David Josephs a question for you

[Craig Lamson]

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?

While I go and make a brew, you just sit there, have your cake and also eat it Craig.

He managed to get a perfect copy of the shadow under the nose, eyes, chin, right side of the face, and in one of his previous diagrams the neck. But he's completely out on the left side of the face. There is too much shadow on the model that isn't seen in the BY photo.

And WHY does the MODEL not reflect what we see in the BY photo when it comes to BOTH sides of his face? Simple, the model does not contain the EXACT shape of Oswalds face. I guess the interplay of solid objects with rays of light, bound by angle of incidence still eludes you.

So was his study a success or was his study a failure? I think that depends upon your bias. You know, the thing you say you don't have, but is actually there for all to see on virtually every post you make?

Bias? Yes I have one...for the truth as it pertains to photographic issues. Yours is clearly something else. I can't help it that the CT community and research is littered with ignorance when it comes to photography. The "fake" BY photo nonsense is a perfect example. But hey..you "BELIEVE".

But I digress.

Was the study a success? Of course it was.

Like most CT's you seem to lack an understanding of proof of concept. Here is Farid, who clearly states his intention is to see if the shadows on the ground and nose as seen in the BY photo are plausable. He also studies the rifle size, he studies the chin and he studies the posture. He creates a MODEL to test the CONCEPT. He was QUITE clear that the model was not created to the UNIQUE properties of Oswald.

His proof of concept testing is quite sucessful, to the dismay of the "BELIVERS". He finds the BY photo is indeed plausable

Teabag searching ct comes along and says test is a FAILURE because the model and the results do not reflect the UNIQUE shape and size of Oswalds ears and cheeks. Never mind the MODEL was not designed to test these areas nor to reflect Oswald exactly. CT still complains because all he can do is "BELIEVE". Never mind he could care less about the complex relationship between light, objects and angle of incidence. Heck no, he can dip a teabag in hot water...thats all that is needed when all you can do or understand is to "BELIEVE".

Farid was quite smart. He did not do a "recreation". Those are for idiots. Why? Because it's impossible to totally recreate a photo. I should know, I've been asked many times by clients to recreate some of my own photos. I know how they were done, what equipment and lighting was used etc. No matter how hard you try you will ALWAYS miss something. You will never get 100 percent. Farid's study was designed to be consistant and plausable with the extant BY photo.

Teadrinker complains the model was not exact, therefore it fails. What a pantload, but not unexpected. Pretty standard CT stuff when they find a sacred "BELIEF" destroyed.

Oh and didn't Duncan say that this study was a "...brilliant and scientiffically (sic) proven to be accurate analysis." When, judging by what you have written above, it quite obviously isn't...

Actually my words fully agree with Farids. And of course Duncan. How do we know? Because try as they might the ct community, who can only "BELIEVE", have been unable to refute Farids work. So far all they have shown is ignorance.

Cheers *slurppp*

Take some comfort that you can at least get that correct...

[Craig Lamson]

You seem to be getting all excited at the teabag references Craig. Try to calm yourself down. Maybe some bromide?

Duncan stated it was "scientifically accurate", which means correct in all details, you agree with him, and then say you CAN'T MAKE IT ACCURATE.

Really, is it now your claim that the physics of the 3d simulation are somehow not "scientifically accurate'? Drink some me tea, you need it.

You can try and take us on your LN hamster wheel, and I've allowed myself to get on, but the beauty is that I can now get off because your hamster wheel goes nowhere. You can hold to your heart your scientifically accurate whilst at the same time non-accurate study and I'll look at the BY photo with the TWO EYES IN MY HEAD and see a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in shadow versus the shadow on the model. MASSIVE. IMMENSE. JUMBO. COLOSSAL.

At least I see you can finally understand the heart of the problem...YOU!

What wonderful ct logic. Let's compare two different things and complain they don't look the same and then claim fakery. LOL!

I would suggest you do get off the train now, the subject is way beyond your ability to comprehend. Continue to "BELIEVE". What a blissful way to wallow in ignorance....

