Backyard pictures

[Greg Parker]

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...

No speculation. The evidence is exactly as described.

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.

The context can be adduced from what is known. Entirely unlike your speculation about the "world view" of others.

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....

If the BY photos are real, it only means the weapons in it are not the weapons allegedly ordered by Oswald. How easy is that?

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

There has been NO speculation.

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

No. I think that sound was a bit closer to home.

And don't blame the dog.

[Craig Lamson]

No speculation. The evidence is exactly as described.

Of courses it's speculation, its not proofs of anything, its a conglomeration of so called problems you cobbled together to form a speculative conclusion. Which is why I ignore them.

The context can be adduced from what is known. Entirely unlike your speculation about the "world view" of others.

Again you simple speculate as to the CONTEXT. It's all you can do. Which makes it pretty much meaningless.

If the BY photos are real, it only means the weapons in it are not the weapons allegedly ordered by Oswald. How easy is that?

So he had other guns just like the guns you speculate he did not have.... Holy crap, only in CT land...

Or not...how easy is that? That's what happens when you can only speculate.

There has been NO speculation.

Of course there has, and you continue it in this very thread. You cant even be honest with yourself

No. I think that sound was a bit closer to home. And don't blame the dog.

There you go, speculating again You just can't help yourself can you.

Not a chance, I love my dogs...

Edited September 18, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ed LeDoux]

Craig will support the shoddy work, in 3D rendering mind you, of Hany Farid who only examined one image.

"there is no way someone would have been able to get the internal and external elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the one photo, but two others in the series."-Farid

How would he know, this doesn't make sense. He acts like he only knew about one image, as if the other images he just mentioned either don't exist or ARE of the same head. Well which is it? I guess it would take him actually looking at all four images and a negative.

(Though he is not a photographic expert it would help him to at least know what he's speaking to.)

But Craig will discount those who actually examined all the photographic evidence in detail.

Farid, like Craig, will avoid using several images and comparing them in 3D. As I have said this is because when they are rendered they would show problems with these images. (This is why the rendering needs to be done accurately and independently)

Ray Mitchum is asking questions which would require an actual answer from Craig, but he, Craig, ignores this or say he does not care. Craig does not care to have his hat handed to him. He will continue to spout off about expertise in 2D imagery. Craig your only as good as your last post. The last few have been dismal.

For Farid/Lamson to be genuine with their arguments they would need to compare 3D renderings of each picture.

For only one image to be studied is not good science. In fact it is BAD SCIENCE!

They would need to compare the renderings against each other to come to ANY conclusions. What Farid has done is produced a PRE-CONCLUSION.

Lamson like Farid will use doubletalk to get around problems, blaming the human eye/brain for misinterpreting what it perceives, or others lack of experience with film and photography. I'm assuming (Farid/Lamson) both have the requisite organs, and they are functioning. So why the tap dance. Because a shadow from the sun is a single point light source. Both Craig and Hany will ignore the fact the shadow under a nose comes from above or overhead, while the body shadow is cast by a lower source. Claims of needing a mold of LHO's head are untrue. There are plenty of shots of LHO from many angles to render an accurate model, unlike the one Farid used.

So there is one flawed study by Farid and Lamson cheers???? Shows just how concerned he is for the truth, justice and doing actual science.

This guy is like the twentieth hijacker...If the FBI was thinking of using Farid in the future it should wisely rethink this.

[Ed LeDoux]

Hey thanks Jim.

Coming from you that is a huge compliment.

I tip my hat to you.

Kinda hard for tap dancing when they have wooden clogs and rubber legs...

we must be striking a nerve here.

Why else have Farid do a bogus study but to fill the uninitiated with doubt.

Keep poking holes in this gas bag of a case Jim!

Ed

[Craig Lamson]

Craig will support the shoddy work, in 3D rendering mind you, of Hany Farid who only examined one image.

"there is no way someone would have been able to get the internal and external elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the one photo, but two others in the series."-Farid

Farid tested a simple question and came to an answer that you guys can't stand, imagine that.

How would he know, this doesn't make sense. He acts like he only knew about one image, as if the other images he just mentioned either don't exist or ARE of the same head. Well which is it? I guess it would take him actually looking at all four images and a negative.

