Ed O'Hagan Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 The Oswalds had been residing at 214 West Neeley St. when the backyard pictures were taken. The El Chico restaurant was located at 10 West Davis.St. The Mack Pate garage was located at 114 West 7th St. The map shows the approximate position of each location. At around 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and while Lee Harvey Oswald was already in custody, T.F. White an employee at the Pate garage was at the El Chico to pick-up coffee. He claimed that he saw ' Oswald' driving out of the parking lot of the El Chico. I believe he was correct, and very likely it was not the first time that he had seen him, when both were in the restaurant to purchase take-out food and/or coffee . White's identification adds support to Marina's two-hubby claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 The Oswalds had been residing at 214 West Neeley St. when the backyard pictures were taken.The El Chico restaurant was located at 10 West Davis.St. The Mack Pate garage was located at 114 West 7th St. The map shows the approximate position of each location. At around 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and while Lee Harvey Oswald was already in custody, T.F. White an employee at the Pate garage was at the El Chico to pick-up coffee. He claimed that he saw ' Oswald' driving out of the parking lot of the El Chico. I believe he was correct, and very likely it was not the first time that he had seen him, when both were in the restaurant to purchase take-out food and/or coffee . White's identification adds support to Marina's two-hubby claim. Nice map, Ed...you could also mark many other sites on it.... Place LHO got out of taxicab (Neely and Beckley) Tenth and Patton (Tippit) Abundant Life Church Public Library Reynolds car lot Funeral home which dispatched ambulance Hardy Shoe Store Top Ten Record Store Texas Theater... ..and just off map at north, 1026 North Becklely etc. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 According to VB when the authorities asked Oswald the places where he had resided the only place he left out was W Neeley Street. VB claims this incriminates LHO (because of the backyard photos). Any idea if VB is right about LHO leaving out the time they spent on Neeley Street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 It seems to me there was a method (possibly still available) to determine if the HSCA Photography Panel could indeed spota faked photograph. An expert (Groden, Jack) could have submitted a dozen photos, with one or two the best possible forgeries. If the panel had been able to determine which of the control photos were fake, it would tend to validate their conclusions. What do you think about this as a suggestion, Jack? Are you still out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel Dehaeseleer Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Gentlemen, In my opinion, the backyard photos are fakes! I agree with Jack White! Another certainty is that Marina Oswald has not shot the backyard photos. The Imperial duo lens Camera: This kind of camera has a head-up viewfinder. When you aim, the image you see thru the viewfinder is horizontally inverted. Therefore it is not easy to aim in a natural way, you must to invert horizontally the movements of the camera (for instance, to place the subject in the middle of image.) It’s not easy to forget how you have taken pictures with this kind of camera (moreover... with a bright noon sunshine which increases the difficulty for aiming). In her HSCA testimony, Marina mistakenly described the camera and also how she used it. See what follows: Imperial Camera CE-750 Best regards,... Marcel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Marcel Dehaeseleer Posted Today, 01:31 PM Gentlemen, In my opinion, the backyard photos are fakes! I agree with Jack White! Another certainty is that Marina Oswald has not shot the backyard photos. The Imperial duo lens Camera: This kind of camera has a head-up viewfinder. When you aim, the image you see thru the viewfinder is horizontally inverted. Therefore it is not easy to aim in a natural way, you must to invert horizontally the movements of the camera (for instance, to place the subject in the middle of image.) It’s not easy to forget how you have taken pictures with this kind of camera (moreover... with a bright noon sunshine which increases the difficulty for aiming). In her HSCA testimony, Marina mistakenly described the camera and also how she used it. See what follows: Imperial Camera CE-750 Best regards,... Marcel Marcel, I think you raise a very important point. These were some of the first (if not the first) photos Marina took. Considering this, and the complexity of the camera, the photos turned out remarkably well. As far as I know, some 6 poses were taken, all relatively well focused, and otherwise well proportioned for a complete novice. Hey, after all Time magazine published one of them on the mag. cover! Ce sont pas de photos autenthiques, pas par Marina en tous cas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) Marcel Dehaeseleer Posted Today, 01:31 PM Gentlemen, In my opinion, the backyard photos are fakes! I agree with Jack White! Another certainty is that Marina Oswald has not shot the backyard photos. The Imperial duo lens Camera: This kind of camera has a head-up viewfinder. When you aim, the image you see thru the viewfinder is horizontally inverted. Therefore it is not easy to aim in a natural way, you must to invert horizontally the movements of the camera (for instance, to place the subject in the middle of image.) It’s not easy to forget how you have taken pictures with this kind of camera (moreover... with a bright noon sunshine which