[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Makes no sense. Mary Ferrell for example was a staunch conspiracy supporter and was no CIA assett. Whether or not she believed the photos were fake or not would matter not to the CIA.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/...info-agent

Patrick C Wrote:Incidentally, Tony Summers and Paul Hoch now feel that Oswald may have acted alone after all.

Tony Summers is very much of the view that the Mexico City trip is key IF there was a conspiracy. I would tend to agree with him.

Which would make them believers, not critics.

You make my point for me.

[Ben Holmes]

It's not the chin issue that this photo hides (that would be shown by photos of Oswald).

It's the issue of shadows. Clearly an attempt was made to duplicate the stance, but the only reason to remove the head - the only REAL reason ... is to hide shadow detail.

They removed the proof that the nose shadow didn't work.

And no believer in 50 years has produced a photo in a similar stance and under similiar sun conditions that match the BY photos.

When Oswald said that his head had been pasted on, he was surely simply telling the truth.

[Garry Puffer]

The latest expert dragged out to debunk the charges that the backyard photographs are fakes was Hany Farid, a respected Dartmouth professor.

Ah, but Farid's work was not exactly stunning when one looks at it. The following is from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-assassi...amed/16224

"Professor Hany Farid, a member of the computer science faculty at Dartmouth, in a recent article injected himself into a long-running dispute concerning the authenticity of photographs related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. These photos reportedly of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are collectively known as "the backyard photographs."

"Farid's analysis immediately raised the ire of many assassination researchers, who for years have claimed the photos are clever fakes. In an article published in The Huffington Post (November 5, 2009), he has claimed that it is "extremely unlikely" that backyard photographs of Oswald are fake, based upon his digital analysis of the shadows. Apparently referring to the more famous of the backyard photos - the one published on the cover of Life on February 21, 1964 nearly eight months before the Warren Commission handpicked by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin - Farid says, "You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect. As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake."
...

"If Farid had only conducted a literature search, he would have known that the shadows were but one of multiple indications of fakery and that, even if he were right about the shadows, he [could] be wrong about the photos.

"Unfortunately, neither the news reporters nor the professor seems to have known enough to appreciate that his conclusion is contradicted by multiple lines of proof, including digital analyses, which are easily accessible - even by Google!

"Such proofs include that the chin in the photos is not Oswald's chin; that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip; that the finger tips of one hand are missing; and that the figure in the image is too short to be Oswald.

"Farid's involvement therefore raises serious questions about the integrity of his research and the abuse of his standing as a Dartmouth professor to make public pronouncements impressionable to a wide general audience."

This is how Farid's work is explained in an article titled Verdict is in on whether Lee Harvey Oswald photo is a fake, thanks to 3D tech found at this URL:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../74264150/

"Both the Warren Commission and a special House committee on assassinations had already found photo tampering hadn't taken place, and Farid had done studies in 2009 and 2010 that determined the photo's lighting and shadows were indeed feasible, per Phys.org. But some said that Oswald's pose in the photo, in which he appears to be standing somewhat off-balance, was a physical impossibility, so this time around Farid and his team put the photo through a rigorous 3D stability analysis. By adding appropriate mass little by little to each section of a 3D model of Oswald, they were able to examine Oswald's balance to show he certainly could have stood that way. The study also found, once again, that the lighting, shadows, and rifle length were also plausible.

"With a simple adjustment to the height and weight, the 3D human model that we created can be used to forensically analyze the pose, stability, and shadows in any image of people," Farid says in the release."

One photo in which only the shadows were examined turns into a proof that all the photos are genuine. My oh my.


  hany-medres_0.jpg (Size: 76.34 KB / Downloads: 126)

[Nick Principe]

This lengthy write-up is a good summation of everything discussed so far, including the "headless" pose (CE748), the HSCA nose shadow recreation, a list of discrepancies as found by Jack White, questions as to the time of day the photos were taken compared to when they were alleged to have been taken. Et cetera.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/38733842/Fari...oto-Fiasco

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:Makes no sense. Mary Ferrell for example was a staunch conspiracy supporter and was no CIA assett. Whether or not she believed the photos were fake or not would matter not to the CIA.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/...info-agent

Patrick C Wrote:Incidentally, Tony Summers and Paul Hoch now feel that Oswald may have acted alone after all.

