Oswald Picture Not Faked

[Craig Lamson]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

Its not buried? So were is it, you claimed MONTHS ago you were "fixing it". Still buried.

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Oh yea, to "complete the work". Months ago your work was complete. In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.) Problems were correctly pointed out wiht your "perfect" work. Since then its been in hiding. Farid, did what any good scientist would do, he did a proof of concept experiment. Martin is chashing a fools errand, a recreation. Why? Because a perfect recreation photo is impossible. Smart people never try.

In any case exactly how will measurement of the house help with the major problem you have, and thats Oswalds body position? The fact is it won't help one bit. Its a ruse, a smokescreen. Martin can't measure the forward or backward lean of Oswald, all he can do is move him around on a whim, and of course this is his objection to Farid's proof of concept work.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

Of course I've seen the one of the photos, and it was a very decent match for the backyard photos for the nose shadow and ground shadow. In fact the photographer told me that after he took the photos he was changing his mind about the backyard photos being fake. So sure, post away Martin. Just make sure it is NOT the photos from the Neely backyard draped in tree shadows. The photographer also did a series in a field closeby.

Of course Martin will nitpick the resulting photos as not being a perfect fit for the backyard, and they are not. Tye are however solid proof of concept.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

As I've stated more than once I don't post recreation photos, for the very reason you are a fool to think you can do a "recreation". Its impossible to exactly recreat a phtograph. I've been advertising photograpoher for 30 years and I've been asked to recreate photos I have done in the controlled confines of the studio many times. Even with the details of how the original photo was made known to me, and the ability to overlay the new image over the old in the computer while shooting, you can't get an exact match.

I went out and observed the interplay of light and shadow at the correct times. The purpose of the observations were to study the concept and the interconnect of body position and the casting of shadow. That's exactly what I suggest anyone with the interest do for themself.

Now if you want proof of concept images showing how changes in head positon changes the nose shadow, or how body lean, camera height and camera to subject distance change the shadow angle on the ground in relation to an object, I'll be happy to create those photos for you. And again, anyone with an interest can simply try themself and observe with their own eyes.

Your attempts to do a recreation image will fail also for the same reason. You wil never be able to exactly recreate the perfect head nor body positon for Oswald.

Thank you

I have a correction to make and I did not want it to be an edit.

In the above post I made this statement:

"In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.)"

I was wrong, Martin had not removed his statement on edit, it was posted deeper in the thread in question and I did not spot it until now. My apologies

Hi Craig.

I will try it modest and kind. Thats propably the best way to get a connect with you Craig.

This post will include no sarcasm, no joke...just kindness and honesty.

As a human being i have my strenghts and my weaknesses, but one thing you can be certain of: I'am honest.

As i began my work, i was curious how it will tun out because i scratched my head the same way as Hany Farid did in his video.

It was not my goal to play CT buff and throw something out like: I have something, it was not Oswald.

I'am aware of a lot of flaw stories about the Kennedy assassination. This is one thing for certain i will get avoid of.

I have just one goal: To find out the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'am not a friend of Oswald and i have no reason to defend him. He hit Marina for instance....crap.

And i'am not in for the money. I sell no book, nore anything.

I'am just a defender of the truth.

Ok, as i saw the first renderings using the accurate database from Neely my jaw dropped down.

I said to me...Ok, tried to rotate/shifted his body and head to make sure there will be no mistake.

And i asked John Beckham from Dallas/Texas (a good friend of me) to go to Neely street and make photographs and measure

the fence and the distance from the pole to the fence. A friend as he is, he did.

So, i updated my work. After very much attempts to achieve the same shadows as in the backyard photos i gave up.

And that was the first time i published my work on Duncan's forum.

If my attempt would have been the same as Hany Farid, be sure, i would be the first to say: OK, the shadows are no problem.

But thats not the case Craig.

You disagree and thats OK with me. Everybody can doubt it and can raise questions.

It would have been much more productive to say: Go to rotate his head x degrees to the left/right or his head up or down for example.

I'am not hesitate to do for sure. And would show you very honestly how the result would be.

I have so many rendering attempts from that backyard photo on my hardddisk, you cannot imagine.

It may sound cocky, but i know that 3D field very well because i'am working since 1992 with this tools. (Not Maya by the way which is one of the difficult 3D progams

to learn 3D from scratch). I'am working daily based with it because it's my job.

All i want to say, Craig that my work is honest as it can be.

The reason why i will go to Neely street and to measure the house is, to get the perfect photomatch. Incl. the stairs etc.

That will support my work and an attempt to make it comprehensive as possible.

Another point is that people tend to be suspicious about 3D as a whole.

So i want to create a real life recreation in the backyard. Let's say to show the suncycle on march 31.

To show that the sun at this time in Dallas is too low to create those long shadows under Oswalds nose.

People trust real photos more than anything.

My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.

Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over.

I will do this just because of your request, Craig.

If by any chance (which did not) show my work is wrong...you can take me by word. I would disappear.

I have nothing to loose nor to win here. I have just a strong passion for the truth. Thats what is all about.

I hope you will believe me.

One minor question Craig, how long did you wait until you got response from Hany Farid?

I bet he recieved a lot of emails these days.

Can you tell us what he said to you? He did not respond yet to me. But i'am patient.

I will send it again to him in case my email might have end in a spam filter.

Again, this words to you are out of any negativeism nor sarcasm. It 's just honest and kind.

I hope we can discuss matters from now on in a productive modest manner.

Is that Ok with you?

best to you

Martin

Let me ask you a simple question Martin. Do you think the backgrounds are exactly the same one and used in each backyard photo? In other words do you think the background was the same but altered by the tilt easel method?

I'm not questioning your honesty nor the application of 3d modeling. But you have a problem, and thats fitting the body and head exactly as seen in hte backyard photos. You miss the angle of incidence of the face or the body to the sun, tilt of the head, the front to back lean of the body or the exact camera location for each of the phots and your results are worthless.

The long and short of it is your chances of creating and exact recreation are slim to none. Your method is doomed to failure simply because you will never be able to confirm you have the exact body position. All you will ever have is a best guess, and thats nowhere near a faithful recreation.

Heck, by your owun admission a few minutes difference in time skews the entire result. The very best you have is a RECOLLECTION of the approximate time. Is that time 5 minutes off, 20 minutes off, 1 hour off? Can you say with complete certainty you have the time correct to the minuite?

Your premise is based on a false assumption, that you can create a faithful recreation. The false assumption is that you can know if your recreation is faithful. You can't.

Having a completely rendered Neely backyard sounds really cool, but in the end it adds nothing since the body of Oswald will still be a throw of a dart, a best quess.

Way back in April or May,(I'm guessing here since I'm too lazy to go back and look) I suggested you had the head tilt wrong on your render,by about 5-5 degrees IIRC. You were going to render that and see what happened. I've still not seen it. You suggest it would be bestst to make detailed suggestions. I've done that.

I don't want you to dissappear Martin, but you made a very crazy promise. I have no problems with mistakes, I make them all the time. I just try and be intellectually honest and fess up when I error. In fact without error how would lessons, life or otherwise really be learned? Sadly there are a whole bunch of people doing JFK photo research who are not intellectually honest.

I sent my email on 11/8 and got the reply on 11/9.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Martin...before you do any recreation, you should see my videos FAKE and THE MANY FACES

OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD (both available free online). They may be very instructive for you.

For instance, measurements in the backyard today will throw you off, since the stairway

has been rebuilt, and the support post is under a different step.

Also, the yard today is fenced off, and you are not allowed inside to take measurements.

For the sun location, see Phillips A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH, page 115.

Jack

Fake...is that where you claim ...FALSELY...that the background in all the backyard photos are identical except for keystoning produced by the tilt easel method? Where you claim...FALSELY...that the heads are EXACLTY the same? Where you claim...FALSELY...that you can resize images taken from different camera to subject distances and then compare segments of the resized images to each other?

You are right, your work has value...as a step by step instruction manual on how NOT to do photo analysis.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[William Kelly]

Demi Moore's missing hip.

Is this photo faked?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/a-line/demi-moo...hop-ever/306?nc

And can we see an example of the published backyard photo that airbrushed the scope off the rifle?

Was that in the Detroit Free Press, another newspaper or mag or Life?

And why would they, why did they do that?

BK

Edited November 19, 2009 by William Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

Demi Moore's missing hip.

Is this photo faked?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/a-line/demi-moo...hop-ever/306?nc

I don't know Bill. I've spent the last two days retouching photos for a project that needs to be on press by Monday. Have a pile left for tomorrow. My eyes are shot. Why don't you make the call....

[William Kelly]

Demi Moore's missing hip.

Is this photo faked?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/a-line/demi-moo...hop-ever/306?nc

I don't know Bill. I've spent the last two days retouching photos for a project that needs to be on press by Monday. Have a pile left for tomorrow. My eyes are shot. Why don't you make the call....

I thought it would be easy to keep you amused on this subject.

I'm interested, if anybody can help, in seeing the published version of the backyard photo that was retouched by airbrush to remove the scope from the rifle.

What publication removed the scope and why did they do it?

Thanks to anyone who can answer that question,

BK

[Craig Lamson]

Demi Moore's missing hip.

Is this photo faked?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/a-line/demi-moo...hop-ever/306?nc

I don't know Bill. I've spent the last two days retouching photos for a project that needs to be on press by Monday. Have a pile left for tomorrow. My eyes are shot. Why don't you make the call....

I thought it would be easy to keep you amused on this subject.

I'm interested, if anybody can help, in seeing the published version of the backyard photo that was retouched by airbrush to remove the scope from the rifle.

What publication removed the scope and why did they do it?

Thanks to anyone who can answer that question,

BK

Bill, I retouch for a living.

I think it was Life that retouched the backyard photo. I would imagine that many papers or publications that ran that photo retouched it so it would print.

[Will Emaus]

Demi Moore's missing hip.

Is this photo faked?

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/a-line/demi-moo...hop-ever/306?nc

I don't know Bill. I've spent the last two days retouching photos for a project that needs to be on press by Monday. Have a pile left for tomorrow. My eyes are shot. Why don't you make the call....

I thought it would be easy to keep you amused on this subject.

I'm interested, if anybody can help, in seeing the published version of the backyard photo that was retouched by airbrush to remove the scope from the rifle.

What publication removed the scope and why did they do it?

Thanks to anyone who can answer that question,

BK

Bill, I retouch for a living.

I think it was Life that retouched the backyard photo. I would imagine that many papers or publications that ran that photo retouched it so it would print.

I think it was the Detroit Free Press that initially removed it and said it was for printability reasons...

[Guest Tom Scully]

...I think it was the Detroit Free Press that initially removed it and said it was for printability reasons...

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_d...backyard_photo/

All posts from a 2005 thread on this forum:

I just thought I would share an interview I conducted with Gene Roberts over email.

A March 2, 1964 article in Newsweek Magazine claimed that Gene Roberts had purchased a number of photographs of Oswald on behalf of the Detroit Free Press. The negative of one of these photographs has never been located or analysed, so I asked Gene the following questions:

1. Who sold you these photographs?

2. What photos were included in the purchase?

3. Did the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations ever try to contact you to reacquire these photos?

4. Do you know what became of these photos?

Here is his answer for any researcher who may be interested:

The photographs you asked about came from the files of the district

attorney’s office in Dallas. The DA got them from the FBI. They were the

same photographs that were given to the Warren Commission.

The photographs included the well known photograph of Oswald holding a

rifle in one hand and The Worker, the Communist Party newspaper from New

York, in the other; photocopies of Oswald’s identity cards, some with

aliases and others in his own name; and some family photos, as I recall.

I don’t remember the exact number, but there were possibly as many as 25

or 30. Almost all of the photographs were later made public, but at the

time they were new to the reading public.

No negatives were involved, only copies of photos and documents in the

FBI files. The FBI made them available to the Dallas DA to aid in the

prosecution of the Jack Ruby case. I correctly guessed this might happen

and made every effort to cultivate people in the DA’s office in the hope

that I might get access to the files. One employee of the DA made the

files available to me from 8 p.m. on a Saturday night to 8 a.m. on

Sunday morning, a 12-hour period when the employee did not think anyone

would be in the DA’s office. I hired an experienced photo lab person to

photocopy the file during the 12-hour period. I stayed with him during

the entire copying process and he provided me with two copies of every

photo and document in the file.

I had planned to route each set of copies on different airlines from

Dallas to my newspaper at the time, the Detroit Free Press in Detroit,

Michigan But I was so sleep-deprived that when I arrived at the

Dallas-Fort Worth airport on Sunday at about 9 a.m., I failed to make my

instructions clear and both sets of photographs were routed on the same

flight to Detroit. Because of weather conditions – or mechanical

problems, I can’t remember which – the plane was grounded in New Orleans

for several hours.

