Jump to content
The Education Forum

Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he. By Jerry Mazza


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-...e-and-so-is-he/ with working links to photographs and videos

Jerry Mazza

Infowars.com

February 22, 2010

Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he.

Jerry Mazza / 21 February 2010

Recently, Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid claimed in the Huffington Post that the famous (or infamous) backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald—the photo in which he holds a Communist newspaper in one hand and a rifle in the other—is not a fake. This implies that the photo was not patched together to set up Oswald as the Commie patsy and lone Kennedy gunman by the FBI, the same FBI which finances Farid’s laboratory and research. Smell a rat?

Farid chose to represent only one photo from a series of four faked photos and to deal only with the anomalies of its shadows and lighting. Oswald had said, when shown one of these photos, that it was his head pasted on someone else’s body. And the face has a square chin, not Oswald’s pointed chin; the finger tips of the right hand are cut off; and the figure is too short to be Oswald when the newspapers are used as an internal ruler. You can even see an insert line between the chin and the lower lip! But none of this impressed Professor Farid.

Farid purposely points to the fact that the lighting of the face in the photo would seem to be coming from overhead, yet Oswald’s fairly long body shadow is cast to the right on the ground and seem to be coming from an afternoon sun. The fact that logic would indicate two sources of lighting is blown away by Farid himself, who claims we as human beings do very poorly at perceiving shadows and their sources.

He even claims he himself is not good at it, even though he is an expert working in an esteemed university, underwritten by the FBI. It’s this kind of doubletalk that makes me look through his argument like the Emperor’s Clothes and see that nothing is there.

Farid’s so called proof is explained to us in a video clip, Why JFK Assassin Photo wasn’t Faked, with Farid side by side with his computer, on which there is a “simulation” of Oswald’s head next to the supposedly “real-life” but already doctored head of Oswald with a square chin. So we are already in fantasyland.

But the mystification continues as Farid lauds the quality of the shadow Oswald’s nose casts under it as well as the shadows under the eyes and his lips.

Okay, so he already told us that’s the effect of top-lighting, a light source directly overhead. But what about the shadow that slants off on the ground to the far right? That is side-lighting, presumably by the sun. Top-light would make a thin rim of shadow around Oswald’s body, either front, back, or sides, depending on how accurately the light source lined up with the body.

Try, for instance, to move your desk-light over your phone or desk object. Notice, the rim of light varies slightly as you move the top light’s overhead angle. This same desk light though does not cast a large shadow of the phone unless it is moved considerably, i.e. to the side. Farid would tell us it’s our eyes that are not working right, including his.

I would claim the body shadow comes from that sinking sun and that those light sources exist because the photo was reconstructed on a “ghost mat” that came from the Dallas Police Department. It is a blank cut-out mat of Oswald’s body, in which pieces are reinserted. Sadly for the DPD those pieces were shot with the light at various angles. That’s what causes the conflicting shadows in the backyard photos, not my or his impairment.

Even this basic concept, that angles of shadows are created by the varying positions of light sources, is violated in Farid’s “modeling by computer,” in which everything is possible. Perhaps Farid must have Photoshop 2020, which provides a look into the future of bending light to create shadows wherever you wish to them to be. We really never are told what makes Farid’s “modeling” create this unreality. But we are told his findings will be published in a journal called Perception, which will explain it all. That wouldn’t be related to Huxley’s Doorways to Perception, his journey into the use of hallucinogenic drugs, would it? That might explain why the good professor is not seeing clearly.

In the landmark book on photo fakery in the JFK assassination, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. James Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, with a half-dozen leading scientific and technical experts, you will find an abundance of photographic “representations” of Oswald’s face and body from before and after the Kennedy assassination for the purpose of disinformation and confusion, including a veritable Oswald stand-in, so that Lee/Harvey/Oswald could be in more than one place at the same time.

Fetzer, by the way, has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on the philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. He has also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, which include extensive discussion of the fabrication of evidence about the death of JFK.

Given that wealth of information, Farid references none of it, or that of any other authority. He does tell us that he works with law enforcement, which the New York Times verified as the FBI. Farid claims he has shied away from “conspiracy theorists” over the years, who have sought information from him. But this means that he comes to the table of objectivity with a bias against independent thinkers, whether they are authors, journalists, scientists or technicians.

So how objective is Farid really? Dare I say he’s a “photo patsy”? If he had considered more than one photo in the set, it would have been obvious they are faked, because they have the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across all four, which is a photographic impossibility. So Oswald had it right!

