David Josephs a question for you

[Craig Lamson]

[quote name=Lee Farley' date='27 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1277645665' I think it best if we keep our "desires" to ourselves after your recent preoccupation and obsession with tea-bags.

You have a problem with making a cup of tea?

You, nor anyone else, has provided EXACT answers to anything concerning these pictures. You really need to get yourself a dictionary old chum. You use to term ACCURATE and then tell us that no study can be ACCURATE and accurate means to be EXACT. Now you are telling us you have provided EXACT answers when it's plain to anyone with two brain cells to fire next to each other that you haven't because EXACT means "not approximated in any way."

Well Lee, what you fail to understand is that the principles of photography being discussed are not open speculation. They are a yes or no, black or white proposition. When someone claims light can't behave in a certain way, it eihter can or it can't. the answer is exact. That answer is not approximated in any way.

And yes, I correctly did say no RECREATION can be exact. Your ability to read has gone missing once again. What we CAN do to get to the exact answer to a question is to perform proof of concept experiments to prove the underlying principle. So if we review the claim about the shaodws in the BY photos for example, and that claim states that the shadow under the nose and the shadow on the ground cannot be created by a single lightsource in the exact same position, we find that the EXACT answer (remember this is a yes or no, black or white question) is THE SHADOWS CAN BE CERATED BY THE SAME LIGHT. There is no approximation at all.

You might think you're good with shadows Craig, but you're terrible with words.

I don't "think" anything Lee, my experience and work stand on their merits. I'm a photographer, not a write to be sure, but its quite clear you have real problems reading.

Once again, if he didn't order or pick up the rifle then there is an alternative "story" to these pictures. And there is ample evidence to support the idea that he didn't order or pick up the rifle.

"IF" ... More speculation. What wonderful circular logic. THere are EXACT answers to the legitimate question aoubt he BY photos. Those finite answers disprove these claims of fakery.

But in Bazzaro Lee's world. lets FORGET the exact and travel the road where speculation is the norm.

And round and round we go...

There is no going round and round Lee....if YOU are being intellectually honest. The claims of fakerly ...that go beyond "bunnies in the clouds" stand and fall on the basic principles of photography. The claims can only be true or false. There can be no approximation. And of course that is what has you "shaking in your boots"....

...oh, and yeah, I'm shaking in my boots.

Yes, you are.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

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.

As you say, facts are facts... Learn to deal with it.

Explain your 3+" jacket and shirt ride-up theory as it relates to the bottom photo.

No more of your BS, no more hiding behind folds and shadows and light.

Simply explain how once the jacket and shirt are gone and all that's left is a bullet hole and

the official record of the bullet hole done at the autopsy... compared to this drawing used by the WCR

to illustrate where that hole was.... you can claim the shirt and jacket were bunch up over his head for

all that matters... or you can just ignore the reality of where the shot actually hit, as you've done this whole thread.

If you are indeed correct Craig, why oh why is the actual bullet hole NOT in his neck at all but just to the left of the right shoulder blade. Maybe they could bend his head back a little farther so the hole looks as close to his neck as possible.... and it's STILL NOT IN THE NECK.

The scapula forms the posterior (back) located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage.

Let the Lamson tap dance begin... again.

[Craig Lamson]

And yes, I correctly did say no RECREATION can be exact. Your ability to read has gone missing once again. What we CAN do to get to the exact answer to a question is to perform proof of concept experiments to prove the underlying principle. So if we review the claim about the shaodws in the BY photos for example, and that claim states that the shadow under the nose and the shadow on the ground cannot be created by a single lightsource in the exact same position, we find that the EXACT answer (remember this is a yes or no, black or white question) is THE SHADOWS CAN BE CERATED BY THE SAME LIGHT. There is no approximation at all.

And yet, as I've already brought up, the shadows from this light source, that show the SHADOWS under the nose and on the ground CAN BE CREATED BY THE SAME LIGHT, they ALSO create something on the left side of the face that is NOT SEEN in the BYP. And your answer is that the model is not EXACT.

And I think you're speculating about me shaking in my boots, because...

...I'm not wearing any boots.

Sigh. how hard is this for your to understand. The model was not created to TEST the cheeks! Clearly this is beyond your ken.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[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.

If I was Oswald's lawyer I would begin my case with the rifle. And in fact, in my critique of Reclaiming History--which evidently you have not read-- that is what I did.

THat is how confident I am in this evidence

Why?

