real evidence (for a change) – what is it with these pictures of Oswald leafletting?

[Stephen Roy]

Mixup: I was not commenting on David Andrews' post 55. I was commenting on David Healey's post 56.

The latter is nothing more than a snotty attack on Tim Brennan. No comment about Beckham (who is not believable). His recent posts are often not directly on-point; rather, they are attempts at "us vs. them" sarcasm. There was a time, in the past, when that sort of thing was discouraged in the EdForum.

In Farewell to Justice, Mellen accepts Beckham's claim that it is he in that photo. I think Beckham misled Joan in many ways.

[Paul Brancato]

Stephen - putting aside for a moment your valid point about photo identification, do you have an opinion as to who the figure in question is? Shelley, Beckham, or neither?

[David Andrews]

Stephen -- Maybe I felt guilty for sins elsewhere. A lesson to me.

Edited November 17, 2015 by David Andrews

[David G. Healy]

Mixup: I was not commenting on David Andrews' post 55. I was commenting on David Healey's post 56.

The latter is nothing more than a snotty attack on Tim Brennan. No comment about Beckham (who is not believable). His recent posts are often not directly on-point; rather, they are attempts at "us vs. them" sarcasm. There was a time, in the past, when that sort of thing was discouraged in the EdForum.

In Farewell to Justice, Mellen accepts Beckham's claim that it is he in that photo. I think Beckham misled Joan in many ways.

there was a time here, and on other forums/boards Blackburst-Roy, when addressing another, YOU spelled their name correctly. Can't help yourself can ya?

As for Brennan, you have got to be kidding me? He debated Ben Holmes on ACJ for years concerning case evidence and got his proverbial lone nut clock cleaned, EVERYTIME... just another .john wannabe, "newsgroup commentator" is how he always signed his postings --commentator-- can you dig it?... And there's good reason to believe Brennan is Tim West, a notoriously failed standup comic from upper Nu Yawk. Even nutters get hoodwinked now and then!

But most can spell last names. And yes, I do know the definition of "blackburst"!

[Stephen Roy]

Sorry for misspelling your name, David!

It would be helpful to do something other than attack.

[David G. Healy]

...

It would be helpful to do something other than attack.

which begs the questions: are we working towards a case conclusion or simply playing the proverbial, lone nut, holding game? I say the latter. (sorry for interrupting the thread)

Edited November 17, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Stephen Roy]

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

[Stephen Roy]

Stephen - putting aside for a moment your valid point about photo identification, do you have an opinion as to who the figure in question is? Shelley, Beckham, or neither?

Just my opinion: I don't see enough resemblance with Shelley to say that it's him, nor do I see any other reason to suspect that he might have been there. As for Beckham, I don't believe him and I see no resemblance. Beyond that, no, I don't have an opinion who it is. It is possible that it was just a passerby. Hard to imagine someone with a secret connection with LHO showing up there in front of a TV camera.

[David G. Healy]

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

[Thomas Graves]

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

whom

--Tommy

[David G. Healy]

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

whom

--Tommy

I'll get my secretary on that... but, thanks

Edited November 17, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Stephen Roy]

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

I'm going to close this out now, because we're hijacking Martin's thread, but...

You just proved my point again, David. You offer nothing on the topic of the thread, just a blithe dismissal of everyone else who believes differently than you. I think the EdForum functions better when we treat each other politely, in spite of differences.

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/8/2015 at 6:56 PM, Stephen Roy said:

Every professional society - and. for better or worse, we are one - needs to have some level of self-criticism to prevent it from drifting into poor practices. As I said and still emphatically insist, this business of identifying specific people from old photos is highly imprecise and highly prone to a whole host of reasons for misidentification. As poor a practice as this is, the harm is exacerbated by, as was done at the outset of this thread, flatly stating that the specific person appears in an incriminating situation in an old photo.

I could accept: Doesn't this look like so-and-so, but flatly stating them to be in the photo is beyond professional standards. I've seen it happen too many times in the JFK field and it does nothing to enhance our gravitas with the outside world.

I don't think Facebook's facial recognition app can compare to several of the high tech companies who now charge $1,000 to $2,000 to analyze just two pictures

And in 8 years, one would expect improvements in this field of identification.

If some of the most important security agencies in the world use "facial recognition" technology, and spend millions on incorporating it into their programs, I can't believe they would do so if it was as poorly effective as you describe in your experience.

I also simply do not believe the two Rip Robertson photos could not be adequately analyzed to make a credible ID.

And it appears that the majority of posters here do not buy Larry Hancock's proposal that Thomas Beckham is the background man in the Oswald Trade Mart photo.

For the same exact reasons I mention in my Shelley At The Trade Mart photo thread postings.

The photo of Beckham shown above via the link provided by Ian Lloyd is a "mug shot."

A mug shot?

Like I said, the first gut feeling I had when looking at that photo of Beckham was that it had a "carney" vibe.

Beckham just does not look like a "suit and tie" type person.

Respectfully, the background flyer inspecting man in the Oswald/Trade Mart photo is not Beckham.

In my eyes it is Bill Shelley.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Larry Hancock]

Just for reference, at the time of the photo Beckham had just gotten a new job at a radio station - as a disc jockey - and was considerably  more "respectable" than previously.  He also had a new, underage, wife and would shortly face morals charges over that.  In an expanded view of the leafleting photo he can be seen talking with a group of young, very well dressed girls one of whom I suspect was his new wife.  Admittedly speculation but it is one thing that would back  up his assertion that he had encountered Oswald leafleting on the street. Given that context I'm still maintaining that the individual in question was Thomas Beckham.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

In an expanded view of the leafleting photo he can be seen talking with a group of young, very well dressed girls one of whom I suspect was his new wife.

Respectfully LH, are you saying that the blond pompadoured background man we see in the Oswald/Trade Mart photo is actually speaking to a group of young very well dressed girls in that photo?

That in an expanded view we could see this?

The suited background man is looking downward in that picture. At quite an angle.

Are the girls "in between" the man and the fellows we see in front of him?

If so, they all must have been very short.

I have not seen the expanded view of this photo scene you mention.

However, it seems to me that in the first unexpanded view photo we should be able to see at least a "glimpse" of a "group" of girls standing amongst all those men.

Again however I ask you LH:

Do you really not see the differences in the "mug shot" facial photo of Beckham compared to the older looking, more fairer ( or paler ) skinned, blonder haired, deeper more pronounced sunken cheeked and more protruding brow, suit and tie wearing man in the New Orleans Trade Mart photo?

I'll trust my own eyes in stating those two men are not one and the same.

I would bet my entire weekly recycle income monies that no facial recognition technology analysis would ever find that they are.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Joe Bauer