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

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.

Sheesh Jack, its a SIMPLE question, surely one does not need to sit through hours of obfuscation just to try and find your answer. This is a discussion forum, no the CT video of the month club. Put in in simple terms here for everyone to read.

Now back to the question you seem so fearful of answering in print...

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

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Sheesh Jack, its a SIMPLE question, surely one does not need to sit through hours of obfuscation just to try and find your answer. This is a discussion forum, no the CT video of the month club. Put in in simple terms here for everyone to read.

Now back to the question you seem so fearful of answering in print...

You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

All answers are in the videos. I do not give individual tutoring.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All answers are in the videos. I do not give individual tutoring.

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

Actually Jack the answers to the question at hand is not in your video, all the video contains is your conclusion.

To refresh your memory, the question:

You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Now if I somehow missed the relevant section of your video where you explain in detail the proscess you used to come to your conclusion, I'm sorry. But given your self-proclaimed expertise in the matter of the Backyard photos and your claim your only "client" is the truth, then perhaps the simple path to enlightenment for the members of this forum is for you to point us to the correct timestamp in the video.

Clearly you believe you have found the correct answer and believe your work can withstand critical inspection. Why not simply show us the work instead of continuing this somewhat childish game playing?

This is a simple request Jack. What is it you fear?

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All answers are in the videos. I do not give individual tutoring.

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

Actually Jack the answers to the question at hand is not in your video, all the video contains is your conclusion.

To refresh your memory, the question:

You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Now if I somehow missed the relevant section of your video where you explain in detail the proscess you used to come to your conclusion, I'm sorry. But given your self-proclaimed expertise in the matter of the Backyard photos and your claim your only "client" is the truth, then perhaps the simple path to enlightenment for the members of this forum is for you to point us to the correct timestamp in the video.

Clearly you believe you have found the correct answer and believe your work can withstand critical inspection. Why not simply show us the work instead of continuing this somewhat childish game playing?

This is a simple request Jack. What is it you fear?

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All answers are in the videos. I do not give individual tutoring.

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

Actually Jack the answers to the question at hand is not in your video, all the video contains is your conclusion.

To refresh your memory, the question:

You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Now if I somehow missed the relevant section of your video where you explain in detail the proscess you used to come to your conclusion, I'm sorry. But given your self-proclaimed expertise in the matter of the Backyard photos and your claim your only "client" is the truth, then perhaps the simple path to enlightenment for the members of this forum is for you to point us to the correct timestamp in the video.

Clearly you believe you have found the correct answer and believe your work can withstand critical inspection. Why not simply show us the work instead of continuing this somewhat childish game playing?

This is a simple request Jack. What is it you fear?

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

It's ok Jack, we all know of your failed method of finding Oswalds size in the backyard photos. In fact the bulk of your work on the backyard photos fail by the use this flawed method.

You simply can't take phoots taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them and then try and make size comparison. It's photo ignorance 101 and hte reason your attempts to prove the backyard photos fake fail.

It's also why you got creamed in Washington.

You don't have the firs tclue about any of this.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Lamson appears to be a logical buffoon. He has no concept of a "prima facie" proof. He shifts the burden and refuses to admit any argument has force. What I can't understand is how someone who has so little to offer should spend endless hours here in what appears to be an attempt to infuse his life with meaning.

All answers are in the videos. I do not give individual tutoring.

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

Actually Jack the answers to the question at hand is not in your video, all the video contains is your conclusion.

To refresh your memory, the question:

You claim the photos show Oswald is the wrong height. How did you "prove" this claim? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Details please.

Now if I somehow missed the relevant section of your video where you explain in detail the proscess you used to come to your conclusion, I'm sorry. But given your self-proclaimed expertise in the matter of the Backyard photos and your claim your only "client" is the truth, then perhaps the simple path to enlightenment for the members of this forum is for you to point us to the correct timestamp in the video.

Clearly you believe you have found the correct answer and believe your work can withstand critical inspection. Why not simply show us the work instead of continuing this somewhat childish game playing?

This is a simple request Jack. What is it you fear?

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

No need Jack, I knew the answer. I just wanted you to put in print. Given the utter failure of your work, I can understand your reluctance.

Now let me show you a little Photo 101. Pay attention, then study the photo that is attached, and then we can all see why your work on the backyard photos fail...and why you got creamed in Washington.

You simply don't have the first clue about any of this.

whitefails.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson appears to be a logical buffoon. He has no concept of a "prima facie" proof. He shifts the burden and refuses to admit any argument has force. What I can't understand is how someone who has so little to offer should spend endless hours here in what appears to be an attempt to infuse his life with meaning.

Sheesh Jim, there you go parroting the failed work of White without even knowing if it is true. Check out the little proof of concept work I posted for Jack, that shows why the wheels have fallen off of the bandwagon you have climbed aboard.

Maybe next time you should actually check the works you champion to see if they are actually true before parroting them. It might save you face in the future. On second thought...

Now about that "internal ruler" and the 6 inch shorter Oswald...ROFLMAO! Prima facia...what a hoot!

Your "faked backyard photos" claim is going up in flames!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson appears to be a logical buffoon. He has no concept of a "prima facie" proof. He shifts the burden and refuses to admit any argument has force. What I can't understand is how someone who has so little to offer should spend endless hours here in what appears to be an attempt to infuse his life with meaning.

Sheesh Jim, there you go parroting the failed work of White without even knowing if it is true. Check out the little proof of concept work I posted for Jack, that shows why the wheels have fallen off of the bandwagon you have climbed aboard.

Maybe next time you should actually check the works you champion to see if they are actually true before parroting them. It might save you face in the future. On second thought...

Now about that "internal ruler" and the 6 inch shorter Oswald...ROFLMAO! Prima facia...what a hoot!

Your "faked backyard photos" claim is going up in flames!

LMFAO..... see you're still dancing mightly.... Your gonna be busy for the next 10 years... :ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

A logical buffoon and a clever fraud. While the illustration he offers would be correct if the ruler and the object being measured were separated some distance in space, it does not apply when they are very close together. Oswald is holding the newspapers close to his body. If he were holding them away from his body, Lamson might have a point. But consider the relationship as it occurs here in the form of Jack's proof: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/de...ted.html#auteur This, I think, is an excellent illustration of the kind of sleight-of-hand methods that we associate with Lamson. All fizz and no substance. A fake. As phony as Farid's photo.

Lamson appears to be a logical buffoon. He has no concept of a "prima facie" proof. He shifts the burden and refuses to admit any argument has force. What I can't understand is how someone who has so little to offer should spend endless hours here in what appears to be an attempt to infuse his life with meaning.

Sheesh Jim, there you go parroting the failed work of White without even knowing if it is true. Check out the little proof of concept work I posted for Jack, that shows why the wheels have fallen off of the bandwagon you have climbed aboard.

Maybe next time you should actually check the works you champion to see if they are actually true before parroting them. It might save you face in the future. On second thought...

Now about that "internal ruler" and the 6 inch shorter Oswald...ROFLMAO! Prima facia...what a hoot!

Your "faked backyard photos" claim is going up in flames!

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

A logical buffoon and a clever fraud. While the illustration he offers would be correct if the ruler and the object being measured were separated some distance in space, it does not apply when they are very close together. Oswald is holding the newspapers close to his body. If he were holding them away from his body, Lamson might have a point. But consider the relationship as it occurs here in the form of Jack's proof: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/de...ted.html#auteur This, I think, is an excellent illustration of the kind of sleight-of-hand methods that we associate with Lamson. All fizz and no substance. A fake. As phony as Farid's photo.

Yes it IS an excellent illustration. It shows once again the depth of your ignorance of the subject matter.

There is no limit to the distance change required to change the perspective relationship. ANY camera to subject distance change alters the the relationship. This is where you fail once again. Unless the newspaper is in the exact plane and distance from the camera as the body, the measurement fails.

In addition you post a link to yet another study where Jack does exactly as I show in the illustration...he takes an image of the newspaper from a different photo, resizes it, and uses it as a ruler, to compare to the newspaper in the backyard photo. Again yet another EXCELLENT illustration of why his work fails, why your comments are totally meaningless and why he got creamed in Washington.

As usual you choose to ignore that which destroys you and attempt, rather crudely, to deflect.

Nice try but you lose again.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

No need Jack, I knew the answer. I just wanted you to put in print. Given the utter failure of your work, I can understand your reluctance.

Now let me show you a little Photo 101. Pay attention, then study the photo that is attached, and then we can all see why your work on the backyard photos fail...and why you got creamed in Washington.

You simply don't have the first clue about any of this.

whitefails.jpg

Lamson is some thirty years behind me. I did this study in the 70s. While his study is basically accurate

its conclusions are misleading.

My findings doing the same but more comprehensive studies showed that ONLY PHOTOS TAKEN FROM

AN EXTREMELY CLOSE POINT OF VIEW WERE AFFECTED. As the camera is moved to normal viewing

distances and beyond, measurement differences decreased so that at distances over normal (about

10 feet and beyond) the differences were inconsequential. I found that this mattered significantly only

in the case of the photo the DPD took of the MC rifle, propped up on a desktop and photographed

with a wide angle lens from about 6 feet away. This introduced unnatural perspective into the rifle,

making each end appear shorter than the middle. So Lamson is correct, but he implies that this

discredits all of my studies. Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the videos. Pay attention. Then study about Oswald. A good start is Harvey & Lee. Then get back to us.

No need Jack, I knew the answer. I just wanted you to put in print. Given the utter failure of your work, I can understand your reluctance.

Now let me show you a little Photo 101. Pay attention, then study the photo that is attached, and then we can all see why your work on the backyard photos fail...and why you got creamed in Washington.

You simply don't have the first clue about any of this.

whitefails.jpg

Lamson is some thirty years behind me. I did this study in the 70s. While his study is basically accurate

its conclusions are misleading.

My findings doing the same but more comprehensive studies showed that ONLY PHOTOS TAKEN FROM

AN EXTREMELY CLOSE POINT OF VIEW WERE AFFECTED. As the camera is moved to normal viewing

distances and beyond, measurement differences decreased so that at distances over normal (about

10 feet and beyond) the differences were inconsequential. I found that this mattered significantly only

in the case of the photo the DPD took of the MC rifle, propped up on a desktop and photographed

with a wide angle lens from about 6 feet away. This introduced unnatural perspective into the rifle,

making each end appear shorter than the middle. So Lamson is correct, but he implies that this

discredits all of my studies. Nonsense.

Ah but it does effect all of your studies Jack. You sinply cant take two photos with different camera to subject distances, resize them and then compare. It's as simple as that. Why? Because perspective ALWAYS changes with changes in camera to subject distances.

While we discuss camera to subject distances, did you photograph the newpaper used for your ruler here from more than 10 feet away?

white1.jpg

Jack claims the differences are too small to consider at distances at about 10 feet and beyond. Lets see if his claim holds water...he has done some Apollo works that will do nicely.

http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html

Once again we see that White simply does not know what he is talking about.

About those rifles, if the work is wrong why are you still letting Fetzer use it in his website?

fetzerfails.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comparison was done more than 30 years ago to show the HSCA that

more than three rifles existed in Dallas and were photographed as being

the same gun. I stand by this study and the INDIVIDUAL STUDIES OF EACH

GUN PHOTO which back up this study.

Stand by it if you want but simple empirical testing shows your methodology is faultly.

You got it wrong

No wonder you got creamed in Washington.....

Edited by Evan Burton
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...