buttons.
It's rich, David, that you call me oblivious when it is obviously you who is beneath the argument here and can't answer it.
Quote:The reason you're wrong, David, is because the buttons are in uniform order where they should be on the coat. If they were the product of pixel irregularities they would be random. The odds of them randomly appearing in the correct uniform order of buttons exactly where they should be is astronomical and you haven't answered the better argument here. Those buttons are there and they appear where buttons should be, and you haven't given an adequate explanation for it.