Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Talk about dark comedy: Brian Pete now joins James Norwood in endorsing Judyth Baker's ridiculous statement. And, we'll start with it.

Every sentence is ridiculous. The Doorway figure is small, but not so small that he can scarcely be seen. Then she refers to "various smears and lines"? What the hell is she talking about? Then she says that these various smears and lines may have been caused by "retouching" OR "rough handling". But, how could she put those two things together in a collective? 

So, retouching is to deliberately alter the photo. But, rough handling? But, if the Doorway Figure is so small that it can scarcely be seen, how can it be roughly handled? And if the film itself was "roughly handled" explain how that rough handling could disturb the rendering of Doorway Man. But, "rough handling" would presumably involve no deliberate attempt to alter anything, so why combine it with retouching? And, we're talking about a major news organization which handles, develops and prepares photographs all the time. They are professionals. So, why presume there would be any rough handling involved? 

Then, she says that Brownian motion could have produced some of these anomalies. But, Brownian motion is the random movement of particles suspended in a fluid, and it's a constant. To whatever extent Brownian motion was going on in that case is true in every case. If Brownian motion could cause specific "anomalies" in photos, how often would we see it? We would see it all the time, wouldn't we? Nobody ever said that every figure in the Altgens photo is anomalous. Most of the figures look normal. So, how could the Brownian motion of the silver particles cause anomalies to Doorman's figure (and a few others) while leaving the majority of figures intact? If the silver particles were moving randomly due to Brownian motion, then they were doing that throughout the photograph, and all parts of the photograph, and all figures within the photograph, should have been similarly affected. 

Then, she says that "a significant section of the shirt sleeve seems intact" but how? Wasn't it subject to Brownian motion too?

So, the whole, entire paragraph is complete, total, utter bull shit and nonsense. Yet, Professor James Norwood, and now Brian Pete, are avidly defending it.

Talk about the dumb leading the stupid. 

So, Brian Pete gets busy searching for a reference to Brownian motion in connection with photography. He figures that's all he needs- to find those words within the discussion. That'll exonerate his gal-pal Judyth-  oh yeah!

So, he finds an article entitled "Hydrodynamics and Brownian motion in complex fluids" and he underlines this:

"To design a new photographic emulsion, researchers must show not only that it makes better pictures, but also is similar enough to existing emulsions to coat the film."

Hmmm. I'll assume that got underlined because of rough handling. 

But then, he went on to this:

"Simulating these fluids, requires elements of fluid dynamics and molecular dynamics."


So? And that scores a point for you because?

Then, the author referred to a Cal Tech professor, John Brady, who was studying how particles interact within complex fluids:

"Called Stokesian dynamics, Brady's method takes into account both the hydrodynamic forces for the fluid movement and Brownian motion, the random motion of suspended particles as they collide with the surrounding fluid."

So, hydrodynamics refers to the movement of the fluid at large, while Brownian motion refers to the random motion of tiny particles suspended in the fluid. I'm still waiting for the zinger which proves that photographic anomalies can result from Brownian motion.  So, what follows? Nothing else was underlined, but what follows is:


"Stokesian dynamics calculates the interactions among many particles--efficiently enough to simulate hundreds, even thousands of particles." 

How does any of that substantiate any of this?

We are talking here about the genesis of specific anomalies within a photograph, and to attribute them to Brownian motion is ridiculous. Brownian motion would effect the non-anomalous parts of the photo as much as the anomalous parts. Brownian motion would affect every part. So, you can't use Brownian motion to explain specific defects within a photo.  It's ridiculous! 

Now, if you would, please join me in a rousing rendition:

Dah dot da-dah
Dah dot da-dah
(up an octave)
Dah dot da-dah
Dah dot da-dah
(change-up)
Dah dot da-dah da-da-da  da-da
Dah dot da-dah da-da-da  da-da
Dah dot da-dah da-da-da  da-da

Dah dot da-dah