Operation forty pic

[Scott Kaiser]

Nothing like a good disagreement between people especially concerning three dimensional objects taken with a two dimensional view. I am amazed by people measuring objects in photographs and expecting accurate results, even those with something to compare directly. Any tilt of the head in the third plane and change in lighting affects the results in photographic comparisons. I prefer to have the subject state if it is him and then try to ascertain if he is telling the truth.

This has been the best post ever! When I read.

I compared, with my pixel counting software, the operation 40 pic with images of Plumlee and Sturgis. Mathematically the part of the face more closely matches Plumlee.

I damned near fell out of my chair laughing so hard, here, let me let you all in on another secret. When I was at Felix's house I asked him without showing him the photo because I didn't have it on me at the time, "who's the person covering his face with his coat jacket in the photo?" He really didn't want to talk about it and said the people in that photo were all drug dealers, I ask him so what does that have to do with the photo?

After awhile I left it alone as he was showing me Che's watch, I later said, you know it sure looks like someone my father knew and that's the only reason why I really wanted to know from him who it was. Now, before I submit my answer, anyone who has heard my conversation with Tosh would think my father knew both Sturgis and Tosh, but Felix told me it was Sturgis, sometime ago Gordon Winslow sent me the photo with numbers attached to each man asking me to identify the men, this was before I went to Miami and talked to other individuals who knows the men in this photo, so, before I left to Miami, I sent this photo to Felix in an email, when I sent that photo to Felix that is when he got pissed because he doesn't want people to know "HE" is in it.

[Scott Kaiser]

For your information I have visited Miami five different times in the past two years, and everytime I go there I visit someone from the anti-Castro community, the very first time I visited Miami Wim Dankbaar called me from wherever he lives to my sisters house in Kendall, I'm telling you all who are just going off a photo that I find funny as hell that I went the extra mile to find the truth. And, can you please tell me where I can get one of those "pixel counting software" I'm sure the FBI photo lab would like one too! ::bowtie::

[Scott Kaiser]

For those of you who want a pixel counting software, lol... That seems to be a very expensive item you may download for FREE! At Softonic's, lol... If you trust that crap to show the correct measurements of the photo I want a new lawyer! LOL!

http://en.softonic.com/s/pixel-counting

[Scott Kaiser]

Folks, I don't know if you know this or not, but each camera takes photos differently, some photos may come out darker while others come out lighter, everything depends on the "surroundings" of how that photo will turn out, lighting, shade, lens used, camera used, so on and so fourth, just ask a photographer!

Even when you use the same camera and take a few "selfies" look at them, they will NOT always be identical.

[Drew Phipps]

If some one can give me a link to the other thread I will merge them since they are about the same subject.

The other thread was iirc a hijack of something else to discuss this. Give me a minute here.

I'm thinking https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...rd-Airport

[Scott Kaiser]

I would submit that this photo, which I can verify is Tosh Plumlee has similar hairline and eyebrows, face structure, etc. to the person seen partly hiding his face in the photo of many covert operatives at a restaurant. Could it be yet someone else - I suppose so. Could it be Sturgis - I think very unlikely, on hairline and eyebrows alone. Sturgis also had a much rounder face than Plumlee. This photo to the best of my memory was a very few years before 1963. There are experts who could best determine this, and computer programs that can assist. I have zero stake in it being anyone; other than trying to get to the truth of this, and other matters related to it. This matter was already covered in another thread and is being dragged up anew here.

I just posted this photo along with other photos on my FB, and the "blow up" of this photo on my FB shows Plumlees eyes to be quit light in this black and white photo when compared to the black and white photo of the Op40 pic, when comparing the photo to Sturgis it's spot on, even the part down the side of Sturgis' head is identical! And, Scott Kaiser bowls a strike!

[Peter Lemkin]

How someone's eyes look, as far as tone, has more to do with lighting, camera setting and if flash was used or not, than the actual eye tone. Distances and shapes are more reliable. The software exists to rotate a 2D object in 3D space now.

[Scott Kaiser]

How someone's eyes look, as far as tone, has more to do with lighting, camera setting and if flash was used or not, than the actual eye tone. Distances and shapes are more reliable. The software exists to rotate a 2D object in 3D space now.

Peter, so, I can also assume the entire photo regarding specifically the man covering his face would be included in your assessment, and not limit the photo to just his eyes, would that be a fair statement? You have no idea how happy I am to hear you say this, thank you!

[Dawn Meredith]

I am so sorry I began this thread. How does arguing about who is in this photo advance this case? Tosh said it's him.
I move that this thread be locked as it has become a place for SK to try to demonstrate that he knows it all and the rest of us are clueless.
::headbang::

Respectfully
Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm ok with closing it - just allowing for a short time anyone who hasn't spoken up yet to add anything relevant to the original discussion - not to the resulting gamesmanship. It is sad that we have lost our former photographic expert Jack White. We have one other, but they don't often post here, and have not on this thread yet [and currently on vacation]. The others I know are not members here. The thread long ago descended into Forum rule breaking attempts to besmirch the posters who didn't agree, or even one candidate [and member] for the person hiding his face - instead of posting only relevant information, which others could use to draw their own conclusions. Yes, one person here thinks [even said] they know the truth (even if they couldn't fully share it with us....), and they felt that others would too, if only they would agree with them. They also assigned beliefs and conclusions from what others posted that were not that poster's stated beliefs nor conclusions. Such twisted logic and bravado are divisive and irritating/provocations; often intended to be.

If closed, and later someone has significant new information, they can ask that the thread be re-opened, or begin another thread. Again, I'd just suggest a day or two for any closing/concluding remarks - if they are not simply repetitions of what that poster has stated before.