Jack, recall that everyone is an expert in facial recognition, we all got up the learning curve rapidly ("study" from the crib onward) and continue to practice it daily, so virtually everyone is good to excellent at it. Photo experts like you do not add so much value in comparing facial images as in pointing out non-obvious things likely to be overlooked by the layman like a magazine on the ground of the Apollo moon set or things moved around at the Pentagon crime scene. And even then it's the "aha!" moment that is important, the persuasive impact on jurors (bystanders, observers, etc.) that validates the utility of an expert. Yes, I take your analysis into account but I continue to be my own expert in facial recognition.
You don't know what the unimpeachable, direct evidence is by now? Sigh. It is Imogene Adams' testimony and the verified facts supporting her testimony. The failure of you and Fetzer to stipulate as much is telling. Oh that's right, you're just a singer in a..., er, photo analyst.
Your renewed assertion of expertise in identification of the "Conein-like" face in Dealey Plaza reminds me of the general issue of reliance on specialists, bureaucrats and professors vs. thinking for yourself. You know where that leads. As Ludwig von Mises aptly wrote in "Bureaucracy" (1944, p. 130):
"The plain citizens are mistaken in complaining that the bureaucrats have arrogated powers; they themselves and their mandatories have abandoned their sovereignty. Their ignorance of fundamental problems of economics has made the professional specialists supreme. All technical and juridical details of legislation can and must be left to the experts. But democracy becomes impracticable if the eminent citizens, the intellectual leaders of the community, are not in a position to form their own opinion on the basic social, economic, and political principles of policies. If the citizens are under the hegemony of the bureaucratic professionals, society breaks up into two castes: the ruling professionals, the Brahmins, and the gullible citizenry. Then despotism emerges, whatever the wording of constitutions and laws may be.
Democracy means self-determination. How can people determine their own affairs if they are too indifferent to gain through their own thinking an independent judgment on fundamental political and economic problems? Democracy is not a good that people can enjoy without trouble. It is, on the contrary, a treasure that must be defended daily and conquered anew by strenuous effort."
If a specialist cannot explain his claim in convincing fashion to me, I don't care how technical the field, I will not adopt his claim. No need, and I am mighty suspicious if an expert cannot reduce his "80 story edifice" to its fundamentals. The root of the truffle is the whole truffle.
To return to the case extant, both Allan and I and probably all of us would like the photo to verify CIA Conein's presence at the assassination but verification has failed. Is that a big deal in the JFK assassination investigation? Not really but the failure to change minds here with new evidence is disquieting.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Jack, recall that everyone is an expert in facial recognition, we all got up the learning curve rapidly ("study" from the crib onward) and continue to practice it daily, so virtually everyone is good to excellent at it. Photo experts like you do not add so much value in comparing facial images as in pointing out non-obvious things likely to be overlooked by the layman like a magazine on the ground of the Apollo moon set or things moved around at the Pentagon crime scene. And even then it's the "aha!" moment that is important, the persuasive impact on jurors (bystanders, observers, etc.) that validates the utility of an expert. Yes, I take your analysis into account but I continue to be my own expert in facial recognition.
You don't know what the unimpeachable, direct evidence is by now? Sigh. It is Imogene Adams' testimony and the verified facts supporting her testimony. The failure of you and Fetzer to stipulate as much is telling. Oh that's right, you're just a singer in a..., er, photo analyst.
Your renewed assertion of expertise in identification of the "Conein-like" face in Dealey Plaza reminds me of the general issue of reliance on specialists, bureaucrats and professors vs. thinking for yourself. You know where that leads. As Ludwig von Mises aptly wrote in "Bureaucracy" (1944, p. 130):
"The plain citizens are mistaken in complaining that the bureaucrats have arrogated powers; they themselves and their mandatories have abandoned their sovereignty. Their ignorance of fundamental problems of economics has made the professional specialists supreme. All technical and juridical details of legislation can and must be left to the experts. But democracy becomes impracticable if the eminent citizens, the intellectual leaders of the community, are not in a position to form their own opinion on the basic social, economic, and political principles of policies. If the citizens are under the hegemony of the bureaucratic professionals, society breaks up into two castes: the ruling professionals, the Brahmins, and the gullible citizenry. Then despotism emerges, whatever the wording of constitutions and laws may be.
