Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Measurements Using Focal

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

  • Measurements Using Focal

    Using the Klonk software and calculating the iPhone X 28 mm focal. It is easy and accurate to get the Dragon Bracelet measurement.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	DB measurement.JPG
Views:	371
Size:	138.1 KB
ID:	282467

    When calculating in the iPhone X 28 mm focal.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Disc2.jpg
Views:	305
Size:	348.6 KB
ID:	282468
    The larger disc are a fact 5 inches (approximately) So, the big question again is: Why does the disc in the chest not have the edge markings?
    A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
    It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

    Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

  • #2
    The tool actually does a decent job. After I placed the 10 inch ruler to get other measurements, I measured the coin next. When I checked the size of the coin, it was 34 mm, which is just 2 mm off.
    The disc is a bit under 5 inches in the chest. All is approximate, but very close.
    So in studying this one area, it does solidify the gold disc as approximately 5 inches in both photos. And since we do not have edge decoration on the one in the chest, this study in itself tells you that these photos are not what they seem to be. In my opinion this is irrefutable evidence.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	chest.JPG
Views:	272
Size:	122.5 KB
ID:	282505
    A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
    It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

    Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by OH!! View Post
      The tool actually does a decent job. After I placed the 10 inch ruler to get other measurements, I measured the coin next. When I checked the size of the coin, it was 34 mm, which is just 2 mm off.
      The disc is a bit under 5 inches in the chest. All is approximate, but very close.
      So in studying this one area, it does solidify the gold disc as approximately 5 inches in both photos. And since we do not have edge decoration on the one in the chest, this study in itself tells you that these photos are not what they seem to be. In my opinion this is irrefutable evidence.
      Click image for larger version

Name:	chest.JPG
Views:	272
Size:	122.5 KB
ID:	282505
      You need to throw a measure on the bottom of the chest, check the difference in scale from the top, then half the difference to get the correct measurement of the Frisbee

      Comment


      • #4
        Measurements Using Focal

        Gotta give you a thumbs up, Oh!

        Comment


        • #5
          Are you assuming that all photos were taken by the same device (iPhone X 28 mm)?
          Is that a safe assumption here? If so, please explain.

          I see the use of an iPhone X as 50/50 being likely the device used to take any of the photos.
          It could very well be that the photos were taken from another device, scrubbed of their data, one particular picture was emailed to Forrest (with a
          iPhone X), that saved the photo onto his phone thus tagging it in the metadata, and then uploaded.
          In your opinion, is that enough to declare that the photos were definitively taken by an iPhone X?

          Lastly, what's the end game here?
          What hypothesis are we trying to prove or disprove?

          Comment


          • #6
            OH!! Please stop using those two photos to estimate the size of the gold disc. You have another photo which includes in a single image:
            1. Your target object (gold disc) shown in its entirety
            2. Your reference object (the chest) used to scale your ruler
            3. Both of the above at a similar distance to the camera
            It's a rough estimate, but the best you have, and sufficient to realize that the gold disc on top of the table is substantially larger than 5 inches.

            Click image for larger version  Name:	Measurement2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	218.7 KB ID:	282539

            Instead, you've chosen a photo for your analysis where:
            1. The target object (gold disc) is largely out of frame
            2. The reference object (dragon bracelet) used to scale your ruler is itself but an estimate, based on a separate photo analysis that carries its own error.
            Elsewhere you've charged that the dragon bracelet was manipulated in that image. Yet you use it as your reference to set your scale! Don't you see the folly in that?
            Last edited by Vertigo; 05-03-2021, 02:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The only evidence I see is evidence that someone doesn't understand the difference between 3d geometry and 2d geometry.
              A picture is a 2d image projection of the 3d world.
              You can't just slap a 1d ruler on a 2d image and make measurements. The ruler length would change according to where it is depth-wise in the image.

              You have yet to show any evidence of photographic tampering as well as provide a reason why FF would do such a thing. People know FF personally and I doubt any of them would say that faking pictures of the treasure being found and faking the finder would be something that FF was interested in doing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Vertigo View Post
                OH!! Please stop using those two photos to estimate the size of the gold disc. You have another photo which includes in a single image:
                1. Your target object (gold disc) shown in its entirety
                2. Your reference object (the chest) used to scale your ruler
                3. Both of the above at a similar distance to the camera
                It's a rough estimate, but the best you have, and sufficient to realize that the gold disc on top of the table is substantially larger than 5 inches.

                Click image for larger version Name:	Measurement2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	218.7 KB ID:	282539

                Instead, you've chosen a photo for your analysis where:
                1. The target object (gold disc) is largely out of frame
                2. The reference object (dragon bracelet) used to scale your ruler is itself but an estimate, based on a separate photo analysis that carries its own error.
                Elsewhere you've charged that the dragon bracelet was manipulated in that image. Yet you use it as your reference to set your scale! Don't you see the folly in that?
                I have used the iPhone's 28 mm calculations and input them into the software, just as a professional would do. It may be off a tad, but they are 100% correct.
                A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cary_Galloway View Post
                  The only evidence I see is evidence that someone doesn't understand the difference between 3d geometry and 2d geometry.
                  A picture is a 2d image projection of the 3d world.
                  You can't just slap a 1d ruler on a 2d image and make measurements. The ruler length would change according to where it is depth-wise in the image.

