Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) 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? Yes,she moved the camera Parallax of the background verticals COMPARED TO WHAT? Why don't we start with Maria moving closer to the fence. Where would you see parallax in the "fixed verticals of the background? And the next question...DO you understand the principle of the lever and how it applies to parallax? Parallax IS evident in each of the BY images indicating the CAMERA moved in relation to the scene. Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Greg has already listed what we know. You described them as road apples. You have to ignore them because if you factor these items into your data then the context and historical story of the photographs changes. No different to the controversy surrounding the Iwo Jima snap. If the context doesn't change then there would be no controversy. The reason you believe I miss you point... ...is because you don't have one. Greg has listed road apples. They mean NOTHING to the authenticity of the BY photos. And just like the Iwo Jima photo the so called 'context' means nothing. Both the BY and Iwo Jima photo are real and they faithfully depict a split second in time. And my point is and always has been quite simple. The BY photos are genuine. No amount of "context" can change this. It simply is what it is. In fact trying to apply speculative "context" is the downfall of those who want to "study" the photos. Instead of dealing directly with what can be proven they color everything with preconceived worldview. How may ct's have said the BY photos MUST be fake because of this or that piece of testimony or like jimmy do because he THINKS LHO never ordered or picked up the rifle. How circular. Just like your "context". Now if you want to "speculate" on WHY LHO had these photos taken of him , be my guest. I guess it makes a great parlor game. And of course real BY photos really screw the "context" pooch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15517&st=0 Farid the Fake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15517&st=0 Farid the Fake... Yet another STEAMING pile.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15517&st=0 Farid the Fake... Lamson the debunked. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&view=findpost&p=230357 Sarahtards make their own "reality." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15517&st=0 Farid the Fake... Lamson the debunked. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&view=findpost&p=230357 Sarahtards make their own "reality." Poor cliff, he still can't understand how the SUN works. Here is reality for you cliff... The was a 3+Inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner, Croft and Towner... And that cliff is unimpeachable... You lost this argument years ago cliff and its never coming back to you. Your problem is you don't have the first clue as to WHY you lost. But thanks for playing, you are quite comical. Edited September 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 This is a thread on the backyard photo's please gentlemen....If you want to start another borefest on fabric folds can you please start another thread (or add to the previous thousand or so) Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) This is a thread on the backyard photo's please gentlemen....If you want to start another borefest on fabric folds can you please start another thread (or add to the previous thousand or so) Thanks Thank you David; Scroll down and click ""Fake"" to see Jack's video.... on the backyard photos... http://www.jfkstudie...g/studies3.html Reasons why the backyard photographs are faked. (1) Same Lee Harvey Oswald face on 3 bodies. (2) Chin is square, not pointed. (3) Fingers are chopped off. (4) Shadows are wrong. (5) Left arm is too short. (6) Rifle is wrong length (7) Body is out of balance. (Newspapers are wrong size. (9) Rifle swivels are in the wrong place. The Missing Backyard Negative http://jfkresearch.f...missingneg.html FYI... Edited September 10, 2011 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) Thank you David; Scroll down and click ""Fake"" to see Jack's video.... on the backyard photos... http://www.jfkstudie...g/studies3.html Reasons why the backyard photographs are faked. (1) Same Lee Harvey Oswald face on 3 bodies. Wrong all three are different (2) Chin is square, not pointed. Exactly as it should be rendered from a waits level camera position (3) Fingers are chopped off. Wrong, they are perfect based on camera to suject angle (4) Shadows are wrong. Wrong Shadows are correct. (5) Left arm is too short. Wrong again (6) Rifle is wrong length Wrong again, White uses a proven faulty method (7) Body is out of balance. Based on what exactly? Please... (8)Newspapers are wrong size. Wrong, see rifle... (9) Rifle swivels are in the wrong place. Wrong again. Jack White, quite possibly the worlds WORST photo analyst The Missing Backyard Negative http://jfkresearch.f...missingneg.html FYI... And yet another steaming pile. Sheesh Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) Greg has already listed what we know. You described them as road apples. You have to ignore them because if you factor these items into your data then the context and historical story of the photographs changes. No different to the controversy surrounding the Iwo Jima snap. If the context doesn't change then there would be no controversy. The reason you believe I miss you point... ...is because you don't have one. Greg has listed road apples. http://www.youtube.c...