David Josephs LHO's "hands from the day of arrest and from the BYP...simply do not match"

[Len Colby]

This came up on another thread but I think it deserves its own. David has yet to spell out the basis for his claim.

These are his hands from the day of arrest and from the BYP.... regardless of photogrammetry.. the hands simply do not match.

[...]

http://i1233.photobu...zpsc371fc23.jpg

Please elaborate, this should be hilarious.

Dear Mr. Josephs,

Please elaborate.

Thank you,

--Tommy

The two right pics need to be scaled to see thewre is not such a difference and that the difference that may be seen has to do with resolution as a reasonable alternative explanation..

..can you simply trust your eyes here John? the BYP showing C2766 is full of problems not related to the photo itself.... as I've discussed many times in many threads about Kleins and the FBI.

when one adds up all the inconsistencies... AND now add in that these hands dont look the same... it becomes easier and easier to understand why the DPD lost a negative yet we wind up with three poses, a woman who doesn't remember how the camera works to begin with... and cant get her story straight as to when it even occurred, and the fact that rifle and the ballistic evidence do not match up...

Oh, and the rifle is not even C2766 in the photos...

[Len Colby]

Oh yes, I do trust my eyes. The two photos are of different quality and the hands are not the same size. Scale down the top one to match the tip of the pinkie and the width of the hand. You'll still see very different quality of pics but a lot of the 'argument' becomes in doubt, hence not the stronly supportive evidence you think it is.

John,

Not to mention the perspective problem caused by the photographer being below Oswald in the "Russian train" photo. This put the palm of Oswald's hand closer to the camera than his fingers, thereby making his fingers look shorter than they actually were.

--Tommy

Fair enough... I see something very obvious ... others do not.

If you want to accept the provenance of the BYPs - so be it.

[…]

[John Dolva]

Len, I think it is being discussed in a genial tone elswewhere. It's obviously a sticking point for you but I don't see the point of making a point of it in this way ? I'd take that as an unwarranted attack.

My contributions were never intended as such. Merely statements.

As is this.

edit typo

Edited March 27, 2013 by John Dolva

[Thomas Graves]

Len, I think it is being discussed in a genial tone elswewhere. It's obviously a sticking point for you but I don't see the point of making a point of it in this way ? I'd take that as an unwarranted attack.

My contributions were never intended as such. Merely statements.

As is this.

edit typo

[...]

These are his hands from the day of arrest and from the BYP.... regardless of photogrammetry.. the hands simply do not match. (emphasis added by T. Graves)

[...]

Dear Mr. Josephs,

Please elaborate.

Thank you,

--Tommy

[...]

Please stop trying to make this about his hands... the hands being different is only one small part of MANY MANY reasons the BYPs are not possible. (emphasis added by T. Graves)

Thanks (David Josephs)

Dear David,

Thank you so much for your tutorial on color recognition (in the Edwin Ortiz thread "How Many Rifles Were Found On The Sixth Floor") as it applies to circular geometric objects. Truly profound and not condescending or insulting in the slightest.

For your information, I do want to (and tend to) believe that the backyard photographs are fakes. However, when "analyzing" different parts of the photos, I try to do so dispassionately, without letting my wishes and tentative beliefs interfere. Perhaps you should do the same?

Perhaps the reason the fingers look thicker in one photo than in another is because the resolution in that blow up is quite bad? Just an idea.

And BTW, it was not I who originally posted the photos of the hands on your thread. It was you.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited March 30, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

This should not be allowed. There is a discussion of this already.

This is simply Colby doing one of his Colbyisms to go after someone he has an agenda against.

Its the kind of thing that gets him on moderation, which somehow, he always gets off of. Though no one misses him.

Dear Jim,

The reason I moved my above post to this thread is because David Josephs complained, in so many words, that all this talk about "the hands" (although he had originally posted "the hands" photos on that thread!) was distracting people from the subject of Edwin Ortiz's fine thread-- How Many Rifles Were Found On The Sixth Floor?

The reason I'm pursuing this hands thing with Mr. Josephs is because I think all researchers should be held accountable or at least questioned for making statements which are only marginally supportable, or worse, downright unsupportable.

