Death of the lunchroom hoax

[David Josephs]

One of the arguments for PM=Oswald is that it looks so much like him, not only that there are some tell-tale ways Oswald stood...









What is being argued is that within an area .26 x .26 mm which encompasses what is being put forth as a 5'2" woman... we see LARGE buttons that at most 2" across... each button is then 2"/62." = 3.2% of the size of the woman in that portion of the frame....


Not only are they not evenly spaced as buttons would be, I'd ask Richard et al to offer us a coat from the 60's with 4" diameter buttons as a normal person's head is about 9" tall.





[FONT=&amp](NOTE: Normal film does not have this high a resolution which is usually about 75pixels/mm becomes 150pixels/mm and this assumes that the frame can be scanned at that resolution)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]150 pixels x 150 pixels is 22,500 pixels per square millimeter.
1 frame of 8mm is 4.5 x 3.3 mm or 14.85 sq mm

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]22,500 x 14.85 = 334,490 pixels within the ENTIRE FRAME
PM is but 3% of that frame....

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]334,490 * .03 = 10,023 pixels = a 62.5" person with realistic 2" buttons.
A single button then is 3.2% of the this entire area (It's actually much less since there is more info in that section than just the person)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]So a single button is 3.2% * 10,023 = 320 sq pixels... or almost 18 pixels in diameter.
Even if they were 4" buttons taking up 6.4%; 640 sq pixels = 25.3 pixels in diameter

Here is an enlargement of one of the "buttons" with single pixels as the scale....

The artifacts pointed to are over 2x as big as buttons SHOULD be... (see comparison to head size)





These "buttons" are 40 pixels a side or 1600 pixels square....
These artifacts of the image - if buttons - are well over 4" in diameter, each. If that person is 62" tall....[/FONT]