+apples%22&aq=f Now I have, Craig. I must say, your love of this band is quite touching. What did you think of the Bondi Cigars? Your resemblance to a Bondi Cigar is uncanny! They mean NOTHING to the authenticity of the BY photos. Well, of course not. I doubt any of the band was even alive in '63. And no one has been accusing them. And just like the Iwo Jima photo the so called 'context' means nothing. If you mean the Iwo Jima photo wasn't a composite or manipulated image; correct. But it was fake, nonetheless. Both the BY and Iwo Jima photo are real and they faithfully depict a split second in time. Yes, the Iwo Jima photo "faithfully depict(s) a split second in time". But we know more than that about the photo. We know it does not depict what it purported to depict; a spontaneous "split second in time". We know now it was posed for propaganda purposes. I happen to agree with Lee. To the naked eye, the BY photos do not look "real". But I have already explained why photo analysis is a waste of time. Outside of a court or other legal setting in which cross examination of "experts" can take place, and a judge and/or jury can deliberate and come to a decision, you "experts" will go round and round on shadows and angles and shapes ans sizes and generations and anomalies ad infinitum. And I believe that suits your side of the argument just fine. I therefore declare all photo analysis counter-productive to a search for answers; and that all attempts to bring such analysis into the discussion should be ignored. You want your analysis to be heard and supported? Great. I'd support you acting as an expert on the BY photos if and when you can be put on a stand and cross examined. And my point is and always has been quite simple. The BY photos are genuine. No amount of "context" can change this. It simply is what it is. In fact trying to apply speculative "context" is the downfall of those who want to "study" the photos. Instead of dealing directly with what can be proven they color everything with preconceived worldview. I have not applied any "speculative context". I have listed what is known. Here is more of what is known for added contextual background. Faking photos and films was a part of several intelligence operations to embarrass US leftist groups and leaders and to help bring down foreign governments. In this particular case, Hoover APPROVED a post 22/11 recommendation from an underling to use Oswald to embarrass the left. How may ct's have said the BY photos MUST be fake because of this or that piece of testimony The vast majority do not argue on that basis at all. They mostly argue from the work of Jack White and one or two others. I am taking the Sylvia Meagher route. She was a wise one. or like jimmy do because he THINKS LHO never ordered or picked up the rifle. Jim THINKS that because that is what the evidence indicates. How circular. Just like your "context". Nothing circular about it, Craig. The only thing "circular" is the BY debate based on "photo analysis". Far from being "circular, I am actually short-circuiting that endless debate because there are only two ways to counter Marguerite's testimony on the photo she saw; attack her credibility -- or go down the 6th Floor Museum route of pretending that the burnt photo was just another in the same series as those in evidence. If you choose the latter, you need to explain why Marina was concerned about this "fourth" photo and not at all concerned about the other three far more incriminating ones. Now if you want to "speculate" on WHY LHO had these photos taken of him , be my guest. I guess it makes a great parlor game. The only parlor game happening here is in attempts and make the debate stay on "photo analysis" and make others believe context is irrelevant. Such thinking would lead to having to believe every piece of advertising; every faked film of foreign leaders having sex and every stage-managed photo opportunity is real. Why? Because according to you, there is no way of understanding context, so we have to accept that depiction of a "split second in time" is "real". Actually, you add another layer with the BY photos. You also expect that everyone should accept your so-say that the photos are not composites. And of course real BY photos really screw the "context" pooch.... Whether or not you have any expertise as a photo analyst, you actually need balls to screw. On that basis, I cannot accept you have any expertise in that field. Even with "man's best friend". Edited September 10, 2011 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 You ask Craig if Oswald moved. He gives you the runaround and finally says he cannot really answer. Learn to read, I said I can't ACCURATELY answer. But of course NO ONE CAN. You ask him if the camera moved in relation to the subject. He says in relation "to the background". Hmm. Why HMM, the exactly what happened. You bring up the DeM photograph, he ignores that. Irrelevant to my photo analysis You bring up the Marguerite testimony, he avoids that. Irrelevant to my photo analysisnt You bring up the evidence that says Oswald could not have that rifle at the time. He says that is "circular reasoning". (Still trying to figure out what that means in this context. Except that he does not want to admit this evidence is so strong since it destroys his argument.) Your circular logic..The backyard photo is fake so Oswald had no rifle, Oswald had no rifle so the backyard photo is fake. Thanks so much for making my earlier point so well for me. In any case the backyard photos being genuine destroys your circular reasoning. AND...Irrelevant to my photo analysis Then he says EIsendrath doesn't matter. Which is really nutty. Because it goes to the whole heart of