Martin Hinrichs Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Craig you must've missed his last post Martin is suddenly too busy to reply. Thanks Len. Yes, unfortunately thats the way it is. I hope i will not suffer by a burnout next cause my clients extracting all my time and energy lately. Craig, our conversation (Hany&me) is yet no finished and i don't want to post half cooked things and i also have to ask for permission to publish our conversation when it's done. I hope you both understand and thanks for your patience! Sincerely Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Craig you must've missed his last post Martin is suddenly too busy to reply. Thanks Len. Yes, unfortunately thats the way it is. I hope i will not suffer by a burnout next cause my clients extracting all my time and energy lately. Craig, our conversation (Hany&me) is yet no finished and i don't want to post half cooked things and i also have to ask for permission to publish our conversation when it's done. I hope you both understand and thanks for your patience! Sincerely Martin Thats fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Martin I agree with everything you said in your post above but find it surprising that you suddenly found the time to write it because just a few minutes earlier that you were still too busy to reply on the other thread. Len, i've posted already. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0&start=150 I knew that i couldn't escape your eyes. BTW, i glance daily based here and see what's been posted. I work at home with several computers. To post something fundamental is another story. That needs time. I'am not a supporter of rush judgements. best Martin The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day? PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 ...I am posting here a composite of the 3 assassins that can be found in the photographic record.The fact that they all wear DPD uniforms has caused me to reevaluate my own theory.... I am also enclosing a version of the Morin Moorman pix, showing the rear head wound Frantz, Can you be more specific? Usually, I have difficulty seeing things in these types of photos, but without anything circled, or anymore information other that the "2" in the middle one, they look like (from left to right): 1. a large intestine Christmas Wreath 2. a Picasso 3. an enlargement of one of those moles the doctor tells you to look out for. So for the benefit of folks like me, can you circle the pertinent parts? Thanks! Kathy ...my name is Christian Frantz, and I joined the forum in 2004. I have not been here in a while, and was not aware of the new requirements. I will update my info. I understand that my refusal to manually retouch the pictures requires more attention from the viewer. I am posting below the same pix of the shooters, with a rough white outline of the "interesting parts", which may help I have also explained that the results obtained are quite different from usual photo enhancements. Why, I can't explain, but I believe experts of the field probably could. I know that the Rorscharch thing can be fun... That's why I also posted previously a picture of the rear head wound from the Morin version of Moorman, to show the kind of enhancement that can be obtained, in the context of a well known picture for all researchers. Compare it, if you will, to the best version you have, and tell me what you think... Compare it to your own version and tell me if you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 ...I am posting here a composite of the 3 assassins that can be found in the photographic record.The fact that they all wear DPD uniforms has caused me to reevaluate my own theory.... I am also enclosing a version of the Morin Moorman pix, showing the rear head wound Frantz, Can you be more specific? Usually, I have difficulty seeing things in these types of photos, but without anything circled, or anymore information other that the "2" in the middle one, they look like (from left to right): 1. a large intestine Christmas Wreath 2. a Picasso 3. an enlargement of one of those moles the doctor tells you to look out for. So for the benefit of folks like me, can you circle the pertinent parts? Thanks! Kathy ...my name is Christian Frantz, and I joined the forum in 2004. I have not been here in a while, and was not aware of the new requirements. I will update my info. I understand that my refusal to manually retouch the pictures requires more attention from the viewer. I am posting below the same pix of the shooters, with a rough white outline of the "interesting parts", which may help I have also explained that the results obtained are quite different from usual photo enhancements. Why, I can't explain, but I believe experts of the field probably could. I know that the Rorscharch thing can be fun... That's why I also posted previously a picture of the rear head wound from the Morin version of Moorman, to show the kind of enhancement that can be obtained, in the context of a well known picture for all researchers. Compare it, if you will, to the best version you have, and tell me what you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 ...I am posting here a composite of the 3 assassins that can be found in the photographic record.The fact