"The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop of Monday, November 11, 1963"

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

You really know your stuff @David Josephs, thanks for all your hard work and for sharing it here with us.

Thanks Denny...  been doing this a long time. 

Sorry for being so bad at suffering the fools though... Terribly hard to abide by any rationally thinking individual who can look at the evidence uncovered and still conclude there was no conspiracy, no cover-up and Oswald was alone and personally responsible.  And no, they don't get any benefit of any doubt...  The intellectual dishonesty necessary to come to those conclusions boggles the mind.

[Denny Zartman]

6 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Denny...  been doing this a long time. 

Sorry for being so bad at suffering the fools though... Terribly hard to abide by any rationally thinking individual who can look at the evidence uncovered and still conclude there was no conspiracy, no cover-up and Oswald was alone and personally responsible.  And no, they don't get any benefit of any doubt...  The intellectual dishonesty necessary to come to those conclusions boggles the mind.

It's totally understandable, at least it is from my perspective. That's why I've begun refraining from posting here often. It's genuinely difficult for me to continue arguing with LN's over the most basic stuff. I feel like I've been doing it for years because I have. I once went round and round and wasted a day arguing with someone who thought Oswald was trying to kill Connolly. It gets frustrating at times. And I personally believe some LN's seem to be doing it as an intellectual exercise.

I'd like to know what actually happened that day and why, and it's hard to arrive at that conclusion by constantly arguing with people who think the case was satisfactorily solved in a couple of hours sixty years ago.

[David Josephs]

42 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

It's totally understandable, at least it is from my perspective. That's why I've begun refraining from posting here often. It's genuinely difficult for me to continue arguing with LN's over the most basic stuff. I feel like I've been doing it for years because I have. I once went round and round and wasted a day arguing with someone who thought Oswald was trying to kill Connolly. It gets frustrating at times. And I personally believe some LN's seem to be doing it as an intellectual exercise.

I'd like to know what actually happened that day and why, and it's hard to arrive at that conclusion by constantly arguing with people who think the case was satisfactorily solved in a couple of hours sixty years ago.

Gotta love that ignore button...  removes the post and therefore removes the impulse.  Makes the forum a much more enjoyable place to have a discussion...

As you've said, same basic stuff with the same tired WCR excuses.  Like the world stopped in 1964 and nothing has been done since...

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You are kidding, right?  Now you're going to start telling us the backyard photos are genuine? 

 

 

 

 

I am perplexed that the HSCA somehow concluded the backyard photos are genuine. Maybe somebody with knowledge of the HSCA can explain how their experts looked at Oswald in those photos and could genuinely think with the weird posture he wouldn't be falling flat on his face. In the past I have only heard "experts concluded" but no explanations given.

Another thing never explained is the sling attaches to the BP rifle in a totally different way than the Carcano found at the TSBD.

[David Josephs]

ALBA's evidence goes both ways...  Can't right now, but will look more into it...

 

 

 

Alba statement re Oswald in NO - Rifle_sling.pdf Rifle_sling2.pdf

[Greg Doudna]

David Josephs, you have suggested that the Furniture Mart and Sport Shop Lee and Marina expedition in Michael Paine's blue-and-white '55 Olds on Nov 11, 1963, that I have shown, was (a) fabricated by the FBI; (b) citizens making up stories to insert themselves into history; and (c) impersonators.

Are you aware that these three explanations are mutually exclusive? It is like a lawyer arguing the client is innocent of the murder because he was fifty miles away from the scene of the crime and besides it was self-defense. You need to pick one and not try to have all three mutually exclusive alternatives at the same time.

Do you think the FBI forged Dial Ryder's job ticket so well that it fooled Dial Ryder into believing it was his handwriting? Or do you think Dial Ryder was in on it with the FBI? But if he was in on it, why bother to have the FBI's top-secret forgers forge it? What exactly are you imagining?

[Guest]

On 2/8/2023 at 1:36 PM, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

David, the image in the viewfinder is inverted horizontally (the left side becomes the right side and vice versa.), not vertically.

Sources :

From http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Viewfinder  "Waist level finders / Simple waist-level finders / In antique cameras the reflecting type viewfinder is the most common means of image preview. Finders of these types are not always easy to use with precision, but they were cheap, compact and easy to add to a folding camera's front standard or folding bed, or into the housing of a box camera. The view in them is reversed left-to-right".

From  http://www.copweb.be/Imperial_Camera.htm  " Lens and viewfinder : The upper lens is intended for the aiming. The image, which is reflected by a mirror inclined to 45 degrees, is projected to the back of the frosted glass (in translucent plastic). This retro-projected image is inverted horizontally (the left side becomes the right side and vice versa.)"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera  "The image in the waist-level finder is reversed 'left to right' which can make framing a photograph difficult, especially for an inexperienced user or with a moving subject."

It's the same optical VF system as the optional 45° angle viewfinder I have on one of my Minox camera's (also inverting L to R and vice versa, I just checked to be sure, not upside down)

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You are kidding, right?  Now you're going to start telling us the backyard photos are genuine? 

HSCA panel of experts found no indication of inauthenticity. Like you, I don't have the expertise to dispute that.

Here's a suggestion: I offer my paper for anyone interested, and if you don't like it, just don't read it, or put it on ignore. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

HSCA panel of experts found no indication of inauthenticity. Like you, I don't have the expertise to dispute that.

Here's a suggestion: I offer my paper for anyone interested, and if you don't like it, just don't read it, or put it on ignore. 

