Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

I did not say one thing about my photographic knowledge.

I described the reaction, the photo, McAdams comments, Oswald's comments, and the implication of what McAdams said about Oswald and JCS.

Period. That was it Lammy.

This from a guy who did not even know who David Eisendrath was.

Of course you did, lets show it again...

"He doesn't want to admit that this version appears to have been taken from a different camera."

"The resolution on the photo was so much better, plus the border area was different, like it was taken on another camera."

If you had an ounce of photographic knowledge you wood know just how silly these statements really are.

Eisendrath is a meaningless aside Jim and you know it. Heck for a guy like you who tries to squeeze everything out of this, you can't even quote the actual report.

You have that report in your hands yet Jim? or are you still flinging hearsay?

C'mon Craigster.

Oswald said the photos are fake.

Why would he be working on it at JCS then, which is what McAdams said?

If you eliminate that, then what Is McAdams saying?

Its not my job to do your homework. You did not know who Eisendrath was or what his report was about.

So what kind of photographic expert are you?

One who does not do his homework, unless it backs up the WC.

SO that's it eh...OSWALD SAID...sheesh...are you gullible or what?

Who cares about Eisendrath? Only Jim looking for an angle to pimp. Is his report about the actual BY photos Jim, or something else? Oh wait...you really don't know since you have not READ THE REPORT. Sheesh.

I don't give a fig about the WC or any other 'committee' I study photos. Eisendrath has zero bearing on what the actual photos show. But you know that don't you Jim? He is yet another one of your silly canards.

And talk about homework, do you ever CHECK the work of people you point out on your website? This stuff here is simply ignorance run a muck, and YOU posted it.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread411261/pg1

Homework...try doing it.

[Craig Lamson]

Ed;CLOSE UP OF what is called the dogs nose, no one has been able to figure it out, jack found it..b

Thanks for the dog nose pic Bernice. And thanks to Jack again.

Looks like artifacts got left behind?

Interesting shape of the dark 'dog nose' and the lighter one near it.

Both appear triangular.

If one "caused" the other is only a guess, but a possibility due to their shape.

Then there is the dark streak and spots on the fence.

These anomalies may be key to understanding how the pictures were made.

Jack Whites work on the Backyard photos is truly a abject lesson in how NOT to analyze photos. The work is incredibly bad. Yet the blind continue to follow.

The negative of 133b was available. The artifacts could be checked against it. No one reported any conflicts.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

Perhaps with your experience in photography, Mr Lamson, you could explain how the angles of Oswald's shadow in CE133a and CE133b differ so much, seeing as they were taken within minutes of each other.

[Craig Lamson]

Perhaps with your experience in photography, Mr Lamson, you could explain how the angles of Oswald's shadow in CE133a and CE133b differ so much, seeing as they were taken within minutes of each other.

Sigh...his body changes position....

[Ed LeDoux]

© Evidence of retouching

(422) Each of the backyard pictures, as well as the only original

negative, was examined microscopically for evidence of retouching.

No such evidence could 'be detected . Particular attention was given

to the area to Oswald's left in CE 133-B, where it has been alleged

that a retoucher painted on a montage but carelessly allowed the color

material to spread onto the front of a nearby vertical post, thereby

giving the appearance of an indentation on the post that does not

appear in either of the other two backyard pictures. (181)

(423) Close examination of the original print revealed that the apparent

indentation is a shadow, most likely of a leaf or leaves . The

straight edge of the post is still visible in this shaded area. This

straight edge was detected and indicated by a computer programed

to seek such edges. (See fig. IV-37, JFK exhibit F-198.) (182)

(487) 15. Are the backgrounds and shadows identical on any of

the three different views (CI:-133A, CI'.-13:3, and CE-1:1:3) . thereby suggesting

that different figures have been superimposed on different

prints of a single background photograph?

(488) The speculation is either that someone started with a photograph

of a backyard with no figure and added the three figures from

other photographs, or that Oswald's head was added to three photographs

of someone else standing in the backyard . The backgrounds are.

not identical, thereby ruling out the possibility that figures were added

to three prints of a single photograph of the backyard . The differences

include changes in the convergence of vertical subject lines (the posts,

the boards in the fence, and the building on the right) with changes of

camera tilt, changes in the area of the background included in the three

views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows of some branches

and leaves.

AND

(510) The undersigned copied a photographic print with the Oswald

camera, using a -F 4 diopter supplementary lens over the camera lens,

to demonstrate that it is possible to make a copy negative that has

characteristics of an original negative including edge markings,

scratch patterns, variations in center to edge sharpness, pincushion distortion,

and consistent grain patterns (fig. RIT 22-1 A and B ) . For

this type of fakery to be successful, it would be necessary to use a large

format camera with a good quality lens for the original photographs

to avoid introducing graininess, scratches, unsharpness, or distortion

at this stage. Also, any alterations would have to be made on large

photographs so that retouching or discrepancies could be concealed.

Furthermore, the Oswald camera would have to be available to the

person making the fake photographs and it would be necessary to cal- 215

culate a combination of supplementary lens focal length and original

print size to obtain an in-focus image of the desired size with the

fixed-focus camera.

