DO WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE?

[Craig Lamson]

Worse yet is that the photos themselves prove the rifle to be different than the one attributed to him in evidence.

my .02

DJ

Why? and How?

hey craig...

I do not know who published this first, possibly Gil Jesus, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;mode=threaded, just not sure.... is that on the rifle in custody and in all the pictures, the shoulder strap is connected to an oval ring sling that is mounted on the left side of the rifle, the rifle in the backyard photos has its ring mounted on the bottom of the rifle http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg and Gil goes on to name a few more reasons - just not related to that photo.

I've read your posts here Craig and while I agree with your measurement and angle analysis you'd have to agree that creating this photo, these photos, was not rocket science at the time. Add to the fact that the DPD had to go back a second time to find them, like the print on the gun barrel that "appears" the next day, or the clip that "appears" after the fact, or that Oswald went home on a Thursday - just "out of the ordinary" type stuff that makes one question the motive and reasoning.

It would be great if you could show the photo is not possibly a composite based on your knowledge - or at least why you think it isn't and more importantly - to please acknowledge my post about the timing of Frtiz' questions and the discovery of the photos/negatives... I still can't see how, after the fact, he remembers questioning him with the photos on his mind when he knew full well when those photos were found and brought in... a mistake? an offhand remark where he is mistaken about the time when others corroborate the chronology? or a simple clue about when/where those photos might have been made.

btw, I learned long ago to NEVER use 2d measuring tools on 2d representations of 3d images, simply does not work. So I appreciate where you are coming from with most of your posts... but some of these topics require more than measurable data: common sense and "what would an innocent group do with evidence" come to mind.

DJ

Actually creating these photos at the time waould have been near "rocket science". First despite the claims to the contrary, creating correct shadows via retouching is very hard. Even today with photoshop it not a gimmie. Do it witt an airbrush and you are screwed. Just look at the examples of retouched advertising photography in the big magazines of the day. It truly sucks by todays standards. I spend my days creating composite photos and have for many years. I'm not blowing smoke.

And then lets consider that the BY photos all show consistant shadows that withstand a shadow Vanishing Point Analysis. Recent computer simulations fully support this. Neither of these has been sucessfully refuted.

The rifle sling is not something I put much effort into. However IIRC theer is a lot of work by someone (T. Purvis maybe) that refutes this claim.

As for testimony, motive or "reason". Forget it. Not interested. Hard photographic... and testable...fact for me only. The rest is a sideshow, at least imo.