Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

More from the past on BYP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, David Von Pein said:


But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists.

 

David,

Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.

I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or both.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or  both.

And just think---there were TWENTY such "corrupt" and/or "stupid" so-called "photographic experts" working for the HSCA in 1978. That's a lot of corruption on just one panel. (And, remember, they were all "stupid"/"corrupt" when it comes to the autopsy pictures too.)

There was no end to the corruption (and/or stupidity) in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the WC, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?

Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

There was no end to the corruption in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the WC, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?

 

Yep. There were a lot of patriotic and gullible folks back then who would do anything the government asked in the name of national security. These days there are a lot fewer people who trust the government... but still as many gullible ones it seems.

You seem to think the U.S. government was squeaky clean back then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hogwash!  The Imperial Reflex was a view camera, meaning you had to hold it at roughly waist level and look down into the large, rectangular view finder to see the subject.  Even then, the view was an inverted mirror image. Pretty unforgettable, but Marina testified she held it up to her eye.

If I took a picture with that weird camera of my wife with a pistol and holding a rifle and commie literature, I’d remember the camera.  And so would you in a similar situation.

 

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


David, do you think that Marina held the camera up at eye level? Or at waist level?

 

 

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on.

Does anyone else here believe Marina would have really forgotten the use of that odd Imperial Reflex camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo she tore up was a photo of Oswald hunting in Russia where he was photographed holding a shotgun above his head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David Von Pein,

There are things that I do not find credible. Among these are the Warren Commission, the conclusions of the HSCA, and Marina Oswald, the double or triple agent.

This happened on Main Street in the AMIPA film shot by Robert Yeargan:

3rd_back_shot_on_main_a.gif

I sure you can explain this some way.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As far as the BYP's are concerned, I think everyone has said all that needs to be said.  Folks should just stick to their known facts and resist the temptation to argue about this or that in the BYP's issue.  The BYP's are fake and that has been proven by many people.   The conclusions that the BYP's are fake is real, inescapable, and undeniable.   

 

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, John Butler said:

As far as the BYP's are concerned, I think everyone has said all that needs to be said.  Folks should just stick to their known facts and resist the temptation to argue about this or that in the BYP's issue.  The BYP's are fake and that has been proven by many people.   The conclusions that the BYP's are fake is real, inescapable, and undeniable.   

 

 

🤣 🤣 🤣

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Butler said:

This happened on Main Street in the AMIPA film shot by Robert Yeargan:  ....  [I'm] sure you can explain this some way.

Explain what?

I haven't the slightest idea what you think it is that needs to be "explained" in that film clip.

Please enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2018 at 2:53 PM, David Von Pein said:

"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth."

-- Marina Oswald; Early 1990s (Via Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed", Page 106 [footnote])
 

Is it possible she was lying or mistaken? Isn't there a discrepancy concerning what camera she used? Also you're citing a known plagiarist and also, unfortunately, someone who wasn't concerned with unearthing the facts in this greatly complicated case but beginning with the conclusion or hypothesis that Oswald was guilty and worked from that conclusion to prove said conclusion and that is circular reasoning, just as Bugliosi commits ("we know LHO is guilty....therefore"....no we don't, not necessarily and that is what and why we're researching). You could've cited many more astute authors and researchers, regardless of your agreements with their theses. Stop merely citing those who believe LHO's guilt. Many authors, who believe it was a conspiracy also provide excellent facts and research.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 3:11 PM, David Von Pein said:

I don't know. I've never looked into it that deeply.

Well....no sarcasm intended but that could be an issue when you're researching to uncover facts. We've got to dig deep more times than not.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 3:23 PM, David Von Pein said:

note of such trivial things

Are you kidding me? Was that photo so "trivial" on 11/22/1963? Those photos were used to hang him and this "cocky" and "arrogant" "assassin" even said he would prove the photos were fake. I think anyone can argue that those photographs are certainly a big deal, especially allowing the possibility that they were created in order to frame and/or convict LHO in the public's mind. The photos, who they were taken by and how they were taken is no triviality because of how those said photos were used against LHO. Even then we have oddities to and fro of numerous backyard photos. It doesn't seem to make any sense if Lee were up to this all on his lonesome. However.....

Edited by B. A. Copeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.

I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or  both.

 

Sandy, I want to look into the issue of the head size but the only HSCA explanation I could find was about the position of the head in the frame relative to different distortion levels at different locations in the frame? Can you point me towards the testimony about the body/head size, "They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:
20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.

I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or  both.

Sandy, I want to look into the issue of the head size but the only HSCA explanation I could find was about the position of the head in the frame relative to different distortion levels at different locations in the frame? Can you point me towards the testimony about the body/head size, "They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller"?

 

Chris,

I didn't make a note of where I saw the statement to that affect. So I am surprised that I was able to find it again just now. Here it is:

429. The argument that there is evidence of fakery because Oswald's head size is the same in each of these pictures, although his body size changes, was found to be erroneous for several reasons. First any measurements of Oswald must take into consideration variations attributable to his degree of tilt. (188) Second, even when the tilt factor is ignored, Oswald's head length measures differently in each of the photographs.* Finally, there is nothing unusual about a series of photographs in which head length appears to remain the same even though the subject's body length seems to vary. Because of its rigid structure, the head when photographed (even with a marked change of expression) is subject to considerably less variation in length than the rest of the body, which tends to be affected more by variations, in posture.


(Source)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
David Von Pein said:

note of such trivial things

 

1 hour ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Are you kidding me? Was that photo so "trivial" on 11/22/1963? Those photos were used to hang him...

The photo wasn't trivial on 11/22. But in my full quote (which you truncated to remove the context), I was talking about what Marina must have been thinking on March 31st when she took the photos. I wasn't talking about what people were thinking about the BY photos on 11/22 or many years later.

Here's my full quote (which B.A. Copeland butchered in order to make a different point)....

"...But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her [Marina Oswald] at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO." -- DVP
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will ask again, since, like with my "Where's the exit?" question,  no one has answered this query.

Why would Oswald switch the ring from one hand to the other between poses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Such a waste of time to argue with David Von Pein, whose (no doubt paid) mission 

is to keep rehashing old (mostly settled) issues as distractions

from more valuable questions raised by Jim and others here. DVP's

is an old tactic that does its job all too well, but we should not fall for it here anymore.

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×