Democracy means self-determination. How can people determine their own affairs if they are too indifferent to gain through their own thinking an independent judgment on fundamental political and economic problems? Democracy is not a good that people can enjoy without trouble. It is, on the contrary, a treasure that must be defended daily and conquered anew by strenuous effort."
If a specialist cannot explain his claim in convincing fashion to me, I don't care how technical the field, I will not adopt his claim. No need, and I am mighty suspicious if an expert cannot reduce his "80 story edifice" to its fundamentals. The root of the truffle is the whole truffle.
To return to the case extant, both Allan and I and probably all of us would like the photo to verify CIA Conein's presence at the assassination but verification has failed. Is that a big deal in the JFK assassination investigation? Not really but the failure to change minds here with new evidence is disquieting.
Convince a man against his will and he is of the same opinion still. --Anon
Let me try a medical textbook on the muscles controlling the eyebrows.
Raising or lowering the eyebrows uses the Occipitofrontalis muscles. Using
these muscles causes transverse (horizontal) wrinkles of the forehead.
Frowning or squinting uses the Corrugator Supercilii muscles. Using these
muscles causes deep VERTICAL wrinkle BETWEEN the eyebrows.
Frequent use of the Occipitofrontalis muscles activates the Procerus muscles.
Using these Procerus muscles causes a deep HORIZONTAL wrinkle BETWEEN
the eyebrows.
The man in Altgens is NOT squinting from the sun, or he would have a
vertical wrinkle between the two eyebrows.
Believe it or not.
Convince a man against his will and he is of the same opinion still. --Anon
Yes, I agree with [/FONT]Allan[/FONT] that a transverse furrow forms when you or I squint but now I think Jack is right, the Dealey Plaza man is not squinting, at least not very much.
How to respond to Jack's challenge then? Jack chose two photos that provide the largest contrast in area between the bridge of the nose and brow of the subject(s). I believe that we can reconcile the two photos he chose as the same man due to the subject's different ages in the two photos plus differences in photo conditions (angle, light, facial expression, distance, clarity, etc.).
[/FONT]The attached set of five photos shows a very close resemblance between Adams in his photo 4 and the Dealey Plaza man, wisp of widow's peak hair aside, while his younger photos...not so much. The transverse furrow between the bridge of the nose and the brow is present in photo 4, as is also true of the Dealey Plaza man and marginally in photo 3, while virtually absent in the two photos of a younger Adams.
I do not [/FONT]entirely [/FONT]rule out squinting with shadows caused by sunlight emphasizing the transverse furrow and minimizing vertical furrows, but I believe the dissimilarity Jack cites is primarily an age-driven one. Photo 4 and DP man form an incredibly close match IMO.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Jack, your best post of late!
Yes, I agree with [/FONT]Allan[/FONT] that a transverse furrow forms when you or I squint but now I think Jack is right, the Dealey Plaza man is not squinting, at least not very much.
How to respond to Jack's challenge then? Jack chose two photos that provide the largest contrast in area between the bridge of the nose and brow of the subject(s). I believe that we can reconcile the two photos he chose as the same man due to the subject's different ages in the two photos plus differences in photo conditions (angle, light, facial expression, distance, clarity, etc.).
[/FONT]The attached set of five photos shows a very close resemblance between Adams in his photo 4 and the Dealey Plaza man, wisp of widow's peak hair aside, while his younger photos...not so much. The transverse furrow between the bridge of the nose and the brow is present in photo 4, as is also true of the Dealey Plaza man and marginally in photo 3, while virtually absent in the two photos of a younger Adams.
