Ray Mitcham

From your comments above, it would seem I'm not the only one making assumptions. You obviously haven't got it correct. So, because there is no change in the parallax of the stair-post and the end fence post, are you saying the camera moved forward diagonally left (in the direction of the Stair-post)? Or aren't you prepared to say which way you think it moved?. Regards

What in your mind does "FORWARD in a straight line" mean? How do you know that "the movements we are talking about" are very small? Where are your measurements? . "The gap between the post and the wall is set by the actual distance" What he heck does that mean? "and the parallax will no (sic) change this apperance (sic)" Says who? What is "the very short distance between them" in your opinion? Regards,

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur? If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation) If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post. If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn. Regards I'm not sure exactly what parts of the image you are talking about, could you please label them for clarity? Sigh.... To Oswald's immediate right (our left), there is a vertical stair-post, just behind which and to it's left is the post (partly in shadow) which is the end post of the paling fence which runs behind LHO. To Oswald's left and behind him is a vertical Fence/wall (just behind the straggly bush) behind which, to it's left, is the paling fence (the first visible one of which is in shadow) Regards

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur? If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation) If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post. If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn. Regards

Marina moved in relation to the background.... I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..." If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed? Yes,she moved the camera Parallax of the background verticals COMPARED TO WHAT? Why don't we start with Maria moving closer to the fence. Where would you see parallax in the "fixed verticals of the background? And the next question...DO you understand the principle of the lever and how it applies to parallax? Parallax IS evident in each of the BY images indicating the CAMERA moved in relation to the scene. The parallax of the verticals compared to EACH OTHER. The Imperial Reflex 620 that was supposed to have been Oswald's didn't have a parallax lever. No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.) With your experience of taking snaps, you surely understand parallax, and the way fixed objects apparently change their position due to camera position. If not, I can point you in the right direction. (Incidentally, when I asked Hary Farid the same question he wouldn't or couldn't answer it. He said he had studied only ONE photograph and that was to investigate the nose shadow! Some investigator.) Regards.

Marina moved in relation to the background.... I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..." If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

Mr Lamson, if you didn't sigh so much and tried to answer the question properly, maybe we could further the discussion. Perhaps I can make it a bit easier for you. In respect of CE133A, In CE133B do you think he moved:- a) to his left (our right) b. to his right, (our left) c) backwards d) forwards e) all of the above f) none of the above. g) a combination of any of the above. (in which case state your choice.) Sighonara. Regards, Sigh... Maybe you should do a better job of ASKING the questions, and more importantly trying to find the answers YOURSELF first. Again, he moved in relation to the sun, how much simpler does it get? If YOU want to do the tests to see what movements would be required relative to the light source to create the shadow changes seen, by all means have at it. I've created photographic lighting sets for 30 years, and I'm confident in my assessment that the shadow angle changes as the natural result of body movement. I've tested this in relation to another crazy "shadow angle claim" years ago. However the long and short of it is if YOU want to know the answer,then why not actually DO THE WORK yourself. This is not rocket science, all you need is a camera, a pencil, a work light and a piece of clay. So lets "sigh" again. And see if you actually want to FIND the answer.... Why won't you answer a simple question, Mr Lamson? When you say he moved in relation to the sun which way do YOU think he moved? That's all I'm asking you to tell me. If I don't know what you are mean when you say "He moved in relation to the sun" then your comment means nothing. If you want your photography subjects to "move" to a different position, do you just say "move" or do you tell them which way to move? I don't want you to do any WORK for me, I just want a simple answer. Which way do you think he moved in CE133B, in relation to his position in CE133A? Regards,

Exactly as I said, his body is in different positions from one photo to the next. What do you mean by "different positions"? Different position in relation to the ground? Different position in relation to his body shape? Different position in relation to the back drop?Easy question to answer, I would have thought. Let me 'sigh' again... How hard is this...really? He moved. How much simpler does this need to be? His body is in different position from one photo to the next. One would think it SHOULD be pretty easy to understand since we are taking about shadows...his body is in different positions...in relation to the SUN.... Mr Lamson, if you didn't sigh so much and tried to answer the question properly, maybe we could further the discussion. Perhaps I can make it a bit easier for you. In respect of CE133A, In CE133B do you think he moved:- a) to his left (our right) b. to his right, (our left) c) backwards d) forwards e) all of the above f) none of the above. g) a combination of any of the above. (in which case state your choice.) Sighonara. Regards,

Exactly as I said, his body is in different positions from one photo to the next. What do you mean by "different positions"? Different position in relation to the ground? Different position in relation to his body shape? Different position in relation to the back drop?Easy question to answer, I would have thought.

Sigh...his body changes position.... In which respect? His stance? His position in relation to the fence? What do you mean by "his body changes position"? (By the way, I love the "sigh....")

Perhaps with your experience in photography, Mr Lamson, you could explain how the angles of Oswald's shadow in CE133a and CE133b differ so much, seeing as they were taken within minutes of each other.

Thanks for the welcome, Evan. I was in radar (early detection), controlling fighter interception defending the country, during the start of the Cold war although it was now that long ago, I think the radar we used worked by clockwork.

My name is Ray Mitcham and I served in the Royal Air Force, after which I started my own business from which I have recently retired. I live in the U.K. And I am happily married with three adult children and five grandchildren. I was 25 years old when President Kennedy was assassinated, and have been following the investigation since the 1970's. There are so many anomalies with the official evidence that it would seem that there has to have been a conspiracy. I believe that the Internet is the common man's best avenue for solving these anomalies. I am particularly interested in joining the Education Forum as it seems to be one of the few web sites where different points of view are accepted without aggression from people who disagree with them. It will be from sites such as this that the truth about J.F.K. Will eventually out.