04-06-2015, 02:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2015, 03:11 AM by Drew Phipps.)
This will be rather long, and probably broken up into a few posts.
Digitally Comparing Oswald photos
Drew Phipps 2015
I am going to use my pixel counting software (AnalyzingDigitalImages) to measure ratios of distance across and around the face of the various pictures of Oswald as a boy and as a man. The Warren Commission, and the HSCA, said that all these pictures are of the same person. John Armstrong, in his comprehensively researched tome "Harvey and Lee" says there are two separate individuals. We will see if pixel counting can resolve this issue.
As a control measure, I am also going to pixel count some other familiar faces from the same time period. That should give us some idea of what is a significant difference in these biometric ratios. The ratios I will use are: "pupil-to-pupil / width of eye" (called P/W hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / length of nose" (called P/N hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip" (called P/L hereafter) and "pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe" (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors.
I don't claim that these are the best biometric ratios to use, I frankly don't know which are the best. These seem to me the simplest to acquire. I also guess that measurements to the lower part of the face involving the jaw might vary greatly depending on facial expression, so I'm not going to use that part of the face. It is also said that the nose and the ears keep growing as people age.
(Warning about pixel counting: As in every other form of digitization, when a picture is digitized, information is "smeared" across each pixel. Therefore, you can never be sure if the actual boundary of an object is just a little bit into the pixel, halfway across the pixel, or most of the way across the pixel. That adds a certain degree of uncertainty. The more pixels in an image, the "better" the certainty of the measurement, and fewer pixels gives greater uncertainty. The photos I'm comparing were taken in the 1960's and the digital versions are low definition.)
Digitally Comparing Oswald photos
Drew Phipps 2015
I am going to use my pixel counting software (AnalyzingDigitalImages) to measure ratios of distance across and around the face of the various pictures of Oswald as a boy and as a man. The Warren Commission, and the HSCA, said that all these pictures are of the same person. John Armstrong, in his comprehensively researched tome "Harvey and Lee" says there are two separate individuals. We will see if pixel counting can resolve this issue.
As a control measure, I am also going to pixel count some other familiar faces from the same time period. That should give us some idea of what is a significant difference in these biometric ratios. The ratios I will use are: "pupil-to-pupil / width of eye" (called P/W hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / length of nose" (called P/N hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip" (called P/L hereafter) and "pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe" (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors.
I don't claim that these are the best biometric ratios to use, I frankly don't know which are the best. These seem to me the simplest to acquire. I also guess that measurements to the lower part of the face involving the jaw might vary greatly depending on facial expression, so I'm not going to use that part of the face. It is also said that the nose and the ears keep growing as people age.
(Warning about pixel counting: As in every other form of digitization, when a picture is digitized, information is "smeared" across each pixel. Therefore, you can never be sure if the actual boundary of an object is just a little bit into the pixel, halfway across the pixel, or most of the way across the pixel. That adds a certain degree of uncertainty. The more pixels in an image, the "better" the certainty of the measurement, and fewer pixels gives greater uncertainty. The photos I'm comparing were taken in the 1960's and the digital versions are low definition.)
"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."