We’re done. Why we came. What we learned. Thank you all.

[Bill Miller]

Whats to clean up davie? You have ignorants seeing all sorts of funny business in perfectly fine backyard photos and fetzer seeing dumbo in the back seat of the limo.

Sniff, sniff...is that you again davie?

Yes, a boob listening to Jack telling how a bouquet of flowers was a dog was a hoot! I bet the first couple would have had no trouble giving away pups around valentines day.

There should be two JFK assassination inquiries whereas one side uses the clearest prints to find evidence and the other, like Fetzer and White often do, is to use the worse prints possible so to see dogs in the limo that not one word was ever written about. Can you imagine that poor little violet and white dog not jumping around when all the chaos started - when Jackie started screaming - as she climbed out onto the trunk ... the control that the little soldier showed brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. (It was a boy dog - right? Possibly Fetzer can have Jack take an even closer look and let us know)

[Craig Lamson]

deleted, dupe post.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Whats to clean up davie? You have ignorants seeing all sorts of funny business in perfectly fine backyard photos and fetzer seeing dumbo in the back seat of the limo.

Sniff, sniff...is that you again davie?

Yes, a boob listening to Jack telling how a bouquet of flowers was a dog was a hoot! I bet the first couple would have had no trouble giving away pups around valentines day.

There should be two JFK assassination inquiries whereas one side uses the clearest prints to find evidence and the other, like Fetzer and White often do, is to use the worse prints possible so to see dogs in the limo that not one word was ever written about. Can you imagine that poor little violet and white dog not jumping around when all the chaos started - when Jackie started screaming - as she climbed out onto the trunk ... the control that the little soldier showed brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. (It was a boy dog - right? Possibly Fetzer can have Jack take an even closer look and let us know)

Bill, I'm going to give you first chance to respond.

Your work on the backyard photos center on the head size and neck size...correct? To make comparisons you took the backyard photos and scaled them all the the same headsize and found the bodies to not match in size...correct? And you scaled bodies to the same size and the heads did not match...correct? Finally you took a backyard photo and a sample photo of Oswalds head and scaled them to the same size and noticed the neck did not match...correct?

Your error is that you just can't scale things from different photos and expect thingts to match..or not.

You can test this concept easily, as I did.

I took three photos of a yardstick, with the same camera and same lens focal length. Much like the camera height in the backyard photos , the camera height was placed about in the middle of yardstick length(using 0 to 22 inches on the yardstick). And again like the backyard photos the the camera was placed in three different distances from the yardstick (subect) It was also like the backyadr photos pointed upward or level to include the lenght of the yardstick as the camera moved closer the the yardsticki.

These are the three quick photos:

Now lets resize each yardstick so that the first 4 inches is the same on each yardstick (head). Notice how the "body ' is not the same size on each yardstick and also the the 'neck" ( width of the yardstick) is different as well. The point here is that you can't just scale different photos taken from different camera to subject distances and expect things to match up.

Comparison photo of all three yardsticks together and scaled so the top 4 inches match:

Edited April 5, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Now lets resize each yardstick so that the first 4 inches is the same on each yardstick (head). Notice how the "body ' is not the same size on each yardstick and also the the 'neck" ( width of the yardstick) is different as well. The point here is that you can't just scale different photos taken from different camera to subject distances and expect things to match up.

Thanks for the illustration, Craig. I will try and look it over better this afternoon.

What I remember most about the back yard photos is that while Oswald's head size may vary between pictures just slightly - in one of the pictures it seems to me from memory that one body was a lot closer to the camera while the head sized stayed basically the same ... I could not explain that away.

Bill

Edited April 5, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

First, it was Craig's Xacto knife...

Then it was Bill's Screwdriver in the ground...

Now, the yardstick.

Gentlemen -- this is *precisely* the type of open, shared research that this community needs. Anyone with a camera and some simple tools can repeat these experiments for themselves and verify the results. These simple, but effective, demonstrations and experiments show some fundamental (but not necessarily immediately simple) concepts of perspective, parallax, and all the associated issues when 3 dimensions are "mapped" onto two.

That is what happens, folks, then light passes through a lens and is "focused" onto a perpendicular plane (like film or an imaging sensor - like CCD or CMOS). The result is a two-dimensional object. ** Additional manipulation of that object is manipulation in 2D space, not 3D!! ** That is why simple re-sizing, turning, twisting, and aligning on our computers may result in highly flawed conclusions.

