12-03-2016, 12:31 AM
You guys may be tired of explaining things to Albert, but explain it to me. How on earth do you think that a significant alteration of image size is possible from a camera distance of 90 feet (based on Robardeau's map) where the two people are within, at most, three feet difference in distance of each other? At most, you have a true image size differential of .02 degrees (inv sin (1/90) - inv sin (1/87)), which, at a distance of 90 feet, amounts to .38 inches in height. Clearly that cannot account for the height discrepancy between Frazier and PM.
If you had some sort of funky lens/focus combination that could distort and elongate the perspective about 20 times normal at a distance of 90 feet, wouldn't it be obvious looking at the rest of the picture?
If you had some sort of funky lens/focus combination that could distort and elongate the perspective about 20 times normal at a distance of 90 feet, wouldn't it be obvious looking at the rest of the picture?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."