Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, no one avoids the point with as much arrogance as you do.

So you are saying that you cannot tell where Oswald moved in relation to Marina?

And then you say that you do not know because you cannot figure out where he was at first?

Well, then did he move at all?

Can you answer that obvious one?

Jim, is reading really that hard for you or is it just that words mean nothing.

Heck you are totally oblivious to the point.

Lets try and and I'll talk r e a l l y slow so maybe you can understand (fat chance but what the heck)

The photos are in 2D space jimmy,( that means they are flat)

The scene was 'in the world' (that means the everything in the scene occupied a specific place in 3d space)

Since all we have to look at is a 2d depiction of a 3d scene ( that flat thing jimmy) we don't have enough "clues" to decide the actual way Oswald occupies the 3d space ( that means how he actually stood in the real world jimmy)

Since we have no way of knowing HOW he stood in one photo it is impossible to tell how he actually moved to get to his position in the second image. (That means we don't know exactly how he stood..in either picture. jimmy)

And that of course is why it is impossible to do a "recreation" based on a 2d image...you can't get the 3d aspects correct, you can only guess.

I can't tell you how Oswald moved at accurately, in 3d space ( that would be the world jimmy, the 2d photos ( that would be the flat things jimmy)don't give us enough data.

Of course Oswald moved, we just can't say HOW MUCH or WHERE TO (you do understand those worlds don't you jimmy?) with any degree of accuracy. (that means getting it really close jimmy)

Now why don't you tell us I'm wrong and prove it to use by showing us exactly how the body on the backyard photos moved from one photo to the next.

This should be HIGHLY amusing to say the least!

LMAO...

Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Then let me ask you this one:

Did Marina move in relation to the subject?

Marina moved in relation to the background....

[Greg Parker]

Learn to rtead.

I'm sure he will... once you learn to trype...

Bottom line: we all know both sides of an argument can drag out their experts - and without a court to decide, such debates will generally always be deadlocked.

So let's ditch the experts until this thing is re-investigated and comes before a court or other legal setting and look at what common sense tells us from the other evidence.

1. We know with relative certainty that Oswald owned a shotgun in Minsk at the time June was born.

2. We know Marguerite testified to seeing a photo of her son holding a weapon above his head and that the photo was inscribed to his daughter.

3. We know Marguerite testified to seeing the above photo and ONLY that photo.

4. We know from Marguerite's testimony that the only person who likely knew about the photo apart from herself and Marina, was Ruth Paine.

5. We know Ruth Paine was very chummy with the FBI.

6. We know Marguerite testified to Marina panicking on the day of the assassination about the above photo as being potentially incriminating and burning it the next day despite Marguerite's assurances that there was nothing about the photo which should go against Lee

7. We are led to believe that although Marina thought the above photo needed to be destroyed, that she did NOT think that other photos showing Oswald wearing all black and carrying a rifle, pistol and two newspapers of extreme political groups should be.

8. We know that no black clothing was found among Oswald's possessions.

9. We know Marina originally testified to taking only one photo.

10. We know that at the time they lived on Neely St, that family snaps were taken.

11. We know Oswald was allegedly shown the BY photos and (again, allegedly) stated they were fakes.

12. We know that post-assassination, the FBI was seriously keen on using Oswald to humiliate the Left in counterintelligence operations. We see evidence of this being carried out in regard to the ACLU (see post # 41)

13. The know the Imperial Reflex camera was not taken into evidence - despite all the photos allegedly found which would help convict Oswald in the pubic eye.

14. We know Marina initially led investigators to believe she thought Lee may have brought the shotgun back with him from Russia (presumably because it was the ONLY weapon she knew him to ever own, and if he killed the president, he therefore MUST have brought it over... before claiming before the WC that he had actually sold the weapon in Russia and hinting that what she had said previously was only to protect him.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.The photo Marina destroyed was of Oswald holding the shotgun in Minsk in celebration of his newborn child.

2. Ruth Paine told the FBI about this photo.

3. The FBI was keen to nail Oswald in the court of public opinion. It was also keen to smear the Left using Oswald.

4. Photos taken at Neeley St - maybe as early as Feb 15 on June's 1st birthday. Includes at least one showing back yard.

5. The above photos were used to make the BY photos now in evidence with the idea coming from the story of the original Minsk shotgun photo.

The only way out for those wanting to defend the photos as the real deal is to attack Marguerite.

[Craig Lamson]

CONCLUSIONS:

1.The photo Marina destroyed was of Oswald holding the shotgun in Minsk in celebration of his newborn child.

2. Ruth Paine told the FBI about this photo.

3. The FBI was keen to nail Oswald in the court of public opinion. It was also keen to smear the Left using Oswald.

4. Photos taken at Neeley St - maybe as early as Feb 15 on June's 1st birthday. Includes at least one showing back yard.

5. The above photos were used to make the BY photos now in evidence with the idea coming from the story of the original Minsk shotgun photo.