Remember, in the making of patsies, we need some kind of verifying information from so-called experts, even if they are on the government payroll, like for instance NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who have their very own opinion of what made the Twin Trade Towers fall, which conflicts with some 1,000 architects and engineers, who submitted a petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation Friday, February 19, 2010, from three different cities, including New York City, where they met with press at Ground Zero at 10 A.M., the site of the 21st Century’s major crime on American soil.

Returning to the JFK Assassination, the major crime on American soil of the 20th Century, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax scrupulously documents how photographs and the entire film has been manipulated to support the government’s lone-gunman claim, according to which Oswald alone managed to kill Kennedy and seriously wound the then Governor of Texas Connally with three shots fired in about six seconds into the limousine, which witnesses reported was actually brought to a halt. The Lincoln was sent to Ford for a complete refurbishing, including a new windshield to remove a hole near its center, where one of the first shots transited en route to JFK’s throat, which otherwise would have falsified the official account.

What’s more, despite the handicap of a bolt action, WW II Italian Army, Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle, and despite the fact that another bullet hit a sidewalk and that a piece of cement rebounded, slightly wounding a bystander in the cheek, we are supposed to award our complete credence to Arlen Specter’s “Magic Bullet” theory, which has one slug passing through Kennedy’s neck from the rear to enter and exit Connelly as well. My god! How low an opinion of our intelligence do our intelligence agencies have?

This brings me back to Farid and his “modeled-shadow-theory” that the backyard photo of Oswald is not a fake, a fraud, a hybrid of intelligence hacks. In fact, Farid, as a scientist, has violated the most basic scientific requirement of all: to present all available relevant evidence. I mean, we are not talking here about some triviality not worth the effort, but the purported assassination and proof of the “lone gunman” of President John F. Kennedy.

Are we to take Farid and his computer-simulated “model” on faith or as a single source flash of government-sponsored truth? Where is the proof that he bothered to read any of the research that established the photos were faked? There is no indication that the professor even conducted a search of the literature about his latest subject, including Jim Marrs’ Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, another standard text, which Oliver Stone used as a major source for his landmark film, JFK.

Fetzer and Marrs were so concerned they co-authored The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco, published it and sent it to the President of Dartmouth. But his representative has washed his hands clean of the whole matter by claiming that this “is a disagreement among scholars, and must be settled by them.” How many professors of late have been tossed off campuses for contrarian beliefs? How many should be sacked for research as sloppy as this?

The backyard photos were and continue to be the province of noted scholars and authors. And the victim was a major political figure, whose death changed the course of national policy and perhaps of world history.

How does one man, using one photo, one anomaly (shadows), one bit of computer modeling and one unsupported theory, i.e. people don’t see shadows, get away with this hoax with such faint resistance? Has Dartmouth been compromised? Is it also working for the FBI?

These questions pass through your mind when resistance folds so quickly. This is the signature of being bought and not of thought—conscious, conscionable thought. Farid found the one questionable feature of a set of faked photographs that he thought he could plausibly “explain away”, hoping that no one would catch his sleight-of-hand.

The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario.

Thus, I would seriously suggest that you, dear Professor Farid, go back to your modeling board and read at least the Fetzer and Marrs books. Of course, take a look at the canon of other outstanding studies of the JFK assassination, as if you were writing a thesis for an advanced degree.

Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them. Caveat emptor!

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, life-long resident of New York City. His book “State Of Shock – Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a crucial, even explosive, issue that is going main stream, and there are no comments about it?

http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-...e-and-so-is-he/ with working links to photographs and videos

Jerry Mazza

Infowars.com

February 22, 2010

Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he.

Jerry Mazza / 21 February 2010

Recently, Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid claimed in the Huffington Post that the famous (or infamous) backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald—the photo in which he holds a Communist newspaper in one hand and a rifle in the other—is not a fake. This implies that the photo was not patched together to set up Oswald as the Commie patsy and lone Kennedy gunman by the FBI, the same FBI which finances Farid’s laboratory and research. Smell a rat?

Farid chose to represent only one photo from a series of four faked photos and to deal only with the anomalies of its shadows and lighting. Oswald had said, when shown one of these photos, that it was his head pasted on someone else’s body. And the face has a square chin, not Oswald’s pointed chin; the finger tips of the right hand are cut off; and the figure is too short to be Oswald when the newspapers are used as an internal ruler. You can even see an insert line between the chin and the lower lip! But none of this impressed Professor Farid.