Sure -- it is absolutely possible to glean lots of useful information from the photographs and films. Like Craig and Bill, this is my primary area of interest and expertise. I can't keep track of the alphabet soup of names that is the "whodunnit" portion of this case. There are others on here with the appropriate skills to work this angle. I'm simply not that person, so I stick to the science and technology side of things (where I have something to contribute).

I continue to try to keep an open mind toward any number of theories. I know people work hard on them and are proud of their work. That is why I prefer to ask questions and listen to responses as opposed to simply ripping into someone's work. However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically. I'm still open to the concept, as to be closed-minded is not in the spirit of good research. However, I'm certainly leaning (strongly) in the direction that the photographic evidence is genuine, unaltered apart from damage and aging, and a useful research tool. Does that make me a lone-nutter? Not really. Neither the WC, the HCA, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al have not made their case in a compelling way, either.

[David G. Healy]

First, it was Craig's Xacto knife...

Then it was Bill's Screwdriver in the ground...

Now, the yardstick.

Gentlemen -- this is *precisely* the type of open, shared research that this community needs. Anyone with a camera and some simple tools can repeat these experiments for themselves and verify the results. These simple, but effective, demonstrations and experiments show some fundamental (but not necessarily immediately simple) concepts of perspective, parallax, and all the associated issues when 3 dimensions are "mapped" onto two.

That is what happens, folks, then light passes through a lens and is "focused" onto a perpendicular plane (like film or an imaging sensor - like CCD or CMOS). The result is a two-dimensional object. ** Additional manipulation of that object is manipulation in 2D space, not 3D!! ** That is why simple re-sizing, turning, twisting, and aligning on our computers may result in highly flawed conclusions.

Sure -- it is absolutely possible to glean lots of useful information from the photographs and films. Like Craig and Bill, this is my primary area of interest and expertise. I can't keep track of the alphabet soup of names that is the "whodunnit" portion of this case. There are others on here with the appropriate skills to work this angle. I'm simply not that person, so I stick to the science and technology side of things (where I have something to contribute).

I continue to try to keep an open mind toward any number of theories. I know people work hard on them and are proud of their work. That is why I prefer to ask questions and listen to responses as opposed to simply ripping into someone's work. However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically. I'm still open to the concept, as to be closed-minded is not in the spirit of good research. However, I'm certainly leaning (strongly) in the direction that the photographic evidence is genuine, unaltered apart from damage and aging, and a useful research tool. Does that make me a lone-nutter? Not really. Neither the WC, the HCA, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al have not made their case in a compelling way, either.

the above is **precisely** the type of posts that continue the personal attacks on DP film/photo alteration researchers.... your posts included, Frank. Are you a lone nut? Frankly, I could care less who is or isn't, that's for the private eyes amongst us to determine....

Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy. Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller....

Keep the debates focused on the DP film and photo researchers, maybe the rest of the world will forget about, THAT "conspiracy" none admit is starring them right in the face.

How many TV programs and shows have been dedicated to the assassinations films and photos of Dealey Plaza.? At least two by my count. The ABC Myers cartoon, and at least one Gary Mack contrived (Films and Photos and Photographers including Mary Moorman and her infamous Moorman #5)for the History or Discovery Channel.... 10 years ago the film/photo evidence was sacrosanct, now its questioned at every turn...... so guys nice try, ya lost!

As all with inside knowledge know, until there is forensic testing done on alleged in-camera original Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 films, **proving in-camera original status** all posting here concerning same is of little or no practical value or meaning. Less of course, having another agenda, and that of course is character assassination. As aptly demonstrated by 5-10 regular posters here.

One or ALL DP films, in the event of appearing as evidence in a court of law would, under the most strenuous urgings and pleas, undergo forensic testing.

Here's the reality, a reality that screwdrivers in the dirt, x'acto knives, yardsticks as props (ROTFLMFAO) can't run around, nor all the Lone Nut whining can cure: where is the chain of evidence documentation for any and all these alleged oiginal DP films and photos? (Even Groden can't or won't tell ya)

So, sloppy, sloppy, sloopy, Nutters. Shame on you!

Don't stand to close Frank, Lone Nutterism is catchy..... makes no difference what your ability (or what you THINK your ability level) is regarding film-photo composition. 6 years and I'm still waiting for the anti-alteration crowd to dig up a film composition artist and/or a longtime Hollywood type film optical print technician to discuss my article. Silence (other than character assassination of course), which tells me and many others, the Lone Nutters and anti-film alterationist simply don't have the horsepower to climb that mountain..... That friends and neighbors is either incompetence or willful neglect. Where-o-where have they gone!

and Frank:

However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically.

