Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

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,

Good grief Ray, do you have working eyes?

WHY? HIS BODY MOVED IN RELATION TO THE SUN!

sigh...

LHO is NOT a fence post. You however....

This appears to be totally beyond your ken Ray.

So lets recap.

Poor old Ray claims the camera never moved between the view for the BY photos. Ray is incorrect.

Rays compares a living, moving person LHO to a "post". Ray is again incorrect.

Ray wants to know why the shadow of LHO changes between photos, still thinking LHO is a "post".

The images however show that LHO changed body positions in relation to the sun between photos. Poor old Ray is still confused.

Tests confirm that movements similar to the ones seen in the BY photos for LHO's body create shadow movements that are completely consistent with what is seen in the BY photos. Poor old Ray is SURE to more confused than ever now....

Edited September 20, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

Good grief Ray, do you have working eyes?

WHY? HIS BODY MOVED IN RELATION TO THE SUN!

sigh...

LHO is NOT a fence post. You however....

This appears to be totally beyond your ken Ray.

So lets recap.

Poor old Ray claims the camera never moved between the view for the BY photos. Ray is incorrect.

I'll ignore the gratuitous insults. Wrong. I say the camera did not move forward, backward or sideways, not that it "never moved"

Regards,

[Ray Mitcham]

Rays compares a living, moving person LHO to a "post". Ray is again incorrect.

Is he actually a "moving person" in the photographs? I would have thought that he was a "stationary person" for the purposes of the photo.

Ray wants to know why the shadow of LHO changes between photos, still thinking LHO is a "post".

I don't consider LHO to be a post but to be a person who is standing still LIKE a post. Maybe you disagree.

The images however show that LHO changed body positions in relation to the sun between photos. Poor old Ray is still confused.

You keep saying that LHO changes his position in relation to the sun but never explain exactly what you mean. There is virtually no difference in his stances in all three photographs.In each one, he is leaning slightly to his right weight on his right foot. If, the camera had not moved (you say it did) his shadow would be the same angle. If it moved in the direction you said, i.e. Back and to the right, the shadow would have changed in the direction that you said i.e. clockwise. It has changed the other direction, to anticlockwise.

Tests confirm that movements similar to the ones seen in the BY photos for LHO's body create shadow movements that are completely consistent with what is seen in the BY photos. Poor old Ray is SURE to more confused than ever now....

Poor old Ray would like you to show the tests that you quote.

Regards,

Edited September 21, 2011 by Ray Mitcham

[Craig Lamson]

Rays compares a living, moving person LHO to a "post". Ray is again incorrect.

Is he actually a "moving person" in the photographs? I would have thought that he was a "stationary person" for the purposes of the photo.

Come on Ray, you wrote about comparing TWO photos, so no, he was NOT stationary. Your confusion continues unabated. Who would have ever guessed [/sarcasm}

Ray wants to know why the shadow of LHO changes between photos, still thinking LHO is a "post".

I don't consider LHO to be a post but to be a person who is standing still LIKE a post. Maybe you disagree.

Of course you consider him to be a post, you just SAID so. Sigh.

The images however show that LHO changed body positions in relation to the sun between photos. Poor old Ray is still confused.

You keep saying that LHO changes his position in relation to the sun but never explain exactly what you mean. There is virtually no difference in his stances in all three photographs.In each one, he is leaning slightly to his right weight on his right foot. If, the camera had not moved (you say it did) his shadow would be the same angle. If it moved in the direction you said, i.e. Back and to the right, the shadow would have changed in the direction that you said i.e. clockwise. It has changed the other direction, to anticlockwise.

Are you serious Ray or is this just your age acting up again? Can I tell you exactly how LHO moved? Of course not. I can't measure his 3d body to get an accurate position, but we CAN see he moved to a great extent despite your silly claims he did not.

Lets look shall we?

Clearly poor old Ray has a visual acuity problem.

In addition Ray has a pretty poor understanding how the SUN works. Poor old Ray thinks that changes in positon of LHO's body in relation othte sun will not change the cast shadow. Silly old Ray. He just failed sunlight 101.

BTW Ray, please notice the changes in perspective you claim are missing...sigh.....

Tests confirm that movements similar to the ones seen in the BY photos for LHO's body create shadow movements that are completely consistent with what is seen in the BY photos. Poor old Ray is SURE to more confused than ever now....

Poor old Ray would like you to show the tests that you quote.

