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

[Len Colby]

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

Funny Jimbo I don't recall you ever objecting when that other Jim (originally) from LA started countless threads on his theory LHO was 'doorway man'. This discussion was off topic on the other thread which wasn't about the BYPs or even anything photo related.

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

I don't have "an agenda against" anyone but the same people tend to make absurd claims over and over. OK, OK I cop to having a very strong dislike for Fetzer, but as Lennon said "I'm not the only one".

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

Sorry Jimmy I've only been on moderation once in my nearly 8 years here.

[Len Colby]

Should we now go ahead and make a thread entitled:

"Mistakes by Tommy Graves" or "Asinine comments by Graves"? Or How Tommy could not find a reason that Oswald's trip to Mexico made the FPCC look bad?

Should we make similar threads about Jack White or David Lifton or John Armstrong?

Wait are saying you think David Josephs is wrong about this

Would you like that? 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.

You moved your post here because Colby, who many people are suspicious about, originated it. If you want to cooperate with such a person, go ahead. IMO that says more about you than it does David.

That's right Jim, Tommy and I are in cahoots!

[Len Colby]

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.

OK Jim, cite the relevant portions of the report.

[Len Colby]

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 .

LOL hilarious example of selective highlighting trying desperately to make it seem as if expert agreed rather than agreed with his theory.

[Len Colby]

So Dave, get back to us with evidence, other than your gut feeling, the hands don't match. You think one set of fingers is fatter, show us, and make sure you've ruled out other possible factors.

[Thomas Graves]

So Dave, get back to us with evidence, other than your gut feeling, the hands don't match. You think one set of fingers is fatter, show us, and make sure you've ruled out other possible factors.

Yes, Len!

The fingers are thicker in the fuzzy "Backyard" photograph and in the one in which LHO (or his altered double?!) is waving from the train window, high above the camera and therefore at an angle quite different from the other photographs, making his fingers look shorter, too! LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Thomas - Colby - Lamson

Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein...

Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly.

If and when the three of you can present evidence that the THREE IMAGES are authentic... get back to us...

As I posted... believe the WCR/HSCA all you want... as there are the only bits of evidence that attempt to prove the BYP genuine... and they fail miserably.

I'm sure your TRIO can come up with the answers on your own from now on... I've presented my case... and you've done nothing to present your own.

Lip service proves nothing boys... where's the beef?

[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.

Bumped especially for DJ because he either hasn't read it yet or if he has, well..., he just doesn't seem to "get" the fact that I actually do understand what he's trying to say.

--Tommy

Edited March 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas - Colby - Lamson

Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein...

Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly.

If and when the three of you can present evidence that the THREE IMAGES are authentic... get back to us...

As I posted... believe the WCR/HSCA all you want... as there are the only bits of evidence that attempt to prove the BYP genuine... and they fail miserably.

I'm sure your TRIO can come up with the answers on your own from now on... I've presented my case... and you've done nothing to present your own.

Lip service proves nothing boys... where's the beef?

Dear Mr. Josephs,

The whole point is that the photos in your study are, unfortunately, inconclusive regarding whether or not all of the hands in them are LHO's. Why? Well, due to the fact that different focal planes, lighting conditions, printed resolutions, comparative sizings, focal lengths of the lenses, etc, are incorporated/portrayed in those photographs, not to mention the fact that one of the photographs is a photo of a somewhat squashed hand-print.

I personally would like to believe that Oswald's face was pasted (or whatever) onto the body of another man in the backyard photos, but I refuse to seriously entertain what I consider to be amateurish and biased "analysis" or "study" of any part of those same backyard photos.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

PS: By the way, David, I'd like to make a friendly observation and suggestion. When you wrote above, "I've address [sic] that mistake repeatedly," it made me wonder if you ever proof read your posts to address any English language mistakes before you post them for the whole world to see.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

Thomas - Colby - Lamson

Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein...

Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly.

If and when the three of you can present evidence that the THREE IMAGES are authentic... get back to us...

As I posted... believe the WCR/HSCA all you want... as there are the only bits of evidence that attempt to prove the BYP genuine... and they fail miserably.

I'm sure your TRIO can come up with the answers on your own from now on... I've presented my case... and you've done nothing to present your own.

Lip service proves nothing boys... where's the beef?

If and when you can present evidence...that can withstand even cursory inspection...that the photos are fake, please get back to us.

Your "case" fails. But then again its based on complete photo ignorance on your part, but for those who know, that has always been a given.

Talk about "lip service"...yours is an epic fail.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

Thomas... "definite proof" of anything in this case is virtually impossible...

All I'm saying is the hands don't look the same... they don't seem to match...

When you ADD THAT TO THE OTHER MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE PROVING THE BYP NOT GENUINE it is not so hard to fathom or understand.

I presented and mentioned this other evidence... you want to call theose in the HSCA who questioned the authenticity "amateurs" so be it.

You, nor Frankenstein below you can prove they are genuine... nor explain how at least one of them was seen the night before and asked about hours before their discovery...

I know you want to believe... but you're stuck on the hands and have some hard-on for arguing with me over them and silly semantics.

That you want to play spelling cop is wonderful... and when the literary society tells me I can't have tea with them since my spelling and grammar can be poor from time to time due to the speed at which I respond and move on...

I'll let you know...

