Greg Burnham Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Greg,Now thats the stuff the really matters! Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip! Mike Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight. Well, I have to admit that, assuming you are being sincere, the reason why you do what you do is one I can respect--even if your conclusion is one with which I disagree. When I debated McAdams and posed the same question to him, his answer was [paraphrased]: "I like to debunk nonsense". That's like saying "I like to beg the question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Greg,Now thats the stuff the really matters! Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip! Mike Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight. Well, I have to admit that, assuming you are being sincere, the reason why you do what you do is one I can respect--even if your conclusion is one with which I disagree. When I debated McAdams and posed the same question to him, his answer was [paraphrased]: "I like to debunk nonsense". That's like saying "I like to beg the question." The record is straight. And Bugliosi, DVP, Ken Rhan, McAdams, Mike Williams and the other 20 percenters are only fooling themselves. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Also consider the location of the camera in relation to Oswalds head. The camera had a waist level finder, placing it much lower than the head. Now try this simple experiment, Look directly into the corner of a table, from the same level as the table or slighty above. Notice the pointed corner. Now move your eye lower, so you are below the top level of the table. Notice how the visual shape of the corner has changed. Congratulations, you just solved the "pointed chin" mystery. Correct as usual Craig, Thanks. The case for conspiracy doesn't rest with the chin in the photo, Beverly Oliver, the ballistics or even a multiple assassin scenario. You can debunk all the nonsense you want and the fact still remains that that JFK was killed as a result of a covert intelligence operation at Dealey Plaza and that those who were responsible for killing him framed Oswald as the Patsy, took over the government of the United States and changed policies. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Also consider the location of the camera in relation to Oswalds head. The camera had a waist level finder, placing it much lower than the head. Now try this simple experiment, Look directly into the corner of a table, from the same level as the table or slighty above. Notice the pointed corner. Now move your eye lower, so you are below the top level of the table. Notice how the visual shape of the corner has changed. Congratulations, you just solved the "pointed chin" mystery. Correct as usual Craig, Thanks. The case for conspiracy doesn't rest with the chin in the photo, Beverly Oliver, the ballistics or even a multiple assassin scenario. You can debunk all the nonsense you want and the fact still remains that that JFK was killed as a result of a covert intelligence operation at Dealey Plaza and that those who were responsible for killing him framed Oswald as the Patsy, took over the government of the United States and changed policies. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Also consider the location of the camera in relation to Oswalds head. The camera had a waist level finder, placing it much lower than the head. Now try this simple experiment, Look directly into the corner of a table, from the same level as the table or slighty above. Notice the pointed corner. Now move your eye lower, so you are below the top level of the table. Notice how the visual shape of the corner has changed. Congratulations, you just solved the "pointed chin" mystery. Correct as usual Craig, Thanks. The case for conspiracy doesn't rest with the chin in the photo, Beverly Oliver, the ballistics or even a multiple assassin scenario. You can debunk all the nonsense you want and the fact still remains that that JFK was killed as a result of a covert intelligence operation at Dealey Plaza and that those who were responsible for killing him framed Oswald as the Patsy, took over the government of the United States and changed policies. Bill Kelly FACT? Blah, blah blah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Greg,Now thats the stuff the really matters! Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip! Mike Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight. Well, I have to admit that, assuming you are being sincere, the reason why you do what you do is one I can respect--even if your conclusion is one with which I disagree. When I debated McAdams and posed the same question to him, his answer was [paraphrased]: "I like to debunk nonsense". That's like saying "I like to beg the question." The record is straight. And Bugliosi, DVP, Ken Rhan, McAdams, Mike Williams and the other 20 percenters are only fooling themselves. Bill Kelly Good point, Bill. The problem for me is the record is still "crooked" in the text books from which our children (and grandchildren will) learn history...among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) Duncan fails to explain why the shadow of the head on the neck falls to LHO's right, while shadows on the face fall straight down. Jack PS...my graphics files will not attach, though they meet the requirements. This software sucks. Edited June 25, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 attachment for previous message: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted June 25, 2010 Author Share Posted June 25, 2010 So, what you're telling everyone on this board is that by filling in the shadows along the jaw-line, thereby producing something that Mike Tyson would struggle to knock out, you've managed to give Lee Harvey Oswald his pointed, and somewhat cleft, chin back? Complete claptrap. And if you and Craig would be so kind to tell everyone, if the sun is creating an almost perfect downward shadow under his nose, what the hell is it that's creating the shadows on BOTH SIDES of the jaw line that you are having to fill in? This is one "numbskull" who would require a straightforward answer to this question before I can "work out" your nonsense. I bunk your debunking because your debunking is bunk... Tell me Einstein. What lies beneath the dark areas of his face which I have filled in, other than his jaw? Duncan, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Duncan fails to explain why the shadow of the head on the neck falls to LHO's right, while shadows on the face fall straight down. Jack PS...my graphics files will not attach, though they meet the requirements. This software sucks. It's called HEAD TILT Jack, if you had even a very basic understanding of light and shadow, you would understand. Alas, you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) And if you and Craig would be so kind to tell everyone, if the sun is creating an almost perfect downward shadow under his nose, what the hell is it that's creating the shadows on BOTH SIDES of the jaw line that you are having to fill in? Uh...cheekbones....cheeks.... Edited June 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 So, what you're telling everyone on this board is that by filling in the shadows along the jaw-line, thereby producing something that Mike Tyson would struggle to knock out, you've managed to give Lee Harvey Oswald his pointed, and somewhat cleft, chin back? Complete claptrap. And if you and Craig would be so kind to tell everyone, if the sun is creating an almost perfect downward shadow under his nose, what the hell is it that's creating the shadows on BOTH SIDES of the jaw line that you are having to fill in? This is one "numbskull" who would require a straightforward answer to this question before I can "work out" your nonsense. I bunk your debunking because your debunking is bunk... Tell me Einstein. What lies beneath the dark areas of his face which I have filled in, other than his jaw? So, was the answer to your question "cheeks"? Really? What lies beneath the two dark areas of his face that you've filled in are Oswald's cheeks? Your reading ability has gone missing Lee, you want to try AGAIN ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) I don't want to accuse you of coming out with Healyisms Craig and I've always found you to be fair guy so lets not go there eh? The shadows on both cheeks are the giveaway for me. I don't believe there would be that much shadow on the left jaw given the amount of sunlight that is hitting his left ear. Then don't mis-read posts. Why no shadow on both cheeks? " I believe" is not going to cut it. BTW, Farid had no problem with the twin shadows.... Edited June 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) You mean like you've just misread mine? I told you why "no shadow on both cheeks." Because of what I'm seeing when I'm looking at the bottom 2/3 of his left ear (also an absence of any shadow inside his ear.) Are you suggesting that these two shadowed areas on his jaw were somehow hollow? Oh and wind 'yer neck in eh? And again you prove your reading has gone missing. What part of "believe" is not going to cut it. is impossible for you to comprehend? Clearly the properties of light and shadow and angle of incidence are beyond you. Don't feel badly though. Most of you are blissfully ignorant in this respect. Why don't you get back to us when you have acquired a clue. Edited June 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) You mean like you've just misread mine? I told you why "no shadow on both cheeks." Because of what I'm seeing when I'm looking at the bottom 2/3 of his left ear (also an absence of any shadow inside his ear.) Are you suggesting that these two shadowed areas on his jaw were somehow hollow? Oh and wind 'yer neck in eh? And again you prove your reading has gone missing. What part of "believe" is not going to cut it. is impossible for you to comprehend? Clearly the properties of light and shadow and angle of incidence are beyond you. Don't feel badly though. Most of you are blissfully ignorant in this respect. Why don't you get back to us when you have acquired a clue. I don't need to understand the science of infusion to be able to make myself a cup of tea. OK, continue to live in ignorance, thats your choice. The complex properties of light and shadow are clearly not your cup o tea. The shadows on the left jaw line are WRONG. Based on what, your dripping wet teabag? Clue, please find Lee. Go to page 13 of Farid's study. Does his 3D model match what we see on the left side of Oswald's face in the backyard photo? The answer is a plain and straightforward NO. Actually it matches fairly well given its a MODEL and all of the minute facial features appears not to be included. That's a problem for you? Also we don't have a clue as to the his inclusion of secondary lighting sources in his model. There are a number of them in the BY photo. While you were consulting your tea bag, did it fail to notify you of these sources? Oh, and in his model Oswald's ears are too small and they're clearly not the same shape. Did he do this on purpose Craig? Wow Lee, you have been reduced to asking if people can read minds now? Maybe your teabag can tell you. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/TR2010-669.pdf I'd ask everyone reading this to go to page 13 on the above document and ask themselves do the shadows on the left side of the face match? I second that. Please go and learn that light and shadow are NOT intuitive and that what you "believe" is most likely nothing more than a soggy teabag. So you can cram your "properties of light and shadow and angle of incidence" with walnuts. Well spoken Lee. Lets review your position. Forget that very well defined laws of nature control the interaction of light and objects, and the results bound by that pesky angle of incidence thing. Lets instead just go with the gut...no...lets BELIEVE. Yes thats a much better course of action. Edited June 26, 2010 by Craig Lamson 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