04-12-2011, 04:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2011, 04:31 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
I have been giving this more thought and it appears to me the "blow up" has to be fake. There are only so many pixels in a photograph. The original, in this case, is going to have, say 200 x 200 pixels (hypothetically). That portion of the photograph will have a small percentage of those, say 20 x 20 pixels (hypothetically). This "blow up", however, appears to have more pixels than the original in its entirety, much less that small portion of which it is supposed to be a blow-up. The face cannot possibly be MORE PRECISE AND MORE DETAILED than it was in the original. It has to be fake. And the fact that they went to the trouble of faking a photo provides further support that it was indeed GHWB, as I claimed -- and for which I offered multiple grounds based on his height, weight, build, dress, manner, and other features. We know that one of the areas of CIA specialization is faking photos and films (including the Zapruder), even including altering the Altgens and (now) this one, too.
It rather suprises me in retrospect that Vasilios was taken in. He states, "Professor Fetzer, we agree to disagree. [T]rying to find out the guilty parties by looking at photos is a waste of time, energy and brains. with regards to LBJ the mastermind and the GHWB issue i am afraid i'll stand by Charles Drago and CTKA." He is entitled to his opinion, but the discoveries of photos of Ed Lansdale and of GHWB demonstrates that he is completely wrong. Indeed, the Altgens, as I explain in "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", exonerates Oswald. So how can he be making such a grossly mistaken assertion? We have photos that implicate some and vindicate others. We also know the Zapruder has been massively revised, which points toward powerful entities covering up the true causes of the death of JFK. So that is obviously not the case. But then he is "standing with Charles Drago and CTKA", when I have already demonstrated that they are either massively biased or haven't a clue.
It rather suprises me in retrospect that Vasilios was taken in. He states, "Professor Fetzer, we agree to disagree. [T]rying to find out the guilty parties by looking at photos is a waste of time, energy and brains. with regards to LBJ the mastermind and the GHWB issue i am afraid i'll stand by Charles Drago and CTKA." He is entitled to his opinion, but the discoveries of photos of Ed Lansdale and of GHWB demonstrates that he is completely wrong. Indeed, the Altgens, as I explain in "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", exonerates Oswald. So how can he be making such a grossly mistaken assertion? We have photos that implicate some and vindicate others. We also know the Zapruder has been massively revised, which points toward powerful entities covering up the true causes of the death of JFK. So that is obviously not the case. But then he is "standing with Charles Drago and CTKA", when I have already demonstrated that they are either massively biased or haven't a clue.
Ed Jewett Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:The original was published in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE. A blow-up has been offered that does not look right to me. The detail and clarity of a photo tend to be reduced, often dramatically, when a blow up of a small image occurs, but that does not appear to be the case in this instance. I am therefore skeptical that the "blow up" is not in fact a fabricated image. I only wish that Jack were around to address this question. It doesn't look right.
Ed Jewett Wrote:What is the provenance of the photos in question? Where did they come from? Where were they originally published? Who took them?
That's why I asked the question, and I concur with the thought about Jack.