The only way out for those wanting to defend the photos as the real deal is to attack Marguerite.

Those are not "conclusions" those are road apples....

[Greg Parker]

Those are not "conclusions" those are road apples....

Good point. Just like those who "copied" the Minsk shotgun photo pretty well, but not perfectly..... so the Road Apples do okay, but not perfectly, with their versions of originals.

And tragically here I was thinking you weren't "cool" or "hip".

Now, about Marguerite's testimony?

Mrs. OSWALD.... Now, gentlemen, this is some very important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English. I said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture.Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on on television--I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don't know all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination--"To my daughter, June." Because I would immediately say, and I remember--I think my son is all agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence. So, I didn't think a thing about it. And it says "To my daughter, June." I said, "The police," meaning that if the police got that, they would use that against my son, which would be a natural way to think. She says, "You take, Mamma."' "Yes, Mamma, you take." I said, "No, Marina. Put back in the book." So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know.So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she--we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, "Mamma, picture." She had the picture folded up in her shoe. Now, I did not see that it was the picture. but I know that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn't open for me to see. I said, "Marina." Just like that. So Robert came along and he says,"Robert" I said, "No, no Marina." I didn't want her to tell Robert about the picture. Right there, you know. That was about the picture.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell her to destroy the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. Now, I have to go into this. I want to tell you about destroying the picture. Now, that was in Mrs. Paine's home.

[------]

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.

The Curator of the 6th Floor museum saying that this photo was the 4th in the series of photos now in evidence is propagating plain old misinformation. No wife trying to protect her husband would single this photo out as the one to be concerned out.

--------------

And Marina's?

Mr. RANKIN. In Russia did you have a rifle or a shotgun?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the difference. One and the other shoots. You men. That is your business.

The CHAIRMAN. My wife wouldn't know the difference, so it is all right.

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never served in the Army.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss what the rifle cost with your husband?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what happened to the gun that you had in Russia? Was it brought over to this country?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, he sold it there. I did not say so when I had the first interviews. You must understand this was my husband. I didn't want to say too much.

Marina had originally assumed the assassination weapon was the Minsk shotgun - that being the only weapon she knew of, and even though she had no idea as to whether Oswald had brought it over from the USSR.

-----------------

Speaking of Road Apples, it just occurred to me - you're the spitting image of a Bondi Cigar! "Groovy'!

Edited September 9, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Craig Lamson]

Poor Greg, all they time typing that reply and he loses because he backyard photos are genuine.

Why? Because they are internally consistent. Far too consistent for them to be composites.

And not ONE argument that they are fake has every held up over all these years..for THREE so called composites.

[Craig Lamson]

Childish, Craig, is calling people names who disagree with you. Isn't that so?

I would expect a variation of shadow between the study and the photos given the variables involved but not in the way we see them. They are completely unnatural compared to what Farid generated. They are blobby and gappy and simply do not follow the countours of his face.

You can keep throwing your insulting rhetoric around all you want but I have two eyes in my head, and can see what I can see, regardless of how many times you tell me that I don't see it.

Again learn to READ lee. I called your objection childish, not you.

That changes You are being childish. Stomping your feet and crying...but they don't match. Never mind Farid never TRIED to make them match.

So the shadows are "unnatural" based on what? lee farley's eyeballing? Surely you have something better than that?

You may have two eyes but the gray matter behind them can't deal with the data they deliver.

What a hoot, farley with his fingers stuck in his ears, feet stomping, screaming I can't hear you...

[Craig Lamson]

Sigh. Based upon Farid's study. [shakes head in disbelief]

Too much of a completely different outcome and unless Oswald had toblerone shaped cheekbones then the massive difference in outcome is perfectly VISIBLE to everyone's eyeballs. Not just mine. The reason the grey matter behind your own eyeballs sees something different is because it is your job to keep banging the drum about the authenticity of these photographs.

Keep on drummin'.

Keep stomping your feet and pushing those fingers deeper into your ears lee, and complaining that a computer model not designed to completely match Oswalds face ....does not match Oswalds face.

Can it get any more silly than that!

I see reality lee. You are locked so tightly in your Oswald did not do it worldview you can't see anything else.

That's what happens when a worldview overrides everything else. I don't know if Oswald did it or not, I don't care.

I just know what the photos tell us, and I love seeing CT's and LN's all tied up in knots...like lee...trying to defend the indefensible.

There is nothing wrong with the shadows on LHO's face in the backyard photos, in fact they are perfectly consistent with REALITY. But then again reality never figures into lee's worldview.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm asking a simple question. Did Oswald have cheekbones like toblerone pieces for the results of the Farid study to be completely different from the BYP's? The results are not subtle here. They are bizarrely different.

As far as the other stuff you're rattling on about - who cares?