*Sluurrp*

Edited June 26, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I think you have an overinflated sense of importance Craig. Do you reserve a table for two when you and your ego go out to eat? When you have a set of rules for your own "bias" and a different set for other people's you can win almost any argument. Just as long as use sleight of hand and don't let the other side know that the rules are different eh?

No, I just know what I'm talking about when it comes to photography and in this instance the properties of light and shadow. It's not my fault you have an child like knowlege of both and refuse to learn lest is upset your "belief"

Shadows are like "a**holes" are they not? It sure must be great being the world authority on them.

I make my living creating them and I have for 30+ years, you on the other hand have your teabags...

Maybe because you talk out of yours so much.

I simply tell the truth, too bad you can't deal honestly with it.

I don't have to "BELIEVE" I can see it with my own damn eyes...

Too bad can't ...or wont....understand what you see. Damned eyes to be sure....

Have a great afternoon.

Any afternoon busting ct nonsense is a great afternoon.....

Lee

Edited June 26, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Any afternoon busting ct nonsense is a great afternoon.....

Maybe it's time to take a look at your priorities Craig? We only get one life, I BELIEVE...

My priorities are just fine Lee, I'm multitasking. I can bust silly ct junk while retouching. Oh yea, I DO make fake photographs for a living too....

[Robert Harris]

Mike... Didn't know you cared so much, now it feels like I have 2 ex-wives.

There is simply no need to avoid you or your posts... Never did see this one and it must have jumped off the first page fairly quickly - but missed your direct "Call out" until your juvenille "assumption" post.

Each one of these points has been made numerous times - plus I'd like to know from which post you chose this little tidbit and whether there is a context you are skipping with your copy/paste skills. a Link to the thread you took it from would be helpful.

I am sure you will attempt to show us all the error of my ways and assumptions - I look forward to you addressing each of these points and my reasoning as well as offering something of substance to prove your position. or do you just randomly pick bits and pieces of posts and argue for the sake of arguing?

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...H24_CE_2011.pdf

The chain of evidence, the inability to identify the shells in evidence, the fact that LHO pistol was completely loaded and misfired in the theater, that the shells in evidence do no match the bullets removed from Tippit, that he was actually walking in the opposite direction as the WCR states - if it was Oswald at all - which means an even longer trip in which not a single soul sees him...

Your turn Mikey... make us understand how Oswald killed both men with the weapons you'd like him to have used, while leaving evidence that contradicts itself

Plague on...

DJ

I believe it was Groden who made the claim that a witness told him she was giving Oswald change while the shots were being fired. He's been saying this for roughly a year now, but to the best of my knowledge has never given a name or any kind of evidence that a witness said that. He says that information will be in his next book.

As for Brennon, I believe his claim was that he lied when he failed to ID Oswald because he was afraid that the killers would retaliate against him. Whether we believe that or not is each person's own call.

My own belief is that Oswald took part in the attack, though certainly not alone. It would have been impossible for the perps to be certain that he would have remained out of sight of other TSBD employees during the shooting, who could have given him a solid alibi.

Carlos Marcello unwittingly confessed to a reliable FBI informant that he ordered the assassination and stated that David Ferrie introduced him to Oswald at his brother's restaurant.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

I actually used to take you seriously. Not anymore. Why? Because almost all of your comments for years now seem to have three underlying themes:

1. The Warren Commission was correct and everyone who disagrees is a little goofy.

2. There is no real necessity to study the original evidence at NARA.

3. There is no real necessity to study the related elements of evidence in an artifact.

I would think that in relation to number one, the discoveries of the ARRB have blown the case against Oswald to kingdom come. In a whole variety of ways. So this side of McAdams, DVP and Bugliosi, how could anyone so automatically take the side of the likes of Allen Dulles, John McCloy, Gerald Ford and J. Edgar Hoover in the murder of a guy that, to say the least, they didn't care for all that much. And in at least one case, Hoover's, he admitted to a cover up. What does that say about your automatic bias against the critics?