I do not [/FONT]entirely [/FONT]rule out squinting with shadows caused by sunlight emphasizing the transverse furrow and minimizing vertical furrows, but I believe the dissimilarity Jack cites is primarily an age-driven one. Photo 4 and DP man form an incredibly close match IMO.
[/FONT]
If I understand correctly, Morgan thinks that AGING CAUSES THE
EYEBROWS TO MOVE CLOSER TOGETHER?
Remember, the reason I said that comparisons were inconclusive
were the different ages of the photos.
In my experience, the eyebrows do NOT grow closer together
with age. And in my experience, squinting causes a VERTICAL
wrinkle in the supraorbital ridge...not a horizontal one. I am
attaching a comparison I did showing MONTOYA is not FRENCHY
the tramp. You can judge for yourself whether Frenchy is Montoya.
Jack
PS...also attached is an "older" view of Adams with wide-set
eyebrows and two very slight vertical wrinkles.
Jack, I assure you that I never said or implied that "AGING CAUSES THE EYEBROWS TO MOVE CLOSER TOGETHER." Further, I've dismissed the "distance between eyebrows" part of your analysis because distance between eyebrows in the (anchor) DP photo cannot be reliably discerned.
What I say is that the photo of the older Adams, as in photo 4, is a ringer for the DP man, an absolute ringer. You don't deny that, do you? And I agree with Allan that Adams photo 4 is not the same Adams as in photo 2 by your reasoning! Now that's pretty crazy IMO. You might dismiss it as a debating tactic but it illustrates a weakness in photo ID when age differences really matter. At least we agree that age can make a big difference in photo analysis. That's why comparison of photo 4 vs. DP photo is so important, far more important than photo 2 vs. DP photo, namely, it removes most if not all of photo identification error due to a substantial age difference. That's a nice scientific advantage. It means trying to take age issues out of the ID problem, trying to narrow the problem and get closer to an "all else equal" comparison.
On squinting, I have no quarrel with your observation that squinting causes vertical wrinkles, as I said before, though it also causes a transverse furrow to form or deepen in my case too. I agree squinting is not the primary explanation for the man's facial expression in the DP photo.
Yes, I see you put the vertical furrow to good use in the Montoya/Frenchy ID case but that adds little to the present debate. As they admonish us in the investment world, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Well, that's a little too harsh. I love a worthy opponent like Jack, especially since we agree on so many other things!
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Jack, I assure you that I never said or implied that "AGING CAUSES THE EYEBROWS TO MOVE CLOSER TOGETHER." Further, I've dismissed the "distance between eyebrows" part of your analysis because distance between eyebrows in the (anchor) DP photo cannot be reliably discerned.
What I say is that the photo of the older Adams, as in photo 4, is a ringer for the DP man, an absolute ringer. You don't deny that, do you? And I agree with Allan that Adams photo 4 is not the same Adams as in photo 2 by your reasoning! Now that's pretty crazy IMO. You might dismiss it as a debating tactic but it illustrates a weakness in photo ID when age differences really matter. At least we agree that age can make a big difference in photo analysis. That's why comparison of photo 4 vs. DP photo is so important, far more important than photo 2 vs. DP photo, namely, it removes most if not all of photo identification error due to a substantial age difference. That's a nice scientific advantage. It means trying to take age issues out of the ID problem, trying to narrow the problem and get closer to an "all else equal" comparison.
On squinting, I have no quarrel with your observation that squinting causes vertical wrinkles, as I said before, though it also causes a transverse furrow to form or deepen in my case too. I agree squinting is not the primary explanation for the man's facial expression in the DP photo.
Yes, I see you put the vertical furrow to good use in the Montoya/Frenchy ID case but that adds little to the present debate. As they admonish us in the investment world, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Well, that's a little too harsh. I love a worthy opponent like Jack, especially since we agree on so many other things!
