Ed LeDoux Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 And back from Mack: Sorry, Ed, but both women knew about the BY photo controversy and they said it was a fourth pose from the same picture-taking event. So if the pictures are fake, Oswald faked them – ALL of them - months prior to the assassination. But why? I’ve been asking this question for years and no one has an answer. Do you? Gary Cc: Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) And back from Mack: Sorry, Ed, but both women knew about the BY photo controversy and they said it was a fourth pose from the same picture-taking event. So if the pictures are fake, Oswald faked them – ALL of them - months prior to the assassination. But why? I’ve been asking this question for years and no one has an answer. Do you? Gary Cc: Craig Lamson Well that pretty much answers my questions about and to Ed.... Edited September 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 We don't even know with a hundred per cent ontological and metaphysical certainty if they are fake. But to most people who have studied them there are so many oddities and questions about them that the weight of the evidence indicates that they are. Too bad those people, don't know their butts from a hole in the ground photographically, and that includes jimmy d... As for Marina Oswald, look, she didn't even know how to work the Imperial Reflex. Look..it's an "instamatic" you look through a hole and you push a button...Sheessh can your arguments get any sillier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) HSCA speaks for itself Craig... and a note from Gary (Larry) Mack. I had to cut and paste it though... Ed, Both Marina and Marguerite testified to having destroyed a fourth BY pose the day after the assassination, and both confirmed to me in the late 70s/early 80s that they did, indeed, do just that. Might have been a hunting pic, from Russia, different gun etc etc etc...we don't know for sure do we. I think the inconsistency with what we do HAVE is enough to worry an WC supporters. Ed, That is what Sylvia Meagher believed - and I agree 100% with her. This photo was probably taken in March - of '62. It was said to be inscribed to June - and March '62 was soon after her birth. The photo showed Oswald holding a weapon above his head. No pistol. No commie newspapers. Why would Marina be concerned enough about this photo to bring it to Marguerite's attention as being possibly incriminating and be completely unconcerned about the others in the alleged series showing commie papers and a pistol as well as the rifle? The only sensible answer is that she was concerned about this photo because it was the only one in existence at that time. The idea for the back yard photos was based on that original photo. So who "faked" the photos, as you suggest, eight months prior to the assassination? And why? Hesters were working on something, and it was not eight months prior. Here's my take, fwiw. There were only 3 people who knew about the original photo. Marina because she took it - and Ruth Paine and Marguerite because following the assassination, Marina apparently panicked and spoke to Ruth Paine in Russian about it, then got the photo to show Marguerite. One of those three told the FBI about the original photo... I think we can all guess who... That fourth pose existed in March 1963 and Oswald knew all about it. Are you saying that HE faked his own picture? And then sent one of the poses to The Militant? And that the other three were faked after November 22? Sent how? Through the US mail? This is a Sylvia Weinstein reference ala Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK By Gus Russo http://books.google....n%20jfk&f=false or Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy By Vincent Bugliosi http://books.google....ilitant&f=false Can you sort this out for me? Gary cc: Craig Lamson The one sent to the Militant... yeah... so where is it? Weren't those groups riddled with FBI informants and counterintel operatives? Was it perchance an FBI informant who "found" Oswald's ACLU application? This - only AFTER the ACLU had instigated an immediate search of its records - came up empty on Oswald as a member, and had issued a public denial through the media to counteract the previous report that he WAS a member. The ACLU was thus doubly humiliated by not only the "association" with Oswald - but by the initial "false" denial of the "association". Classic FBI. From the very beginning of the investigation, the FBI wanted to use Oswald to embarrass communist and socialist groups in counterintel ops. It recently dawned on me that there was no reason why Marina could not have taken a photo of Oswald in the backyard of Neely St in early March - just a normal happy family snap - the same type taken of June and Marina around the same time (thanks LF). This completely innocent photo was then used to reproduce the destroyed photo - with a few added extras. Edited September 8, 2011 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 As Greg Parker and Sylvia Meagher have noted, there is something weird about that other photograph. Gary is exaggerating when he says Marguerite said it was from the same group. If you read her testimony carefully, at the very least, the pose is different. Greg actually thinks its from Russia. "Exaggerating", Jim? Can he explain why Marguerite failed to recognize the BY photos shown her