Jump to content
The Education Forum

Comparing the White Jacket to CE 162


Gil Jesus

Recommended Posts

This is your continuous argument, either the "principles" are correct or they are not. Either you refute or not.

Yet this is like the dog chasing its tail. No matter how much evidence one brings up you refuse to alter your position. Which is one definition of a zealot. You looked absolutely silly with that goofy "perspective' argument with Pat Speer's picture of the cops with that sack outside the TSBD. I mean that is the exchange that marked you for me as the equivalent of Frazier of Shaneyfelt.

You don't bring up evidence that CAN alter my position since my position is not based you the evidence you posit as evidence. I'm dealing DIRECTLY with the photography and NOT your speculative conclusions. Is that so hard to understand? And I looked silly with Speer? Earth to Jimmy...I was RIGHT.

And for you to say a watermark can extend in a straight line across the subject's face?

Please Lammy. These are not principles. They are propaganda, from a man whose politics made up his mind for him at the start.

Of course they are principles jimmy, very basic principles like gravity. You know gravity don't you jimmy? Or is that yet another concept that eludes you? I offered you direct quotes, and quite frankly I have more including images from people with zero to do with JFK. Earth to jimmy d. Watermarks in a straight line are a FACT OF LIFE. The only propaganda here is from jimmy d and it's very feeble at best. FACTS simply prove him wrong.

The only question for most of us is why you are still here. I mean what headway have you made in all these years? Very little or none. I would say about as much as DVP in far more time.

No the only question for you is really, how can you GET RID OF ME. God know you sure try. Fail, but try. Your fear is palpable. Your (communal) knowledge base photographically is childlike at best. You get your hat handed to you constantly. Am I changing hard core CT minds? Heck no, minds like yours are closed tight as a drum to truth. Am I showing people other alternatives and challenging them to actually LEARN? You bet. I get emails to that effect from complete strangers all the time.

Anyway, if you think you have the corner on correct application of photographic principles as it applies to the JFK photography, why are you so afraid of my presence? Your constant protests paint a very compelling story. You are AFRAID.

You then reply that your are here "to keep my skills sharp". This fails on two counts. First, there are many other ways you could do this in far less time. Secondly, as shown above, you are not keeping them sharp, as most of your arguments are arrived at from a priori positions.

What poppycock. Is that the best you can do? If so you are a VERY weak stick jimmy. First please show me anywhere arena aside from Apollo ( where I also "keep my skills sharp" or 9/11 ( where I have no real interest) where the discussion of faked photography is as fruitful? This is a goldmine of failed photographic analysis. What BETTER way to sharpen ones skills than to dissect and than prove incorrect (often with detailed empirical testing). And of course since you were WRONG above you can't see I WAS keeping my skills quite sharp.

As to priori positions, actually PROVING then wrong most often requires brand new thinking and direction. Earth to jimmy, its this very act of problem solving that sharpens ones skill set. You should try it sometime. You really need it.

Which of course leaves one alternative.

Which one would that be, your quaking fear at my presence? ROFLMAO!

You are a real piece of work jimmy....

So you EVER gonna try and deal directly with the actual photographic evidence that destroys you or shall we expect only ad homs which are your usual fare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just did you zealot. And as I said you are like a dog chasing its tail.

That cannot be Oswald's alleged sack OK. NO matter how many phony "principles" (aka ignorant propaganda) you bring up. I explained why back then. It does not matter to you. Just like the facts of this case don' t matter to you. (Which is why you resemble the WC and FBI.)

Per that phony watermark which extends in a straight line across the upper chin, you cannot be serious Lammy. As I said, I developed scores upon scores of B and W photos in my own dark room. I never, ever saw a water mark that looked like that.

And I suppose its just a coincidence that the chin below that phony watermark does not match Oswald's right?

Did I say Zealot?

Fanatic is more like it.

You "explained" nothing jimmy, you cobbled together a bunch of speculations and came to a speculative conclusion. You do it again with the backyard photos. Talk about a zealot.

And a watermark that creates a straight line is a simple fact jimmy despite your "scores upon scores" of crap developed in silly your home darkroom. You have yet to refute a single quote I offered you. So lets add yet another....we will start with a photo...

Vicky

Now how about another quote?....

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/film-processing-scanning-darkroom/134120-how-get-no-water-marks-negs.html

"Now here's another one.. Basically, I developed 2 rolls of 35mm film, and after drying, they both have water spots on them (sometimes just spots, sometimes look like a trail a droplet left as it was sliding down the negative)"

Your abject ignorance simply knows no bounds jimmy...none.