                  You have yet to show any evidence of photographic tampering as well as provide a reason why FF would do such a thing. People know FF personally and I doubt any of them would say that faking pictures of the treasure being found and faking the finder would be something that FF was interested in doing.
                  Then you need to read up on how to do it like I did.
                  A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                  It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                  Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by djjmciv View Post
                    Are you assuming that all photos were taken by the same device (iPhone X 28 mm)?
                    Is that a safe assumption here? If so, please explain.

                    I see the use of an iPhone X as 50/50 being likely the device used to take any of the photos.
                    It could very well be that the photos were taken from another device, scrubbed of their data, one particular picture was emailed to Forrest (with a
                    iPhone X), that saved the photo onto his phone thus tagging it in the metadata, and then uploaded.
                    In your opinion, is that enough to declare that the photos were definitively taken by an iPhone X?

                    Lastly, what's the end game here?
                    What hypothesis are we trying to prove or disprove?
                    There are only 3 iPhones it could be according to the EXIF data in the Treasure-Photo-. This photo gives camera metadata. So, I am assuming all of the photos were taken with either an iPhone 7, iPhone X, or iPhone XR. These three fit the numbers criteria that the EXIF file in the metadata holds. Without a doubt, it was one of these 3. This is the only photo that holds this type of data out of the 11 photos. All the rest were scrubbed. To have one photo with a slip-up is awesome. The iPhone X is the closest fit. The iPhone 7 is next.

                    People are having a difficult time believing the sizing of the 3 disc's on the table. two of them are 5 inches and the other is 3 1/4 inches. They seem to think the tiny disc is the one in the field chest photo and that there are two larger disc at the bottom. This is 100% incorrect according to measurements.
                    The disc in the chest field photo does not have any design on the edges and it is 5 inches. The two disc on the table that are 5 inches have designs on the edges.
                    This is a big problem.
                    Last edited by OH!!; 05-03-2021, 03:25 PM.
                    A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                    It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                    Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A photo that was posted in 2016 was taken by a phone released in 2017?
                      Just to clarify, you're absolutely certain that the picture with the data couldn't have acquired that metadata any other way other than point and snap photo?
                      It's also important to point out: The photo with the data. Where exactly did you get it from?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by OH!! View Post

                        I have used the iPhone's 28 mm calculations and input them into the software, just as a professional would do. It may be off a tad, but they are 100% correct.
                        You've ignored everything I said. It's what you do every time someone exposes your errors.

                        Carry on. I'll drop in again when you discuss the "floating" dragon bracelet and "jade" reflections.
                        Last edited by Vertigo; 05-03-2021, 08:30 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          hey. OH!!.
                          lol that sounds familiar. (johny carson or ed mcman?)
                          you have been here a long time just trying to set it right.
                          imo i am with you. the chest pictures are indeed fishy just like the way it ended.
                          the first thing i though when i saw the new chest pictures was something isn't right, as did many others.
                          keep up the good work.

                          as for the chirpers, if you see fault it another's stuff help them work it out instead of attacking.
                          i am am sure oh would prefer your help rather than your hindrance.

                          jack is the only one you should be picking on.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by djjmciv View Post
                            A photo that was posted in 2016 was taken by a phone released in 2017?
                            Just to clarify, you're absolutely certain that the picture with the data couldn't have acquired that metadata any other way other than point and snap photo?
                            It's also important to point out: The photo with the data. Where exactly did you get it from?
                            We are talking camera metadata script code that is hidden within the codes of a photo. There are certain numbers within the script code that the software catches. It then creates a list of possible cameras it could be. The software goes by process of elimination. For instance, the iPhone 7 only puts out a 92% photo quality when it snaps a photo. This is recorded into the EXIF data (metadata). The 92% is then researched and a list is made.
                            So for someone to input script code data, they would have to be a very high end technician. Usually people just remove metadata, so they feel safe, but when metadata is changed, which it is easy to do, it usually means they are conniving and have something to hide. A good example here is the old chest photo that Forrest Fenn gave the public with the original photo taken date of 4/1/1887 April Fools day. This type of metadata is easily accessed, but script code building from a high end software to find camera remnants is very difficult to manipulate. It is way deep within the photo.

                            The photo with the data is one of the first three photos we received on June 16th. The chest photo we received then, also has Microsoft Office mixed within the camera data, and does show Forrest Fenn's computer. Two of the three photos show Forrest Fenn's computer. This means they are not screenshots. The screenshots came when Jack appeared. Now, why the sudden change of metadata venue? You would only do this to try and double secure a photo.
                            Last edited by OH!!; 05-03-2021, 06:28 PM.
                            A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                            It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                            Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OH! - Just checking your level of understanding and I'm impressed.
                              So, let's assume more likely than not the "camera" used was Forrest's phone. This does seem logical as Jack is trying to remain anonymous and wouldn't want anything traced back to him. This is the beginning of Jack showing signs of mistrust with posting anything online. Given his not so favorable history with online posting you can understand why. Next, Jack gets outed. Forrest has passed away, so Jack is left with the task of uploading pictures. If you believe I painted a correct picture of Jack's lack of trust, then you can clearly see his personality type as someone who would scrub all the data. Not as someone who is trying to hide something (which is possible), but as someone who doesn't trust the internet (just as possible). And if someone is going through these lengths, then of course they would be someone who wouldn't respond to your requests for original pictures. A person's actions can speak just as clearly as data on a file. Putting the two together......

                              Do you concur that this is a possible scenario?
                              If not, then I would like to hear what you believe the story is?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X