Farid purposely points to the fact that the lighting of the face in the photo would seem to be coming from overhead, yet Oswald’s fairly long body shadow is cast to the right on the ground and seem to be coming from an afternoon sun. The fact that logic would indicate two sources of lighting is blown away by Farid himself, who claims we as human beings do very poorly at perceiving shadows and their sources.

He even claims he himself is not good at it, even though he is an expert working in an esteemed university, underwritten by the FBI. It’s this kind of doubletalk that makes me look through his argument like the Emperor’s Clothes and see that nothing is there.

Farid’s so called proof is explained to us in a video clip, Why JFK Assassin Photo wasn’t Faked, with Farid side by side with his computer, on which there is a “simulation” of Oswald’s head next to the supposedly “real-life” but already doctored head of Oswald with a square chin. So we are already in fantasyland.

But the mystification continues as Farid lauds the quality of the shadow Oswald’s nose casts under it as well as the shadows under the eyes and his lips.

Okay, so he already told us that’s the effect of top-lighting, a light source directly overhead. But what about the shadow that slants off on the ground to the far right? That is side-lighting, presumably by the sun. Top-light would make a thin rim of shadow around Oswald’s body, either front, back, or sides, depending on how accurately the light source lined up with the body.

Try, for instance, to move your desk-light over your phone or desk object. Notice, the rim of light varies slightly as you move the top light’s overhead angle. This same desk light though does not cast a large shadow of the phone unless it is moved considerably, i.e. to the side. Farid would tell us it’s our eyes that are not working right, including his.

I would claim the body shadow comes from that sinking sun and that those light sources exist because the photo was reconstructed on a “ghost mat” that came from the Dallas Police Department. It is a blank cut-out mat of Oswald’s body, in which pieces are reinserted. Sadly for the DPD those pieces were shot with the light at various angles. That’s what causes the conflicting shadows in the backyard photos, not my or his impairment.

Even this basic concept, that angles of shadows are created by the varying positions of light sources, is violated in Farid’s “modeling by computer,” in which everything is possible. Perhaps Farid must have Photoshop 2020, which provides a look into the future of bending light to create shadows wherever you wish to them to be. We really never are told what makes Farid’s “modeling” create this unreality. But we are told his findings will be published in a journal called Perception, which will explain it all. That wouldn’t be related to Huxley’s Doorways to Perception, his journey into the use of hallucinogenic drugs, would it? That might explain why the good professor is not seeing clearly.

In the landmark book on photo fakery in the JFK assassination, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. James Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, with a half-dozen leading scientific and technical experts, you will find an abundance of photographic “representations” of Oswald’s face and body from before and after the Kennedy assassination for the purpose of disinformation and confusion, including a veritable Oswald stand-in, so that Lee/Harvey/Oswald could be in more than one place at the same time.

Fetzer, by the way, has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on the philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. He has also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, which include extensive discussion of the fabrication of evidence about the death of JFK.

Given that wealth of information, Farid references none of it, or that of any other authority. He does tell us that he works with law enforcement, which the New York Times verified as the FBI. Farid claims he has shied away from “conspiracy theorists” over the years, who have sought information from him. But this means that he comes to the table of objectivity with a bias against independent thinkers, whether they are authors, journalists, scientists or technicians.

So how objective is Farid really? Dare I say he’s a “photo patsy”? If he had considered more than one photo in the set, it would have been obvious they are faked, because they have the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across all four, which is a photographic impossibility. So Oswald had it right!

Remember, in the making of patsies, we need some kind of verifying information from so-called experts, even if they are on the government payroll, like for instance NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who have their very own opinion of what made the Twin Trade Towers fall, which conflicts with some 1,000 architects and engineers, who submitted a petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation Friday, February 19, 2010, from three different cities, including New York City, where they met with press at Ground Zero at 10 A.M., the site of the 21st Century’s major crime on American soil.

Returning to the JFK Assassination, the major crime on American soil of the 20th Century, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax scrupulously documents how photographs and the entire film has been manipulated to support the government’s lone-gunman claim, according to which Oswald alone managed to kill Kennedy and seriously wound the then Governor of Texas Connally with three shots fired in about six seconds into the limousine, which witnesses reported was actually brought to a halt. The Lincoln was sent to Ford for a complete refurbishing, including a new windshield to remove a hole near its center, where one of the first shots transited en route to JFK’s throat, which otherwise would have falsified the official account.

What’s more, despite the handicap of a bolt action, WW II Italian Army, Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle, and despite the fact that another bullet hit a sidewalk and that a piece of cement rebounded, slightly wounding a bystander in the cheek, we are supposed to award our complete credence to Arlen Specter’s “Magic Bullet” theory, which has one slug passing through Kennedy’s neck from the rear to enter and exit Connelly as well. My god! How low an opinion of our intelligence do our intelligence agencies have?

This brings me back to Farid and his “modeled-shadow-theory” that the backyard photo of Oswald is not a fake, a fraud, a hybrid of intelligence hacks. In fact, Farid, as a scientist, has violated the most basic scientific requirement of all: to present all available relevant evidence. I mean, we are not talking here about some triviality not worth the effort, but the purported assassination and proof of the “lone gunman” of President John F. Kennedy.

Are we to take Farid and his computer-simulated “model” on faith or as a single source flash of government-sponsored truth? Where is the proof that he bothered to read any of the research that established the photos were faked? There is no indication that the professor even conducted a search of the literature about his latest subject, including Jim Marrs’ Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, another standard text, which Oliver Stone used as a major source for his landmark film, JFK.

Fetzer and Marrs were so concerned they co-authored The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco, published it and sent it to the President of Dartmouth. But his representative has washed his hands clean of the whole matter by claiming that this “is a disagreement among scholars, and must be settled by them.” How many professors of late have been tossed off campuses for contrarian beliefs? How many should be sacked for research as sloppy as this?

The backyard photos were and continue to be the province of noted scholars and authors. And the victim was a major political figure, whose death changed the course of national policy and perhaps of world history.

How does one man, using one photo, one anomaly (shadows), one bit of computer modeling and one unsupported theory, i.e. people don’t see shadows, get away with this hoax with such faint resistance? Has Dartmouth been compromised? Is it also working for the FBI?

These questions pass through your mind when resistance folds so quickly. This is the signature of being bought and not of thought—conscious, conscionable thought. Farid found the one questionable feature of a set of faked photographs that he thought he could plausibly “explain away”, hoping that no one would catch his sleight-of-hand.

The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario.

Thus, I would seriously suggest that you, dear Professor Farid, go back to your modeling board and read at least the Fetzer and Marrs books. Of course, take a look at the canon of other outstanding studies of the JFK assassination, as if you were writing a thesis for an advanced degree.

Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them. Caveat emptor!

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, life-long resident of New York City. His book “State Of Shock – Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a crucial, even explosive, issue that is going main stream, and there are no comments about it?

Yes it is explosive..Mazza is yet another in a very long string of CT hacks who can't understand the simple interplay of light and shadow. A simple VPA shows the depth of Mazza's ignorance and the shadows in the backyard image to be perfectly correct.

backyardvpa.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim...the article is mostly excellent. However I feel compelled to strongly disagree with this statement:

"Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them."

I feel that study of photographic fakery DOES NOT UNDERMINE SERIOUS INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP.

Indeed, study of photographic fakery IS serious independent scholarship.

Otherwise, I agree with the article.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack,

I think you are misreading what Jerry Mazza is saying, which is that the PRACTICE of photographic fakery--as in the case of Hany Farid, ironicallly--undermines serious scholarship, not the STUDY of photographic fakery. Exposing photographic fakery is obviously in the public interest. He is doing that himself! There are a lot of active links in the original, which substantiate every claim he makes. This issue is just small enough and focused enough that everyone should understand it. And Mazza is very main stream!

Jim

Jim...the article is mostly excellent. However I feel compelled to strongly disagree with this statement:

"Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them."

I feel that study of photographic fakery DOES NOT UNDERMINE SERIOUS INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP.

Indeed, study of photographic fakery IS serious independent scholarship.

Otherwise, I agree with the article.

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I think you are misreading what Jerry Mazza is saying, which is that the PRACTICE of photographic fakery--as in the case of Hany Farid, ironicallly--undermines serious scholarship, not the STUDY of photographic fakery. Exposing photographic fakery is obviously in the public interest. He is doing that himself! There are a lot of active links in the original, which substantiate every claim he makes. This issue is just small enough and focused enough that everyone should understand it. And Mazza is very main stream!

Jim

Jim...the article is mostly excellent. However I feel compelled to strongly disagree with this statement:

"Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them."

I feel that study of photographic fakery DOES NOT UNDERMINE SERIOUS INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP.

Indeed, study of photographic fakery IS serious independent scholarship.

