19-02-2018, 05:53 PM
"Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope." - Aristotle
David,
You are taking this PrayerMan argument all around the mulberry bush in an effort to avoid attempting a height analysis.
The height argument is the primary argument opposing the Oswald-is-PrayerMan conclusion. It is readily seen in Darnell, before any photogrammetry, that PrayerMan is a full head shorter than Wesley Frazier. What my own photogrammetry does is provide a number that gives us a better idea of how much shorter.
There are no focal length or image plane issues. They are roughly the same distance from Darnell's camera, which was a standard news camera, i.e. there are no fish-lens/funhouse-mirror distortions.
I excelled at mechanical drawing in high school- helped piece together a scale model for the architects' new construction- and also tapped into my art-class experiences with perspective drawings. I have shown all my work on my PM photogrammetry and my numerical value of 5' 2 1/2" should be very close to what careful computer-graphics expertise would give you.
But you shy away from attempting your own photogrammetry, unable to escape the thought police of the Murphyite mob. And it will be doubly-embarrassing for you, the photogrammetry know-it-all, when I soon display a Darnell digital film scan for the delight of the multitudes.
After my Death of the Lunchroom Hoax essay makes the height argument, I explain- in the paragraph at the bottom of p. 7- that there are ancillary photo-arguments supporting the contention (as suggested by the height) that PrayerMan is actually a woman. These are the button situation and the Davidson enhancement.
Look at my lovely Wiegman portrait- in sepia!!- of the creature in Davidson's enhancement. I am confident that a digital film scan will give us an even more splendid rendition of this creature's face. My guess- a very educated one!!- is that it is as lovely as the face of Karen HIcks. David, can you not entreat Mr. Chris Davidson- reach through his thick skull with some impressive photo-lingo- to get him to share with us the photo-specs of how he arrived at this creature, and how we might better size her up?
I won't be sharing my treasured photo of Karen Hicks, not without instructions on how to post pictures at this Deep Politics website. She shall remain in a secret locket in my heart. You will never get to imagine the dappled freshness of her enchanted bewilderment when a hardened nylon flechette whizzed past the whorl of her left ear, heading straight for the center of President Kennedy's throat.
*****************************
You make a systemic error with your pixel argument. The buttons (or fasteners, or what-have-you) are features inherent to Darnell's analog film, drawn out by a reasonable amount of contrast enhancement. Your digital pixel calculations are not applicable to the analog button size, and do not even begin to address their vertical symmetry.
Even a single digital pixel is but an approximation, a la Fourier transforms, of how an analog wave would appear in box-like & cropped discrete digital terms. And the smaller the area measured, the correspondingly bigger margin of error.
But let's imagine, for argument's sake, that your pixellation contentions are correct. This Button Lady appearance is only of secondary importance in the PrayerMan-is-a-woman argument. It matters nothing to the PrayerMan-is-a-woman argument if my buttons argument is incorrect. You seem to be too lost in your own hubris to even try & do a single photogrammetry measurement of PrayerMan's height.
This is unfortunate, because I have a private project in mind for you I think you would enjoy very much. That is employing your photography skills to enhance the James Powell section at the end of my Inside Job essay, overlaying Linda Zambanini's high-school picture, etc. She is one of the few saving graces from ROKC.
I haven't spent 20 minutes there since I resigned 4 years ago. But someone has been telling lies about my "junk science" photogrammetry, and I have a pretty good idea who that is.
David,
You are taking this PrayerMan argument all around the mulberry bush in an effort to avoid attempting a height analysis.
The height argument is the primary argument opposing the Oswald-is-PrayerMan conclusion. It is readily seen in Darnell, before any photogrammetry, that PrayerMan is a full head shorter than Wesley Frazier. What my own photogrammetry does is provide a number that gives us a better idea of how much shorter.
There are no focal length or image plane issues. They are roughly the same distance from Darnell's camera, which was a standard news camera, i.e. there are no fish-lens/funhouse-mirror distortions.
I excelled at mechanical drawing in high school- helped piece together a scale model for the architects' new construction- and also tapped into my art-class experiences with perspective drawings. I have shown all my work on my PM photogrammetry and my numerical value of 5' 2 1/2" should be very close to what careful computer-graphics expertise would give you.
But you shy away from attempting your own photogrammetry, unable to escape the thought police of the Murphyite mob. And it will be doubly-embarrassing for you, the photogrammetry know-it-all, when I soon display a Darnell digital film scan for the delight of the multitudes.
After my Death of the Lunchroom Hoax essay makes the height argument, I explain- in the paragraph at the bottom of p. 7- that there are ancillary photo-arguments supporting the contention (as suggested by the height) that PrayerMan is actually a woman. These are the button situation and the Davidson enhancement.
Look at my lovely Wiegman portrait- in sepia!!- of the creature in Davidson's enhancement. I am confident that a digital film scan will give us an even more splendid rendition of this creature's face. My guess- a very educated one!!- is that it is as lovely as the face of Karen HIcks. David, can you not entreat Mr. Chris Davidson- reach through his thick skull with some impressive photo-lingo- to get him to share with us the photo-specs of how he arrived at this creature, and how we might better size her up?
I won't be sharing my treasured photo of Karen Hicks, not without instructions on how to post pictures at this Deep Politics website. She shall remain in a secret locket in my heart. You will never get to imagine the dappled freshness of her enchanted bewilderment when a hardened nylon flechette whizzed past the whorl of her left ear, heading straight for the center of President Kennedy's throat.
*****************************
You make a systemic error with your pixel argument. The buttons (or fasteners, or what-have-you) are features inherent to Darnell's analog film, drawn out by a reasonable amount of contrast enhancement. Your digital pixel calculations are not applicable to the analog button size, and do not even begin to address their vertical symmetry.
Even a single digital pixel is but an approximation, a la Fourier transforms, of how an analog wave would appear in box-like & cropped discrete digital terms. And the smaller the area measured, the correspondingly bigger margin of error.
But let's imagine, for argument's sake, that your pixellation contentions are correct. This Button Lady appearance is only of secondary importance in the PrayerMan-is-a-woman argument. It matters nothing to the PrayerMan-is-a-woman argument if my buttons argument is incorrect. You seem to be too lost in your own hubris to even try & do a single photogrammetry measurement of PrayerMan's height.
This is unfortunate, because I have a private project in mind for you I think you would enjoy very much. That is employing your photography skills to enhance the James Powell section at the end of my Inside Job essay, overlaying Linda Zambanini's high-school picture, etc. She is one of the few saving graces from ROKC.
I haven't spent 20 minutes there since I resigned 4 years ago. But someone has been telling lies about my "junk science" photogrammetry, and I have a pretty good idea who that is.