I mean, I read in an article you wrote in Probe where you stated that Texas Theater employee "Butch" Burroughs said that he saw Oswald in the theater "at 1:00." If you'll watch the youtube video interview of Burroughs you'll see that he says that Oswald slipped into the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07. Unfortunately you only weaken your credibility with the critically-minded CT research community by making statements that are only half true, wittingly or unwittingly.

I do admire your exuberance and all, Jimbo, but I think that sometimes you don't do enough fact checking, or you "spin" the facts a bit too much for your own good and that sometimes you are just a wee bit too gullible.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

P.S. Like Lee Farley, I don't believe in the Yates story either.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

[...] Whether you did or did not, I would never do such a thing or even think of it. And if anyone did, I would complain about it as I am here.

[...]

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your considered, but unfortunately somewhat ambiguous, response. Question: You would never do what "such a thing"?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

P.S. Did I paraphrase you incorrectly when I accused you of misquoting "Butch" Burroughs in Probe, you know, regarding the time frame in which Burroughs saw Oswald in the Texas Theater? http://www.ctka.net/reviews/dead_men.html Please correct me if I did. After all, as you have pointed out, I've made more than my fair share of (honest) mistakes, and I willingly admit it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Len, I think it is being discussed in a genial tone elswewhere. It's obviously a sticking point for you but I don't see the point of making a point of it in this way ? I'd take that as an unwarranted attack.

My contributions were never intended as such. Merely statements.

As is this.

edit typo

[...]

These are his hands from the day of arrest and from the BYP.... regardless of photogrammetry.. the hands simply do not match. (emphasis added by T. Graves)

[...]

Dear Mr. Josephs,

Please elaborate.

Thank you,

--Tommy

[...]

Please stop trying to make this about his hands... the hands being different is only one small part of MANY MANY reasons the BYPs are not possible. (emphasis added by T. Graves)

Thanks (David Josephs)

Dear David,

Thank you so much for your tutorial on color recognition (in the Edwin Ortiz thread "How Many Rifles Were Found On The Sixth Floor") as it applies to circular geometric objects. Truly profound and not condescending or insulting in the slightest.

For your information, I do want to (and tend to) believe that the backyard photographs are fakes. However, when "analyzing" different parts of the photos, I try to do so dispassionately, without letting my wishes and tentative beliefs interfere. Perhaps you should do the same?

Perhaps the reason the fingers look thicker in one photo than in another is because the resolution in. Just an idea.

And BTW, it was not I who originally posted the photos of the hands on your thread. It was you.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Yes I did Thomas... as I believe a close look at them clearly shows they are not from the same person... when one adds in the rifle differences I also posted, the Kleins problems, Marina's testimony, the acknowledgment of the photos' existance the night before and many hours before they were even discovered, the loss of one of the negatives, the possession of copies of the photos in places that NEVER should have had them, the proven unreliability of the WCR and HSCA photographic panel, the recognized "fine lines" when viewed for analysis rather than to rationalize, the word of experts not under the cover-up thumb, and the fact so many photographic items were found and taken on 11/22 yet these photos were not...

Leads ME to conclude they were created to incriminate Oswald...

"...the facts about Oswald seem to pat -- too obvious "

ya think?

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

"...the facts about Oswald seem to pat -- too obvious "

ya think?

Dear David,

Do I think? Yeah. And I'm really really good at the recognition of different colors, but only when they're presented to me inside circular geometric objects.

I think what you're saying is that, due to your belief that the backyard photos are fake, the hands in the photos must be fake. I think that your belief clouds your photographic "analysis" of the hands.

(And I proofread my posts before and after I post them, too.)

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited March 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Thomas...

A guess (you changed that to "think"), yet not a good one...

What I am actually saying is that the hands are part of a compilation of evidence that suggests the BYP are not genuine...

That if there were any bits of evidence that suggest they are genuine... not just that they could have come from THAT camera - which in itself does not prove Marina took them at that tim - I'd like to hear them...

Do we agree that Oswald seemed to know what he was doing around photographic equipment?

Do we agree that the CIA/FBI also have photographic experts capable of creating this finished product?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.

So Thomas, this expert - by 1963 - had 8 years in the photgraphic section and since 1951 (12 more years) was involved in photographic analysis...

20 years of analysis and he handles at most 300 examinations or 15 per year as far back as 1940.

The camera in question was produced from the late 50's into the early 60's so it is very UNLIKELY that many of his examinations included this camera's output. Especially the ones from 1940-1948.

If it is possible that an expertly done process cannot be eliminated AND the players in this tragedy were more than capable of producing such a finished product... is it anysurprise that when looked at VERY CLOSELY, beyond the ability of the naked eye, lines appear EXACTLY where they shouldn't be.... and then, what follows is pure HSCA BS... Aren't fine lines in the chin area examples of EVIDENCE TO INDICATE???

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

ocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

399)

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph .

Edited March 27, 2013 by David Josephs

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas...

A guess (you changed that to "think"), yet not a good one...

What I am actually saying is that the hands are part of a compilation of evidence that suggests the BYP are not genuine...

That if there were any bits of evidence that suggest they are genuine... not just that they could have come from THAT camera - which in itself does not prove Marina took them at that tim - I'd like to hear them...

Do we agree that Oswald seemed to know what he was doing around photographic equipment?

Do we agree that the CIA/FBI also have photographic experts capable of creating this finished product?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.

So Thomas, this expert - by 1963 - had 8 years in the photgraphic section and since 1951 (12 more years) was involved in photographic analysis...

20 years of analysis and he handles at most 300 examinations or 15 per year as far back as 1940.

The camera in question was produced from the late 50's into the early 60's so it is very UNLIKELY that many of his examinations included this camera's output. Especially the ones from 1940-1948.

If it is possible that an expertly done process cannot be eliminated AND the players in this tragedy were more than capable of producing such a finished product... is it anysurprise that when looked at VERY CLOSELY, beyond the ability of the naked eye, lines appear EXACTLY where they shouldn't be.... and then, what follows is pure HSCA BS... Aren't fine lines in the chin area examples of EVIDENCE TO INDICATE???

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

ocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

399)

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph .

David,

Please understand that on this thread I'm only concerned with your apparent belief that you have posted definite photographic proof that Oswald's hands were faked in the back yard photographs. My argument is that the resolution is so fuzzy as to make it impossible to say whether or not they were faked.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited March 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

Thomas...

A guess (you changed that to "think"), yet not a good one...

What I am actually saying is that the hands are part of a compilation of evidence that suggests the BYP are not genuine...

That if there were any bits of evidence that suggest they are genuine... not just that they could have come from THAT camera - which in itself does not prove Marina took them at that tim - I'd like to hear them...

Do we agree that Oswald seemed to know what he was doing around photographic equipment?

Do we agree that the CIA/FBI also have photographic experts capable of creating this finished product?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.

So Thomas, this expert - by 1963 - had 8 years in the photgraphic section and since 1951 (12 more years) was involved in photographic analysis...

20 years of analysis and he handles at most 300 examinations or 15 per year as far back as 1940.

The camera in question was produced from the late 50's into the early 60's so it is very UNLIKELY that many of his examinations included this camera's output. Especially the ones from 1940-1948.

If it is possible that an expertly done process cannot be eliminated AND the players in this tragedy were more than capable of producing such a finished product... is it anysurprise that when looked at VERY CLOSELY, beyond the ability of the naked eye, lines appear EXACTLY where they shouldn't be.... and then, what follows is pure HSCA BS... Aren't fine lines in the chin area examples of EVIDENCE TO INDICATE???

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

ocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

399)

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph .

You just have to love it when davie jo tries to tell us he knows ANYTHING about photography. Why he just WAVES HIS HANDS WILDLY and tells us this to that is wrong. What expert analysis! [/sarcasm]

But it is really quite comical to see him lather up. Lets see...hands...just because he says so. HSCA experts...bad guys. Simple water mark...should not be there. Par for the course for davie jo...its ALL FAKED. Never mind there is nothing at all out of place or abnormal if you have even a reasonable understanding of the photographic process. And no real expert has conduced the photos are fake...davie jo NEEDS then to be fake or his fantasy construct fall apart.

But you do have the love the silly notion that someone would add a head by slicing through the chin...the WORST place in the world to do such a thing. Not only do you need to match skin tonality, but you would have the wrong CHIN.....simply as silly as it gets, but its par for the course for the 'everything is fake' crowd.

[David Josephs]

Thomas...

A guess (you changed that to "think"), yet not a good one...

What I am actually saying is that the hands are part of a compilation of evidence that suggests the BYP are not genuine...

That if there were any bits of evidence that suggest they are genuine... not just that they could have come from THAT camera - which in itself does not prove Marina took them at that tim - I'd like to hear them...

Do we agree that Oswald seemed to know what he was doing around photographic equipment?

Do we agree that the CIA/FBI also have photographic experts capable of creating this finished product?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.

So Thomas, this expert - by 1963 - had 8 years in the photgraphic section and since 1951 (12 more years) was involved in photographic analysis...

20 years of analysis and he handles at most 300 examinations or 15 per year as far back as 1940.

The camera in question was produced from the late 50's into the early 60's so it is very UNLIKELY that many of his examinations included this camera's output. Especially the ones from 1940-1948.

If it is possible that an expertly done process cannot be eliminated AND the players in this tragedy were more than capable of producing such a finished product... is it anysurprise that when looked at VERY CLOSELY, beyond the ability of the naked eye, lines appear EXACTLY where they shouldn't be.... and then, what follows is pure HSCA BS... Aren't fine lines in the chin area examples of EVIDENCE TO INDICATE???

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

ocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

399)

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph .

David,

Please understand that on this thread I'm only concerned with your apparent belief that you have posted definite photographic proof that Oswald's hands were faked in the back yard photographs. My argument is that the resolution is so fuzzy as to make it impossible to say whether or not they were faked.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

I never said Oswald's hands were faked... you did.

I am saying that the person who's hands are holding the rifle/newspaper in the BYPs is not the same person whose face is in those photos.

Body = person 1

Hands = person 1

Face = person 2

If Lamson wants to quote the HSCA photographic study.. and believes THEY are the qualified body of people that lets him sleep well at night regarding this issue... so be it....

He is in no better position to prove or disprove the photos as real or created as anyone else. So he believes the HSCA and WCR.

'nuff said.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas...

A guess (you changed that to "think"), yet not a good one...

What I am actually saying is that the hands are part of a compilation of evidence that suggests the BYP are not genuine...

That if there were any bits of evidence that suggest they are genuine... not just that they could have come from THAT camera - which in itself does not prove Marina took them at that tim - I'd like to hear them...

Do we agree that Oswald seemed to know what he was doing around photographic equipment?

Do we agree that the CIA/FBI also have photographic experts capable of creating this finished product?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process. Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.

So Thomas, this expert - by 1963 - had 8 years in the photgraphic section and since 1951 (12 more years) was involved in photographic analysis...

20 years of analysis and he handles at most 300 examinations or 15 per year as far back as 1940.

The camera in question was produced from the late 50's into the early 60's so it is very UNLIKELY that many of his examinations included this camera's output. Especially the ones from 1940-1948.

If it is possible that an expertly done process cannot be eliminated AND the players in this tragedy were more than capable of producing such a finished product... is it anysurprise that when looked at VERY CLOSELY, beyond the ability of the naked eye, lines appear EXACTLY where they shouldn't be.... and then, what follows is pure HSCA BS... Aren't fine lines in the chin area examples of EVIDENCE TO INDICATE???

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

ocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

399)

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph .

David,

Please understand that on this thread I'm only concerned with your apparent belief that you have posted definite photographic proof that Oswald's hands were faked in the back yard photographs. My argument is that the resolution is so fuzzy as to make it impossible to say whether or not they were faked.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

I never said Oswald's hands were faked... you did.

I am saying that the person who's hands are holding the rifle/newspaper in the BYPs is not the same person whose face is in those photos.

Body = person 1

Hands = person 1

Face = person 2

Dear Mr. Josephs,

If the head/face of person B were to be superimposed/pasted/spliced/(or whatever-word-you-want-to-use) onto/over/on the body/torso and hands of person A in a composite final-product photograph, couldn't one say that the body/torso and hands had been "faked" for person B, taking the word "faked" in its broadest meaning?

In retrospect I should have said, "On this thread I'm only concerned with your opinion that you have posted definite photographic proof that the hands in the backyard photographs are not Oswald's." I'll try to chose my words a little more carefully for you next time. Sorry.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

P.S. Color coded especially for you.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson never heard of the Eisendrath Report.

But alas, I don't think the panel did either since it freaked out Eisendrath that they were so incompetent as not to be able to detect tell tale signs of forgery even when they knew a forgery was in front of them.

So tell us who exactly failed Jim, show us the quotes. You do have them don't you?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Ian Kingsbury]

David

Thanks for bringing this to our attention I will have a butchers

And let you know .

Ian