Frank, as you infer photography is a hobby of yours, AND of course you hold no JD degree, so thanks for your amateur opinion concerning the subject matter, as that's what it is: OPINION. You've certainly not proved nor enlightened us with your quasi (to quote Wild Bill) expertise in the film photo area, which lands you square in the middle of Wild Bill Miller's camp, but we figured that months ago.

and remember, I'm the one who can't prove film alteration, now THAT is keeping an open-mind Frank!

[David G. Healy]

3 weeks and counting.... thank you for the long good-bye, Dr. Thompson.

[Len Colby]

Someone I don't know asked me if the backyard photos were genuine or not. I said I thought they "were probably genuine" but that the evidence surrounding them was "a tangled mess." This gets translated into a firm belief on my part that the backyard photos are genuine. Huh!? Again, Len has emphasized the same point that concerned me... Why would Marguerite Oswald of all people lie about these photos and what she did the day after the assassination?

From the WC testimony of Marguerite Oswald, vol. 1, p. 145-147, 151:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...WC_Vol1_0079...

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. This is on the day of the assassination?

Mrs.

OSWALD

. Yes, sir — the 22d, Friday, the 22d.

<snip>

My daughter-in-law…opened the closet, and in the closet was a

lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of

Lee, with a gun.

It said, "To my daughter June" — written in English.

<snip>

...no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the

President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with

that rifle, and leave that there for evidence.

<snip>

Mrs.

OSWALD

. …He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.

Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean —

Mrs.

OSWALD

. Like this.

Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?

Mrs.

OSWALD

. With both hands on the rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?

Mrs.

OSWALD

. That is right.

<snip>

She [Marina] tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and

flushed it down the toilet.

So his own mom said under oath she saw a photo, different from any of the known photos, in Marina’s possession of him posing with a rifle on the day of the assassination and helping destroy it the next day. Did she perjure herself? Why on earth would she do such a thing? She confessed to a serious felony [destruction of evidence] in the process. Once again why on earth would she do such a thing unless it was true?

For the proponents of the theory the photos were faked other than claiming she perjured herself I see only the following options.

• Acknowledge LHO did take at least one photo posing with a rifle which was in his wife’s possession but claim the existing ones are fake.
  
• Claim that Marina was “in on it” from before the assassination but then explain why she destroyed the photo.
  

[Len Colby]

First, it was Craig's Xacto knife...

Then it was Bill's Screwdriver in the ground...

Now, the yardstick.

Gentlemen -- this is *precisely* the type of open, shared research that this community needs. Anyone with a camera and some simple tools can repeat these experiments for themselves and verify the results. These simple, but effective, demonstrations and experiments show some fundamental (but not necessarily immediately simple) concepts of perspective, parallax, and all the associated issues when 3 dimensions are "mapped" onto two.

That is what happens, folks, then light passes through a lens and is "focused" onto a perpendicular plane (like film or an imaging sensor - like CCD or CMOS). The result is a two-dimensional object. ** Additional manipulation of that object is manipulation in 2D space, not 3D!! ** That is why simple re-sizing, turning, twisting, and aligning on our computers may result in highly flawed conclusions.

Sure -- it is absolutely possible to glean lots of useful information from the photographs and films. Like Craig and Bill, this is my primary area of interest and expertise. I can't keep track of the alphabet soup of names that is the "whodunnit" portion of this case. There are others on here with the appropriate skills to work this angle. I'm simply not that person, so I stick to the science and technology side of things (where I have something to contribute).

I continue to try to keep an open mind toward any number of theories. I know people work hard on them and are proud of their work. That is why I prefer to ask questions and listen to responses as opposed to simply ripping into someone's work. However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically. I'm still open to the concept, as to be closed-minded is not in the spirit of good research. However, I'm certainly leaning (strongly) in the direction that the photographic evidence is genuine, unaltered apart from damage and aging, and a useful research tool. Does that make me a lone-nutter? Not really. Neither the WC, the HCA, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al have not made their case in a compelling way, either.

the above is **precisely** the type of posts that continue the personal attacks on DP film/photo alteration researchers.... your posts included, Frank. Are you a lone nut? Frankly, I could care less who is or isn't, that's for the private eyes amongst us to determine....

