Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

More from the past on BYP

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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)

 

Thanks Steve. The argument makes sense in terms of total body size vs head size but the torso itself just looks small to me in 133a. The stretching of the head in 133a due to its higher position from distortion is what I really want to look at as it must relate to the body vs head issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

...keep rehashing old (mostly settled) issues as distractions...

You mean like CTers constantly "rehashing" the long-settled issue of the Backyard Photos being genuine and unaltered items---just as the HSCA declared on Page 41 of HSCA Volume #7?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In other news, President Kennedy is going on a

campaign trip to Texas . . .

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

In other news, President Kennedy is going on a campaign trip to Texas . . .

Glad you agree with me, Joe, that 7 HSCA 41 pretty much destroys the silly conspiracy theorists who can't stop bellowing "It's so obvious the BY pics are fake!".

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fer cryin' out loud.  The truthiness here is absolutely Trumpian!

Not only did Marina clearly not know how to hold or aim the Imperial Reflex camera---the camera wasn't even Oswald's.

The camera wasn't even in the possession of the authorities until it was turned over to the FBI on February 24, 1964 by Robert Oswald, who said he got the camera from (what a surprise!) Ruth Paine.  She sure was helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

the HSCA declared

 

Thanks for the perfectly teed up ball buddy... :up

 

1073269220_HSCAconclusions-highprobablitityofconspiracy.jpg.c7abe3fb5128f7f5c77970908d3b4453.jpg
 

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations).

Amazing that the only argument against this is that they actually looked more closely at the image than they should have??

482) Composite photographs made using a paste up or montage technique can usually be defected as such unless the component parts are made under identical conditions and with great skill. Clues that commonly reveal fakery are mismatches of the density, contrast, sharpness, graininess, perspective, and lighting, and imperfect blending of the edges between the parts. No such clues can be found in these photographs. Furthermore, there is no disruption of the grain pattern across the boundary between the head and the body or between the head and the background so that any composite photograph involving the head would require using large original negatives and prints and then copying a composite image with the Oswald camera

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was 
I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. 
Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative. 

 

86) Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents. All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive. since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting. Further, they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing.

 

HSCA Item # which were understood as PHOTOCOPIES:

18. November 15, 1959. Photocopy of handwritten account of interview with Miss Aline Mosby, UPI reporter. Unsigned. (The original of this document was also submitted but could not. be examined because it was completely covered and stained with fingerprint developer.) Location: Archives. (CE 2717: JFK exhibit F-489. )

29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.)

39. September 27, 1963. Photocopy of a page from a hotel register, signed, on line 18, "Lee, Harvey Oswald, U.S.A. (Texas) PHOTO. U.S. citizen." Location:Archives. (FBI exhibit D-36; JFK F-499.)

40. September 27 1963. Photographs (one of the entire document and one of the signature) of the original of the visa application, Cuban Consulate, Mexico City, signed Lee H. Oswald. Location: Archives. (CE 2564; JFK F-407 entire document.)

47. November 8, 1963. Two photographs of a facsimile copy of a handwritten letter to Mr. Hunt. One is of the entire document, the other an enlargement of the signature. These were obtained by the committee from a researcher in Dallas, Tex. Location: HSCA files. (JFK F-506.)

Now, who do we know that has access to EXPERT PHOTOGRAPHIC RETOUCHING PERSOINNEL.... 

 

thanks for the laugh this morning Dave...  

...the HSCA declared... :drive

"Blakey told him, "You guys are thinking too big. You've got to get your conspiracy smaller." Sprague replied, "Well, how small Bob?" The professor replied, "Five or six people." HSCA investigator Eddie Lopez vouched for this rendition of Blakey's view of how large a conspiracy could be."

154097306_HSCAFakePhotoProject.thumb.jpg.e08c9681413b519ee81f4564b175b46c.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to remember that Marina claims this was the only time she used a camera....

and yet she gets up to 4 perfect photos without remembering this view?  :huh:

Dave - got any swamp land for sale this week?

931849355_ViewfinderimageforImperialreflexcamerawithinvertedBYP-whatMarinawouldhaveseen.jpg.477f8c37beb83fa701cba2ca1289d9c8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something which I find unanswerable. The De Mohrenschildt back Yard photo shows much more detail and is crisper in focus. How can this be when the photos were all taken  with the same camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Something which I find unanswerable. The De Mohrenschildt back Yard photo shows much more detail and is crisper in focus. How can this be when the photos were all taken  with the same camera?

Without the negative Ray... we're kind of at the mercy of the generations and journey the image took...

What are you comparing it to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein   

  • Super Member
  •  
  • David Von Pein
  • Members
  •  
  • 5,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA
On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:19 AM, 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.

I have made some notes on a frame of the second back wound on Market Street.  I'm sure you will not understand or see what I am talking about.  You wont or can't explain what's in the photo because it negates nearly everything you believe about how President Kennedy was assassinated.

Francois,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, you really should stop using those childish emojis.

Sorry, for being off thread but, these fellows needed responses.

Capture_10_a.jpg

 

Share this post


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

 

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
 

I never meant to truncate anything you said and if you feel that way, I certainly apologize. "Butcher"? I never intended to do that, I don't need to as your post in full could easily be linked to in my own response or quoting of your words, no worries.

Quote

The photos, who they were taken by and how they were taken is no triviality....

Of course, this all assumes Marina took the photos. "trivial" is your interpretation or view of what she probably felt or thought about such details as she was asked about and it is that which I sought to respond to. You're probably correct in your interpretation of what Marina may have felt but who knows. I went a bit off the rails with the bit on the focus on the photos themselves but tried (and perhaps failed?) in tying it together with my above excerpt and in the end, certainly is my own opinion just as well.

Edited by B. A. Copeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Heaven help us! John Butler is actually suggesting (in his last post above) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back and head while the President's car was on Main Street!

Any idea, John, why JFK kept on smiling and waving for several more minutes (on Main, Houston, and Elm) AFTER he was struck by multiple bullets?

John, can you possibly be serious when you speak about such a preposterous theory? Or are you just a few months late with an April Fools gag? Either way, such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David Von Pein,

I see that you are finally getting the picture and beginning to understand what I am saying.  Actually, I am not saying this but, the AMIPA film and Jackie Kennedy's statements are:

Friday, June 5, 1964

TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOHN F. KENNEDY

The President's Commission met, at 4:20 p.m., on Friday, June 5, 1964, at 3017 N Street NW, Washington, D.C.
Present was Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman.
Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States
.

When questioned by Rankin she stated on two occasions she didn’t know what the names of the streets where the assassination occurred.  Rankin kept zeroing her in on the TSBD and Elm Street moving toward the Triple Underpass.  He spends some time doing this.  Afterwards, Mrs. Kennedy says the following.

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Mr. RANKIN. Did he turn toward you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity.  You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all.

 

Jackie Kennedy’s deleted WC testimony gives one a sense where the wound was.  I suppose this is why the testimony was deleted.  She said:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."

And, this last bit:

From a Jackie Kennedy Interview:

JFK Murder Jackie Kennedy Reveals All

Rich Torne Published May 10, 2017

Jackie says:

“They were gunning the motorcycles, there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire.  Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying “No No No,” with his fist beating---Then Jack turned and turned---

All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out….”

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can you find for me that blue-grey building on Houston Street?  On Elm Street?

You could find it in those days on Main Street just east of the Old Court House.  That blue-grey building was torn down sometime later and a parking area was put there.  This then changed into the Kennedy Monument. 

Have you ever wondered why they put the Monument there?

You can make preposterous claims but, have you looked at the evidence?

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I said earlier, John....

"Such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other)."

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

×