|
Post by JoJo on Jun 4, 2004 17:48:45 GMT -5
A book I highly recommend if you want to know about the manipulation of photographs, a subject that oh... comes up here once in a while.. He doesn't use the word "doctor", he uses the word "tamper", or "manipulation. I'm putting up a few scans that have to do with recognizing whether a picture is of someone it is claimed to be. There's a lot more to the book of course, if you're interested, you can get it at barnesandnoble.com, from one of their used book sellers. First, the back cover with a little bit about the author: Next, a method of analyizing a face using triangulation, a method used to determine whether some pictures of LH Oswald were genuine. The text picks up there. I'll add that it makes more sense to "triangulate" than it does to attempt to exactly scale photos and match the distance betwee the eyes, ears, etc. Why? Because the angles of the triangles must match, and the size of the pictures would be irrelevant. Later in the he talks about using transparancies, or overlaying one photo over another. (sorta like a fade, just done with the two stills unanimated) The second scan down from here has a paragraph which makes an important point. Digitized imagery allows the flipping, scaling......The most important point: There is a big danger in using this method in that, in an attempt to prove a point, photos may be forced, thereby emphasizing similarities and minimizing dissimilarities.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jun 4, 2004 19:27:44 GMT -5
fascinating!!!!!!! ;D Thanks, JoJo! This looks like a very interesting read
|
|
Harb
Help!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Harb on Jun 5, 2004 13:34:29 GMT -5
"Superimposion can comfirm if the individual or scene is the same."Hmm.. interesting, especially when going through the superimposion evidence at james-paul-mccartney.netfirms.com/
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 5, 2004 16:20:06 GMT -5
Darn, ran into a puny free web site quota.. What's the gist of it Harb? Btw, considering where Mr. Brugioni worked all those years, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a little practice at faking photos himself, hence the first hand knowledge. I'd like to try my hand at this triangulation thing, but I'd have to dust off my old geometry textbook. Actually I'd have to buy one! A big problem would be the hairline, except for really old pics of Paul, there's no way to determine. Also interesting is how he notes that aging in men "causes a sagging of the chin and jowls", due to the "dimunition of the elastic skin tissues". (his point being the eyes, lips, ears, nose and cheeckbones don't "move")
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jun 5, 2004 23:56:02 GMT -5
This is part of a post I made on Oct 30 last year on, well, another site, that, well, no one seemed to take seiously.(Am I whining? OK, a little.........where's the fiddle player...) I said this, quote:
Yes, but PROPORTION is the object, not image SIZE. If you make coordinates of a geometric shape match, you can make thw whole image match, if its the same image. You can change the size of the image up and down till key coordinates match, like the center of the eye, where the ear meets the head, bottom of chin up to bridhe of nose between eye, etc. It helps for head to be represented from two nearly identical or similar angles.
What about doing a "Crouching Tiger...." style rap around meld-together. I guess there might not be enough pics from some acute facial angles of Paul to go all the way 360, but maybe profile to profile. Just a thought. (The background would flutter change.) [end of quote]
I thought I had a good idea but it fell flat, so I let it go. Anyway, it needs expert handling though to show anything of value; and that would not be me, I admit................
Mr. Brugioni must be an authority on this. Plus look at the way Leonardo daVinci worked geometrically on his subjects' form before painting or sketching them. This approach made sense to me, anyway.........The two men at the bottom are obviously not the same guy, by sight. Anyone else? The pilots cheeks, eye folds, noso-labial line (the angle and severity) all different-at a glance.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 6, 2004 0:48:19 GMT -5
Sorry about that Doc, I guess you suffered from being ahead of your time.. But what you said back then is exactly what the author of this book said is the proper method for mapping a face. Oh man, high school geometry was more years ago than I want to admit to, hehe.. but that's all it is really in essence. You need to know 1) the distances of the lines, and 2) the angles of the intersecting lines. #1 is easy with software, and #2 follows the aformentioned rules of geometry. Tomorrow, (or today, whatever) I'll post a few pages about doubles and how he says the CIA determined one of them to be so. Hint: it's in the ears...
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jun 6, 2004 5:18:51 GMT -5
although, the picture of Gunther, the top left, seems to be a man older than the picture just below it. The man below Gunther (who dominates the superimposition) seems to be much younger, or is from a much younger photo of Gunther---top left Gunther is looking directly into camera, mid left "Gunther" is looking slightly to left, our right. THe nose seems a different angle, but maybe my imagination or the raically different sizes of the subject in the photos is throwing me off.
It seem like 4 different people. Ages? 68. 30. 41. 25. [top left, top right, mid left, mid right ](if I had two guess ages). the mid right photo--total WASP. Mid left---more germanic or welsh. top right----mediteranean, maybe turkish or greek. The older guy---hard to tell. I guess that's the real gunther so he's I s'pose germanic.
I think there are 4 people. But the author tells us not so. So, I guess I am misconstruing what I see a bit.
There are similar points in all. The mid right pilot guy has the sharpest, most, scuse the term, preppie features. The dimpling seems different between them all.
The mediterrean man (top right) has a long long rectangular head, it seems. THe longest of the bunch, with the squarest jaw, and emphasized forehead ridge and cheek bones. Neolithic.
