Backyard pictures

[Craig Lamson]

Craig ! how are you doing?

I may not have mentioned that you are one of my most favorite fools - take care,

Peter

Enjoy your fantasy world.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Peter McGuire]

Edited February 9, 2013 by Peter McGuire

[Paul Trejo]

So, clearly we're not going to get rational debate from our photographic "experts" who don't have to explain anything to anybody.

Fine -- so I will actively exclude those "experts" in my pursuit of information from others in this thread who do accept the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald's Backyard Photographs were altered.

For those who do suspect that the Backyard photographs might have been faked, I would like to propose that Lee Harvey Oswald himself created those fakes, and he did so using equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (JCS).

I believe this is exactly why Oswald was fired from JCS. The dates of the (alleged) fakes seems to match up exactly to the date of his firing.

I once read that Oswald creeped out one of his co-workers at JCS by using his hand as a make-believe-gun, pointing his finger at his co-worker and whispering, 'pow!' That would not be exceptionally creepy as an act all by itself, but if this was combined with Oswald's being loose and free with his Backyard photos there at the workplace of JCS, that would be way too creepy to tolerate.

I would like to ask the managers at JCS why Oswald was fired. I would like to look at Oswald's personnel file, and view any complaints about any obsession with guns.

Remember - I'm not setting up a "lone nut" scenario here. While my theory does suggest that Oswald lacked discretion, that is tangental to my point, which is that we can explain alterations to the Backyard photographs without recourse to any CIA or FBI conspiracy.

In my theory, Marina only needed to take one photograph (as she distinctly remembered she did). Oswald dressed all in black so that his "double" could easily dress the same way. Oswald planned the entire Backyard photograph controversy, IMHO, so that he could later have plausible deniability..

We know, also, that fragments from cardboard cutouts of the Backyard photographs were found at the DPD station. IMHO, they came from the managers at JCS, trying to be helpful in showing Oswald's darker side.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Craig Lamson]

So, clearly we're not going to get rational debate from our photographic "experts" who don't have to explain anything to anybody.

Fine -- so I will actively exclude those "experts" in my pursuit of information from others in this thread who do accept the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald's Backyard Photographs were altered.

For those who do suspect that the Backyard photographs might have been faked, I would like to propose that Lee Harvey Oswald himself created those fakes, and he did so using equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (JCS).

I believe this is exactly why Oswald was fired from JCS. The dates of the (alleged) fakes seems to match up exactly to the date of his firing.

I once read that Oswald creeped out one of his co-workers at JCS by using his hand as a make-believe-gun, pointing his finger at his co-worker and whispering, 'pow!' That would not be exceptionally creepy as an act all by itself, but if this was combined with Oswald's being loose and free with his Backyard photos there at the workplace of JCS, that would be way too creepy to tolerate.

I would like to ask the managers at JCS why Oswald was fired. I would like to look at Oswald's personnel file, and view any complaints about any obsession with guns.

Remember - I'm not setting up a "lone nut" scenario here. While my theory does suggest that Oswald lacked discretion, that is tangental to my point, which is that we can explain alterations to the Backyard photographs without recourse to any CIA or FBI conspiracy.

In my theory, Marina only needed to take one photograph (as she distinctly remembered she did). Oswald dressed all in black so that his "double" could easily dress the same way. Oswald planned the entire Backyard photograph controversy, IMHO, so that he could later have plausible deniability..

We know, also, that fragments from cardboard cutouts of the Backyard photographs were found at the DPD station. IMHO, they came from the managers at JCS, trying to be helpful in showing Oswald's darker side.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

You are not interested in pursuing the truth, only trying to bolster your ill formed opinion. Your only claim of any substance ...that the heads were 100 percent the same has been shown incorrect. You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you have it wrong. The proof is right before your very eyes yet you still deny it.

Then you make the even sillier claim there was only one background plate was used to make all the other backgrounds. Again this claim is childish since there is simply no way to make all the backgrounds match. How do I know this? I've spent hours try to make it happen and it is simply impossible. But hey, why don't you actually DO THE WORK and prove your point has validity instead of pushing your fantasy? Oh wait, never mind...you won't go there.

Forget the search for facts...you have a fantasy to maintain.

CT's......

[John Dolva]

Hey. Don't paint all Ct's with the same brush. I spent weeks studying those pics and came to the same conclusions as you through independent study. I'm not going to go in to all the reasons. It always turns into pointless arguments. You've basically shown one very clear way re the head and indicated the same for the lot, background et.c.. . What is important to recognise is that it in no way discounts conspiracy.

[Craig Lamson]

Hey. Don't paint all Ct's with the same brush. I spent weeks studying those pics and came to the same conclusions as you through independent study. I'm not going to go in to all the reasons. It always turns into pointless arguments. You've basically shown one very clear way re the head and indicated the same for the lot, background et.c.. . What is important to recognise is that it in no way discounts conspiracy.

You are right John, you do have perhaps the most open mind and willingness to do the work of any ct I've met in regard to images. The brush strokes don't extend to you.

[John Dolva]

Thank's Craig. It's good I reckon. Yet I think the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy AND I'm probably left of you (and most here) on the political spectrum. It's cool. All's good.

[Steven Gaal]

Thank's Craig. It's good I reckon. Yet I think the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy AND I'm probably left of you (and most here) on the political spectrum. It's cool. All's good.

#####################

John I wave to you from your left. Marina told Jesse Ventura that she took the pictures. (for what its worth)

[Paul Trejo]

You are not interested in pursuing the truth, only trying to bolster your ill formed opinion. Your only claim of any substance ...that the heads were 100 percent the same has been shown incorrect. You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you have it wrong. The proof is right before your very eyes yet you still deny it.

You're mistaken, Craig. I'm interested only in the truth, as well as correcting any errors I might have made.

It still seems perfectly obvious to me that the SIZE of the heads is identical -- and that the right-side of the head (from the viewer's perspective) doesn't change in the slightest -- from the hair to the ear to the chin. The shadows and retouches on the lips are easily explained.

It seems to me that the proof is right before your eyes, and yet you are the one who denies it.

If you have a point to make, why not resort to the English language?

Then you make the even sillier claim there was only one background plate was used to make all the other backgrounds. Again this claim is childish since there is simply no way to make all the backgrounds match. How do I know this? I've spent hours try to make it happen and it is simply impossible. But hey, why don't you actually DO THE WORK and prove your point has validity instead of pushing your fantasy? Oh wait, never mind...you won't go there.

Forget the search for facts...you have a fantasy to maintain.

CT's......

OK, Craig, now that's just plain wrong -- when did I even mention the background plate?

What is clear to me is that the photo that George De Mohrenschildt had of Oswald -- the one signed on the back -- had a much larger background than CE-133A.

I never said the backgrounds matched.

You keep asking me to do the work -- but that's bizarre -- I don't have the equipment or the training to do photographic analysis. That's why I rely on experts like Malcom Thompson and John Pickard. That's perfectly legitimate.

Finally, I'm not pushing any fantasy, I'm fishing for information. If you have something positive to say -- aside from insults and wisecracks, I'd be open to reading it.

The findings of John Pickard are expert findings -- and you haven't explained (in English) why you reject his findings. So, why bother even responding here?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Craig Lamson]

You are not interested in pursuing the truth, only trying to bolster your ill formed opinion. Your only claim of any substance ...that the heads were 100 percent the same has been shown incorrect. You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you have it wrong. The proof is right before your very eyes yet you still deny it.

You're mistaken, Craig. I'm interested only in the truth, as well as correcting any errors I might have made.

It still seems perfectly obvious to me that the SIZE of the heads is identical -- and that the right-side of the head (from the viewer's perspective) doesn't change in the slightest -- from the hair to the ear to the chin. The shadows and retouches on the lips are easily explained.

It seems to me that the proof is right before your eyes, and yet you are the one who denies it.

If you have a point to make, why not resort to the English language?

But careful examination shows the sizes CHANGE between images. You simply get it wrong. The eyes move, the ears move, the nose moves, the chin moves...nothing matches up. You say it is a 100 percent match, its not even 10 percent. You search for the truth? Give me a break.

Then you make the even sillier claim there was only one background plate was used to make all the other backgrounds. Again this claim is childish since there is simply no way to make all the backgrounds match. How do I know this? I've spent hours try to make it happen and it is simply impossible. But hey, why don't you actually DO THE WORK and prove your point has validity instead of pushing your fantasy? Oh wait, never mind...you won't go there.

Forget the search for facts...you have a fantasy to maintain.

CT's......

OK, Craig, now that's just plain wrong -- when did I even mention the background plate?

When you said they made three photos from one original image. Need I put the exact quote uop for you to see?

What is clear to me is that the photo that George De Mohrenschildt had of Oswald -- the one signed on the back -- had a much larger background than CE-133A.

I never said the backgrounds matched.

All the background plates MUST be processed from a single image for your fantasy to be true. That means you must take all three background images and bring them into agreement using techniques similar to the ones available in 1963. Most any digital imaging program gives you the tools. Your claim, prove it. But I'll tell you, it will never happen. I know I've tried.

You keep asking me to do the work -- but that's bizarre -- I don't have the equipment or the training to do photographic analysis. That's why I rely on experts like Malcom Thompson and John Pickard. That's perfectly legitimate.

You claim to be an IT guy. If that's true you surely can operate simple graphics software. So do it. Don't have Photoshop, use it free for 30 days. Until you do you are simply a parrot who knows absolutely nothing. BTW, Thompson finally agreed the photos were legit. Surely you know this...right? This is really simple stuff.

Finally, I'm not pushing any fantasy, I'm fishing for information. If you have something positive to say -- aside from insults and wisecracks, I'd be open to reading it.

No you are not, you can't even be honest about the head images.

The findings of John Pickard are expert findings -- and you haven't explained (in English) why you reject his findings. So, why bother even responding here?

No they are not, it are poorly done and false. I repeated his work on this thread and showed it was flawed. His claim was wrong. Perhaps that's why he ran away from the findings of the photo panel. At least Thompson was man enough to admit his error. You could learn something from him.

Get back to me when you have purchased your first clue. As it stands you are clueless.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

...

Get back to me when you have purchased your first clue. As it stands you are clueless.

...

and look whose calling the kettle black. Come on now, gett'er in focus! LMAO!

Edited February 11, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

...

Get back to me when you have purchased your first clue. As it stands you are clueless.

...

and look whose calling the kettle black. Come on know, gett'er in focus! LMAO!

You can to better then that davie, or not? You are quite the weak stick these days.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Paul Trejo]

...BTW, Thompson finally agreed the photos were legit. Surely you know this...right? This is really simple stuff.

No, Craig, actually, I never read anywhere that Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ever agreed that CE-133A and CE-133B and its variations were legitimate.

In fact, I've been hunting for this in Google, and in amazon.com, etc. since your latest post, and I can't find this reference.

I'd appreciate a reference or a citation so that I could read Thompson's alleged retraction myself. It would make a significant difference in my opinion.

I do have footage on video of Thompson examining the Backyard photographs and concluding that they're fake. I'd very much appreciate reading any retraction he might have made.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

It's been said several times that stereoscopic viewing proves that the images are not faked.

Does anyone have a link to a study with examples that shows how this is done please?

thanks

Martin

I'd also very much like to see such examples.

--Paul

Edited February 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Craig Lamson]

...BTW, Thompson finally agreed the photos were legit. Surely you know this...right? This is really simple stuff.

No, Craig, actually, I never read anywhere that Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ever agreed that CE-133A and CE-133B and its variations were legitimate.

In fact, I've been hunting for this in Google, and in amazon.com, etc. since your latest post, and I can't find this reference.

I'd appreciate a reference or a citation so that I could read Thompson's alleged retraction myself. It would make a significant difference in my opinion.

I do have footage on video of Thompson examining the Backyard photographs and concluding that they're fake. I'd very much appreciate reading any retraction he might have made.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

HSCA Photo Panel Report.

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer determined among other things how the subject would best be centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to a drugstore for printing. Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary of the panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views. After studying the reports, Thomson deferred to the panel's conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery. He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination of copies of the photographs rather than the original material. Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photograph. The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of Defense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these photographs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated that he had performed no scientific tests on the photographs and had spent less than an hour examining the "very poor copies" that were submitted to him. (194)

Edited February 11, 2013 by Craig Lamson