increases the difficulty for aiming). In her HSCA testimony, Marina mistakenly described the camera and also how she used it. See what follows: Imperial Camera CE-750 Best regards,... Marcel Marcel, I think you raise a very important point. These were some of the first (if not the first) photos Marina took. Considering this, and the complexity of the camera, the photos turned out remarkably well. As far as I know, some 6 poses were taken, all relatively well focused, and otherwise well proportioned for a complete novice. Hey, after all Time magazine published one of them on the mag. cover! Ce sont pas de photos autenthiques, pas par Marina en tous cas. Uh..the camera had a fixed focus, no user intervention required. The camera WAS NOT COMPLEX! You viewed the image on the ground glass and pushed the shutter button. The framing left LOTS to be desired. Of the three photos, 2 had the feet cut off, and two were quite rotated. All in all quite the opposite of the picture that you have painted. She took the photos EXACTLY like a novice might. Edited October 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Gentlemen,In my opinion, the backyard photos are fakes! I agree with Jack White! Another certainty is that Marina Oswald has not shot the backyard photos. The Imperial duo lens Camera: This kind of camera has a head-up viewfinder. When you aim, the image you see thru the viewfinder is horizontally inverted. Therefore it is not easy to aim in a natural way, you must to invert horizontally the movements of the camera (for instance, to place the subject in the middle of image.) It’s not easy to forget how you have taken pictures with this kind of camera (moreover... with a bright noon sunshine which increases the difficulty for aiming). In her HSCA testimony, Marina mistakenly described the camera and also how she used it. See what follows: Imperial Camera CE-750 Best regards,... Marcel There is an error in your summary of the camera. The depth of field of the camera is in no way dependent on the quality or quanity of light. It is totally a function of the lens focal length, focus point and f-stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accogli Claudio Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) Ultimately, I feel the question of the authenticity of the backyard photos is another one of those wedge issues in assassination studies/research. Along with the Walker shooting, the possible unreliability of the Zapruder film, and the autopsy and ballistics questions, the photos can be used to divide researchers and make them hostile to one another--when in reality, we should be banding together (despite our differences of opinion) in order to defeat the lies and propaganda put forth by the government and its shills--like Messrs. Bugliosi, Posner, Von Pein, and McAdams. Uhm, I am not an expert of cameras, so I'd support what Courtney wrote. But, if you don't talk of photos, autopsy and ballistic evidences... what remains of a murder? A way to divide? The only thing that divide researchers in 2007 - IMO - is the anxiety to say: I solved the case, I have the truth. So, you find people joking on this research, others fighting to have a role. Back on the topic, did not understand what backyard photos Tim Gratz intended to be fake or not: all the photos, or just the ones at Paine's house? Take the occasion to ask mr. White, and others, what about the so-called "De Mohrenschildt" b. photos: a 1st april joke? /OFF TOPIC START Have to say something short on John Armstrong's research linked: the "story" of the Ruby-LHO meeting at Carousel it is not so credible, IMO (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=146361 read the report in full), anyway mis-understood by the researcher: there is no evidence the fact was really reported in october, actually the witness seems NOT to have reported it in oct. /OT END Edited October 26, 2007 by Accogli Claudio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) Craig Lamson Posted Yesterday, 06:21 PM Uh..the camera had a fixed focus, no user intervention required. The camera WAS NOT COMPLEX! You viewed the image on the ground glass and pushed the shutter button. The framing left LOTS to be desired. Of the three photos, 2 had the feet cut off, and two were quite rotated. All in all quite the opposite of the picture that you have painted. She took the photos EXACTLY like a novice might. Ok, I'll let everyone judge for themselves. With the complexity of the camera I meant, my opinion is that this model was not as easy to operate as the simplest cameras of the 1980's or 1990's for example. Of course I could be wrong. Expert opinion on the camera's operation would be welcomed. See link below for the backyard photos to judge the quality of the novice. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.ph..._Backyard_Shots Edited October 27, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Craig Lamson Posted Yesterday, 06:21 PM Uh..the camera had a fixed focus, no user intervention required. The camera WAS NOT COMPLEX! You viewed the image on the ground glass and pushed the shutter button. The framing left LOTS to be desired. Of the three photos, 2 had the feet cut off, and two were quite rotated. All in all quite the opposite of the picture that you have painted. She took the photos EXACTLY like a novice might. Ok, I'll let everyone judge for themselves. With the complexity of the camera I meant, my opinion is that this model was not as easy to operate as the simplest cameras of the 1980's or 1990's for example. Of course I could be wrong. Expert opinion on the camera's operation would be welcomed. See link below for the backyard photos to judge the quality of the novice. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.ph..._Backyard_Shots I offered expert opinion on the operation on the camera. It was a simple point and shoot, about as simple as it gets. The user had only two inputs, aiming the camera and pushing the shutter button. There was no exposure control, the shuuter speed and f-stop were fixed and non-adjustable. The focus was fixed and non-adjustable. How much easier to operate can the camera be? Thanks for the link to the images, they confirm my original statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) Craig Lamson Posted Yesterday, 06:21 PM Uh..the camera had a fixed focus, no user intervention required. The camera WAS NOT COMPLEX! You viewed the image on the ground glass and pushed the shutter button. The framing left LOTS to be desired. Of the three photos, 2 had the feet cut off, and two were quite rotated. All in all quite the opposite of the picture that you have painted. She took the photos EXACTLY like a novice might. Ok, I'll let everyone judge for themselves. With the complexity of the camera I meant, my opinion is that this model was not as easy to operate as the simplest cameras of the 1980's or 1990's for example. Of course I could be wrong. Expert opinion on the camera's operation would be welcomed. See link below for the backyard photos to judge the quality of the novice. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.ph..._Backyard_Shots I offered expert opinion on the operation on the camera. It was a simple point and shoot, about as simple as it gets. The user had only two inputs, aiming the camera and pushing the shutter button. There was no exposure control, the shuuter speed and f-stop were fixed and non-adjustable. The focus was fixed and non-adjustable. How much easier to operate can the camera be? Thanks for the link to the images, they confirm my original statements. Nice, but the 'photographer' was not Marina, the model was not Lee and the camera was not owned by Marina nor Lee. You are correct [my goodness! I've said Craig is correct about something!] that those simple cameras were self-focusing [had such a wide range of focal lenghts that would be in focus]...but that is not the issue. Those who set up Dallas and set up Oswald and America set up these incriminating photos. If I could provide the proof now I would, I can't..due to a promise to a source. Those who doubt me and are gamblers are invited to wager any sum they choose. My flat was just broken into and all my money taken, so I could use the $$ when I am free to disclose and collect. Absent anything concrete from Lemkin other that hearsay, lets correct AGAIN the mis-infomation this time presented by Lemkin. "that those simple cameras were self-focusing [had such a wide range of focal lenghts that would be in focus]" What utter poppycock. 1. The cameras were not "self-focusing" by any means. The focus was FIXED by the maker to a certain distance. The camera could do NO ADDITIONAL FOCUSING. As stated eariler the depth of focus (field) was set PURELY by the focal length of the lens, the exact focus distance as fixed by the camera maker and the non-adjustable f-stop 2. The lens was also a FIXED FOCAL LENGTH, it did not "(have)had such a wide range of focal lengths that would be in focus" it is a SINGLE focal length...period. Edited October 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel Dehaeseleer Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) There is an error in your summary of the camera. The depth of field of the camera is in no way dependent on the quality or quanity of light. It is totally a function of the lens focal length, focus point and f-stop. Dear Graig, Your comment is referring to the sentence hereunder. "When the lighting conditions are fairly good the depth of field starts from +/- 1.20 meter (four feet) to the infinite." You’re right ! I agree with you, I give you my explanations hereafter. Obviously, in theory the depth of field doesn’t vary since the relationship between the aperture, the focus and the shutter speed aren’t modifiable. Therefore the lighting conditions have only an incidence on the “subjective” sharpness of the photography (rendering). That’s what the sentence in question means. (You may to suggest me another sentence, my Frenchglish grammar is so poor.) This cheap camera’s specifications are close to those of a toy camera. In reality it is an pinhole camera “ameliorated” by the addition of a very poor plastic lens (one sole element). Regards,... Imperial Camera CE-750 Marcel Edited October 27, 2007 by Marcel Dehaeseleer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 There is an error in your summary of the camera. The depth of field of the camera is in no way dependent on the quality or quanity of light. It is totally a function of the lens focal length, focus point and f-stop. Dear Graig, Your comment is referring to the sentence hereunder. "When the lighting conditions are fairly good the depth of field starts from +/- 1.20 meter (four feet) to the infinite." You’re right ! I agree with you, I give you my explanations hereafter. Obviously, in theory the depth of field doesn’t vary since the relationship between the aperture, the focus and the shutter speed aren’t modifiable. Therefore the lighting conditions have only an incidence on the “subjective” sharpness of the photography (rendering). That’s what the sentence in question means. (You may to suggest me another sentence, my Frenchglish grammar is so poor.) This cheap camera’s specifications are close to those of a toy camera. In reality it is an pinhole camera “ameliorated” by the addition of a very poor plastic lens (one sole element). Regards,... Imperial Camera CE-750 Marcel I would simply state the DOF as 4 feet to infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now