Panic developed at the Free Press, which wanted the photos in time for

the first edition of the Monday paper, which had a 6 p.m. deadline on

Sunday. We knew that Life magazine had access to some of the photos and

would start appearing at newsstands about noon on Monday. We wanted to

beat them to the punch.

As the deadline approached, editors in Detroit asked me to describe the

pictures and estimate the size of each photo that would be on page one.

With this information, the paper set the type for the front page and

made the page with holes for the pictures.

The plane arrived in Detroit about 30 minutes before deadline on Sunday

at the Detroit airport, which was about 30 minutes by car from the Free

Press building. My editor, Derrick Daniels, had motorcycles waiting on

the tarmac to speed the photos to the newsroom, where he had photo

editors and airbrush artists waiting to expedite the photos into the

paper. In 1964, engraving processes were not as sophisticated as they

later became, and it was commonplace to airbrush photos with white

liquid chalk to heighten the definition between dark and gray areas in

photographs. In the haste to get the photos in the paper, an airbrusher

covered the sniper scope (on the rifle Oswald was holding along with The

Worker paper) with liquid chalk.

Our paper was indeed available several hours ahead of Life. But when

Life appeared on newsstands, its photo of Oswald with The Worker paper

had a sniper scope. The Free Press photo did not. Armchair detectives

around the world found this to be highly suspicious.

But the Life and Free Press photos were both copies of the very same

photograph. Because airbrushers use liquid chalk that can be scratched

away with a fingernail, you could easily determine that the photographs

were the same. The apparent discrepancies of the photos have been

mentioned several times over the years in books and articles, creating a

mystery where none really existed. Had anyone taken the time to visit

the morgues (libraries) of the two publications, they could have seen

that the photos were the same.

This is a cover story. Hugh Aynesworth obtained a copy from the

police and sold it, according to researchers. The district attorney had

nothing to do with it.

Jack

I'm not so sure, Jack. I think Adam was able to get the real deal. I don't see Roberts, a former editor of the New York Times, making up a story that involves him illegally copying evidence in the DA's office, just to cover Hugh Aynsworth's fanny. Since Roberts doesn't go out of his way to say no money was exchanged between him and this DA employee, and since the Newsweek article specifically said there was money involved, I take it as an acknowledgement that money was indeed exchanged. I see no reason to think Roberts would admit so much just to protect Aynsworth.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

No you haven't read the paper yet,you didn't even bother to watch the video. Thus your criticism is premature.

You can read a summary here:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publicat...erception09.pdf

Len, i watched the video approx a dozen times.

Your post seemed to indicate otherwise you asked where he put LHO’s head but that was answered less than 3 minutes in to it he put it on a body

I hoped you read my letter to Hany Farid which is pretty clear i think.

I have no idea what your “problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is” the sun’s zenith that day at solar noon (12:31 PM) when it reached 61.3 degrees*. The angle appears to be a little less than that which would indicate it was taken shortly before or after (solar) noon. The sun’s azimuth appears to be a little bit west of due south which indicates it was taken shortly after solar noon

* http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...fl=-1&day=1

I also have no idea how you came up with an angle of “33.6 degrees” you could only reach such precision if you knew within a minute the time the photo was taken

[Martin Hinrichs]

Hi Len.

Your post seemed to indicate otherwise you asked where he put LHO’s head but that was answered less than 3 minutes in to it he put it on a body

I know there is a body. What i mean is, it looks like a lumpy piece of anything with stork legs.

It would have been better to model the whole body as accurate as the head (apart from the ears).

Anyway he told me the focus was just the head for his purposes. (I'am in the middle of a conversation with him)

I have no idea what your “problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is” the sun’s zenith that day at solar noon (12:31 PM) when it reached 61.3 degrees*. The angle appears to be a little less than that which would indicate it was taken shortly before or after (solar) noon. The sun’s azimuth appears to be a little bit west of due south which indicates it was taken shortly after solar noon

Ok, we have a particular and unique place on earth here: 214 Neely street and therefore coordinates.

And we have a date. The backyard photos were allegedly taken on 31, march 1963 in the afternoon.

Now, using the correct coordinates, the correct compass alignment based on this data we have to analyze what i call

shadow characteristic of the backyard photos.

Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to

find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low.

Well Hany understood the problem pretty quick and said he tipped the head forward to achieve his result.

I asked how much and waiting til now for an answer. But it's weekend. I'am patient to get the answer.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Hello Jack

Martin...before you do any recreation, you should see my videos FAKE and THE MANY FACES

OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD (both available free online). They may be very instructive for you.

Yes, thank you. I've seen this video a while ago.

For instance, measurements in the backyard today will throw you off, since the stairway

has been rebuilt, and the support post is under a different step.

The information i received is that the steps on the stairs are new and the house behind is burned.

I will check the pole.

But the picket fence in the background is still the same. Suffered most likely but still the same.

The house itself is also very important for a proper per to per photomatch.

And this is also still there.

Also, the yard today is fenced off, and you are not allowed inside to take measurements.

Well east and west is still a fence. My buddy was in there to take photos and measurements this year in march.

It's just a question of money.

For the sun location, see Phillips A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH, page 115.

Jack

Thank you. Will take a look.

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to

find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low.

Well Hany understood the problem pretty quick and said he tipped the head forward to achieve his result.

I asked how much and waiting til now for an answer. But it's weekend. I'am patient to get the answer.

Martin

Bingo. The factors that effect the shape and position of the nose shadow. Camera position in relation to the sun, head rotation in relation to the sun, head tilt (side to side), head tilt (up and down) in relation to the sun, sun height in the sky.

Camera height must also be considered since the Imperial was a waist level camera. Oswald was looking AT the camera and the camera was much lower than his head.

Sorry forget one...the LENGTH of the nose.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to

find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low.

Martin

Exactly WHAT is 33.6 degrees?

[Len Colby]

Hi Len.

Your post seemed to indicate otherwise you asked where he put LHO’s head but that was answered less than 3 minutes in to it he put it on a body

I know there is a body. What i mean is, it looks like a lumpy piece of anything with stork legs.

It would have been better to model the whole body as accurate as the head (apart from the ears).

Anyway he told me the focus was just the head for his purposes. (I'am in the middle of a conversation with him)

My apologies then but your wording seemed to indicate you had not seen the body he had generated. He’s right though since the disputed shadows were those on his face that is what needed to very close to the original. The height, position and bend of both ‘bodies’ matched.

I have no idea what your “problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is” the sun’s zenith that day at solar noon (12:31 PM) when it reached 61.3 degrees*. The angle appears to be a little less than that which would indicate it was taken shortly before or after (solar) noon. The sun’s azimuth appears to be a little bit west of due south which indicates it was taken shortly after solar noon

Ok, we have a particular and unique place on earth here: 214 Neely street and therefore coordinates.

And we have a date. The backyard photos were allegedly taken on 31, march 1963 in the afternoon.

Now, using the correct coordinates, the correct compass alignment based on this data we have to analyze what i call shadow characteristic of the backyard photos.

Using the same tools a Hany Farid with a photomatch in the background for my 3D model is the procedure to find the camera location. Voila and the result is 33.6°. Too low.

Well Hany understood the problem pretty quick and said he tipped the head forward to achieve his result.

Unfortunately your study has 2 fundamental flaws. The first is that sun angle is NOT a constant during the day, it’s at (or close to) zero degrees at sunrise and increases until it reaches its apex at solar noon (61.3degrees at 12:31 PM in Dallas on March 31, 1963*) it then decrees back to zero at sunset.

The other is less serious I think you miscalculated the sun angle. You should have measured the height of the shadow along its axis not that of LHO’s body. The shadow is about 45% the height of the body. This would suggest a sun angle of about 62 degrees but the shadow would be foreshortened because it was further from the came and as Farid pointed out to you LHO was tilted forward thus the sun angle was probably a bit less than 60 degrees.

Len

* http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...fl=-1&day=1

Contrary to popular belief the except on the equator on the equinoxes the sun does NOT reach 90 degrees (directly overhead) at noon.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...day=1&n=550

[Martin Hinrichs]

Ok, i see my descreption was either not clear enough (my english could be better) or too technical.

Please take it not as offense Len.

***********************

In case other forum members don't understand it too, please let me know. (Craig Lamson and Hany Farid understand it so far.)

I consider to make a graphic animation (movie) which describes simply what the suncycle did on march 31, 1963 in Neely street

in case there is interest at all.

Thank you

Martin