Backyard pictures

[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?

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.

The parallax of the verticals compared to EACH OTHER.

The Imperial Reflex 620 that was supposed to have been Oswald's didn't have a parallax lever.

No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)

With your experience of taking snaps, you surely understand parallax, and the way fixed objects apparently change their position due to camera position. If not, I can point you in the right direction.

(Incidentally, when I asked Hary Farid the same question he wouldn't or couldn't answer it. He said he had studied only ONE photograph and that was to investigate the nose shadow! Some investigator.)

Regards.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Ray Mitcham

[Craig Lamson]

The parallax of the verticals compared to EACH OTHER.

The Imperial Reflex 620 that was supposed to have been Oswald's didn't have a parallax lever.

No, whoever was holding it, didn't move the camera. Just because you say so doesn't mean they did. If the camera had been moved forward, backward or sideways, the parallax view of the uprights in the background would have changed. (The relationship between the stair-post and fence post to LHO's right and the relationship of the edge of the full height panel and the fence posts to his left would have changed. they haven't.)

I can see you have a very limited understanding of how parallax works and how the principle of the lever effects the ratio of movement of camera and objects within the scene.

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

So did the camera move forward or backwards? Yes. How do we know? First there is the magnification, showing objects larger in one frame to the next. Of course the is the possibility this was done in the printing process. Is there any other signs of the camera moving forward or backwards? YES, internal relationships between objects in the scene. What are those objects? A roof line from the building behind the fence and the intersection of the middle post and the stairs.

Here is a comparison of all three images, showing the changes. There can be no doubt the camera moved.

People like Jack White say that the BY images all use the same background and that they were enlarged via the "slant" easel" method to change the perspective of each background. First this method is a complete failure since there is no way to transform the images using Photoshop ( a far better tool than a 'slant easel")to bring them all into agreement.

Finally, no transformation will produce the change seen in the above crops from the Backyard photos. This camera movement is real.

Are there other examples of parallax in the backyard photos? Yes.

Lets look at another section, the intersection of the step and post and the siding of the house. Again no amount of transformation can change these internal features.

With your experience of taking snaps, you surely understand parallax, and the way fixed objects apparently change their position due to camera position. If not, I can point you in the right direction.

As we can see I understand it completely, and you don't. But thanks for playing.

(Incidentally, when I asked Hary Farid the same question he wouldn't or couldn't answer it. He said he had studied only ONE photograph and that was to investigate the nose shadow! Some investigator.)

Farid did exactly what he proposed and thats exactly what he did. Wanna try again?

[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?

Ok, so if we cut out the spiel what you're saying is that you have no formal qualifications in photography or forensics?

My formal qualifications in forensic photography? Apparently like yourself I have none. But then I'm not the one setting himself up as an expert in such matters.

Of courses I have formal training in photography, a two year apprenticeship and years of continuing education from numerous professional organizations. In addition I have over 30 years of experience in the field.

In addition I been an expert witness on photography in court.

Wanna try again?

[Craig Lamson]

Perhaps you could try answering my question directly Craig.

I repeat: what exactly are your formal qualifications in photography and the photographic sciences?

And just out of morbid curiosity would you care to share any details about your appearance in court?

I told you EXACTLY. That's not good enough for you?

Did I get a degree for some university? No. I got mine from real experts who produced real work daily. Given I've hired quite a few photographers who did, I'll put my education against theirs any day.

I was called testify to the authenticity of a series of photographs I had taken. Both parties agreed to treat my testimony as expert.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Perhaps you could try answering my question directly Craig.

I repeat: what exactly are your formal qualifications in photography and the photographic sciences?

And just out of morbid curiosity would you care to share any details about your appearance in court?

I told you EXACTLY. That's not good enough for you?

I was called testify to the authenticity of a series of photographs I had taken. Both parties agreed to treat my testimony as expert.

If you told me exactly then that means you've had some "training" but have no formal qualifications. After all, training and qualifications are two entirely different things. Thanks for clearing that up. At least now we all know that although you've spent the last 30 years snapping away as happily as a Japanese tourist you are no more qualified to comment on the authenticity of the BY photographs than other member of this forum.