"The whole world to see" - a lttile bit full of oneself and this forum Thomas...

All I get are emails thanking me for taking on the likes of you and your buddies Costello and Frankenstein...

I talk about the trees and forest and all you three want to debate is leaf stem sizes....

Lammy chimes in with another request to do what he can't, won't and would never understand to begin with... Len is simply a xxxxx for no other purpose but the jollies

and we expect better from you sir....

Tell you what... when you find DEFINITIVE PROOF of anything in this case... start a thread and watch 'em come out of the woodwork...

I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion....

Catchyallater...

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

All I'm saying is the hands don't look the same... they don't seem to match...

[...]

Dear Mr. Josephs,

You're making some progress. At least now you're using the word "seem."

Keep up the good work,

--Tommy

Edited March 29, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion....

Catchyallater...

SOP for davie jo when his teat is in the wringer...run away...fast.

[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?

What a bunch of Lamsonian baloney.

From a guy who did not even know who Eisendrath was! WHen in fact, he was one of the most famous still photographers of his day. So illustrious that he did essays for several photo magazines.

His report is at NARA, the place Lammy has never been to and does not even know where its located. It was declassified as part of the ARRB. Since Eisendrath wanted it destroyed since he knew it completely vitiated the panel's credibility. But Blakey did not. He just classified it, so he could float the BS about the BYP being genuine, without anyone saying, "But how can that be if your panel did not even figure out how a photo was forged when they knew if was fake?"

BTW, I know about the Eisendrath Report through John Hunt. A guy who goes to NARA a lot. He scanned in the cover sheet and summarized its contents for me at Lancer.

Mr. Expert, Lammy, didn't have the foggiest idea what I was talking about. Too busy with his poor wife in his backyard making up "perspective experiments" to show the phony paper bag the police brought down could actually fit under Oswald's arm!

No crap, he said this.

LOL!

You are so full of bovine excrement it is flowing out of your ears.

It was a very simple question jimbo...and all you can do is avoid it.

SHOW us the pertinent quotes. You pimp this report over and over again and yet you can't offer up anything FROM it Have YOU read it jimbo?

And now lets show just how jimbo loves to fabricate.

Show me where I say, claim or in any way shape or form comment on the paper bag under Oswalds arm in relation to the perspective tests I shot whit my wife.

If oyu can't show us the DIRECT quotes we will all know you simply can't tell the truth and are a fabricator"

Have at it jimbo. Or are you just a garden variety blowhard?

[Cliff Varnell]

Yeah yeah yeah Lammy.

Go tell John Hunt, one of the most fastidious researchers around how he faked the cover of the Eisendrath Report to scan it in. And then he made up its contents.

You think John Hunt isn't capable of fraud?

The man is a two-time academic fraud -- and assassination porn star of the first magnitude.

In the fall of 2003 he publicly accused Robert Frazier of obstruction of justice -- then in the winter of 2004 he interviewed Robert Frazier over the phone without revealing his standing accusations.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FrazierSpeaks/FrazierSpeaks.htm

I figured that if one person on the planet could explain what happened, it would be Robert Frazier. And so I located his phone number and placed a call that would ultimately confirm my suspicions.

Very public suspicions up to that point, but Hunt doesn't divulge this.

I revisited the issue [of Q and K number assignations] later on in the conversation, asking Frazier, “So you were not responsible for assigning the evidence numbers?” Frazier’s response was direct and definitive; “Nope,” he said.

It was Standard Procedure for Frazier to assign Q and K numbers, but he didn't that day. In order to manufacture a gotcha moment Hunt doesn't bother to ask a follow up question to make sure that Frazier was talking about Standard Procedure, instead of what occurred the morning of 11/23/63.

What was Frazier’s explanation for the Q-Timeline Problem? Frazier told me it was not his responsibility to assign Q numbers. The task of assigning Q numbers, he said, fell to the “Laboratory Files Section” people, who were nine-to-fivers and would not have been present at 4:30 AM. Thus the evidence was not catalogued upon receipt. According to Frazier, the Lab Files people would have assigned the numbers well after the fact, which is why the Q sequence is disjointed. Does that explanation fit with the facts? Is it plausible in light of FBI Standard Operating Procedure for handling evidence?

Highly disingenuous of John Hunt. Why didn't Hunt give us the transcript of Fraziers actual statements? After all, Hunt based his affirmation of "suspicions" on this part of the conversation. But instead of a transcript we get a summary.

Slimy. to say the least.

Then we have my favorite bit of academic grift (or Assassination Porn masterpiece, you mileage may vary), "The Case for a Bunched Jacket."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

The key part:

[M]y research indicates that the difference between the impact point of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet finished.

This is amazing! The essay that contains "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" wasn't finished so Hunt published his conclusions, repeated over and over!

And the JFK Assassination Porn Industry ate it up. This was back in 1999. Helped make John Hunt a big star on the Assassination Porn Convention circuit (Lancer, Wecht). In the JFK Assassination Porn Industy, nothing succeeds like an attack on the prima facie case (low back wound/throat entrance wound). Just ask Tink Thompson. Sixc Seconds in Dallas pooh-poohed both the low back wound and the throat entrance wound. Major success.

The Assassination Porn Industry hates the prima facie case because it simplifies matters, and doesn't feed into the fetish for complexity true Assassination Porn fans relish.

[