that they all wear DPD uniforms has caused me to reevaluate my own theory.... I am also enclosing a version of the Morin Moorman pix, showing the rear head wound Frantz, Can you be more specific? Usually, I have difficulty seeing things in these types of photos, but without anything circled, or anymore information other that the "2" in the middle one, they look like (from left to right): 1. a large intestine Christmas Wreath 2. a Picasso 3. an enlargement of one of those moles the doctor tells you to look out for. So for the benefit of folks like me, can you circle the pertinent parts? Thanks! Kathy ...my name is Christian Frantz, and I joined the forum in 2004. I have not been here in a while, and was not aware of the new requirements. I will update my info. I understand that my refusal to manually retouch the pictures requires more attention from the viewer. I am posting below the same pix of the shooters, with a rough white outline of the "interesting parts", which may help I have also explained that the results obtained are quite different from usual photo enhancements. Why, I can't explain, but I believe experts of the field probably could. I know that the Rorscharch thing can be fun... That's why I also posted previously a picture of the rear head wound from the Morin version of Moorman, to show the kind of enhancement that can be obtained, in the context of a well known picture for all researchers. Compare it, if you will, to the best version you have, and tell me what you think... Well now I see a face in Huges, although I cant see how the facial features would be that clear As far as the other two I still cant see anything First you have your outlines going through objects, second you also have your outlines traced around blank space when there is nothing to trace Sorry Frantz im not sold on your work Please keep posting what you have done and try posting the full pictures first then post the close up so we have a better idea of where we are looking, and for me if its a spot that I or other researchers have already spotted something Thanks Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin Edited December 4, 2009 by Martin Hinrichs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" Edited December 4, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Edited December 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115.Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" Thank you Jack and Dean. But that time is absolutely impossible. It would cast a shadow towards in front of Oswald if there were no building behind. Such a photo at 9:12am would look like in deep dark shadow. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115.Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" Thank you Jack and Dean. But that time is absolutely impossible. It would cast a shadow towards in front of Oswald if there were no building behind. Such a photo at 9:12am would look like in deep dark shadow. Martin You are assuming that the photo is genuine. You are also missing Tom's OPERATIVE WORD..."IF". People need to comprehend what they are reading, and know when Marina said the photos were taken. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Why dont you own the book? This book is all about the photographic evidence, its right up your alley Craigster So are you.... A. To cheap to buy it B. Dont care enough about the assassination to buy it C. Afraid Wilson might be right D. All of the above My answer is.... D. All of the above Edited December 5, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Why dont you own the book? This book is all about the photographic evidence, its right up your alley Craigster So are you.... A. To cheap to buy it B. Dont care enough about the assassination to buy it C. Afraid Wilson might be right D. All of the above My answer is.... D. All of the above No the book is NOT all about the photographic evidence, its about one guys mostly undocumented and non reviewed "interpretation". I never waste my money on assassination books. Period. If I can find it at the library, I MIGHT read it. If not, nope. If Wilson is correct the word will get around, and if he's not correct that will get around too. But he's not looking very good now is he. He missed the BY light by about 7 hours, quite the expert that Tom Wilson.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Why dont you own the book? This book is all about the photographic evidence, its right up your alley Craigster So are you.... A. To cheap to buy it B. Dont care enough about the assassination to buy it C. Afraid Wilson might be right D. All of the above My answer is.... D. All of the above No the book is NOT all about the photographic evidence, its about one guys mostly undocumented and non reviewed "interpretation". I never waste my money on assassination books. Period. If I can find it at the library, I MIGHT read it. If not, nope. If Wilson is correct the word will get around, and if he's not correct that will get around too. But he's not looking very good now is he. He missed the BY light by about 7 hours, quite the expert that Tom Wilson.... Well I dont think this book will ever make it to your Library, so give me a minute and I will scan page 115 for you Craig 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