27-02-2018, 09:01 PM
David Josephs Wrote: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=&](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=&]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=&]22,500 x 14.85 = 334,490 pixels within the ENTIRE FRAME
PM is but 3% of that frame....
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]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=&]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]
A brilliant assessment there, Mr. Josephs, and certainly more than a few points to ponder as well. William Ockham, the namesake of Occam's Razor, would be proud indeed.
Occam's Razor--as you know sir-- is a problem solving principle that hones in on selecting--between a multitude of options--the only one that makes the fewest assumptions. Again, well done.
Sidebar: In more than a few references/instances made by key figures in this case (Billy Nolan Lovelady, Buell Wesley Frazier, Mrs. Pauline Sanders', etc), the option of forcing Sarah Stanton into mystery-man's position has too many hurdles to overcome ---->
1*her physical description (read either Frazier's or Lovelady's personal accounts). Frazier leaves little doubt when he speaks of the only "Sarah" on the entrance landing that afternoon ---->
FRAZIER: Ok, I know some of the girls thatworked in the uh offices above and they stepped out into the sunlight with methere and I know the big heavy set woman she was right there. -- page six Frazier's statements to HSCA investigators.
2*photographic evidence--multiple sources from different angles-- of her in white/light clothing as compared to mystery-man's much darker outfit (see Altgen's Six @ the only female Billy Lovelady describes as shading/shielding her eyes from the Sun; and, also No. 4's account below).
3*And, of course, Mrs. Sanders' placement of her right next to her in the polar opposite of the entrance as compared to mystery-man's position.
4*Camera man Mr. Darnell (Jimmy) actually snaps a photo rendering Sarah 'shading her eyes" Stanton; Billy Nolan Lovelady; and, the mystery-man all in the same photo frame/image.
The principle of Occam's Razor wouldn't stand for all of the gross assumptions that are required to overcome the forcing of Mrs. Stanton waaaaay over into mystery man's position ----->
insert image here, after walking Fido, who once again--right in the middle of something--just happens to have to answer nature's call...What am I going to do w/you lil' buddy? brb
What is mystery man holding? ----->
*AF 700A @ 77%