Otherwise, I agree with the article.

Jack

Jim...I guess I misunderstood...but that particular sentence is a little ambiguous to me. Thanks.

Everyone should read this article. I am surprised that so few have.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

And since the image has a block chin, not Oswald's pointed chin; the fingers of his right hand are cut off; and using the newspapers as an internal ruler, the figure is too short to be Oswald, we know the photos are faked, even if it were the case that the shadows are just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJYciA9smZg

Observe how Farid uses a block-chin image in his discussion, because to use a photo of Oswald would give the game away. Look how Lamson ignores that you cannot have the same face with the same shadows and the same expression across these different photographs:

35bgozc.jpg

In the face of decisive proof that the backyard photographs are faked, what will Lamson do? He will obfuscate and prevaricate, even though, given his background in photography, HE KNOWS THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED! So what is he doing here other than promoting misinformation?

Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!

Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!
Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

What's the matter Jim, my challenge too much for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!
Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

What's the matter Jim, my challenge too much for you?

Jim has stated his case, and Lamson is the challenger. It is up to Lamson to disprove any contention.

Jim is straightforward. Lamson fumfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!
Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

What's the matter Jim, my challenge too much for you?

Jim has stated his case, and Lamson is the challenger. It is up to Lamson to disprove any contention.

Jim is straightforward. Lamson fumfers.

Jim has no clue, thats the problem. He is just parroting the work of others without understanding what it is he is parroting. I challenged him to post his "proofs" one at a time so they could be completely dismantled. It appears Jim is reluctant to do that.

And sorry Jack, its up to those who first made the claims Jim parrots to prove THEIR claims in the first instance. Given YOU have made most of he claims, its really YOU who must prove them.

Why don't you take over where Jim falls down.

Start with this one, its easy. You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Proof abounds. What do you not understand? You cannot have exactly the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across different poses and different times. Oswald told Will Fritz that it was his face pasted on someone else's body.

The author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), Jim Marrs has long been persuaded that the backyard photos are indeed composites, just as Oswald asserted. When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald's face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.

35bgozc.jpg

The only difference that Marrs has detected is slight distortion of the mouth in one of the photos, which could have been done with retouching. In "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" (YouTube), Jack White has compared the thick neck and block chin of the figure with the narrow neck and pointed chin of Oswald. He also noticed a bump on the backyard figure's wrist (CE-133A) not on Oswald. A rookie with the Dallas Police Deparatment, Roscoe White, had a thick neck and a block chin, like the image in the photographs, and a similar bump on his wrist.

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!
Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

What's the matter Jim, my challenge too much for you?

Jim has stated his case, and Lamson is the challenger. It is up to Lamson to disprove any contention.

Jim is straightforward. Lamson fumfers.

Jim has no clue, thats the problem. He is just parroting the work of others without understanding what it is he is parroting. I challenged him to post his "proofs" one at a time so they could be completely dismantled. It appears Jim is reluctant to do that.

And sorry Jack, its up to those who first made the claims Jim parrots to prove THEIR claims in the first instance. Given YOU have made most of he claims, its really YOU who must prove them.

Why don't you take over where Jim falls down.

Start with this one, its easy. You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone had any lingering doubts about your credibility, they are hereby resolved. You are just as phony as these photos!
Lamson, here's a litmus test. Even if we were to suppose that the shadows were "good as gold"--and they can't be, since the nose shadow is exactly the same across different poses and times--do you agree that, given multiple lines of proof, the photographs have to have been faked?

The photos are real, the shadows are perfect and the "proofs" of fakey are just more ignorant ct blavation.

I've offered you a challange upthread, why not get to it!

What's the matter Jim, my challenge too much for you?

Jim has stated his case, and Lamson is the challenger. It is up to Lamson to disprove any contention.

Jim is straightforward. Lamson fumfers.

Jim has no clue, thats the problem. He is just parroting the work of others without understanding what it is he is parroting. I challenged him to post his "proofs" one at a time so they could be completely dismantled. It appears Jim is reluctant to do that.

And sorry Jack, its up to those who first made the claims Jim parrots to prove THEIR claims in the first instance. Given YOU have made most of he claims, its really YOU who must prove them.

Why don't you take over where Jim falls down.

Start with this one, its easy. You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

I have stated all of my proofs many times. I suggest you look at them on my videos at:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Since all of the proofs are there, it is counter productive to repeat each one here. They

are FREE. You have no excuse not to examine each proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...