I disagree that Morgan is my OPPONENT. We are on the same side.
However, I admit to having much greater information and study of
photo fakery than Morgan does, as well as comparison of one photo
against another. I have also studied JFK PHOTOGRAPHY to a much
greater extent than he has for many more years.
We do know that the JFK case is literally overflowing with FAKED
PHOTOS, particularly related to Oswald or images in Dealey Plaza.
I can PROVE that sophisticated tampering of images was done to
literally dozens of photos, so why should an "alleged Altgens photo"
showing lookalikes on the corner of Main and Houston be any
DIFFERENT from the others. It makes no difference who the lookalikes
are...UNLESS they are genuine instead of lookalikes.
In fact, I find ALL photos attributed to "Altgens" to be suspicious
after in-depth study.
One trouble is that the average layman (as opposed to a photo
professional) is FAR TOO TRUSTING of photographs. I refer Morgan
and all to pages 4 and 5 of PHOTO FAKERY by Dino Brugioni, former
head of the CIA's NPIC. People are far too trusting of the myths,
"photos never lie" or "a picture is worth a thousand words"...and
that is why fake photos are one of the most important tools of
covert operations.
The ONLY "evidence" tying LHO to the MC rifle is the "backyard
photos"...and they are provable fakes. The ONLY evidence that
the limo did not stop are Zapruder and other films.
I believe we can add Altgens to the list of "controlled" photos
for various reasons. Anyone who "accepts a photo as genuine
without documented provenance" is naive and gullible, just as
the CIA expects. Depending additionally on information which
surfaces 40 years later adds nothing to credibility. Introducing
the sympathy factor (would a little old widow lie?) adds nothing.
Sincere people can be duped an/or pass along false information
as well as liars.
Opponents? No. Just looking at ALL information available.
Jack, do you maintain that the DP photo in question has been manipulated and the image of the man pictured, in particular, is phony? If so, why so?
Whatever the origin of the photo may be, don't you agree Adams (photo 4) is a ringer for the DP image? I'm still not clear on your answer here. I gather that if you had to concede that it is a ringer, you would then dismiss the compelling resemblance as faked.
Of course, we do not know beyond reasonable doubt the provenance, proof of non-manipulation, chain of custody and related matters necessary for admission of the DP photo as evidence into a court of law. However, a layman like me looks to you and other experts to document the case for fakery in this DP photo if that is your contention now. I'm the intelligent layman you must convince, I'm all ears.
If you have evidence for fakery, that would materially alter the discussion. Some of that has been addressed already, for example, if spooks were attempting to conceal Conein's image in the pic, why did they substitute the image of such a "brotherly" visage? Because they were trying to stir up confusion and trouble decades later among JFK buffs? From the grave? With a CIA-framed newspaper photo and Imogene-admitted phony and mistaken newspaper caption on a wall of her home discovered decades later by a school teacher?
I'm glad you're willing to look at "ALL information" because that includes Imogene Adams' testimony, that of Frank Caplett and the Adams' family photos. Introducing those as evidence is not about the sympathy factor, it's about the credibility factor, the addition of new, credible evidence. That evidence changed Allan's mind about the likelihood of the photo showing Conein at DP, thereby challenging the enunciated opinions of some JFK assassination researchers. The new testimony backed by photo "documents" are unimpeachable = entirely trustworthy. Or call such testimony merely hard to top, very hard, I don't care, but I'd like to see the attempt to impeach it, something beyond dismissal or ridicule.
Bottomline: The conclusion that Adams was at the DP and happened to be a bystander captured in the image explains the DP image extremely well, thank you very much. This explanation accounts for the totality of the evidence. No other thesis presented even attempts to do this. It's not just about a few pictures, Jack. All together, three cheers for "ALL information," hip hip hooray... I'm glad we agree. I so stipulate.
![[Image: point%20laugh.gif]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/point%20laugh.gif)