Because if you list one or two anomalies in a transaction, the jury might discount them. But if you list 5-6 improbabilities on top of each other, it just becomes too irrational to accept. If we are to believe that that was Oswald's rifle, that is what we have to accept. And then on the other end we have to believe the post office violated two parts of the code, no one recalled handing over the box, and that the FBI informants there did not know a commie was ordering a rifle.

And that the rifle was the wrong one, and that it had a scope even though Klein's did not sell a scope on that particular rifle.

And that Oswald denied ordering it and that Marina said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination.

Once that was established, everything else--like the joke of CE 399--would be downhill.

THe pictures would be irrelevant. Especially after RUth Paine stepped off the stand.

Translated from DiEugeniospeak. I'm totally screwed on the by photos so loets change the subject QUICKLY!

fricking amazing.

[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.

As you say, facts are facts... Learn to deal with it.

Explain your 3+" jacket and shirt ride-up theory as it relates to the bottom photo.

No more of your BS, no more hiding behind folds and shadows and light.

Simply explain how once the jacket and shirt are gone and all that's left is a bullet hole and

the official record of the bullet hole done at the autopsy... compared to this drawing used by the WCR

to illustrate where that hole was.... you can claim the shirt and jacket were bunch up over his head for

all that matters... or you can just ignore the reality of where the shot actually hit, as you've done this whole thread.

If you are indeed correct Craig, why oh why is the actual bullet hole NOT in his neck at all but just to the left of the right shoulder blade. Maybe they could bend his head back a little farther so the hole looks as close to his neck as possible.... and it's STILL NOT IN THE NECK.

The scapula forms the posterior (back) located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage.

Let the Lamson tap dance begin... again.

First it no theory, its unimpeachable FACT that here was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. NO one has ever been able to refute this fact.

Second I don't do medical. Thats just the way it is. You don't like it..too bad.

You want to speculate about the medical evidence please feel free. Seems to be a popular past time, and even the CTs can't seem to agree. Why are you so sure YOU have it correct?

However you MUST deal directly the FACT of the fold as seen in Betzner, if YOU are intellectually honest.

Unimpeachable fact....There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFKs back in Betzner.

[Cliff Varnell]

First it no theory, its unimpeachable FACT that here was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. NO one has ever been able to refute this fact.

Unimpeachable fact....There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFKs back in Betzner.

The claim is idiotic. The Towner photo, taken ten seconds earlier than Betzner,

shows no such thing.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

First it no theory, its unimpeachable FACT that here was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. NO one has ever been able to refute this fact.

Unimpeachable fact....There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFKs back in Betzner.

The claim is idiotic. The Towner photo, taken ten seconds earlier than Betzner,

shows no such thing.

Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner??

BTW, the Betzner is not Towner, can you offer us different arrangement of fabric that can create the dark shape seen on JFK's back in Betzner...and PROVE it works within the demanded properties of light and shadow and angle of incidence presented in Betzner?

If you can't, you lose.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

Sigh indeed.

I know it wasn't - it was created to TEST the shadow on the floor and the shadow on the nose. The same thing that had been done by Lawrence Schiller 30+ YEARS AGO.

And your point is?

You want to keep taking people to the nose and floor shadow. But the main irregularity exists in the shadows on the jaw. You know the ones that MacRae filled in to EXPLAIN the broad chin? What possible additions to the model would you expect Farid to have added to ERADICATE the massive amount of shadow on the left side of the face versus what we actually see in the BYP?

What? FULLER CHEEKS....

Come on Mr Expert. I'm a lay-man. Whenever things like this go to trial and they have experts like you pop up to give testimony you are expected to lay-it-out straight for the lay-men and lay-women in a JURY. What would your tactic be if they didn't get it? Would you call them all stupid?

Somethings are just beyond the mental reach of others. The fact YOU can't understand it does not mean you are correct. Stupid? Yes some people are just stupid.

There is large amount of light hitting Oswald's left ear in the BYP, to the extent that the canal that leads to the external auditory meatus cannot be seen, compare his ear canal with that of the picture on the arrest photographs. Now you expect me to believe that a strong light source that is obviously hitting the bottom 2/3 of Oswald's ear would create THE PARTIAL SHADOW that EXISTS on the LEFT JAWLINE? Complete baloney.

You wonder WHY there is a difference between photos taken with different lighting? The answer is simple. ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. Now if you lack the ability to understand this simple comcept perhaps you need to school yourself.

As for the jawline, do a simple test. Puff out your cheeks. Does the shape of your cheeks change? You just found the answer to the question of the left side face shadow.

Convince the laymen Craig or give it a rest eh?