For number 2, a good point of comparison would be what Dave Mantik did with the X rays. He actually went to NARA a number of times to view the actual evidence and he took instruments with which to do scientific experiments. (Have you ever done this?) And he came up with some rather surprising results. Which really cannot be questioned. And you cannot do with copies or reproductions in books or online.

Concerning number 3, but related to number two, Mantik grew suspicious of the x rays because he had thoroughly studied the rest of the medical evidence. Have you ever studied in any real detail the provenance of the rifle? Like, what is the evidence Oswald picked it up? Did the Commission and FBI lie about the uniqueness of the serial number? Is it the right rifle that your beloved Commission says he ordered etc. For if there is a serious question about that, then of course it casts suspicion on the pictures. And related to that, have you studied the provenance of the alleged camera that was supposed to be used in the backyard pics? Its kind of interesting. (God, that Ruth Paine was everywhere wasn't she? And are you aware of her connection to Allen Dulles and how he joked about it later?)

If--like FBI crony Farid-- you have not studied these important matters, what is the real worth of your analysis? Especially in light of the fact that you have admitted you don't give a piece of crap about who killed President Kennedy.

With a record of scholarship like that, who are you to cast aspersions on anyone else?

What amassive crock of crap Jim. Lets cut to the chase.

1. I don't give a hoot about the Warren Comisssion pro or con. I'm simply NOT intersted.

2. I could care less who killed JFK. I do this purely for entertainment and as a means to improving my skillset.

3. I deal only with the photography...period. You want to talk medical, x-rays etc, I'm simply not interested nor am I qualifed.

4. I don't deal in opinion. Speculate to your hearts desire, I'm not playing. I'm only interested in dealing with photography claims and then only those that can be proven in black and white. I will not deal in bunnies in the clouds. etc.

5. I have excelllent photographic credentials and more to the point I'm quite willing to do the required testing to check a claim.

6. I don't take sides. I don't care if its a CT or LN making a stupid photographic claim, If its wrong and provable I'll do it.

7. You ask about rifles, xray and oswalds camera etc.. Don't know and I don't care. Does that make the facts I bring forth on photographic issues any less true or meanigful? No. What is its is Jim trying to deflect from his support to a very failed position.

8. Do I need archive material to check a claim about how a shadow falls. Hell no. How about calculating the lp/mm resolution of the moorman camera/lens film/ shutterspeed combination? Hell no. Ghost Images? Nope, Leaning lamp posts? Nope. The list goes on and one. You don't need archival materials to inspect a claim based on accepted and proven photographic principles. Strawman Jim... and a very bad one at that.

9. I don't need to study any other areas of the JFK case simply because they don't interest me. And they have zero bearing on the contents of a photo and the suggestions that a photo may or may not be faked. Again yet another failed and really sorry strawman on your part.

10. Like Farid, politics, or personal associations have zero bearing on the facts. Either you can prove things wrong or you can't. You can't prove Farid wrong, so you attack his asssociations, weak and in quite and intellectuallly dishonest manner I might add. But you still can't prove him wrong. The same applies to my work. I don't give a hoot if you like me or hate me, my work stands. Eihter you can refute it or you can't. It's as simple as that.

Why can I cast aspersions on the likes of you when you venture into the photographic arena? Because I know what I'm taking about and you don't. You are just another in a long line of quacks making a mess and filling the net with false and misleading claims. It's amazing you even have the guts to talk about scholarship given the utter garbage you have written about Farid and the BY photos.

[Craig Lamson]

And everything you write just proves the ultimate point Craig. You look at these bloody photos in a vacuum...

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias.

Facts are facts.

Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity.

Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore.

Learn to deal with it.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

And everything you write just proves the ultimate point Craig. You look at these bloody photos in a vacuum...

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias.

Facts are facts.

Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistake because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity.

Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore.

Learn to deal with it.