Tony Summers is very much of the view that the Mexico City trip is key IF there was a conspiracy. I would tend to agree with him.

Which would make them believers, not critics.

You make my point for me.

But you're not a critic either, Ben, you're a conspiracy believer. A researcher like Paul Hoch, with his keen scientific mind, was always able to weigh information objectively (or with minimal bias). You, on the other hand, stopped being objective about the JFK case many years ago.

[Patrick C]

I lost touch with Paul Hoch years ago, he used to send me his "Echoes of Conspiracy" news letter approx every quarter. You are quite right, he was and hopefully still is a very skilled researcher.

The last time I heard from him was an e mail in which he said that he had come to accept that perhaps Oswald had acted alone after all. I am not sure why he made that acknowledgement but as I recall I think he was expecting more to come out as the years went by and as it did not....perhaps the official view became more plausible....

[Lee Abbott]

Patrick, I simply can't fathom why anyone would conclude Oswald acted alone considering so much was (and still is) suppressed and/or classified.... In other words, I don't see any logic in that statement - even if it were true.

Further, by "acting alone" I imagine you mean he was the only shooter, which also defies logic (and certainly the evidence, too), but are you also suggesting he wasn't influenced or had any confederates - at very least planning to help him escape, then in all likelihood kill him and plant something on his body indicating Castro was behind the assassination?

And it's not a matter of CTs wanting a conspiracy or needing a conspiracy, as Dale H. Hayes, Jr. often rants, but rather the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

[Patrick C]

Lee Abbott Wrote:...but are you also suggesting he wasn't influenced...

No not at all and you KNOW I have stated many times I believe he would have been influenced even if indirectly and perhaps in Mexico City. I accept that it is possible he was goaded by consulate officials on that trip and that could have sowed a seed.

Lee Abbott Wrote:...or had any confederates...

......I believe he almost certainly acted alone. Of course it cannot be proven he acted alone, but it would always be tough to locate the Invisible Man

As for an escape plan, well of course it is possible, but it would seem most likely that he ended up in the Theatre by pure happenstance........it is possible Oswald saw Brewer and became aware he was noticed.

Lee Abbott Wrote:I simply can't fathom why anyone would conclude Oswald acted alone considering so much was (and still is) suppressed and/or classified.... In other words, I don't see any logic in that statement - even if it were true.

I think it is the case that the vast majority of relevant information has been released. Some is coming in 2017 and the rest then in 2039.....I would need to check the numbers

Article about docs and same link as Ben posted some days ago...
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/04/breakin...documents/

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:Makes no sense. Mary Ferrell for example was a staunch conspiracy supporter and was no CIA assett. Whether or not she believed the photos were fake or not would matter not to the CIA.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/...info-agent

Patrick C Wrote:Incidentally, Tony Summers and Paul Hoch now feel that Oswald may have acted alone after all.

Tony Summers is very much of the view that the Mexico City trip is key IF there was a conspiracy. I would tend to agree with him.

Which would make them believers, not critics.

You make my point for me.

But you're not a critic either, Ben, you're a conspiracy believer. A researcher like Paul Hoch, with his keen scientific mind, was always able to weigh information objectively (or with minimal bias). You, on the other hand, stopped being objective about the JFK case many years ago.

A 'believer' is someone who continues to believe despite the evidence against them.

Feel free to CITE the evidence that is against anything I've stated.

I predict dead silence - because you're well aware of the fact that I can cite the evidence for anything I post.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Lee Abbott Wrote:I simply can't fathom why anyone would conclude Oswald acted alone considering so much was (and still is) suppressed and/or classified.... In other words, I don't see any logic in that statement - even if it were true.

I think it is the case that the vast majority of relevant information has been released. Some is coming in 2017 and the rest then in 2039.....I would need to check the numbers

What believers cannot explain is why some of this material that has now been released ahead of schedule, was ever classified in the first place.

Such as the medical testimony taken by the HSCA.