Then there is the chin. Again simple...basic...understanding...of basic photographic principles....shows once again that jimmy d has a a gnat like understanding of how the real world works.

There is no discrepancy in the chin of Oswald in the backyard photos. Quite the opposite it is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from a photograph of a standing man taken from a low camera angle. EXACTLY!

This holds true for any object, human or otherwise. We can illustrate this simply with,for example, the corner of a laptop computer...

Watch how the corner of the laptop goes from pointed to flat by simply LOWERING the camera height in relation to the laptop...

IMG_2866.jpg

Now we can expect the turds to fly from jimmy's keyboard...its not a person...you lose!

So lets explode this chin myth once and for all...Poof...that's the sound of yet another bout of your abject ignorance exploding jimmy...

Obama, from a eye level and then lower camera angles. Watch his pointed chin become square....

jugears2.jpg

Your photographic ignorance simply knows no bounds, and you are trapped FROM THE TRUTH BY YOUR VERY WARPED WORLDVIEW.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lammy, the best summary I know of for your mumbo jumbo was delivered by Jim Garrison.

When the idea of the NAA analysis was brought up to prop up the ridiculous SBT, Garrison replied with this:

Of course the government says that they put these fragments to the test of modern science by throwing them in a nuclear reactor. Modern science can prove an elephant can suspend itself over a cliff by a daisy stem depending on the weight of the elephant and the thickness of the stem.

Well, replace the phrase "modern science" and put in "photographic principles" and that sums up perfectly your BS.

PS: the NAA "Science" turned out to be junk.

Can you now answer my previous question: Why are you still here? I mean I know someone who peeked into your prop room and saw your stuff. You are not here to "hone your skills." You are here to maintain one of the biggest official lies ever rendered, the WC. Which to me, and others, with all we know today is sort of like being a Holocaust Denier.

Translated from jimmy D speak.....I'm so screwed now I don't have chance.

Refute the work jimmy. Calling me a "holocaust denier" only makes you look stupid.

This is BASIC photo 101 jimmy...SIMPLE geometry.

Come on jimmy give it a go. Show us how "smart" your really are.

Refute these simple and very basic of photographic principles.

I know you can't. No one can.

Yet the abject ct ignorance continues.

And jimmy d looks more pathetic with every post.

Why are so afraid of the truth jimmy?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pointless for anyone to discuss anything with you. Jim has explained why. Ed has explained why. Ray is currently wasting his time trying to debate with you.

Of course it is pointless, none of you know the first thing about any of this. Jim can't photo analyze his way out of a paper bag. Ed...poor Ed. He can't even understand how the sun works. And Old Ray is WAY in over his head.

You refute your own work with this latest con-job you have conjured. Explain to us how the photo's of Obama you have used compare with the backyard photographs. We don't need to have been on photography "training courses" to know it is you who are throwing out, as you so eloquently put it, "turds."

Uh no lee, I put to rest the silly noting that he chin in the backyard photo cannot be Oswald's. And I see NONE of you have the first idea on how to refute this. This is NOT rocket science. I;m sure even you are capable of using a camera and proving for YOURSELF that this principle is real and it works exactly as I have laid it out. In fact that's exactly what a person with an ounce of intelligence would do. Check it out and see if its true.

Have at it lee, and lets see if can operate a camera.

You have made Obama's chin "square" by using photographs of him where his head is tilted back or to the left.

First of all you FAIL photo interpretation 101. Those photos are not of Qbama 'tilting his head back'. These are photos of him taken from a lower than eye level camera height. Got them direct from Google images, there are PLENTY more where those came from.

And I did not "make' obama's chin anything. PERSPECTIVE and point of view did. Basic PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE. Works perfectly objects as well as faces BECAUSE ITS HOW THESE THINGS WORK IN REAL LIFE. Heck I can show you the exact same thing with a tuna sandwich. You just tossed out a major league turd lee and made yourself look completely ignorant of the world right in front of your nose.

And to show just how stupid your statement was, TILTING the head produces the EXACT SAME EFFECT. Move the camera or move the subject the PRINCIPLE and hte visual effect stays the same.

Of course don't take my word for it. Test it yourself. This is a VERY simple experiment and I'm sure even a dunce can do it.

But how the hell do you turn Oswald's chin square in all of the backyard photographs? Are you now telling us his head was tilted backward in all three shots? Do you even read what you write and what you post?