If the evidence is faulty that Oswald ordered the rifle, if the evidence is faulty that it could be delivered to his P.O. Box, if it's faulty that he then had ability to pick the damn thing up, and if his wife's testimony to taking the frigging pictures is faulty, it stands to reason that the PICTURES ARE FAULTY if the pictures depict him standing there with the rifle in his hands. How hard is that to comprehend? Whether you agree with it or not, do you really have a complete absence of empathy to be able to see this issue from the other side of the fence?

You must be a joy to live with in objective-land, Craig. Must be like living with Raymond Babbit...

Of course you are in speculation land. I prefer reality, thank you very much. Since you can't prove your points in an unimpeachable manner, you really don't have points. You just have junk.

If you want to play in the junkpile be my guest.

Lets look at YOUR logic from the other side of the fence..

If the photo is real, your speculation is faulty....

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Blame your government for the speculation, not me...

YOU are the one doing the speculation.....

[Jack White]

The "new" Lee Farley is a much more adept as a researcher than the "original" Lee who showed up attacking established researchers.

This may give rise to a TWO LEE THEORY.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

If the photo is real, your speculation is faulty....

It's not speculation, that a parcel in the name of A. Hidell WAS sent to the P.O. Box of a Lee Oswald (with no other names ENTITLED to have mail delivered or picked up) AND it WAS not only kept by the post office but GIVEN to someone who it legally DIDN'T belong. Not to mention the fact that WAS a rifle.

Where is the speculation involved there Craig? Is this NOT A FACT?

Is is fact? Don't know, don't care. However the attempts to call the BY photos have all failed on their face. Thats a FACT.

What does that do to your "fact".

[Craig Lamson]

What amassive crock of crap Jim. Lets cut to the chase.

1. I don't give a hoot about the Warren Comisssion pro or con. I'm simply NOT intersted.

Then why almost invariably do you take their side when they are proven to be a fraud?

I don't. The photos tell us what they tell us. I really don't care whos toes that steps on. Unless you are afraid to hear what they really have to say? Are you?

2. I could care less who killed JFK. I do this purely for entertainment and as a means to improving my skillset.

Some of us don't see this as say like playing a round of putt-putt golf. After all, 2 million Vietnamese, and about 60,000 Americans died as a result. That is not entertaiment

Sure its entertainment. I really don't give a fig why YOU do it.

3. I deal only with the photography...period. You want to talk medical, x-rays etc, I'm simply not interested nor am I qualifed.

You are missing the point. I was making a parallel with Mantik and the x-rays not the pictures.

Really? Let review...You made TWO statements about Mantik, on about the archive and on you when off on a tangent about rifles etc. I was responding to your comments about other areas of research.

4. I don't deal in opinion. Speculate to your hearts desire, I'm not playing. I'm only interested in dealing with photography claims and then only those that can be proven in black and white. I will not deal in bunnies in the clouds. etc.

But then isn't examining the so-called original evidence the best way NOT to deal in opinion?

No not at all. I've explained why.

Please explain why viewing an original will help with understanding the properties of lght and shadow etc. Oh thats right, won't mean a hill of beans. Just another strawman.

5. I have excelllent photographic credentials and more to the point I'm quite willing to do the required testing to check a claim.

Better than Eisendrath's? I doubt it.

Hard to say. Eisenrdrath was accomplished. So am I. I don't care to speculate. However my work both in the industry and this entertainment venue can withstand inspection. Why not give it a go, prove my work wrong, if you have it in you that is.

6. I don't take sides. I don't care if its a CT or LN making a stupid photographic claim, If its wrong and provable I'll do it.

Uh Craig, most objective people would disagree with this pattern. Just from the empirical record.

You mean to say most CT's would disagree, don't you. Does that really come as a shock given they make most of the claims about the photographic and have the most to lose?

7. You ask about rifles, xray and oswalds camera etc.. Don't know and I don't care. Does that make the facts I bring forth on photographic issues any less true or meanigful? No. What is its is Jim trying to deflect from his support to a very failed position.