Were Oswalds cheeks different than the computer model? Yes. Of course you knew that.

And quite frankly the results are striking similar not completely different, and they are realistic. In case you missed this little bit of reality lee, peoples faces are INDIVIDUAL. Not to mention cheeks CHANGE SHAPE depending upon facial movements. Try it yourself...put a thumb and finger on your cheeks and change your expression...and feel your cheeks change shape. yourself...oh wait, that is just too realistic....

Reality, a concept that has bypassed lee farley...

And your childish ear pluging and feet stomping continues....

Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

More insults. How about this? I ask a question - you pose an answer? You ask a question - I pose an answer? Would that work for you or are you going to continue with the name calling?

They are completely different - hence my question about toblerone cheekbones. They are massively different. If you're claiming they are "strikingly similar" then, like almost every other occassion that anyone begins to endeavour to "discuss" things with you, I'm kicking you to the curb because of the spiral that always leads down to the gutter.

They are DIFFERENT. Not SIMILAR.

You continue to play in the gutter lee because you are trapped in a warped worldview that DEMANDS the photos be fake. If they are real your worldview EXPLODES.

You have seen the reasons why your argument fails miserably yet you persist in saying it is correct...sheesh.

Like it or not the lighting and shadows of Farid's model ARE strikingly similar to the backyard photos. You can kick and scream like a child as long as you like but it won't change that simple fact.

Are they PERFECT as you childishly demand? Of course not, Farid produced a MODEL, he did not completely RECREATE Oswald's face...a face I might add that changes shape based on expression and other movements. Faces are NOT static.

You can't change the reality that the BY photos have never been proven to be fake. Heck the stuff that passes for photo analysis ( see lee farley for one) by CT'S of the BY photos is mind numbingly bad. Of course that's pretty much the ct standard.

So continue to stomp your feet and plug your ears and live forever in your fantasy. How typical. You can't handle the truth about the BY photos lee, it would make your world explode.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ray Mitcham]

Then let me ask you this one:

Did Marina move in relation to the subject?

Marina moved in relation to the background....

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?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, the BYP's are surplus to requirements for my "worldview" concerning Oswald's innocence to be correct. Keep ignoring the historical aspects of these photos dude. You have no answers for the things you call "road apples."

These "road apples" are what many of us call "important questions."

Right lee, keep telling yourself that. Let the fantasy continue.

If the BY photos are real your worldview explodes and you know it...which is why you try SO DESPERATELY (and fail miserably) try to make sure they stay 'fake". "Historical aspects" are meaningless as far as determining the authenticity of the BY photos are concerned.

However since the photos are REAL, your 'historical aspects" get blown to pieces.

Its really quite amazing how much needs to be fake for your 'historical aspects" to be true...

ROFLMAO!

[Craig Lamson]

On the contrary, Craig. The historical aspect of the BYP's is the story behind them and the story of what happened after the were allegedly found. The story of how they came into existence is as important as the question of authenticity. If they're fake then someone made them for some reason. If they're genuine then Oswald made them for some reason. The reasons are more important than the photos.

You see, the photo's sit within a wider context concerning the manipulation of Oswald, of which the documentary record speaks for itself.

Oswald being manipulated is "unimpeachable fact."

No lee that's where you worldview gets into the way. The photos are the photos and that's what they mean. They are only a depiction of a VERY tiny slice of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

You will never know why Oswald made them, because you can't ask him or read his mind. Heck he might have just wanted to see himself with the guns. Makes as much sense as anything else. Everything you THINK you have is speculative.

And of course that's why all these years after JFK was shot you guys are still thrashing around.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The manipulation of Oswald is not speculation. It's a fact. It's as factual as the existence of these photographs.

The hope is that maybe Marina will one day come clean as to the reasons why she lied about taking them. Those pesky road apples aren't going away.

Keep living the fantasy lee.

[Craig Lamson]

No lee that's where you worldview gets into the way. The photos are the photos and that's what they mean. They are only a depiction of a VERY tiny slice of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

The recent controversy concerning the famous Iwo Jima photograph is a perfect example of how you are actually spouting nonsense, Craig.

Was the raising of the flag on the South Pacific island a spontaneous act of victory or stage managed propaganda?

The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdos Square.

Was this a spontaneous act of celebration or stage managed propaganda with thousands of pissed-off Iraqi's kept at bay and contained around the square?

The context changes the meaning. If these images are stage managed then their meaning changes.

The BYP's. A spontaneous act to show off "his" weapons? Or stage managed propaganda?

You miss the point..entirely...again.

The BY photos are just that, photos of LHO in his backyard. You don't have a CLUE about the real "context" of the BY photos. They stand alone. Nor is it likely you ever will. All you have is the endless speculation that has lasted over decades.

What we DO know...the images are genuine. And quite frankly that's ALL you will ever know.

Live with it.