(Though he is not a photographic expert it would help him to at least know what he's speaking to.)

How would he know that? His specialty is studying fake images. DO you KNOW he did not look at all three images? Sheesh speculation becomes you.

But Craig will discount those who actually examined all the photographic evidence in detail.

Farid, like Craig, will avoid using several images and comparing them in 3D. As I have said this is because when they are rendered they would show problems with these images. (This is why the rendering needs to be done accurately and independently)

Clearly Ed you don't know what might happen if all three were rendered, which brings us to the heart of this problem, who decides what position to place the bodies in 3d space?

Farid tested the question, is it possible for the nose shadow and body shadow to fall in different directions. To do so he made a set of assumptions and then just started moving things around until he found a fit.

The problem, which you SHOULD know, is because there is no way to assure the accurate "rendering" of Oswald s body in ANY 3d rendering. WHY? Because there is not enough data to do so.

Ed posits the standard CT response when they are circling down the drain...the tests are not accurate, we need completely accurate "recreations"

What a silly strawman ED. You should be ashamed. Oh wait you are a CT. Never mid.

Where have I discounted anyone? I have not. I just don't use the HSCA as a basis for my own work. You really need to do a better job Ed.

Ray Mitchum is asking questions which would require an actual answer from Craig, but he, Craig, ignores this or say he does not care. Craig does not care to have his hat handed to him. He will continue to spout off about expertise in 2D imagery. Craig your only as good as your last post. The last few have been dismal.

What questions of value have I ignored from Ray?

For Farid/Lamson to be genuine with their arguments they would need to compare 3D renderings of each picture.

For only one image to be studied is not good science. In fact it is BAD SCIENCE!

They would need to compare the renderings against each other to come to ANY conclusions. What Farid has done is produced a PRE-CONCLUSION.

Poor ED, you simply keep tossing out these turds like they actually MEAN something. What Farid has done is provide a valid proof of concept experiment and his question was answered. The problem is the answer scares the heck out of you. Learn to live the real world ED.

Lamson like Farid will use doubletalk to get around problems, blaming the human eye/brain for misinterpreting what it perceives, or others lack of experience with film and photography. I'm assuming (Farid/Lamson) both have the requisite organs, and they are functioning. So why the tap dance. Because a shadow from the sun is a single point light source. Both Craig and Hany will ignore the fact the shadow under a nose comes from above or overhead, while the body shadow is cast by a lower source. Claims of needing a mold of LHO's head are untrue. There are plenty of shots of LHO from many angles to render an accurate model, unlike the one Farid used.

Well Ed, the human EYE/BRAIN does OFTEN MISINTERPRET WHAT IT SEES. are you telling us it does not? And quite frankly there is a massive LACK of photo experience right here on this board, showing right here in this thread. Your strawman just got burnt to the ground.

There is not a TAP DANCE Ed, aside from the one YOU are now doing. Farids tests confirms that it is indeed possible for the shadow of the nose and body to fall in different directions just like we see int he BY photos. That kind of destroys your completely ignorant claim that it must be two light sources.

You complain we ignore the reality of light and shadow yet the reality is that it is YOU who is ignoring the reality of light and shadow.

So there is one flawed study by Farid and Lamson cheers???? Shows just how concerned he is for the truth, justice and doing actual science.

This guy is like the twentieth hijacker...If the FBI was thinking of using Farid in the future it should wisely rethink this.

That's really funny Ed. If the study is flawed you can easily refute it. So why not do that instead of employing CT tactic #54 "When the evidence destroys you, claim the test was not detailed enough and was not a complete recreations, even though a complete recreation is completely impossible".

This post of yours is a complete joke ED. Completely pathetic. You should be ashamed. Oh Wait you are a CT...never mind, you have no shame.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Nice one Ed.

Lammy dances around so many questions he must have taken lessons from Fred Astaire.

Oh jimmy, is that the BEST you can do? Praise to a man you writes a turd filled post?

Your fear is palpable jimmy.

[Craig Lamson]

Hey thanks Jim.

Coming from you that is a huge compliment.

I tip my hat to you.