(511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include

strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens,

loss of ~,,radiation in highlight areas and loss of detail in shadow areas

which typically occurs when copies are made, and possible detection of

imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion was

much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald

camera than on the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs

made with the Oswald camera without the supplementary lens .

Since there is no wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs

are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the

shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original

photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that

are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses

marry technical problems, any one of which if not solved would lead to

detection under close examination of the photographs, we do not believe

such a procedure was used to produce the three backyard photographs

of Oswald.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Ed LeDoux

[Craig Lamson]

© Evidence of retouching

...snip...

.

Well you have proven you can cut and paste, got any other talents?

[Ray Mitcham]

Perhaps with your experience in photography, Mr Lamson, you could explain how the angles of Oswald's shadow in CE133a and CE133b differ so much, seeing as they were taken within minutes of each other.

Sigh...his body changes position....

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....")

[Craig Lamson]

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.

[Ray Mitcham]

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.

[Craig Lamson]

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....

[Bernice Moore]

Ed; just a thought in looking at the photos, could the dogs nose possibly be the very butt end of the rifle from the demorenschildt (sp) photo. somehow .left behind...??? b

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Ed; this gif comp of heads from the backyard photos was done by martin hindrichs...thank you... click on it...b <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif">ps watch the hair on the top of his head changing...

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

CL: SO that's it eh...OSWALD SAID...sheesh...are you gullible or what?

JD: This is exactly what I mean Lammy. You back the WC in every instance. In a knee jerk reaction.

I have zero allegiance to the WC or ANYONE. I'm agnostic on who killed JFK. I look at photos and study the work of the CT and LN's. How hard is that for you to understand jimmy?

.

CL: Who cares about Eisendrath? Only Jim looking for an angle to pimp. Is his report about the actual BY photos Jim, or something else? Oh wait...you really don't know since you have not READ THE REPORT. Sheesh.

JD: What a bunch of baloney. You got torched on this one Lammy. David Eisendrath was one of the preeminent commercial photographers of his era. With credentials that go way beyond yours. You did not EVEN KNOW WHO HE WAS! Unbelievable. Or what he did for the HSCA. Even more surprising. He proved they could not identify how a photo was faked even if they knew in advance it was faked!

Torched? Are you kidding? I don't give a fig about the NSCA so WHY should I need to know ANYTHING about its members to study the photos and to study the silly claims of the CT and LN community to see the claims stand up to standard photographic principles? The answer...I DON'T.

Yet another jimmy d canard!

BTW, how in the world do you know how his creds and mine stack up? You got ANYTHING besides his obit to quote? LOL!

And quite frankly you have still not read the document you continue to pimp...Talk about torched.

OK? End of story. Therefore all the BS in the HSCA volumes, and by Farid, is just that: BULL!

Ok, you still ARE a knee JERK reaction . And Farid's work still stands. Clearly you nor anyone else has even begun to touch it.

CL: I don't give a fig about the WC or any other 'committee' I study photos.

JD: You cannot be serious. Show me once where you actually took a piece of photo or film evidence in this case and you disagreed with what the WC said about it. I cannot recall one time. I mean, how could you with your politics?

Politics? Are you serious? You are a even sillier that I could have ever imagined. Photographic principles have no "politics" jimmy. I really don't know what the WC has to say about any photo or film because I don't study the WC. Why should I.

CL: Eisendrath has zero bearing on what the actual photos show. But you know that don't you Jim? He is yet another one of your silly canards.

JD: Again, you cannot be serious. See point number two above. He showed them to be a bunch of pretentious charlatans. And Blakey knew it, which is why he classified the report.

Of course I'm serious. Eisendrath is MEANINGLESS. He has NO BEARING on my work. As to his report you don't really know anything about it other than what someone told you and regardless of the character of that person it's all hearsay.

SO if you want to discuss the Eisendrath report, I'll be ever so happy to do that with you...just publish it so everyone can see the contents and THEN you MIGHT have something talk about.

In the meantime, if you don't have something besides OSWALD SAID SO to add to this discussion maybe it would be best for you to leave.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ed LeDoux]

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.

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.

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.com/books?id=9yTzkAUw6EEC&pg=PT1176&lpg=PT1176&dq=sylvia+weinstein+jfk&source=bl&ots=K8U-xGZC0f&sig=IDK7Q1J1rtfyoU62SvMHSaMugbs&hl=en&ei=A7ZnTuDOBYfKiALl75GGCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sylvia%20weinstein%20jfk&f=false

or

Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

http://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&pg=PA685&lpg=PA685&dq=oswald+picture+militant&source=bl&ots=WlmMcDSZmp&sig=ozaQ4k-jjt0NTnZ_H-M7M5tNSMw&hl=en&ei=tLNnTuf5JPPWiAKvpJmECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=oswald%20picture%20militant&f=false

Can you sort this out for me?

Gary

cc: Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

HSCA speaks for itself Craig...

Who really CARES about the HSCA Ed. Can to think for yourself?

Can you see the utter nonsense posited by those who claim the photos fake?

Inconsistency? Are you kidding?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson