Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A 2016 Chest Photo vs A 2020 Chest Photo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I get your point(s), OH!! But I'm wondering specifically if perspective may be the reason why sizes are not consistent from one picture to another. If the picture is taken from an angle, the things at the front of the photo will naturally appear (and measure out, I believe) larger than the things toward the back. Do you believe that your analysis accounts for this phenomenon?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by OH!! View Post

      I don't feel Doty had anything to do with Forrest finding a photo in one of his old hard drives. Remember, this was at a time when Forrest was deciding what to put in the chest, before TTOTC book was ever written.
      But that chest photo is a professional image, not shot by Forrest. It's lit differently, looks like a pro job. It doesn't look like Forrest took the picture. Don't you agree?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Spoon View Post
        I get your point(s), OH!! But I'm wondering specifically if perspective may be the reason why sizes are not consistent from one picture to another. If the picture is taken from an angle, the things at the front of the photo will naturally appear (and measure out, I believe) larger than the things toward the back. Do you believe that your analysis accounts for this phenomenon?
        Although not specific science, the measurements are made by using the chest. We know the chest is 10x10 and when the wood and lock is aligned, we have this.
        The camera distance to both chest are approximately the same and only the angle is different. The coin sizes as you progress forward tells you a basic distance
        and as you can see, there is little difference. There is 1/4 inch difference between the back 20 dollar gold pieces and the 20 dollar gold piece buried under the nugget I
        placed onto the image. This is our camera distance. Adding 1/4 inch onto the nugget is over an inch short.
        The image reveals the nugget size in the old chest photo.
        Click image for larger version

Name:	chest.jpg
Views:	123
Size:	3.42 MB
ID:	257357
        A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
        It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

        Deceiving science in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm just challenging you, OH!!, to fully test your assumptions. I did something interesting - printed off a copy of the chest picture in his June 16 announcement and then extended the inside edges of the box until the point that they crossed. Then I measured the length of the inside edge of the box front vs. the inside edge of the box in the back. The difference is significant, even though the box is displayed at an angle (i.e. the difference would be greater if the box were square in the picture). Using the blown-up version of the picture I had, the back edge measured out to almost exactly 4 inches and the front edge almost exactly 5 inches. That is a 25% difference attributable solely to perspective.

          In your analysis of that first nugget, you are drawing a picture from the front of the chest in one photo and from near the back of the chest in another. Perspective may account for at least some of the difference in size of the nugget.

          Another possibility is that because of the angle at which the picture is taken, you are not capturing the true edges of the nugget in one of the photos. Because it is a 3-dimensional object, some of its size may be hidden from view because of the angle the photo is shot at.

          I know you are reticent to conclude/believe that this was all a big con. I am too, and the evidence would have to be awfully compelling. This one is not yet getting me there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Spoon View Post
            I'm just challenging you, OH!!, to fully test your assumptions. I did something interesting - printed off a copy of the chest picture in his June 16 announcement and then extended the inside edges of the box until the point that they crossed. Then I measured the length of the inside edge of the box front vs. the inside edge of the box in the back. The difference is significant, even though the box is displayed at an angle (i.e. the difference would be greater if the box were square in the picture). Using the blown-up version of the picture I had, the back edge measured out to almost exactly 4 inches and the front edge almost exactly 5 inches. That is a 25% difference attributable solely to perspective.

            In your analysis of that first nugget, you are drawing a picture from the front of the chest in one photo and from near the back of the chest in another. Perspective may account for at least some of the difference in size of the nugget.

            Another possibility is that because of the angle at which the picture is taken, you are not capturing the true edges of the nugget in one of the photos. Because it is a 3-dimensional object, some of its size may be hidden from view because of the angle the photo is shot at.

            I know you are reticent to conclude/believe that this was all a big con. I am too, and the evidence would have to be awfully compelling. This one is not yet getting me there.
            It does not rely on one thing alone. It is the group of things added together that alarms me. I always try to look at things as a whole, after I have analyzed the detail.
            A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
            It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

            Deceiving science in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

            Comment


            • #21
              I hear you, OH!!. I thought the edge fringe stuff in the chest picture was extremely compelling. I blew up the photo myself and to the naked eye it is obvious around the stick and probably the key. So I'm skeptical about this latest bit, but effectively, you had me at hello.

              Comment


              • #22
                This is interesting...I’m particularly interested in that nugget with the 9’s. There’s something fishy going on...

                Comment

                Working...
                X