as being anything like the one she saw? Can he explain why Marina was in a panic about THIS photo - and NOT the far more incriminating ones now in evidence? Your kindness to Gary in this instance might be warranted if he can respond adequately to the above -- otherwise -- As Sylvia Meagher notes in her book, it is really odd that the WC just kind of walked past this issue nonchalantly. If it HAD been another BYP, they likely would not have. For Gary to say that Oswald faked the photos is a perfect illustration of the false alternative axiom. We don't really know who faked them, although Mike Paine delivered some interesting testimony about when he saw them. That they are fake is the only way to explain the evidence - including testimony from Marguerite (concerning the photo that was burned which showed Oswald holding a gun aloft - most likely the shotgun he had in Minsk - and inscribed to his brand new daughter, June) and Marina's initial admittance of taking ONE photo of Oswald in the BY of the Neely St address. One family snap sans any weapons or any newspapers. Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134. Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures. Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up. Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean---- Mrs. OSWALD. Like this. Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle. Mr. RANKIN. Above his head? Mrs. OSWALD. That is right. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134? Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures. We don't even know with a hundred per cent ontological and metaphysical certainty if they are fake. But to most people who have studied them there are so many oddities and questions about them that the weight of the evidence indicates that they are. As for Marina Oswald, look, she didn't even know how to work the Imperial Reflex. PS: Ed, it was bad enough when Ray Carroll was the funnel for Mack/Dunkel. If he has something to say, let him say it himself. He has been doing this stuff for years on end. Is there a clause in his contract at the Holocaust Denier Museum that says he cannot post online? If not, then let him man up and post himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Looking back at post #4, I have to say that the head looks mismatched to the body proportionally in all three Warren Commission shots. I wonder if we can better judge that by looking at the relation between body and head, and at the proportions of Oswald's body alone, in other torso shots of Oswald - such as the crossed-arms pose photographed after the Bringuer incident arrest, and stills from Oswald's TV interview after the New Orleans radio show. Edited September 8, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Greg: Can you source the above WC testimony between Rankin and Marguerite? Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. I, pp 147-148 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) In which respect? His stance? His position in relation to the fence? What do you mean by "his body changes position"? (By the way, I love the "sigh....") Exactly as I said, his body is in different positions from one photo to the next. What do you mean by "different positions"? Different position in relation to the ground? Different position in relation to his body shape? Different position in relation to the back drop?Easy question to answer, I would have thought. Let me 'sigh' again... How hard is this...really? He moved. How much simpler does this need to be? His body is in different position from one photo to the next. One would think it SHOULD be pretty easy to understand since we are taking about shadows...his body is in different positions...in relation to the SUN.... Mr Lamson, if you didn't sigh so much and tried to answer the question properly, maybe we could further the discussion. Perhaps I can make it a bit easier for you. In respect of CE133A, In CE133B do you think he moved:- a) to his left (our right) b. to his right, (our left) c) backwards d) forwards e) all of the above f) none of the above. g) a combination of any of the above. (in which case state your choice.) Sighonara. Regards, Edited September 8, 2011 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 In which respect? His stance? His position in relation to the fence? What do you mean by "his body changes position"? (By the way, I love the "sigh....") Exactly as I said, his body is in different positions from one photo to the next. What do you mean by "different positions"? Different position in relation to the ground? Different position in relation to his body shape? Different position in relation to the back drop?Easy question to answer, I would have thought. Let me 'sigh' again... How hard is this...really? He moved. How much simpler does this need to be? His body is in different position from one photo to the next. One would think it SHOULD be pretty easy to understand since we are taking about shadows...his body is in different positions...in relation to the SUN.... Mr Lamson, if you didn't sigh so much and tried to answer the question properly, maybe we could further the discussion. Perhaps I can make it a bit easier for you. In respect of CE133A, In CE133B do you think he moved:- a) to his left (our right) b. to his right, (our left) c) backwards d) forwards e) all of the above f) none of the above. g) a combination of any of the above. (in which case state your choice.) Sighonara. Regards, Sigh... Maybe you should do a better job of ASKING the questions, and more importantly trying to find the answers YOURSELF first. Again, he moved in relation to the sun, how much simpler does it get? If YOU want to do the tests to see what movements would be required relative to the light source to create the shadow changes seen, by all means have at it. I've created photographic lighting sets for 30 years, and I'm confident in my assessment that the shadow angle changes as the natural result of body movement. I've tested this in relation to another crazy "shadow angle claim" years ago. However the long and short of it is if YOU want to know the answer,then why not actually DO THE WORK yourself. This is not rocket science, all you need is a camera, a pencil, a work light and a piece of clay. So lets "sigh" again. And see if you actually want to FIND the answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 PS: Ed, it was bad enough when Ray Carroll was the funnel for Mack/Dunkel. If he has something to say, let him say it himself. He has been doing this stuff for years on end. Is there a clause in his contract at the Holocaust Denier Museum that says he cannot post online? If not, then let him man up and post himself. I thought it was important to re-post Larry's question(?) How I answered it and how he still evaded that answer. Plus we all know Larry doesn't post. Duplicating the Nose Shadow? With CLAY AND STICKS? Good luck Craig. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm Both Marina and Marguerite testified to having destroyed a fourth BY pose the day after the assassination, and both confirmed to me in the late 70s/early 80s that they did, indeed, do just that. Might have been a hunting pic, from Russia, different gun etc etc etc...we don't know for sure do we. I think the inconsistency with what we do HAVE is enough to worry an WC supporters. Ed, That is what Sylvia Meagher believed - and I agree 100% with her. This photo was probably taken in March - of '62. It was said to be inscribed to June - and March '62 was soon after her birth. The photo showed Oswald holding a weapon above his head. No pistol. No commie newspapers. Why would Marina be concerned enough about this photo to bring it to Marguerite's attention as being possibly incriminating and be completely unconcerned about the others in the alleged series showing commie papers and a pistol as well as the rifle? The only sensible answer is that she was concerned about this photo because it was the only one in existence at that time. The idea for the back yard photos was based on that original photo. I agree and have argued the same point. That is a point Gary/Larry won't accept. But whatever, please continue. Here's my take, fwiw. There were only 3 people who knew about the original photo. Marina because she took it - and Ruth Paine and Marguerite because following the assassination, Marina apparently panicked and spoke to Ruth Paine in Russian about it, then got the photo to show Marguerite. One of those three told the FBI about the original photo... I think we can all guess who... That fourth pose existed in March 1963 and Oswald knew all about it. Are you saying that HE faked his own picture? And then sent one of the poses to The Militant? And that the other three were faked after November 22? Sent how? Through the US mail? This is a Sylvia Weinstein reference ala Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK By Gus Russo http://books.google....n%20jfk&f=false or Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy By Vincent Bugliosi http://books.google....ilitant&f=false Can you sort this out for me? Gary cc: Craig Lamson The one sent to the Militant... yeah... so where is it? Exactly. Maybe Gary Mack can ask William Kunstler? :-O From the very beginning of the investigation, the FBI wanted to use Oswald to embarrass communist and socialist groups in counterintel ops. It recently dawned on me that there was no reason why Marina could not have taken a photo of Oswald in the backyard of Neely St in early March - just a normal happy family snap - the same type taken of June and Marina around the same time (thanks LF). This completely innocent photo was then used to reproduce the destroyed photo - with a few added extras. I always had it, if there were quaint family pics, an original would be of LHO holding June in the backyard, perhaps there even was a picture of an empty yard/garden what with Lee trying to show Marina how to take a picture? If that is a baby blanket folded up by the stairs, then someone "has to be" holding the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Mr Lamson, if you didn't sigh so much and tried to answer the question properly, maybe we could further the discussion. Perhaps I can make it a bit easier for you. In respect of CE133A, In CE133B do you think he moved:- a) to his left (our right) b. to his right, (our left) c) backwards d) forwards e) all of the above f) none of the above. g) a combination of any of the above. (in which case state your choice.) Sighonara. Regards, Sigh... Maybe you should do a better job of ASKING the questions, and more importantly trying to find the answers YOURSELF first. Again, he moved in relation to the sun, how much simpler does it get? If YOU want to do the tests to see what movements would be required relative to the light source to create the shadow changes seen, by all means have at it. I've created photographic lighting sets for 30 years, and I'm confident in my assessment that the shadow angle changes as the natural result of body movement. I've tested this in relation to another crazy "shadow angle claim" years ago. However the long and short of it is if YOU want to know the answer,then why not actually DO THE WORK yourself. This is not rocket science, all you need is a camera, a pencil, a work light and a piece of clay. So lets "sigh" again. And see if you actually want to FIND the answer.... Why won't you answer a simple question, Mr Lamson? When you say he moved in relation to the sun which way do YOU think he moved? That's all I'm asking you to tell me. If I don't know what you are mean when you say "He moved in relation to the sun" then your comment means nothing. If you want your photography subjects to "move" to a different position, do you just say "move" or do you tell them which way to move? I don't want you to do any WORK for me, I just want a simple answer. Which way do you think he moved in CE133B, in relation to his position in CE133A? Regards, Edited September 8, 2011 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Farid's computer simulation did not recreate the same shadows on the face as seen on "Oswald's" face in the BYP's. End of story. I see lee is back with the same old chestnut that shows his limited skillset to the fullest. To fully show the way the lighting fall over the entire surface of the face would require a perfect replication of Oswalds head. lee's childish objection fails...again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Why won't you answer a simple question, Mr Lamson? When you say he moved in relation to the sun which way do YOU think he moved? That's all I'm asking you to tell me. If I don't know what you are mean when you say "He moved in relation to the sun" then your comment means nothing. If you want your photography subjects to "move" to a different position, do you just say "move" or do you tell them which way to move? I don't want you to do any WORK for me, I just want a simple answer. Which way do you think he moved in CE133B, in relation to his position in CE133A? You know Ray, if your questions were not so silly and quite franky unintelligent we would have been past this some time ago. First, asking me what I THINK is really quite meaningless. Ask me what I can PROVE. Next asking me to suggest a direction of movement is just plain silly. We are dealing with 2d images of a 3d scene. The 2d images do not give us enough information for correctly predict the body position in 3d space. Since I can't begin to know the exact position of the body in one image ( not to mention the exact sun angle or camera height or camera to subject distance...additional items that effect viable shadow angles) I can't and won;t GUESS the correct position for body position two. Your question is less than intelligent. An example of an INTELLIGENT question is for example: Can changes in body position in relation the the light source cause a change in visible shadow angles like seen in the backyard photos? AND of course the PROVABLE answer is YES. We STILL won't know the exact relationship of the body, sun, and camera. We WILL know that there is at least TWO combinations that do. And of course that's as good as its ever going to get. But its good enough to eliminate the objection that the shadows look like they were produced by different sun positions. Edited September 8, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Farid's computer simulation did not recreate the same shadows on the face as seen on "Oswald's" face in the BYP's. End of story. I see lee is back with the same old chestnut that shows his limited skillset to the fullest. To fully show the way the lighting fall over the entire surface of the face would require a perfect replication of Oswalds head. lee's childish objection fails...again... So, what you are saying is I was right? Glad you agree with me. Farid utterly failed to recreate the shadow effect seen on the face in the BYP's. The shadow effect on the jaw-line seen in his recreation looks NOTHING like the shadow "effect" seen in the actual photographs. Not even close. The shadow effect in Farid's simulation has a consistency to it along the jaw. In the BYP's there is a strange gap. I'm assuming Farid included cheekbones in his dummy and I'm guessing he had the Oswald mugshots from the 22nd at his disposal? Weird how he got the nose shadow perfect. Did he dig up Oswald's nose? No I said your objection was childish. Learn to read. You assume? You guess? Sheesh. In his video he clearly stales the thing that was important for him to model correctly was the NOSE. His study asked a very simple question. Was it possible for the nose shadow and the body shadow to be cast from a single light source at the same time. That's the question he answered. And that's why you silly outburst of "but the cheek shadows don't match" is so childish. You are simply not cut out for this lee. End of story is correct...of YOUR story. Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 roughly (line) assuming a center of gravity over (his) right foot it seems the movements are for balance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc9b0aa249119586291d4af00483c3d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now