Backyard pictures

[Greg Parker]

My latest comments in this shade

Could you have made your post ANY harder to read and follow? sheesh

You're the one who keeps wanting to talk about your favorite Canuck covers band, Craig. My favorite Canuck covers band, by the way, you know... in case you were wondering... is The Mongrels. I only have to get hold of one more of their albums and I'll have 'em all.

But every time we start talking about this, I just keep thinking of you as one of the Bondi Cigars. Another thought: By crikey, you wouldn't be out of place fronting the Brown-Eyed Mullets, either!

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

You're a Palinite and you're telling me to join the real world?

The photographer was asked in Guam if the photo was posed. He replied in the affirmative. But then it won him a Pulitzer IRRC, and all of a sudden, he started claiming that when he answered "yes, it was posed", he thought he was being asked about a group photo taken after the flag raising. Yeah, sure. Now why would he think that he was being asked if an obviously posed photo was in fact, posed, let alone assume that he was being asked about any other photo except the one that was causing the big flap?

And did it not go on to be handled by the Marine's Public Relations people? Do you understand that the term "Public Relations" was coined as a euphemism for "Propaganda"?

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.

Correct. I don't have the skill set. That is m,y whole point. The majority of us do not. Outside a court, you self-proclaimed "experts" just cancel each other out. Has anyone on either side of the photo arguments ever been persuaded to change his/her mind? No? I thought not. I have no fear of your analysis and I repeat, since you didn't seem to get it the first time - I would be more than happy for you to have your chance to put your "expert" opinion to a judge and jury under cross-examination. Same goes for Jack White and any one else who cares to put their hand up.

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?

Of course I have... what?

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.

Just on your say so? Even though you are way cooler (being a fan of the Road Apples and looking like a Bondi Cigar) than I previously believed, I'm afraid your say-so alone still doesn't cut it.

You can't eliminate the the technical aspects and instead try to imply fakery by other means. More CT silliness.

You haven't provided any "technical aspects".

And what the hell does "imply fakery by other means" actually mean?

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 don't think anyone really cares whether they are real or not - except die-hard nutters. Why? Because no one's conspiracy beliefs rest on those photos alone. But if they are not real.... bye bye nutters. In that respect, all the destaration on the BY photo/s debate is on YOUR side of the argument.

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.

Yes. Understood. It doesn't matter to you what the players in this drama actually said under oath which points to a single photo taken in Minsk. Couldn't be that your analysis is just plain wrong, even when all the other evidence suggests you must be.

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.

There was a photo taken of fairies in a garden in the early part of the 20th Century. It was not uncovered as a fake until the '70s. And it was NOT exposed by "photo analysis experts" but by someone recognizing the fairies as looking exactly like those in a particular children's book. That's 60 years of "experts" being unable to show pictures of fairies for chrissakes were fakes! You think you can't be fooled? Think again.

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.

Aha. But didn't you already point out I don't have the skill set to do that. Wouldn't you prefer to have your analysis tested in a legal setting instead of by some clueless bozo from the outback? Indeed, would not that be preferable to endless debates with CTs who DO claim such expertise and whose minds you will never change?

What are you scared of? Really?

So please continue to ignore the technical and try and speculate about what happened. It's your time, use it as you please.

Everyone indeed, should ignore the technical arguments - until they can be properly examined and tested by the legal system.

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...

Okay. Here's the deal. I'll stay on the porch if you stay off the pooch. You were only holding it's tail anyhow...

[Bernice Moore]

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.

Ok the avatar wasn't false, you were; are.

No matter what you say now, people still do not believe you, and for an update; same old; Craig..As Some Have Often Said and still are; THERE HE GOES AGAIN!! Continuing WITH HIS GARBAGE IN; AND GARBAGE OUT; anything to disrupt..

http://www.jfkassass...opic,478.0.html

Edited September 10, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

Ok the avatar wasn't false, you were; are.

No matter what you say now, people still do not believe you, and for an update; same old; Craig..As Some Have Often Said and still are; THERE HE GOES AGAIN!! Continuing WITH HIS GARBAGE IN; AND GARBAGE OUT; anything to disrupt..

http://www.jfkassass...opic,478.0.html

LOL! so nice to see you explode so foolishly bernie.

Since you don't have the technical skill set to understand you are left in the sorry stare of simply BELIEVING.

Photographically you would not know the truth if it bit you on the behind.

If my work is garbage, then prove it. In fact I WELCOME people taking it apart.

But thanks for posting Hinrichs faulty backyard cad work. It simply reinforces my position.

BTW Martin, we are STILL all waiting for the revised works you promised...what has it been now... TWO AND A HALF years ago...roflmao!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, although I'm sure you couldn't give a flying fudge about my opinion, I must say that I find your viewpoint extremely odd. I for one have never really questioned the authenticity of the BY photos but I still find the "why" of their exsistence endlessly fascinating.

