Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Groden is not a "photo expert". Pickard refused to comment on the findings of the HSCA photo panel. Thompson AGREED with the panel. Wanna try again? Heads. Just show us. Make then all match...just like the backgrounds you can't make match. You really have not done the work, have you? Craig, while I never claimed to be a photography expert myself, I readily acknowledge that there are different opinions offered by experts. I really like your moving heads picture -- but what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change. Common sense should tell you (as it has told genuine photography experts) that it is a logical impossibility (as well as a photographic impossibility) for a person to stand closer to the camera in one photo, and yet have the heads remain the same SIZE in both photos. You seem to be in denial of the empirical and logical evidence. You provided ample evidence yourself of my main point -- the SIZE of the heads don't change. Thanks for your excellent graphics. Regards, --Paul Trejo The sizes of the heads WAS different, I resized one. Did you not even look at the photos in the link you provided? You told me the heads were a 100% match. Not even close to being the truth. But nice attempt at a backstroke. The only one in denial here is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) .. the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension ... ... what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change. You seem to have changed your mind. I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs? By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either Paul. No, I didn't change my mind about the two WC exhibit photos -- I see the lips and shadows change on the two examples that Craig posted. But although the lips and shadows changed on Craig's examples, it is bizarre that the SIZE of the head, the distance between hair and chin, the ears and the eyes didn't change at all. That proves that even with Craig's alteration of the photos, he couldn't erase the identities. Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 8, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) .. the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension ... ... what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change. You seem to have changed your mind. I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs? By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either Paul. No, I didn't change my mind about the two WC exhibit photos -- I see the lips and shadows change on the two examples that Craig posted. But although the lips and shadows changed on Craig's examples, it is bizarre that the SIZE of the head, the distance between hair and chin, the ears and the eyes didn't change at all. That proves that even with Craig's alteration of the photos, he couldn't erase the identities. Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? Regards, --Paul Trejo Because the the so called "photo analysis"you are trying to cling to is fatally flawed. And if you look closely to the graphic I provided you will see that the proportions of the head DO change from one image to the next. Are they similar? Of course, its the head of the SAME PERSON .Have at it Paul. Make the heads match EXACTLY. As in 100 percent. Again the complete denial is YOURS, simply because you have just read and chosen to "believe" because it fits your fantasy narrative. Edited February 8, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? There's little point in putting together a sensible response. You're one of those unbending, blinkered folks that make up about 95% of all conspiracy theorists. You and your bigoted cohorts, flaming torches in hand, burn the Church of the Bleeding Obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? There's little point in putting together a sensible response. You're one of those unbending, blinkered folks that make up about 95% of all conspiracy theorists. You and your bigoted cohorts, flaming torches in hand, burn the Church of the Bleeding Obvious. Oh, I see, you don't have an orientation. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Because the the so called "photo analysis"you are trying to cling to is fatally flawed. And if you look closely to the graphic I provided you will see that the proportions of the head DO change from one image to the next. Are they similar? Of course, its the head of the SAME PERSON .Have at it Paul. Make the heads match EXACTLY. As in 100 percent. Again the complete denial is YOURS, simply because you have just read and chosen to "believe" because it fits your fantasy narrative. Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thompson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thompson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thompson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thompson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY -- that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thompson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Because the the so called "photo analysis"you are trying to cling to is fatally flawed. And if you look closely to the graphic I provided you will see that the proportions of the head DO change from one image to the next. Are they similar? Of course, its the head of the SAME PERSON .Have at it Paul. Make the heads match EXACTLY. As in 100 percent. Again the complete denial is YOURS, simply because you have just read and chosen to "believe" because it fits your fantasy narrative. Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendant Malcom Thomson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thomson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thomson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thomson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thomson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thomson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo Because the the so called "photo analysis"you are trying to cling to is fatally flawed. And if you look closely to the graphic I provided you will see that the proportions of the head DO change from one image to the next. Are they similar? Of course, its the head of the SAME PERSON .Have at it Paul. Make the heads match EXACTLY. As in 100 percent. Again the complete denial is YOURS, simply because you have just read and chosen to "believe" because it fits your fantasy narrative. Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendant Malcom Thomson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thomson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thomson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thomson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thomson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thomson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo I've ignored nothing. It is you who has ignored what is starting you right in the face...that is your OWN claim the heads are 100 percent the same is simply not true. That in itself eliminates you as an honest broker. It is a complete discussion ender. Pickert is wrong as the simple gif I posted showed. The heads are different, in both shape and content. Are some features the same? of course, its the SAME persons head. When confronted with the findings of the HSCA photo panel, Pickert declined to comment. He was WRONG. Thompson was wise enough to know that when he was wrong it would be best to admit ti. And he did by agreeing with the photo panels work, and their conclusion the photos were genuine. All of this you ignore simply because the subject matter is way over your head, and you have a fantasy to preserve. None of the work by either Pickert nor Thompson was "scientific". Thompson says "I think"... Pickert simply did sloppy work and came to a wrong concision. And you bought it. Which is really quite telling. Heck you can't even SHOW us how the heads "match 100 percent". You can't because they don't. And a discussion ender. Enjoy your fantasy and your willful ignorance of this subject matter.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) ...Heads. Just show us. Make then all match...just like the backgrounds you can't make match. You really have not done the work, have you? Craig, the two photos that you capably superimposed in your animation, taken from CE-133A and CE-133B, are clear evidence that the SIZE of the head does not change between the two. Neither does the position of the ears. Neither does the position of the nose. The size of the body upon the photograph paper of CE-133A is a full 2cm smaller than the size of the body upon the photograph paper of CE-133B -- and yet the heads are the same SIZE? Why doesn't that register with you as a photographic impossibility? You are clearly capable as a photographic technician -- yet are you a qualified photography expert, capable of legally recognized expertize on photographic forensics like Thompson and Pickard? Also, your dismissals of Thompson and Pickard are hasty and flippant, without a scientific basis. Do you have any objective basis for your criticism? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 9, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 You are beyond hope and beyond rational discussion. Enjoy your fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) The backyard pictures look fake , therefore they are fake. My eyes ( especially 20 years ago when I first saw the research ) are good. Dont tell me ( again ) that I can not see- what I can see - what I mean is from the Zapruder film I CAN SEE the shot comes from the front. Edited February 9, 2013 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 The backyard pictures look fake , therefore they are fake. My eyes ( especially 20 years ago when I first saw the research ) are good. Dont tell me ( again ) that I can not see- what I can not see - what I mean is from the Zapruder film I CAN SEE the shot comes from the front. You can't see and you clearly don't have any photographic understanding. Period. Enjoy your fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) ...from the Zapruder film I CAN SEE the shot comes from the front. Peter's solved the case! He can SEE Badge Man's bullet in mid-flight before it enters JFK's skull from the front!! Amazing. I wonder why hasn't Peter's bombshell discovery hasn't been featured in any conspiracy documentary up till now? Edited February 9, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Actually - the fatal head shot that came from the front - as you can see in the Z film , could not have originated from the so called Grassy Knoll, or Mrs. Kennedys head would have been blown off as well. ( and other scientific reasons ) This is why Greer Shootists at least have the right idea - that the shot came from directly in front of the presidential limousine. Not that I promoting that! ( I need to say this for simpletons like Davy ) To say that I am grandstanding since I say the ( fatal ) shot came from the front as seen in the Z film Mr Gravy just shows how stupid you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Actually - the fatal head shot that came from the front - as you can see in the Z film , could not have originated from the so called Grassy Knoll, or Mrs. Kennedys head would have been blown off as well. ( and other scientific reasons ) This is why Greer Shootists at least have the right idea - that the shot came from directly in front of the presidential limousine. Not that I promoting that! ( I need to say this for simpletons like Davy ) To say that I am grandstanding since I say the ( fatal ) shot came from the front as seen in the Z film Mr Gravy just shows how stupid you are. Enjoy your fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Craig ! how are you doing? I may not have mentioned that you are one of my most favorite fools - take care, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now