The fellow at mid left seems to have a shorter face, more like Sting or that guitar player from "Red Hot Chili Peppers" whose name eludes me.
I see a lot of big ears. Hard to compare all 4 cause of shadows and my vision is tired at this hour.
Well, enough of my run on diatribes. Thanks for the info on the book. I'll get it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jun 6, 2004 7:44:40 GMT -5
Darn, ran into a puny free web site quota.. What's the gist of it Harb? Btw, considering where Mr. Brugioni worked all those years, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a little practice at faking photos himself, hence the first hand knowledge. I'd like to try my hand at this triangulation thing, but I'd have to dust off my old geometry textbook. Actually I'd have to buy one! A big problem would be the hairline, except for really old pics of Paul, there's no way to determine. Also interesting is how he notes that aging in men "causes a sagging of the chin and jowls", due to the "dimunition of the elastic skin tissues". (his point being the eyes, lips, ears, nose and cheeckbones don't "move")
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jun 6, 2004 7:49:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 6, 2004 9:24:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jun 6, 2004 19:10:33 GMT -5
WOW.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 12, 2004 10:33:13 GMT -5
There doesn't seem to be much interest on the part of the legal community regarding the use of earprints as evidence, but there are some web pages out there that mention some trial where it was used, or an attempt to was. It's understandable that it's rare, first, as a practical matter, how many "earprints" are left a crime scene? The only other use is determining if someone is a double, and well... other than here and for the CIA's reasons, that doesn't come up too often. That lack of interest doesn't make the statement that "the odds of two different ears being alike are astronomical" anything to discount, it may be something to pursue. The thing that's missing is Alfred Iannarelli's book "Ear Identification", it is impossible to find! The web sites out there that discuss it just scratch the surface of the methodology. Some instances of use during a trial: www.scafo.org/library/130204.htmlwww.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/7.html?sect=21A PDF file that discuusses using Ear ID for security purposes: www.computing.armstrong.edu/FacNStaff/burge/pdf/oagm-97-us.pdf
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Jun 15, 2004 3:34:20 GMT -5
Man, that stuff is interesting. A great, great find.
"Ear prints" intrigue me too, especially since pre-autumn '66 Paul and current Paul seem to have such starkly contrasted ears in some photographs.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Jun 15, 2004 13:55:00 GMT -5
Very good post! It had always seemed to me that the pic of Paul on the "Spies" photo had been stretched lengthwise a bit so it would fit inside the keyhole- doesn't really look like him to me (though he's cute.)
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jun 17, 2004 6:09:33 GMT -5
Man, that stuff is interesting. A great, great find. "Ear prints" intrigue me too, especially since pre-autumn '66 Paul and current Paul seem to have such starkly contrasted ears in some photographs.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jun 17, 2004 14:58:44 GMT -5
actually to me they look remarkably similar despite the different angles, yes there is a change that is obvious, but as far as I can tell it is the same ear
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 17, 2004 15:10:25 GMT -5
The nose looks the most different to me in that pic.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 17, 2004 17:12:45 GMT -5
A fade is probably not the method discussed in the book (that's impossible to find, grrr) It looks like you divide the ear up in to small pieces and carefuly analyse each of those parts, like points of similarity in a fingerprint.
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jun 21, 2004 7:13:08 GMT -5
The nose looks the most different to me in that pic.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jun 21, 2004 9:32:25 GMT -5
I see that he has a little message at the bottom, I notice the pics are the same ones "someone" used at 60IF, and do my best to put them as unreliable here. For the first pic of "Faul" thats from the 1987(86?) Sgt. Peppers booklet that was touted at 60IF, if you look at the other pics in it, you'll realize that the artist isn't very good, and he cut many things at bad angles, this nose may very well prove to be the same. This nose matches up much better to Pauls nose, and so I don't know why he posted it. that also looks like Pauls nose This is something that can naturally happen to a nose as you age, and it is also the only one that proves his point, I can't refute it with anything beyond his age.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jun 21, 2004 18:19:34 GMT -5
they are the same pictures as those at 60nutville because its sunking thats posting them.. the same person thats also saying that the picture of toothless paul that we have over here is flipped yet his isn't and its the same damn picture from his faithful follower auston/chris
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jun 21, 2004 18:59:11 GMT -5
auston is chris? This shakes things up, I was wondering who she had come back as, however, on to the nose, I just want to know what you guys think of what I said? Valid points? Am I a complete nut?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jun 21, 2004 18:59:12 GMT -5
they are the same pictures as those at 60nutville because its sunking thats posting them.. the same person thats also saying that the picture of toothless paul that we have over here is flipped yet his isn't and its the same damn picture from his faithful follower auston/chris Auston was Chris!!!?
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jun 21, 2004 20:02:25 GMT -5
chris=auston=billy jay=agoodwoman on macca and many others...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 21, 2004 20:40:37 GMT -5
Yes, the only nose that looks out of place to any degree is the one that was a cut out, and yes, noses get slightly bigger with age. (but stay proportional) So if there is a "nose" issue, this was the worst both in examples and presentation. I suspect there would be better examples, but that's not one avenue I've looked into myself too much.
|
|