Oswalds chin look square in the backyard photos when compared to eye level shots ...BECAUSE THE CAMERA IN THE BACKYARD PHOTOS was well below eye level...waist level to be precise. All the BY photos are internally consistent for this camera height.

SO JUST LIKE OBAMA, the pointy chin became square because of BASIC PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE...PERSPECTIVE and POINT OF VIEW. Thanks so much for making a complete fool of yourself lee. Of course don't take my word for it. TEST IT YOURSELF

Utter crap! Only to be expected from a Dick Cheney lookalike and actalike.

NO the "utter crap" is the ignorance you just spewed in you post. Time for you to eat your turd sandwich. Hope you enjoy it. I sure enjoyed watching you make it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I don't get, Lee. Why do you guys continue trying to "debate" him?. Craig's admitted over and over that he has no interest in the asassination, he only comes here to xxxxx and he admitted on the BY photo thread that he has no formal qualifications in the photographic sciences so he's not even an expert anyway. So why even acknowledge him?

He's got absolutely nothing of any worth to add to any discussion so just let him have his little say and carry on the real discussion amongst yourselves.

I agree, you guys should go away. I'll just post the photographic truths and those who want to learn can, without the ignorant intrusions.

Good idea Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right, Martin. The problem we have, as I see it, is that he regularly pops out of his box whenever the word "photo" is used. He truly believes he is some sort of scientific authority on the principles of photography and then ultimately ends up posting some mumbo jumbo claptrap that he has convinced himself "explodes" our "worldview."

The problem YOU have is these simple truths, based on BASIC PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES that can be tested by ANYONE with a camera are destroying your fantasy that the backyard photos are fake. The only Mumbo Jumbo is the false belief by people like lee that that actually have the first clue about any of this. They don't.

The guy is a crank, but if he thinks he's passing these current photo's of Obama off as being proof of any principle inherent within the Backyard Photos, then he's more of a crank than even I imagined.

And yet you continue to be proven wrong about this. Your ignorance is amazing.

"Your fear is palpable." The guy is a grade A+ nutcase.

Of course it is palpable. All one has to do is look at the posts coming my way in a vain and failed attempt to refute my posts. You guys have it cranked up to MAX. Yes, your fear that the backyard fake photo myth is destroyed scares the hell out of you.

The woman who claimed she took these BYP's said, under oath, that she put the view-finder up to her eye to take them. We have photos of her during the exact same time period with June Oswald in the garden of the Elsbeth apartment complex. If they were taken with the Imperial Reflex then she saw Oswald repeatedly take photographs of her and her daughter with the camera at his waist. If she took the Backyard Photos then she took them by holding the camera to her waist.

But Crackpot Craig wouldn't know this - because there's no such thing as context and history that wraps itself around these photographs. To him they exist in a vaccuum.

Oh lee, I KNOW all about what people said and its amazing that people like you spend so much time trying to micro analyze witness testimony. This how you create your great SPECULATIVE CONCLUSIONS. Not much more unreliable than witness testimony, which is why I don't USE it. The photos speak for themselves. And of course that ALSO scares the hell out of you. Lots of fun than using provable photographic principle to bust speculative conclusions wide open. And that scare the hell out of you.

You are right though, it's pointless talking to someone who understands so little about this case, yet professes to have the answers, whilst claiming that his answers, even though they marry up to the conclusions of the Warren Commission in every way, are in no way shape or form based upon his right wing political views. LOL.

LOL! Still trying to play that old saw lee. Too bad it's a miserable failure. Photographic perspective for example has no political views. Neither does photographic point of view. But nice try though.

lee chews on yet another of his turd sandwiches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
  • 2 years later...

Thanks Bart for bringing this post up.  It has at the first something I run into all the time.  Phony, make up research or more correctly, manufactured data to backup an absurd point.

Gil Jesus sums this up remarkably well:

Screenshot2011-09-10at123312AM.jpg

 

First, you implied that the "white" jacket was actually the grey jacket which was overexposed in the video.

Now, you're implying that the white jacket only appears to be white because of ( quoting your chart above ) "relative surrounding ( squares of ) dark and the fact that our vision compensates for some sort of shadow".

You CAN'T be serious.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE GET THIS STUFF FROM ?

There's neither any darkness surrounding the jacket nor any shadow ON IT to alter the perception of its color in the video. Therefore, this chart has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're seeing in the video.

I have to hand it to you WC supporters. You certainly aren't embarrassed to argue a point to complete absurdity.

And you STILL haven't addressed the reports that the jacket was white.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Gil Jesus

 

And a shout out to those who make the same point.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...