Really? Given the courses on photography offered by the universities available to me when I attended were little more than fine arts and photojournalism oriented, they offered me zero training and qualification in Advertising Photography. Oh I could have learned to expose and process b/w film, and then make a print, learn about the great masters of photography and taking photos of current events for publication. Too bad for me because I had that education prior to enrolling. It offered me nothing but a piece of paper that would be totally meaningless to potential advertising studios or clients.

Instead of wasting years for no gain ...in the field of my choice, I went to where the REAL education was available.

And of course its not my 'formal qualifications' that matter now is it? It's the correct application of photographic principle. And I either get it correct or I don't. Same as anyone else on this forum or anywhere else for that matter.

If you can find fault with my application of these principles please feel free to point them out.

I'll put those 'qualifications' up against anyone....

(And obviously your expert testimony in court has no bearing on this since you were being asked to verify photographs you had taken yourself and not to look for signs of forgery in photographs taken by others because that is something you are not qualified to do)

Of course it had to do with the production of composite photographs, that was the entire point, And given that I've spent years creating ..and working on...composite images I'm very WELL qualified to look for sings of manipulation. Why? because I do it..daily..and very well..and have for years in both analog and digital.

Wanna try again?

[Craig Lamson]

I don't need to "try again", Craig, beacuse all I wanted to do was establish your qualifications and we've done so - you have none.

Now forum members know they don't have to take your opinions seriously.

If anyone ever did.

Oh yea you might want to try again.

So, "qualifications" means a piece of paper in your world Martin? Are you qualified to work for the 'post'?

How sad for you.

I don't offer "opinion" Martin I offer fact.

Feel free to try and refute them sometime. Oh wait, you would need to be 'qualified". ROFLMAO!

Edited September 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, it does. The fact that I've played guitar for 16 years doesn't make me a qualified musician - my diploma does.

No it does not, it only means years ago you studied at a school. It in no way shows you are quaiifed at anything but the things that they taught you...then. In the real world you will not get hired to pay guitar based on your degree, they will want to see you play...TODAY. Wanna try again?

I don't work for "post", I work for Royal Mail. And I work for myself when I teach music.

Then your "qualifications" don't "qualify" you for either. It's not your paper that anyone is hiring to work and teach TODAY.

You offer plenty of opinion, Craig. You're not qualified to do otherwise.

Proper application of photographic principle is not opinion, its either correct or incorrect.

I've no qualms if people decide to listen or not. That's just not my problem. They can take it or leave it as they see fit.

And I've no desire to refute your opinions on the BY photos (or the Zapruder film or any other JFK Film or photo that theorists have alleged has been altered or fabricated) because I agree with you.

Good thing because you would need to argue FACTS...

Edited September 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

LOL I asked you what formal qualifications you hold and you admitted that you had none. Get over it.

And i just showed you how your 'formal' qualifications don't mean a hill of beans...Get over it.

[Jim Phelps]

A big suggestion:

Mr. Lamson's name is Mr. Lamson. Return to respectful disagreements that don't involve less than respectful names.

In my book, years of experience in photography counts. Disagree with the science or the technical statements and less on who has what experience.

[Craig Lamson]

Lammy:

In your second example, what are you trying to show?

Please explain that, and I will then commenton your first one.

Parallax jimmy...parallax.

Best of luck to you LOL!

[Craig Lamson]

In relation to what?

Its clearly spelled out in my post, and the gif shows it in motion.

Come on jim, is that the best you can do?

[Ray Mitcham]

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards

[Craig Lamson]

Lets say for example the camera is 12 feet from the post and the post is 4 feet from the fence. If camera moves 3 inches to the right, the fence/post relationship moves 1. That works great if the only movement is the side to side movement of the camera. But what happens is the camera moves bot side to side and forward or backward at the same time? First the PERSPECTIVE of the scene changes. In this instance the ratio of size between the post and the fence slats change. this makes using the post and fence as measuring points fail without detailed photogrammetry. Put more succinctly, just because you don't think you see it does not mean its not there.

Mr Lamson, (Pace Mr Phelps!)I didn't mention ratios or used the different photos to measure distances but what about the changes in parallax which should do but do not occur?

If the camera in the second photograph moved forward in a straight line,(which it appears to do) both the relationship between the stair-post and the fence post to its left and the relationship between the high fence and the paling behind it would both have changed- The fence post would have disappeared behind the stair-post, and the gap between the paling post and the high fence would have increased. (No measurements required just observation)

If the camera had been moved forward and left, the relationship between the Stair-post and the fence post COULD have stayed the same, depending how much to the front and left it had moved, but at the same time, the relationship between the High fence and the fence paling behind it would have changed. Similarly, if the camera had been moved forward and right, the relationship between the High fence and the paling COULD have stayed the same but again the fence post to the left would have disappeared behind the stair-post, or depending on how far forward the camera was moved, even appear on the right hand side of the stair-post.

If I am wrong in my assumptions, I look forward to you correcting me. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards

I'm not sure exactly what parts of the image you are talking about, could you please label them for clarity?

[Ed LeDoux]

On 9/7/2011 at 9:29 PM, David Andrews said:

Looking back at post #4, I have to say that the head looks mismatched to the body proportionally in all three Warren Commission shots.

I wonder if we can better judge that by looking at the relation between body and head, and at the proportions of Oswald's body alone, in other torso shots of Oswald - such as the crossed-arms pose photographed after the Bringuer incident arrest, and stills from Oswald's TV interview after the New Orleans radio show.

When it was done by Jack White with the backyard pictures, the head/body did have mismatched proportions.

That was the point of that exercise, to show this fact.

(Thanks to Bernice for the video link to FAKE)

Not positive we can 'prove' a great deal by comparison to/with other LHO photos, but may be worth a try.

The HSCA did a Penrose study with his head. But they threw out the three most important data points(one was the CHIN!). A rather large omission when that is what your charged with investigating!

HEY WANNA SEE MY WATCH...I mean bracelet

 

Der. 4/6/64

MARINA OSWALD was interviewed at her place of residence,

629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Texas.

She was questioned further concerning the silver-colored'

bracelet, which LEE HARVEY OSWALD had given her following his return

to Dallas, Texas, after his trip to Mexico. She said this bracelet

was very similar to a bracelet which LEE HARVEY OSWALD wore. His

bracelet had the name 'LEE' engraved upon it . She stated she believed

OSWALD purchased his bracelet about the time they were residing on

Elsbeth Street, or perhaps during the time they rented a place on

Neely Street.

She recalled OSWALD's watch had been in disrepair and,

instead of having the watch fixed, he bought the bracelet and wore

it in place of the watch. On a previous occasion, when OSWALD's

watch was in disrepair, he had had it fixed at Leonard's Department

Store in Port Worth, Texas. This was at a time when they resided in

Fort Worth.

She believes OSWALD was working at Jaggars-Chiles-stovall

at the time he purchased the bracelet.

MARINA said she does not know where OSWALD purchased the

bracelet which he presented her. OSWALD did not say he had purchased

it In Mexico. He presented it to her within the first hour after

they were reunited following his trip to Mexico. She recalls seeing

a bracelet very such like the bracelet which he gave her in the

Woolworth Store at New Orleans.

She did not like the bracelet and never wore it.

COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1844

The fact that LHO did not have a wristwatch and had pocket watches would be a large nail in the backyard photos coffin. Add the fact the bracelet was likely purchased before the Neely Backyard photos and we have a serious problem with a wristwatch wearing Lee.

Too bad we can't zoom in on that rascally backyard wristwatch to see what time it is, maybe it even had a date function so we can see what day too. lol

Thanks again to Bernice for that Elgin POCKET WATCH pic

Who's watch?

http://cityofirving.org/library/archives/accessions/mvf-5-10/7-11.asp

On the supposed water spot:

“One thing is the sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and then ends at the other side - right where Oswald's head could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed to be a water spot.”~ Brian Mee

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard

Note:

Dallas police officer R. L. Studebaker testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that in 1963, while working in the Dallas Police Department Photography Laboratory, he made numerous copies of the Kennedy photographic evidence for fellow Dallas police officers ; included in the pictures distributed were prints of CE 133-A and CE 133-B as well as of the third pose not seen by the Warren Commission. Testimony of R. L. Studebaker, supra note 127

I see pass them out like party favors or like candy to children Pass them to everyone who asks...except the FBI and Warren Commission!!

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ed LeDoux
Free up Attachment space, google Lee's picture giving "the salute"

[Ed LeDoux]

There is a reference to a Benrus wrist watch #476343

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=734079

FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 229