Poor old Ray should actually DO the work himself and learn something instead of flapping his hands wildly. You DO know how to work a camera, don't you? Why not show us the work that backup your claim that

"There is virtually no difference in his stances in all three photographs.In each one, he is leaning slightly to his right weight on his right foot. If, the camera had not moved (you say it did) his shadow would be the same angle. "

Why not show us poor old Ray. Or are you also unable to post simple image comparisons? If you can't I'm sure there must be a simple computer graphics for Dummies book or something like it to help you along.

Can't wait to see your proofs Ray.

You just gotta love seeing CT ignorance continue unabated.

[Ray Mitcham]

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows.

But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn.

Regards,

[Craig Lamson]

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows.

But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn.

Regards,

Do the maths Ray and then tell us how much movement you think you should be seeing in the verticals? Its really quite simple, the principle of the lever....

Edited September 23, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

Quite correct Mr Lamson, I am unable to post image comparisons as I don't have the software on the i-pad I am using. However thanks for showing the above gif. I will concede that it does appear to blow my theory about the shadows, out of the water. I must try a few more experiments with shadows.

But it also seems to confirm my contentions that the camera hasn't moved forward or backwards between photographs, as the parallax relationships between the verticals on the right and left of LHO haven't changed, as they should have if the camera had moved. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong on this. As I have said previously, I'm always ready to learn.

Regards,

Do the maths Ray and then tell us how much movement you think you should be seeing in the verticals? Its really quite simple, the principle of the lever....

I will try if you can give me the relevant measurements.

Regards

[Craig Lamson]

Why am I giving you measurements Ray?

But here is a start. The Imperial reflex needs 12-14 feet to fill the frame with a 6 foot person, with minimal head or foot room....

Edited September 23, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Paul Trejo]

Marina was very confused during her Warren Commiission testimony -- she could originally recall taking one photograph. Let's briefly review her original testimony:

-------------------- BEGIN excerpt of Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on Monday 3 February 1964 -------------------

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can’t say exactly. Because I didn’t attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don’t know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me if someone should ask me how to photograph, I don’t know.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.

Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and I was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?

Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attelltion to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are af great significance for everybody, but for me at that lime it didn’t mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn’t need photographs like that.

-------------------- END excerpt of Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on Monday 3 February 1964 -------------------

Notice that she originally recalled taking only one picture. Then she was shown two different poses, so she concluded -- by logic and not by memory -- that she must have taken two. That confused her memory.

Then, in 1977 when she was questioned again by the HSCA, she was shown three different poses, and she had to explain that she only "remembered" in 1964 taking two, but now she sees she must have taken three. Marina's HSCA testimony on this topic is profoundly confused.

I don't think this was deliberate deception by the Government, although it could easily seem so. There were even more than these three, since sometimes the rifle scope appears on it, and sometimes it is absent!

What is clear is that somebody doctored one original photograph. We know this is true because experts have shown that the face of one photograph has been pasted onto a different bodily pose in at least one other photograph, and then even that second photograph was doctored.

In my view, it has been sufficiently proven that camera fakery was used to make extra variations on one photograph. The real question, now, is who could have done this? And why? A few JFK researchers have speculated that the Government did this as early as March, 1963, because they were already plotting the murder of JFK and to make Oswald the patsy. I disagree. It requires imagining a scenario out of thin air.

No, the most straightforward explanation is given to us by the fact that in early 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was working at a sophisticated photographic laboratory named Jagger/Chiles/Stovall in Dallas, where he had been working since October, 1962. Lee was a camera buff, and he would use company equipment for personal projects, according to his co-worker. (For example, the phony ID card of Alek J. Hidell was created on the Jagger/Chiles/Stovall photography equipment.)

Since in the backyard photograph Lee was holding an issue of The Militant newspaper in which ex-General Edwin Walker accused of being a fascist like Hitler, we can plausibly speculate that Lee already had plans to shoot at Walker. Since that was a crime, we can also suppose that Lee planned for a plausible deniability for his photograph -- he would make 'fakes' of it so he could later prove they were 'fakes' in court, just in case the police ever found these photographs.

As for the negatives and other items from this fakery that appeared in the Dallas Police Department files, I will venture a guess -- they came from the Jagger/Chiles/Stovall employees who found them there, and that fact was hushed up because Jagger/Chiles/Stovall did military work for the Government.

I think this is what Adams might have been proposing. Since there are so many photographic experts on this thread, I'd like your opinions. Not so much about how it was done (since equipment like the sort used at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall would be sufficient), but who could have done it, and why.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 24, 2012 by Paul Trejo