Are you not even a tiny bit curious as to why they were taken?

And if not, are you sure this is the right forum for you?

Martin, I'm a a photographer and my interest is the photographs and the attempts to label them fake. I'm here because there is constant discussion along those lines. I'm also here because doing this improves my photographic skill set, both professionally and forensically.

I don't care to speculate on WHY a certain image might or might not have been created. Why? Because there is now way of knowing for certain.

I prefer to spend my time with things that can be proven empirically.

If you or others wish to pursue opinion, that's perfectly fine by me.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

CL: "Photographic principles have no "politics" jimmy."

But those who apply them do. And you are the number one prime example of that that I know of.

Again the the correct application of the photographic principles are political agnostic and you know it jim, you posit yet another strawman. IF my application is incorrect then please detail why.

Only someone as slanted as you could:

1. Ignore the Eisendrath study

Again Eisendrath and the HSCA are IMMATERIAL to the work I am doing since it does not rely on either. Yet another jimmy d strawman exposed.

2. Ignore the DeM photo

Immaterial and just jimmy d tossing a smelly strawwman turd over the transom.

3. Ignore all the evidence that Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle. And there is a ton of it. Then call it "circular". It is not. It is linear.

It is circular, and has no bearing on a technical study of the BY photos. Are you tired of having your useless strawmen exposed yet?

4. Ignore the Marguerite testimony about the "orphan" photograph.

Plesse explain WHY this is relevant to a purely technical study of the BY photos? Oh wait, sorry. You can't. You are just tossing strawmen turds again.

One last point Craig, are you going to make like Duncan, and shadow in the chin?

That's Duncan not me and besides there is no need. The Oswald chin is perfectly depicted in the BY photos and is internally consistent with foreshortening caused by camera position. Is that to technical for you jimmy?

Its case closed for jimmy d's irrelevant objections. Time for you to argue the technical if you want to play. Do you have the skill set to do so jimmy?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Bernice Moore]

Ok the avatar wasn't false, you were; are.

No matter what you say now, people still do not believe you, and for an update; same old; Craig..As Some Have Often Said and still are; THERE HE GOES AGAIN!! Continuing WITH HIS GARBAGE IN; AND GARBAGE OUT; anything to disrupt..

http://www.jfkassass...opic,478.0.html

LOL! so nice to see you explode so foolishly bernie.

Since you don't have the technical skill set to understand you are left in the sorry stare of simply BELIEVING.

Photographically you would not know the truth if it bit you on the behind.

If my work is garbage, then prove it. In fact I WELCOME people taking it apart.

But thanks for posting Hinrichs faulty backyard cad work. It simply reinforces my position.

BTW Martin, we are STILL all waiting for the revised works you promised...what has it been now... TWO AND A HALF years ago...roflmao!

There he goes again ; you really do have a difficult time with reading comprehension, it appears; You say you have no interest in the jfk assassination, only the photography, and that you want people to understand such, and constantly point out what you comprehend as their errors, and yet you constantly chase them away,and have for so very long, with your deliberate childish condescending and at times ugly comments, that's the farce of your pretense..no wonder they do not learn from you, but have ignored what you have been offering for years.

[David G. Healy]

In 1928 Stephen Vincent Benet published his epic poem John Brown's Body. The most majestic of literary writings concerning slavery and one of the most famous of abolitionists, John Brown.

When trying to discuss things related to Lee Harvey Oswald with Craig Lamson, I am reminded of my favorite part of the poem.

The Law is our yardstick

And it measures well

Or well enough when there are yards to measure

Measure a wave with it. Measure a fire!

Cut sorrow up in inches

Weigh content

You can weigh John Brown's body well enough

But how, and in what measure, can you weigh John Brown

As Greg Parker has already pointed out. It is the Oswald is guilty side of this argument that needs these photographs to be genuine. Because if they are ever proven fake, then the whole house of cards falls down around them.

But we don't need them. We have enough. We endeavor to weigh content. Let Craig continue to measure yards.

wonderful and thank you, Lee Farley!

[Craig Lamson]

LAMMY,

are you also going to say, like the HSCA, that its a watermark above the ersatz chin?

You've never seen a watermark that extended the full width of a medium format negative jimmy? I have, and its not uncommon. Heck have you ever ever PROCESSED a medium format b/w negative jimmy?

If you have not your opinion is pretty much worthless.

But I digress. I don't have the negative to examine so I can't comment.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

But we don't need them. We have enough. We endeavor to weigh content. Let Craig continue to measure yards.

Keep telling yourself that lee, meanwhile the honest see you and the others trying in vain to trying keep the fantasy of the faked BY photos alive.

The falsehoods of your statements are amply illustrated by your actions.

If you had enough you would not be posting in this thread.

Your fear is palpable.

[Craig Lamson]

There he goes again ; you really do have a difficult time with reading comprehension, it appears; You say you have no interest in the jfk assassination, only the photography, and that you want people to understand such, and constantly point out what you comprehend as their errors, and yet you constantly chase them away,and have for so very long, with your deliberate childish condescending and at times ugly comments, that's the farce of your pretense..no wonder they do not learn from you, but have ignored what you have been offering for years.

My my , it is always a pleasure to see you fuming.

I don't expect many in this venue to actually have what it take to view the photographic record honestly. How could they? Like you they have a world view to defend at all costs.

I simply don't care if these people listen and learn because that would require intellectual honesty and there is dang little of that in the CT community when it comes to the photographs.

Listen, study and actually learn something or not, I really don't care.

I'm here because I'm having fun busting long held photographic falsehoods. My personal satisfaction and the entertainment value of watching the parlor game is my reward.

You don't want to read, hey that works just fine for me, you bring nothing to the table anyways. Tune out. Make my day.

[Bernice Moore]

I AM FAR FROM FUMING, i am laughing,at you, the same old, predictable and very boring, lamson.....get a ruddy life.....

To carry on for i take it the most..Somewhere gone far astray in this tried to photograph, study, wanted to be,BUT , there was mention i believe of LHO WEARING A wrist WATCH IN the photos, but not having one in his belongings.....i found shown below a photo of his pocket watch found, this may be of interest to some...also the chin study of lho done for the HSCA,,,b

[Craig Lamson]

I AM FAR FROM FUMING, i am laughing,at you, the same old, predictable and very boring, lamson.....get a ruddy life.....

To carry on for i take it the most..Somewhere gone far astray in this tried to photograph, study, wanted to be,BUT , there was mention i believe of LHO WEARING A wrist WATCH IN the photos, but not having one in his belongings.....i found shown below a photo of his pocket watch found, this may be of interest to some...also the chin study of lho done for the HSCA,,,b

Sure bernie...live the fantasy, It's all you have....

Edited September 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Jim Phelps]

Here is a simple test for these Oswald Photo's. There are two lines of projection that can be seen with high accuracy. The first one is the top of Oswald's head and the Sun's shadow of the top of his head behind him. In 3-D space take a string and tape the end on the fence at the top of the head's shadow and the other end straight across LHO's head--just touching, as a ray of light would follow.

Next one, use one of the steps on the stairway and do the string trajectory again, sun ray modeling. Tip of the shadow on the stair's vertical truss frame to just touching the rear of the step's hang over of the vertical truss.

I see these two tests point to the same direction toward the Sun.

What is misleading in these photos is what appears to be the vertical post's shadow under the stair. Many think the showdow in the fence is from that post, it isn't. The shadow on the fence is from the sloping stair support and makes the fence shawdow have an odd angle that makes the photo looked forged. The post and the pseudo post shadow are mutually exclusive of each other.

Only photo experts with a sharp eye for perspectives and lines of projections of established points can correctly identify the light source and make their estimation correctly count.

Mr. Lamson's eyes for these perspectives are correct.

With that said, I am not sure there was never any photo magic like insertion of LHO face into the photo. There exists some sillouttes, in the Dallas Police's collections, like someone was playing games with these photos.

One of the most critical points to observe is LHO's right ear in these two photos, as there should be a slight shadow effect and it exists.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Craig Lamson]

I see, so your interest here is strictly professional then? Makes sense. After all, you always conduct yourself in an extremely professional manner while you're here...

While we're on the subject what exactly are your formal qualifications in photography and the photographic sciences?

I am of course most interested in the credentials that would have a court recognize you as an expert in detecting photographic fogery, manipulation etc.

No, my interest here is for my own entertainment. I conduct myself in the manner that best fits the entertainment value this forum provides.

My experience and credentials, over 30 years creating advertising photography including extensive experience in both analog and digital image manipulation and compositing. It also includes extensive experience in process ( both manual and automation, color and b/w, negative and reversals), duplication, copy process, process camera , optical printer nad anamation camera operation.

Film Formats used, 8mm 16mm, 35mm, 120, 620, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14.

My currect website: www.craiglamson.com

Now Martin, yours?

[John Dolva]

I think that's the answer Martin. Not exactly a popularity contest, is it? Imo that should be put aside and I think the question of ''why'' is a worthwhile pursit, and I don't think Craig's the person to get an answer to that from.

While on that matter. The papers are often referred to as conflicting. That's really an outsiders pov. The SWP and the CPUSA were moving closer and the FBIs' COINTELPROSWP and COINTELPROCPUSA was always about seeding disunity. A different point is the apparent pristine nature of the papers. It's like they've never been opened and perhaps the sheet by the fence was what they were wrapped in. ?? I think a socialist would be interested in reading them rather than gathering them to pose with them.