Kinda hard for tap dancing when they have wooden clogs and rubber legs...

we must be striking a nerve here.

Why else have Farid do a bogus study but to fill the uninitiated with doubt.

Keep poking holes in this gas bag of a case Jim!

Ed

Your pile of turds is getting higher and higher with each post.

Your fear is palpable. You technical knowledge completely lacking. And the ignorance continues unabated. Welcome to CT heaven. Or is it Hell?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Duplicate..self delete

Edited September 18, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Ed thinks we need completely accurate 3d models of the BY photos.

So let try and build a great 3d model of each BY photo.

To do so we need completely accurate data sets. So lets build one shall we. Ed (or anyone)can provide us with the data.

Lets start with the most obvious.

ED, (or anyone)

What is the EXACT position of the sun for each BY Photo?

We need an EXACT answer for each photo for your renderings to be correct.

[John Dolva]

Do NOT take the brown acid....

Sorry John, what am I looking at?

If one assumes that US builders know about spirit levels or even plumbs the apparent age of the structure indicates the steps are likely a good indicator of true verticals, takes into account the flipping of image on film then it's an attempt to see if one can say anything about the orientation of the film surface to the subject and perhaps whether the photo was taken from waist level or with the camera raised up to below a down pointing head or not It's a kind of dyslexic thinking bearing in mind a thesis (from mem) about the philosophy about observer and image, ie where is the viewer? Here is an attempt to stimulate thinking about this. on the lens, on the film, behind the film, behind the filmer, in front of a projected image et.c. choosing to explore looking along a horizontal plane at the back of 'straightened' flipped and mirrored and tilted rendition using BY A as basis (because it seems least croppped (tho I think the true centre of it is slightly to the left of what the image shows) and the lines are just lines used to look at the distortions to arrive at a center. It's hard for me to conceptualise all this so I suppose it's just a concept you're looking at. Whether it has validity or not or can lead to such is another question.

[Ray Mitcham]

duplicate post

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ray Mitcham

[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"

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

That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved?

With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to

i) stay the same angle

ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective

iii) move clockwise.?

Regards,

(Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

[Craig Lamson]

That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved?

I'm not "surmising" anything. I have corrected the images to bring rotation and tilt into agreement and you can visually see the movement. Yes the camera moved Backwards, Yes the camera moved to the right, Yes LHO moved in multiple planes. Nothing earth shattering here Ray. You just can't accurately define LHO 3d movements with any degree of accuracy from the 2d Images. This is what I have said all along.

With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to

i) stay the same angle

ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective

iii) move clockwise.?

Regards,

(Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

Back produces movement clockwise.

Right produces movement clockwise.

Now can we see your tests of shadow movement based on 3d lean?

Edited September 20, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Here you go Ray,

Sized the same and aligned, or at least very close.

Please tell me how things moved, accurately.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

That's a major cop out, Craig. You are only surmising that he moved.(I'd love to hear the reply from a defending counsel to that answer.) So are you saying that the camera moved forward and the left AND LHO moved, or just that LHO moved, or just the camera moved?

I'm not "surmising" anything. I have corrected the images to bring rotation and tilt into agreement and you can visually see the movement. Yes the camera moved Backwards, Yes the camera moved to the right, Yes LHO moved in multiple planes. Nothing earth shattering here Ray. You just can't accurately define LHO 3d movements with any degree of accuracy from the 2d Images. This is what I have said all along.

With your vast experience of photography perhaps, in comparing two photographs of a similar scene and time etc. as the yard photos, you could tell me what you think would happen to the shadow of a vertical post in the center of both photos if the camera moved forward and to the left in one.(or alternatively the camera moved backwards and to the right). Would the shadow appear to

i) stay the same angle

ii) move anticlockwise to account for perspective

iii) move clockwise.?

Regards,

(Sits back and waits for "Which photo"- "Where was the sun" "What time was it" "How big is the post" "How far does the camera move forward" etc.)

Back produces movement clockwise.

Right produces movement clockwise.

Glad to see your reply. So if the camera moved backwards and to the right (As in movement CE 133b to CE133A) Can you explain why LHO's shadow moved COUNTER -clockwise?

Regards,