The best thing about your posts are their humor value, can you point to which part of Frank's post constituted a "personal attack"

Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy

Then you should stop posting on such threads and tell your buddies to stop dredging it up

. Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller....

LOL - This from the guy complaing about personal attacks

As all with inside knowledge know, until there is forensic testing done on alleged in-camera original Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 films, **proving in-camera original status**

You are of course aware that the inventor of the filmstock used did precisely that.

Frank, as you infer photography is a hobby of yours, AND of course you hold no JD degree, so thanks for your amateur opinion concerning the subject matter, as that's what it is: OPINION. You've certainly not proved nor enlightened us with your quasi (to quote Wild Bill) expertise in the film photo area, which lands you square in the middle of Wild Bill Miller's camp, but we figured that months ago.

LOL - This from the guy with no known experience with FILM compositing who wrote a chapter on the subject.

I'm the one who can't prove film alteration,

I guess you find your collegues arguments as unconvincing as the rest of us.

[Bill Miller]

Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy. Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller....

Keep the debates focused on the DP film and photo researchers, maybe the rest of the world will forget about, THAT "conspiracy" none admit is starring them right in the face.

David, we hold the same conclusions as you do concerning not seeing any proof of alteration. The difference is that we look at what was claimed about the photo or film that was said to be impossible, thus proving alteration. So we test those claims and find out that if there is alteration afoot ... its not because of the reason the claimant gave. I think it would be great to show alteration, but it must be true alteration and not because some boob has misread a photograph by using a poor fuzzy lesser quality print to achieve their goal. Not speaking up and pointing out these errors would help the conspirators even more for it makes the rest of us look as if we too, are too whacked upstairs to read a photo correctly and even worse ... incompetent to know how to investigate it so to know.

Now what could really stick it to those conspirators is for you to actually make that written request to examine the in-camera original Zapruder film like you have been complaining about for well over the last decade. If you would put just 1/10th of the effort into making that request as you do writing the vulgar low-life gutter talk replies I have read on those web pages dedicated to exposing your sick behavior ... you might surprise a few folks and actually do something constructive over authenticating or exposing the Zapruder film with something real about it being altered for a change.

Bill Miller

Edited April 5, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Don Jeffries]

Bill,

With all due respect, anyone reading that old Lancer thread from 2003, and comparing it with your tentative comments about the same subject on this thread, would naturally think that your views have changed dramatically in the past six years.

What has happened to cause you to temper your strong opinion that the backyard photos are fake?

[Craig Lamson]

Bill,

With all due respect, anyone reading that old Lancer thread from 2003, and comparing it with your tentative comments about the same subject on this thread, would naturally think that your views have changed dramatically in the past six years.

What has happened to cause you to temper your strong opinion that the backyard photos are fake?

I won't reply for Bill, but the fact his conclusions were based on a mistaken understanding of some basic photographic principals might have something to do with it.

How about you Don? Can you understand why Bills work has been called into question?

Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Frank Agbat]

I don't recall making any "personal attacks" in my comments on this thread. In fact, I don't recall that I've launched a personal attack at any point in my stay on the forum. I did not appreciate the insulting and condescending tenor of the remainder of the reply.

Mr. Healy is correct on one thing. I do not have a JD; I'm not a lawyer, nor did I ever attend law school. Thus, it is highly unlikely that I would have been awarded a Juris Doctor by any of the graduate schools I attended. Then again, I never claimed to have such a degree...

[Don Jeffries]

Craig,

I'm not as impressed by your expertise in this area as you are. "Basic photographic principals (sp)" are obviously lacking in these photos, which is why virtually every researcher into the assassination strongly suspected they were faked as part of the effort to frame Oswald.

Bill should be proud of what he posted back in 2003.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I'm not as impressed by your expertise in this area as you are. "Basic photographic principals (sp)" are obviously lacking in these photos, which is why virtually every researcher into the assassination strongly suspected they were faked as part of the effort to frame Oswald.

Bill should be proud of what he posted back in 2003.

Should one be proud of work that is in error?

You impression means little, however the basics of photography cannot be changed, regardless of what a bunch of ill-imformed ct's try to sell.

I suggest you do a bit of serious study. You might just save yourself a fair amount public humiliation. You have a learning experience right here, if your goal is actually the truth.

I suspect, given your past posts, the truth is clearly NOT what you are seeking, instead you appear to be looking for confirmation of your worldview, the truth be danmed. Good luck with that.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson