Backyard pictures

[Ed LeDoux]

Sure you do Ed. Keep the fantasy alive, its all you have.

Yet here we have LHO with a rifle and a pistol, and your "conjecture' about the ordering and receiving gets destroyed.

Funny how that works.

Which is why the big push to make sure the BY photos stay 'FAKE"

Your fear is palpable.

But thanks for playing.

That is rich! Chickens lay the eggs Craig, sorry its not the other way around. The rifle was never ordered or picked up by LHO. So how is it that fake pictures are now real, because you say so. OKAY. The rifle would need to be in LHO's possession for the pictures to be accurate. Seeing as that fairy tale has been dumped on like a landfill and shown not to be true, you'll still say the photo is correct. That is an odd way of looking at reality. So a faked photograph is your egg but you have no chicken to lay it. Hmmm

Thank you, and please do come again.

[Ed LeDoux]

In other words: what do you got, if you hang a camera around van Peins neck? - Lamson...

KK

HAHAHA Now that is classic, thanks KK! I needed that.

[Ray Mitcham]

But, the long and short of it...you claimed initially that the camera has not moved between frames. Graphics taken from the BY photos show that not to be the case. The camera DID move, and the changes in image perspective cannot be caused by some warping of a single image using a technique like the one suggested by Jack White.

You are quite right one on this one. I did indeed say that the camera hadn't moved. My bad. I should have been

more specific by adding "forward". By the way, who mentioned Jack White?

It was not 'your bad', you were just wrong.

Let's review...

Ray sez:

"No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)"

Opps, you do say "forward...your BAD indeed.

The Argument is over Ray, the camera moved. That you are not happy with what you THINK you should see really means squat. The camera moved, thus ending that argument for fakery.

Oh, what happened to your reading comprehension Ray? There is no mystery. I mentioned Jack White.

Regards

Wrong again, Mr Lamson. I INITIALLY (post 74) said that the camera hadn't moved. The quote above is much later. (post 122) Your bad there, I'm afraid.

The argument certainly isn't over. If the camera moved diagonally forward to the left (Comprenez? or do you need taking by the hand?) then the horizontal parallax of the right verticals would have changed. It didn't. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why.

Just as a matter of interest, with your vast experience as a happy snapper, could you explain how,if the camera moved diagonally forward to the left, in CE133B, Oswald's shadow moved clockwise in relation to the shadow in CE133a, when according to perspective, had it done so, the shadow should have moved anticlockwise?

[Craig Lamson]

Wrong again, Mr Lamson. I INITIALLY (post 74) said that the camera hadn't moved. The quote above is much later. (post 122) Your bad there, I'm afraid.

Lets review post 74...

Ray sez:

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

Sorry Ray, but its STILL your bad.

The argument certainly isn't over. If the camera moved diagonally forward to the left (Comprenez? or do you need taking by the hand?) then the horizontal parallax of the right verticals would have changed. It didn't. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why.

The argument is over because you still have not established that there is no change in the right verticals between images. Lets put this back on YOU Ray. Just because YOU say it does not make it true. So if you want to CONTINUE this argument, its put up or shut up time. Show us how much movement is to be expected and then show us the lack of this movement between frames. You can do that can't you Ed?

Just as a matter of interest, with your vast experience as a happy snapper, could you explain how,if the camera moved diagonally forward to the left, in CE133B, Oswald's shadow moved clockwise in relation to the shadow in CE133a, when according to perspective, had it done so, the shadow should have moved anticlockwise?

Given I spent 30 years creating high end advertising images where it is not uncommon to spend an entire day on a single image making very precise camera and subject changes and creating detailed lighting sets, I can most certainly tell you WHY the shadow moved the way it did. In fact I already DID THAT Ray.

It has become abundantly clear that your are not in the possession of the proper tools to understand this argument Ray.

So either you can acquire the tool set to get up to speed here or the argument is is indeed over.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

Sorry Ray, but its STILL your bad.

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Given I spent 30 years creating high end advertising images where it is not uncommon to spend an entire day on a single image making very precise camera and subject changes and creating detailed lighting sets, I can most certainly tell you WHY the shadow moved the way it did. In fact I already DID THAT Ray.

You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

[Craig Lamson]

We don't simply claim he didn't have the guns. We have provided extensive evidence from the documented record that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are major problems with the orders concerning these firearms. There is not only timing and date problems, there are procedural problems. There are delivery problems. There are problems concerning informants not informing. There are problems with the length of rifle he ordered. There are problems with the question of whether the scope was attached or not. There are problems concerning the evidence provided by the person who claimed took the photos. There is the problem of the burned photograph more than likely being a different photo, from a different time and place. There are problems with the advertisements put into evidence. There are problems resulting from allegations of a different rifle being found in the TSBD. Etc, etc...ad ifinitum.

You SPECULATE...

So if the photo is genuine, and there are WC critics who still believe they are, then they were taken for a particular reason. YOU KNOW? CONTEXT.

If they're fake, then they were faked for a particular reason. YOU KNOW? CONTEXT.

But you will never know the "context" which of course it the entire problem with your desire to put thses photos into "context" It's a continuing cluster flock fueled my speculation heaped upon speculation. And of course "context" has no bearing on study of internals of the photographs and the correct application of proven photographic principles upon the claims of fakery.

And of course if the photos are genuine, it really puts your entire first paragraph quoted above in the dumpster. Kinda explains your palpable fear that these photos are shown NOT to be fakes...

My "worldview" as you describe it, limited only to this case, is that Oswald was played like a Grand Piano. That worldview is backed by a tonne of E V I D E N C E. Fantasies are generally lacking in the evidence arena.

Fairies photo - Loch Ness Monster photo - Backyard photos. All have something in common aside from the fact that they were all black and white.

Yea, all that "evidence" that comes tumbling down if the BY photos are real....

Wow, could it be your SPECULATION that might have the problems?

Poof, that's the sound of your worldview exploding....

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Is this level of confusion normal for you Ray?

Lets review again...

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

You never said the camera moved. You were questioning MY statement that the camera moved.

Then you get confused again when you claim I said you said it moved forward. Again poor Ray gets all confused. I simply posted YOUR quote where tell us ...based on nothing I might add...that the camera DID NOT MOVE...in ANY direction...INCLUDING forward.

Not your 'bad"...more like your "AWFUL"

You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

Well Ray, its the PERFECT explanation and it describes the situation to a tee. Are you now claiming that changing the subjects relationship to the sun will not change the apparent shadow angle on the ground?

BTW, you seemed to have missed this little part and failed to reply. Why?

The argument is over because you still have not established that there is no change in the right verticals between images. Lets put this back on YOU Ray. Just because YOU say it does not make it true. So if you want to CONTINUE this argument, its put up or shut up time. Show us how much movement is to be expected and then show us the lack of this movement between frames. You can do that can't you Ed?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Is this level of confusion normal for you Ray?

Lets review again...

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

You never said the camera moved. You were questioning MY statement that the camera moved.

Yes I know it was your statement. I said subsequently that I should have put the word "forward" in my statement about your statement.

Poor Ray isn't confused, it's poor old Craig.

[Ray Mitcham]

You mean you said that the subject "moved"? Great explanation.

Well Ray, its the PERFECT explanation and it describes the situation to a tee.

Craig, you can go on till the end of time just saying that Oswald moved. What you don't describe is your opinion of how he moved and how the change in the angle of the shadow occurred. Now failing your ability to answer this simple question would indicate that you don't know.

Are you now claiming that changing the subjects relationship to the sun will not change the apparent shadow angle on the ground?

BTW, you seemed to have missed this little part and failed to reply. Why?

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved".

The argument is over because you still have not established that there is no change in the right verticals between images.{/quote]

How do I prove a negative, Craig, -"no movement" It's up to you to show me where there is movement.

Lets put this back on YOU Ray. Just because YOU say it does not make it true. So if you want to CONTINUE this argument, its put up or shut up time. Show us how much movement is to be expected and then show us the lack of this movement between frames. You can do that can't you Ed?

I say exactly the same thing to you.

Regards,

Edited September 17, 2011 by Ray Mitcham

[Craig Lamson]

I'm afraid you've confirmed in the above post that initially, that I said "the camera moved" and I subsequently said that I had omitted to say the word "forward". You then say I did say I said it moved forward. Which is it Craig? The funny thing about this is that I was agreeing with you, for once, but then you go on to destroy your own argument.

Is this level of confusion normal for you Ray?

Lets review again...

I assume that both you and Jim mean the camera moved in relation to the background. Don't want you saying later "I didn't say the camera moved..."

If that is the case how come the parallax view of the fixed verticals in the background hasn't changed?

You never said the camera moved. You were questioning MY statement that the camera moved.

Yes I know it was your statement. I said subsequently that I should have put the word "forward" in my statement about your statement.

Poor Ray isn't confused, it's poor old Craig.

Ray, we were not TALKING about direction at that point, you had no idea if "forward" was appropriate. How confused can you get? Oh nevermind, the answer is LOTS

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

I'll say it again.

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved"

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you can go on till the end of time just saying that Oswald moved. What you don't describe is your opinion of how he moved and how the change in the angle of the shadow occurred. Now failing your ability to answer this simple question would indicate that you don't know.

I DON'T know Ray as I've stated. I've also told you WHY I can't know Ray. But lets review (sigh):

The 2D views don't give us the proper clues to find the EXACT position of Oswald's body in 3d space. Opinion will get us no where.

Now can movements of a body in 3d space in relation to a light source cause a change in apparent shadow angle? YES!

Can this be any simpler?

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved".

I have 'enlighted' you Ray. He MOVED. The images don't really allow us to know EXACTLY how he moved. Basic photographic principle tells us that movement of the subject in relation to the light source will cause a change in camera angle.

So to answer the question...IS the change in apparent shadow angle anomalous? The correct answer is no.

How do I prove a negative, Craig, -"no movement" It's up to you to show me where there is movement.

But Ray, you tell us time and time again that THERE IS NO MOVEMENT. You had to come to that conclusion somehow. How do you do it?

SHOW US.

Is that to hard for you?

I say exactly the same thing to you.

And I have.

Your turn to offer ANYTHING besides your continued handwaving.

[Craig Lamson]

I'll say it again.

Depends on what the subject does in relationship to the sun. Perhaps you would enlighten me and show me how you think he moved sufficiently to alter the angle of his shadow by about 12 degrees. For example do you think he is leaning forward more in one photo than the other? Is he leaning more to one side in one photo than the other? I'd just like to know what you mean by "he moved"

He moved is as good as it gets Ray. You can't measure it directly from the 2d photos.

The BEST we can do is test and see if different movements can cause a similar change in apparent shadow angles. I mentioned this once before and even told you how YOU could test it yourself with a work light, a camera, a pencil and a piece of clay. It's called proof of concept. Why don't you TRY it and see if it is possible instead of flapping your gums. Maybe actually LEARN something in the process. And yes, I've tested this before and I KNOW the answer. Lets see what YOU can do Ray.

Now back to the point you keep trying so hard to avoid...

Show us your proofs that there is NO parallax movement on the right side of the images. You have made this claim repeatedly. Show us how you got it.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

[Craig Lamson]

Do NOT take the brown acid....

Sorry John, what am I looking at?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Craig Lamson