Indeed, and the only way to judge those pictures would be to closely study the "original" negatives (not the pictures from pictures, not the pictures off a neg., etc).

We don't have access to those negatives, so... 

 

And I like the paper (going back on topic), it offers an explanation I had not read before and it actually makes sense.

We also see the recurrent themes with people that were somehow involved : "we had nothing to do with Oswald" or "we knew it all along", typical human behavior. Some will try to stay away as far as possible, others are throwing themselves in front of the cameras.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

45 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

HSCA panel of experts found no indication of inauthenticity. Like you, I don't have the expertise to dispute that.

Here's a suggestion: I offer my paper for anyone interested, and if you don't like it, just don't read it, or put it on ignore. 

To be fair, the HSCA panel identified a few anomalies in the photos that they couldn’t explain, like the so-called “fine lines” in Oswald’s chin area. The panel proposed I think four different mutually exclusive explanations for the chin lines - so they really had no idea.

I recall at least one other unexplained anomaly, maybe something about “dark spots” - but either way, my point is that the HSCA finding of authenticity was not really conclusive. There are still outstanding technical questions about the BYPs that warrant a new examination with modern technology, but I don’t see that ever happening unless there’s a new investigation. 

[Greg Doudna]

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

To be fair, the HSCA panel identified a few anomalies in the photos that they couldn’t explain, like the so-called “fine lines” in Oswald’s chin area. The panel proposed I think four different mutually exclusive explanations for the chin lines - so they really had no idea.

I recall at least one other unexplained anomaly, maybe something about “dark spots” - but either way, my point is that the HSCA finding of authenticity was not really conclusive. There are still outstanding technical questions about the BYPs that warrant a new examination with modern technology, but I don’t see that ever happening unless there’s a new investigation. 

Yes, on the technical level I am aware of that too--the HSCA panel, of about the top luminaries in the field in existence for analysis of photographs, found overwhelmingly and unanimously that there was no certain indication of inauthenticity in any of the claimed anomalies, also made clear that their finding did not rule out a technically-possible "perfect forgery". In other words, as I read it, they made clear they did not claim to have proven authenticity, only claimed that none of the CT claims of anomalies held up as what CT's claimed they were (proof or indication of inauthenticity). 

Also, in terms of numbers so far as I can tell acceptance of the BYP's as genuine is a majority view among CT's, and I suspect a majority view among readers of this forum if a poll were actually taken. There were the 2015 articles by Jeff Carter in Kennedys and King published by DiEugenio accepting authenticity (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3), though David Josephs' counterargument arguing inauthenticity (on grounds rejected by 100% of the HSCA panel of experts) was also published at that time (https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/the-backyard-photographs). Of course truth is determined by evidence not numbers, but at least this is the present standing of this idea. 

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David Josephs, you have suggested that the Furniture Mart and Sport Shop Lee and Marina expedition in Michael Paine's blue-and-white '55 Olds on Nov 11, 1963, that I have shown, was (a) fabricated by the FBI; (b) citizens making up stories to insert themselves into history; and (c) impersonators.

Are you aware that these three explanations are mutually exclusive? It is like a lawyer arguing the client is innocent of the murder because he was fifty miles away from the scene of the crime and besides it was self-defense. You need to pick one and not try to have all three mutually exclusive alternatives at the same time.

Do you think the FBI forged Dial Ryder's job ticket so well that it fooled Dial Ryder into believing it was his handwriting? Or do you think Dial Ryder was in on it with the FBI? But if he was in on it, why bother to have the FBI's top-secret forgers forge it? What exactly are you imagining?

Your conclusions are one possible explanation for what happened... that you ignore months of his and his family being impersonated all thru Texas is yet another portion of the puzzle you leave out as it is not consistent with y our conclusions....

That you are blissfully unaware of the FBI's creation and manipulation of evidence related to that rifle is really no surprise Greg, it conflicts with your conclusions again.

You can make out handwriting on that ticket?  Other than the faint "Oswald" written at the top you can't make out anything and you take on faith evidence presented by the FBI...  I can't make that leap after everything I've seen...

Not imaging anything Greg...  You want to believe the FBI of 1963...  when virtually every item of evidence has their stink all over it, is your choice to make...

There are a few good books about the corruption of the Hoover FBI thru the 50's and 60's...  but again, if it conflicts with your presentation, why bother including it...

Look up the DOLAN reports on the visit to Klein's... tell me why back to back FBI reports conflict on something as basic as who has the microfilm...

You can believe in unicorns too Greg, doesn't make them real.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

And I like the paper (going back on topic), it offers an explanation I had not read before and it actually makes sense.

We also see the recurrent themes with people that were somehow involved : "we had nothing to do with Oswald" or "we knew it all along", typical human behavior. Some will try to stay away as far as possible, others are trowing themselves in front of the cameras.

Thanks Jean Paul. That's what I noticed--the way random ordinary human beings zapped by history react in human ways.

[David Josephs]

The is the WCR trying to explain away those line...

At higher magnification and with some contrast the lines are readily apparent...  as if those who created it wouldn't try to do the best job possible...

Of course it would take magnification and contrast to bring out the alteration...

And don't forget the DPD losing one of the negatives, and keeping one of the hulls...  

Greg will offer some benign explanation as usual...  amazing how much a LNer has to dismiss to get their conclusions to make any sense.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Greg will offer some benign explanation as usual...  amazing how much a LNer has to dismiss to get their conclusions to make any sense.

I am not a LN. Are you actually so misunderstood and misread of me on that point or is that an intentional attempt to falsely label and name-call (in the context of this forum).