Maybe the "laymen" would be better served by actually educating themself before they get involved in an area where they are woefully ignorant.

Get a clue or give it a rest Lee.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner??

The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line).

The shadow above the lip of the fold resulted from the indentation

of the fabric that occurred when JFK turned to his right and began to wave

circa Z174.

When fabric "bunches" it commonly creates indentations and bulges. Shadows

fill the indentations.

Ever look at your shirt in your avatar photo, Craig? See those vertical shadows

in the upper part of your shirt? Those resulted from the shirt "bunching" sideways.

See the horizontal/diagonal fold toward the bottom of your shirt? That resulted from

the shirt bunching down in that location, in response to your posture.

Clothing only moves when the body moves, contrary to your bizarre claims, Craig.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

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.

Impeachable fact... there is a 3" blindfold over your eyes and ears...

"I don't do medical"

So, in essence, you cannot tell if the hole in his back, as observed and recorded by Doctors and photographs as illustrated above

is in the place it should be given the 3+" hike in the shirt and jacket? As a photographic analyist these

things are not apparent to you...

That from what may appear to be a fold on the top left of his jacket (and your use of a fine image to illustrate your point so clearly) has a direct bearing on the entrance wound moving from his shoulderblade to his neck, on the right side of his back.

Photographic analysis par excellence CL... keep up the stellar work

[Craig Lamson]

Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner??

The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line).

The claim is idiotic. Here is the fold of fabric as it travels through Dealy Plaza. Varnell's ignorance is monumental.

The shadow above the lip of the fold resulted from the indentation

of the fabric that occurred when JFK turned to his right and began to wave

circa Z174.

This claim is idiotic. Here is a fold as Varnell suggests, in lighting that equals that of Betzner.

Clearly the Varnell Fantasy Shadow does not produce the artifact seen in Towner, Croft nor Betzner.

Clothing only moves when the body moves, contrary to your bizarre claims, Craig.

What claim would that be Cliff? Direct quote please.

Edited June 28, 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 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.

Impeachable fact... there is a 3" blindfold over your eyes and ears...

Please use that superior intellect of your and impeach the 3 inch fold? Oh thats right, which is why all you offer is insults. Duly noted.

"I don't do medical"

I don't. I do photographic. Maybe YOU could learn from that and refrain from commenting in areas where you have zero knowlege.

So, in essence, you cannot tell if the hole in his back, as observed and recorded by Doctors and photographs as illustrated above

is in the place it should be given the 3+" hike in the shirt and jacket? As a photographic analyist these

things are not apparent to you...

I'm simply NOT interesting in the continuing speculation as to the location of the back bullet hole.

That from what may appear to be a fold on the top left of his jacket (and your use of a fine image to illustrate your point so clearly) has a direct bearing on the entrance wound moving from his shoulderblade to his neck, on the right side of his back.

It can ONLY be a fold. That is unimpeachable. How it impacts other areas of research is upp to those doiing said research. You can choose to reject this unimpeachable fact and be guilty of gross intellectual dishonesty, or you can include it aand alter your "speculation" witht this unimpeachable fact in mind.

Photographic analysis par excellence CL... keep up the stellar work

Yes it is. It's unimpeachable as you well know.

[Craig Lamson]

Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

Sigh indeed.

I know it wasn't - it was created to TEST the shadow on the floor and the shadow on the nose. The same thing that had been done by Lawrence Schiller 30+ YEARS AGO.

And your point is?

You want to keep taking people to the nose and floor shadow. But the main irregularity exists in the shadows on the jaw. You know the ones that MacRae filled in to EXPLAIN the broad chin? What possible additions to the model would you expect Farid to have added to ERADICATE the massive amount of shadow on the left side of the face versus what we actually see in the BYP?

What? FULLER CHEEKS....

Come on Mr Expert. I'm a lay-man. Whenever things like this go to trial and they have experts like you pop up to give testimony you are expected to lay-it-out straight for the lay-men and lay-women in a JURY. What would your tactic be if they didn't get it? Would you call them all stupid?

Somethings are just beyond the mental reach of others. The fact YOU can't understand it does not mean you are correct. Stupid? Yes some people are just stupid.

There is large amount of light hitting Oswald's left ear in the BYP, to the extent that the canal that leads to the external auditory meatus cannot be seen, compare his ear canal with that of the picture on the arrest photographs. Now you expect me to believe that a strong light source that is obviously hitting the bottom 2/3 of Oswald's ear would create THE PARTIAL SHADOW that EXISTS on the LEFT JAWLINE? Complete baloney.

You wonder WHY there is a difference between photos taken with different lighting? The answer is simple. ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. Now if you lack the ability to understand this simple comcept perhaps you need to school yourself.

As for the jawline, do a simple test. Puff out your cheeks. Does the shape of your cheeks change? You just found the answer to the question of the left side face shadow.

Convince the laymen Craig or give it a rest eh?

Maybe the "laymen" would be better served by actually educating themself before they get involved in an area where they are woefully ignorant.

Get a clue or give it a rest Lee.

Farid claims this in his study;

Figure 5: Shown below is the original photo and the 3-D rendering. Shown above is a

magnified view of Oswald’s head. Notice that the shadows on the nose, eyes, lower lip and

neck are well matched, as well as the shadow cast by the body onto the ground plane, and

the thin sliver of a shadow from the vertical post onto the ground plane.

So he manages to match up virtually all the shadows using his model that are seen in the BYP and claims a result.

Yes...

He then states;

Figure 8: Shown [below] along the top row are frontal views of Oswald with neutral front lighting.

Shown below is Oswald and the corresponding 3-D rendering from the backyard photo.

The yellow guidelines of the same width are drawn at the point in the top photos where

the chin meets the jaw line. Note that the apparent widening of the chin is due to the

shading along the chin and jaw.

He is now using the shadows created in the model to prove that the chin has been affected by them, elongating it.

Yes...

But the shadows on the left side of the face look nothing like the shadows in the picture. And what does he do? He IGNORES it. He uses it to "prove" one thing and ignores it when it proves something contrary. And you're left to come up with some BS science that makes no sense within the context of this photo. He also ignored the left ear by not including it correctly in his model, because if he did he would have to show the light source hitting it and it would throw into doubt the shadow that is created n the left side of the face.

Oh please, you now can read his mind? Get real Lee.

He did not model the cheeks and ears to your satisfaction and you claim the result is faulty? What a joke. You need to find a different line of attack. This one is done.

The shadow you are talking about is a blob. The sunlight manages to move all around the circumference of the left neck under the head shadow, it manages to brightly reflect off of the bottom 2/3 of the left ear. But in your magically scientific world it creates a shadow on the left side on the jaw that is square and has very little gradient or shape if it was made by Oswald's cheek.

Can you explain this to us all, as this lay-man can't get his head around it...because I really am too DAMN STUPID to work our your answer, but I'm incredibly intelligent when it comes to working out your dishonesty.

You said it..you are too DS to understand that the cheeks were not modeled to match Oswalds. Changes in the shape of the cheeks changes the look of the shadows. What's so hard for you to understand, unless you are correct that you are just too DAMN STUPID. (your words)

Edited June 28, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner??

The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line).

The claim is idiotic. Here is the fold of fabric as it travels through Dealy Plaza. Varnell's ignorance is monumental.

Open your eyes, Craig. In Croft the top of the fold clearly does

not occlude the jacket collar.

Croft was taken less than two seconds before Betzner. You claim that the fold

rose to the top of the jacket collar in Betzner, but the fold is well below the

top of the jacket collar in both Croft and Towner.

Clearly the Varnell Fantasy Shadow does not produce the artifact seen in Towner, Croft nor Betzner

This is not a photo of bunched fabric. It has nothing to do with me, and everything

to do with the Teabag Party that goes on between Craig Lamson's ears.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner??

The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line).

The claim is idiotic. Here is the fold of fabric as it travels through Dealy Plaza. Varnell's ignorance is monumental.

Open your eyes, Craig. In Croft the top of the fold clearly does

not occlude the jacket collar.

Croft was taken less than two seconds before Betzner. You claim that the fold

rose to the top of the jacket collar in Betzner, but the fold is well below the

top of the jacket collar in both Croft and Towner.

Sure they do, All of the folds will clearly obscure the jacket collar when viewed from the same angle as Betzner.

You simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. That much is very clear.

Clearly the Varnell Fantasy Shadow does not produce the artifact seen in Towner, Croft nor Betzner

This is not a photo of bunched fabric. It has nothing to do with me, and everything

to do with the Teabag Party that goes on between Craig Lamson's ears.

It's not "bunched" fabric? WHY?

It fully expresses the arrangementof fabric you claimed upthread. And it perfectly claer it will NOT produce he artifact found in Betzner, Croft or Towner.

The fact of the matter is Varnell has been pimping a total fantasy for a decade and has been proven wrong.

Of course you can produce your own experimental, empirical, proof of concept evidence and try and make your case.....