14-05-2015, 09:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 14-05-2015, 10:11 PM by Drew Phipps.)
After reviewing the work, I conclude that the author(s) simply increased Oswald's apparent height by 12% to make the apparent length of the rifle match the Warren Commission report. It would have been more intellectually honest to keep Oswald's apparent height the same and shrink the rifle's apparent size due to some perspective effect, but that isn't the method they use.
Furthermore, the means by which they figure out the degree of height alteration (12%) isn't supported by any mathematical data or calculations of perspective and camera lens feature. To honestly make an argument for any particular level of apparent size increase due to perspective you need to know something which has never been known: At a minimum, the distance from the camera to the subject. Without that information there is no intellectually honest method to insist upon any particular degree of apparent image size. Basically the authors are just guessing that the center of Oswald's body is 11.4% further away from the camera than the rifle.
To get this level of perspective enlargement, if Oswald is holding the rifle at forearm's length (about a foot) that means that the camera is a mere 8.7 feet from Oswald.
A: One of you photo guys can surely tell us if that kind of camera could capture that photo from less than 9 feet away.
B: It certainly appears to me that the papers and the rifle are far closer to the torso than forearms length to Oswald's torso, which would shrink down the camera to subject distance accordingly.
Also, I note that their 3D head model doesn't include a cleft chin, which is visible in booking photos and even in the backyard photo. The interplay of light and shadow on the face below the jaw, especially when lit from above, cannot possibly be accurately determined when such an important facial feature has seemingly been ignored by the 3D artists.
PS They got the ears wrong too, though I don't see how that would affect the work.
Furthermore, the means by which they figure out the degree of height alteration (12%) isn't supported by any mathematical data or calculations of perspective and camera lens feature. To honestly make an argument for any particular level of apparent size increase due to perspective you need to know something which has never been known: At a minimum, the distance from the camera to the subject. Without that information there is no intellectually honest method to insist upon any particular degree of apparent image size. Basically the authors are just guessing that the center of Oswald's body is 11.4% further away from the camera than the rifle.
To get this level of perspective enlargement, if Oswald is holding the rifle at forearm's length (about a foot) that means that the camera is a mere 8.7 feet from Oswald.
A: One of you photo guys can surely tell us if that kind of camera could capture that photo from less than 9 feet away.
B: It certainly appears to me that the papers and the rifle are far closer to the torso than forearms length to Oswald's torso, which would shrink down the camera to subject distance accordingly.
Also, I note that their 3D head model doesn't include a cleft chin, which is visible in booking photos and even in the backyard photo. The interplay of light and shadow on the face below the jaw, especially when lit from above, cannot possibly be accurately determined when such an important facial feature has seemingly been ignored by the 3D artists.
PS They got the ears wrong too, though I don't see how that would affect the work.
"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."