You are dead wrong on this. And the fact it does not matter to you betrays your faulty scholarship which would never pass muster in a real academic setting.(Con't in point 9)

Faulty scholarship? Academic setting? Surely you jest. This coming fromm the man who points his readers to a guys website that resizes images and then claims fakery. Never nmind the very process used is fatally flawed and has been proven so. And then sends them to a Jack White backslapping site. Never mind it has been proven time and time again White knows nearly ZERO about the principles of photography. But hey he parrots your failed position so he must be good eh Jim? Hypocrite!

8. Do I need archive material to check a claim about how a shadow falls. Hell no. How about calculating the lp/mm resolution of the moorman camera/lens film/ shutterspeed combination? Hell no. Ghost Images? Nope, Leaning lamp posts? Nope. The list goes on and one. You don't need archival materials to inspect a claim based on accepted and proven photographic principles. Strawman Jim... and a very bad one at that.

This like saying that if a document is in question, you don't need to check it against the original. Only in the JFK field could it be put in play.

Have you put your brain in park again? Please explain how an original photos can for example help calculate the the lp/mm resolution of the moorman camera/lens film/ shutterspeed combination? Or how for example it can help figure out the angle of incidence of the sun as seen in the Betzner photograph. Or how it can explain the process of ghost frame creation,etc. The list goes on and on. Please explain why this works needs "originals". If you had the first clue you would understand. But of course you DON'T have the first clue.

9. I don't need to study any other areas of the JFK case simply because they don't interest me. And they have zero bearing on the contents of a photo and the suggestions that a photo may or may not be faked. Again yet another failed and really sorry strawman on your part.

Oh really. John Armstrong did a 43 page study of the provenance of that rifle (Harvey and Lee, pgs 437-480). It is documented with 120 footnotes, virtually every single one to a primary source. He traced the rifle from the beginning, when it was shipped over and arrived in America, to when Oswald was supposed to have picked it up. It casts severe doubt over whether or not Oswald ordered or picked up that rifle--and he proves the FBI lied about the uniqueness of the serial number. Obviously if he is right, the pics are forgeries.

Meaningless. Can you prove this in an unimpeachable manner? Of course not. Can we prove in an unimpeachable manner that that the same light source can cast the shadows as seen in the the BY photos. We sure can.

Concerning the camera, did you know that the Imperial Reflex camera was not in the first Dallas evidence index which described three cameras as Oswalds': an American, a Russian one, and the Minox? The problem was that none of those 3 cameras could produce a print like the BPS, which was 620 roll film. The Imperial Reflex finally came into play on December 8th through the auspices of Ruth Paine, who said the one American camera in evidence, a Stereo Realist, was really hers. Incidentally, to the FBI, Marina first said she thought the Stereo Relaist was Oswald's American camera.

If stuff like that does not interest you, even though it directly impacts on the provenance of the pictures, then like I said, I have problems with your scholarship--or lack of it.

Strawmen Jim..Strawmen. Either the photo can be proven fake or it cannot. End of story. All the rest is fluff and cannon fodder. After all these years NONE of the claims of fakery has held up to inspection. Of course that's pretty much the entire story when it comes to fake images in the whole case. I study the claims based on rock solid photographic principles. If they can't pass muster the claims fail, its as simple as that.

10. Like Farid, politics, or personal associations have zero bearing on the facts. Either you can prove things wrong or you can't. You can't prove Farid wrong, so you attack his asssociations, weak and in quite and intellectuallly dishonest manner I might add. But you still can't prove him wrong. The same applies to my work. I don't give a hoot if you like me or hate me, my work stands. Eihter you can refute it or you can't. It's as simple as that.

I was specific about the failings of his study. And the fact he knew none of the above or about the Eisendrath test shows where he was coming from. The fact that none of that bothered you says a lot.

Farid was very specfic about what he tested and how he tested. His work destroys the points he chose to study. And now you fault him becase he did not study enough? Amazing! You are a real piece of work. Why don't you take apart his RESULTS? Oh thats right, YOU CAN'T. So instead you create ignorant and ill informed strawmen.