detection of forgery. And how mumbo jumbo can cover up the fact that these guys on the HSCA panel were a bunch of charlatans with an agenda. Who cares about the guys at the HSAC? Not me why? Irrelevant to my photo analysis After all this, Lammy says he is not political. Yet ask him if he ever found any piece of film or photographic evidence that he either doubted or thought indicated conspiracy. Whats to doubt? No claims of fakery have ever held up. And try and tell the truth next time, Coping a varnell "oversell" makes you look silly...the correct quote... "Photographic principles have no "politics" jimmy." (Sound of crickets in the night.) Case closed. You are pathetic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Thank you David; Scroll down and click ""Fake"" to see Jack's video.... on the backyard photos... http://www.jfkstudie...g/studies3.html Reasons why the backyard photographs are faked. (1) Same Lee Harvey Oswald face on 3 bodies. Wrong all three are different (2) Chin is square, not pointed. Exactly as it should be rendered from a waits level camera position (3) Fingers are chopped off. Wrong, they are perfect based on camera to suject angle (4) Shadows are wrong. Wrong Shadows are correct. (5) Left arm is too short. Wrong again (6) Rifle is wrong length Wrong again, White uses a proven faulty method (7) Body is out of balance. Based on what exactly? Please... (8)Newspapers are wrong size. Wrong, see rifle... (9) Rifle swivels are in the wrong place. Wrong again. Jack White, quite possibly the worlds WORST photo analyst The Missing Backyard Negative http://jfkresearch.f...missingneg.html FYI... And yet another steaming pile. Sheesh I hope you realise Craig that after misrepresenting yourself for years on this forum by posting a false avatar , that your calling anyone elses information or replies, '' and yet another steaming pile ; Sheesh'' means nothing as you represented yourself dishonestly, therefore your work and opinions by many are now regarded in the same way.you were not honest in the first place, so that people do doubt you now, should be of no surprise...b.......below the use to be ''before'' Lamson......:Pcompare with the ''after'' avatar he now uses.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) Could you have made your post ANY harder to read and follow? sheesh And just like the Iwo Jima photo the so called 'context' means nothing. If you mean the Iwo Jima photo wasn't a composite or manipulated image; correct. But it was fake, nonetheless. Both the BY and Iwo Jima photo are real and they faithfully depict a split second in time. Yes, the Iwo Jima photo "faithfully depict(s) a split second in time". But we know more than that about the photo. We know it does not depict what it purported to depict; a spontaneous "split second in time". We know now it was posed for propaganda purposes. Oh Please, grow a pair and join the real world..."posed for propaganda..yea right. please try again, and maybe consult the photographer...again a typical ct in action I happen to agree with Lee. To the naked eye, the BY photos do not look "real". But I have already explained why photo analysis is a waste of time. Outside of a court or other legal setting in which cross examination of "experts" can take place, and a judge and/or jury can deliberate and come to a decision, you "experts" will go round and round on shadows and angles and shapes ans sizes and generations and anomalies ad infinitum. And I believe that suits your side of the argument just fine. I therefore declare all photo analysis counter-productive to a search for answers; and that all attempts to bring such analysis into the discussion should be ignored. You want your analysis to be heard and supported? Great. I'd support you acting as an expert on the BY photos if and when you can be put on a stand and cross examined. Of course you want to ignore the technical discussion , first because you don't have skill set to understand, and of course actually KNOWING the photo is genuine might simply destroys YOUR worldview as well. I could really care less if my analysis is heard and supported. I don't want people to "believe" a single thing I say. My work is grounded on basic and well prove photographic principles. I want people to actual DO THE WORK and learn for them self. As for me, its all entertainment. I simply enjoy watching ct photographic ignorance in action and then making heads explode. Thanks so much for a spectacular explosion greg. And my point is and always has been quite simple. The BY photos are genuine. No amount of "context" can change this. It simply is what it is. In fact trying to apply speculative "context" is the downfall of those who want to "study" the photos. Instead of dealing directly with what can be proven they color everything with preconceived worldview. I have not applied any "speculative context". I have listed what is known. Here is more of what is known for added contextual background. Faking photos and films was a part of several intelligence operations to embarrass US leftist groups and leaders and to help bring down foreign governments. In this particular case, Hoover APPROVED a post 22/11 recommendation from an underling to use Oswald to embarrass the left.[/color] How may ct's have said the BY photos MUST be fake because of this or that piece of testimony The vast majority do not argue on that basis at all. They mostly argue from the work of Jack White and one or two others. I am taking the Sylvia Meagher route. She was a wise one.[/color] Of course you have. It leads yo to believe the photo are fake. What could BE more speculative? No one ever said fake photos don't exist and and have been used by governments. That is NOT the question. Are the Oswald BY photos fake?..THAT is the question, and the answer is no. You can't eliminate the the technical aspects and instead try to imply fakery by other means. More CT silliness. or like jimmy do because he THINKS LHO never ordered or picked up the rifle. Jim THINKS that because that is what the evidence indicates. How circular. Just like your "context". Nothing circular about it, Craig. The only thing "circular" is the BY debate based on "photo analysis". Far from being "circular, I am actually short-circuiting that endless debate because there are only two ways to counter Marguerite's testimony on the photo she saw; attack her credibility -- or go down the 6th Floor Museum route of pretending that the burnt photo was just another in the same series as those in evidence. If you choose the latter, you need to explain why Marina was concerned about this "fourth" photo and not at all concerned about the other three far more incriminating ones. Now if you want to "speculate" on WHY LHO had these photos taken of him , be my guest. I guess it makes a great parlor game. The only parlor game happening here is in attempts and make the debate stay on "photo analysis" and make others believe context is irrelevant. Such thinking would lead to having to believe every piece of advertising; every faked film of foreign leaders having sex and every stage-managed photo opportunity is real. Why? Because according to you, there is no way of understanding context, so we have to accept that depiction of a "split second in time" is "real". Actually, you add another layer with the BY photos. You also expect that everyone should accept your so-say that the photos are not composites. You are not 'short circuiting' anything, you are simply ignoring that which will destroy your carefully crafted speculation. I don't care nor do I need testimony nor context. Just he simple question, "are the photos genuine". And quite frankly I really don't care where the truthful answer to this question leads. Its abundantly clear that a WHOLE BUNCH of you are scared to death of a truthful answer... I create advertising imagery for living and I'm quite good at it. I can fake it with the best of them. I understand "context" However there is no "context" in photoanalysis for fakery. I'm not attempting to make the debate stay anywhere. Take it wherever you want to take it. I simply look at claims of photo fakery and check them for accuracy. This endeavor is CONTEXT NEUTRAL. Either the claims pass muster based on well established photographic principles or they don't. CONTEXT NEVER ENTERS THE PICTURE. I don't exect anyone to BELIEVE anything I say. I EXPECT that my work will be carefully checked and the person doing the checking will learn the truth THEMSELVES. So please continue to ignore the technical and try and speculate about what happened. It's your time, use it as you please. And of course real BY photos really screw the "context" pooch.... Whether or not you have any expertise as a photo analyst, you actually need balls to screw. On that basis, I cannot accept you have any expertise in that field. Even with "man's best friend". That was pathetic, If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch... Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) I hope you realise Craig that after misrepresenting yourself for years on this forum by posting a false avatar , that your calling anyone elses information or replies, '' and yet another steaming pile ; Sheesh'' means nothing as you represented yourself dishonestly, therefore your work and opinions by many are now regarded in the same way.you were not honest in the first place, so that people do doubt you now, should be of no surprise...b.......below the use to be ''before'' Lamson......:Pcompare with the ''after'' avatar he now uses.......... A FALSE avatar? just how silly can you get, besides believing Jack White? ROFLMAO! That is an actual and unretouched photo direct from the camera. Wanna see the original? And the meta data? Do you even know what meta data is? LMAO! Take careful notice of the focal length bernie...and take a lesson in photo101 try and understand simple perspective....the image is the correct depiction of me using the selected lens. Nothing "dishonest" about it. YOU just have ZERO ability to understand the contents of a photograph. BTW, I WANT people to doubt what I say, because I WANT them to check the work FOR THEM SELF instead of being a parrot and just 'believing" which appears to be the standard CT mindset. Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 2 bits. Craig, I have no photo qualifications. All I have experience in using a variety of cameras as an amateur. This is certainly enough to disqualify me from commenting but as so many, no doubt a number with less experience, are commenting I see no reason why I shougn't as well. I have said before that I think you are an asset to the forum ( a bit abrasive, but, hey, who's perfect ). Through looking through the lenses of many cameras and telescopes and playing around with comp modelling plus a kind of 3d 'sense' that comes from an interest in various artforms where one of my favourites is sculpting (wood and clay) ( also harkening back to my early years studying civil engineering and the associated maths and physics ) I reiterate the previously expressed sentiment (by me ). I see no inconsistencies as outlined by others whether it be the by photos or your avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc9b0aa249119586291d4af00483c3d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now