Sunday, February 21, 2016

What kind of ass would wax on and on about the details of a photo and what it represents but without showing it? A stupid ignoramus
Backass, that's what kind.

 Disinformation Dorothy's lies to support her lies
I've been telling anyone who'll listen that Disinformation Dorothy cannot comprehend what a photograph is.  She doesn't understand any of the terminology of photography. She doesn't understand what resolution is.

She cannot comprehend how a photograph will have less resolution when printed on newspaper print instead of on proper photographic paper.  This is why photographs in books are usually printed on proper photographic paper instead of on the same paper the text is printed on. Take David Lifton's book "Best Evidence," for example.  The autopsy photographs are printed on proper photographic paper and not on the same type of paper as the text.  This increases the cost of the publication which is why an author tries to limit how many pagers of photographic paper will be in his or her book.  This is why Robert Gordon's books "The Killing of a President," and "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald," and his latest "JFK: Absolute Proof" use a lot of photographic paper because he wants to show you the photographic evidence using the best image and the best reproduction of that image he can.

Disinformation Dorothy doesn't want to give you the best image available.  The best image available reveals that she's using the worst image available.  The words "best," "better," and "worst," mean nothing to him.  To Disinformation Dorothy any copy of any image that is still identifiable and named as we know an image, usually by the photographer's name, are all valid for idiotic commentary and lies. To Dorothy the original Altgens photograph, the first one created from the original negative is the same to him as any of the shit versions he has on his shit blog.

Dorothy is incapable of telling you the history of any image, where he got what he's using, or even to explain what format the image he's using is in.

Degradation of an image due to poor reproduction of it in the first place, like in an newspaper, or several generations removed from the original like the bootleg copies that floated around the research community, especially in the late 1960's and the 1970's that were then used illegally in bad documentaries that were then made commercially available, I'm referring to the bad documentaries, not the original photograph or film, that were then uploaded to the internet, on websites, and, all of this shit is a valid as the original photograph, for Dorothy, even more so.

Because she is so stupid about photography she doesn't understand what she's looking at and will refer to any copy of the Zapruder film for example, even the one a con-man Bill Cooper used, a black and white, very badly degraded film in which Cooper tried to tell people that the driver of the limo, Secret Service Agent Bill Greer turned around and killed JFK.  Robert Groden used the best available copy of the Zapruder film to show that Cooper is a lying goon.  In the best available copy of the Zapruder film we can see that both of Greer's hands are on the steering wheel and they never leave it. What Cooper wanted people to believe was a gun was in fact the profile of Secret Service Agent  Roy Kellerman's head.  These are the kinds of games con-men play with corrupted photographic evidence, when they use corrupted images when superior versions are available.

This is the game Ralph Cinque and his more imaginary than real "Oswald Innocence Campaign," have been playing since its inception. Only idiots not well versed in the art of photography, the science of photography, the photographic evidence in the JFK assassination, even the common terminology of photography would fall for this crap.

He knows damn well that he's using a degraded inferior copy of the Altgens photograph when he uses this bullshit and claims there's some "alteration," "a black disc" inserted into the photograph.  He knows he's selling shit lie. He knows its been completely debunked.  So, he does what he's done since day one, ignore the fact that he's been shown to be a god damn liar and repeat the lie.

And even more galling he accuses the man who created a colorized crop of the Altgens photo of "coloring over" what he claims was an alteration.  He's just insane.  There is no alteration, no black circle, no black disc.

There are only lies to tell, and to repeat telling.

Ralph cinque is just a stupid, lying bitch.  He's been nothing but a lying asshole his whole life.

Look: what we have here is a black disc that is partially covering up the woman close to Maggie Brown. It suggests that something black was between the her and Altgens' camera, but that is not possible.

 The black disc is blocking the view of her right temple area. But, there was no such object. 

And when you apply fill-light to it, you see what's underneath it.

She is underneath it. Now you see the contour of the right side of her head, including her hair. That proves that that part of her was in the camera field. If it was obscured by an object, then the object would have been opaque, and therefore, light would not have reached that side of her face. But, it did reach that side of her face since it was captured. 

Most people would be smart enough NOT to want to argue about this, but it's not true of Backes. He's just an idiot who was born stupid.

Idiot. And yes, there is a black disc that was superimposed on the image. and it's not the only time they did it. They also did it in the Weaver photo.

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid; you'll die stupid; and in-between, you eat, drink, and sleep stupid. Stupid is what stupid spews.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.