What do YOU know about the "Eisendrath" test besides hearsay? Have YOU read it? Do YOU know exactly what is contained in it. Can you post a copy? Of course not. It's just yet another strawman.

Your "specfics" were not "specfics" at all. You just shucked and jibed and threw out bullsnit. Your statements about digital and film were downright silly! Then you pointed us to a study that uses a technique that is fatally flawed and you call it interesting! Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds. Oh wait maybe your lack of scholarship would be a better term. But hey, lets disect your "specfics" in another post were we can get the red meat. Your writings on Farid is a target rich environment. You are the perfect example of a ct wannabe blovating about things he knows nothing about. You are a parrot.

Why can I cast aspersions on the likes of you when you venture into the photographic arena? Because I know what I'm taking about and you don't. You are just another in a long line of quacks making a mess and filling the net with false and misleading claims. It's amazing you even have the guts to talk about scholarship given the utter garbage you have written about Farid and the BY photos.

Then why didn't you ever mention the Eisendrath study, do your own examination of the alleged originals, ever mention the original three cameras--none of which could take the photos--or talk about the acquisition of the rifle, which to say the least figures importantly in the pics? And you have the chutzpah to say you know what you are talking about? I disagree. From the above, you don't even know what you AREN"T talking about that is germane to the study.

Whats to mention about Eisendrath? All you have is hearsay. You are SPECULATING about the contents. Produce the report THEN we can discuss it. None of that matters a whit when it comes to the study of the photographic principles that underlay the claims of fakery. You can disagree until the cows come home, it still won't make you right nor the BY photos fake.

Here is the quote about Ruth Paine: "Allen Dulles joked in private that the JFK conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder...that one of Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald and that the landlady was a well-known leftist with distant ties to the family of Alger Hiss" A Certain Arrogance, p. 230

This is the woman who supplied the right camera, over two weeks later. About 9 days after the Commission was appointed.

Can someone please explain who Mary Bancroft was to poor lost Craig?

I'm not lost at all Jim, I'm on a well defined path, devoid of the constant distractions and bias introduced by nearly 50 years of mindless speculation, and squabbles.

Here's the bottom line Jim. Either you can refute my work or you can't. Have it it. All you have to do is prove me wrong. How hard can that be...right? After all you say I lack scholarship. Give it your best shot, I'll be here.

[Craig Lamson]

Blame your government for the speculation, not me...

YOU are the one doing the speculation.....

Because your government couldn't investigate its way out of a brown paper bag...

Not my problem...

[Craig Lamson]

Craig doesn't care if Oswald picked up the rifle in the picture or not.

Jim can't prove it one way or the other, so he speculates.

Thats really helpful when trying to prove the BY photo fake.

[Craig Lamson]

If the photo is real, your speculation is faulty....

It's not speculation, that a parcel in the name of A. Hidell WAS sent to the P.O. Box of a Lee Oswald (with no other names ENTITLED to have mail delivered or picked up) AND it WAS not only kept by the post office but GIVEN to someone who it legally DIDN'T belong. Not to mention the fact that WAS a rifle.

Where is the speculation involved there Craig? Is this NOT A FACT?

Is is fact? Don't know, don't care. However the attempts to call the BY photos have all failed on their face. Thats a FACT.

What does that do to your "fact".

Just about sums your curiosity up Craig. I'll tell you something, keep working in your vacuum. A space entirely "devoid of matter." Because if you don't look at the case elements within a wider historical context then your work, funnily enough, is totally "devoid of matter."

Why the problem Lee? Just because I don't share your desire to speculate endlessly about things you can never fully answer. What garbage.

Historical context will never change the priciples with which the photographs were produced. Endless speculation will never change how lenses record images on film. Unlike you I have choosen to look at an area that can yield finite results.

Of course thats the real problem no isn't it? When we find EXACT answers to the questions surrounding the photos it kind of kills your speculation.

IF the BY photos are not faked, your speculations fail and they end.

And of course THATS why you guys are so afraid.

Just makes this all the more entertaining, don't you think?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson