Forums

Ray Mitcham Wrote:Seems i was wrong about the angle of the sun with if the wires are 30 ' away. At that distance it is about 1˚. My mistake.

It's good of you to admit that, Ray. Thanks.

Ray Mitcham Wrote:However regarding the length of Oswald's shadows in both photos, do you agree that Oswald right foot in C133C is about a toe cap's length back from where it is in C133A?

If not what is your estimate for the difference?

Hmm... you saw the comparison image I posted earlier. You have to consider where the shoe meets the ground, so I'd say up to half a foot. I also think he might be standing slightly more erect in 133C, but I admit it's subjective.

Well as the photos are absolutely authentic, it is all a bit academic anyway guys.......

Patrick C Wrote:Well as the photos are absolutely authentic, it is all a bit academic anyway guys.......

A rather common logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

What's really "academic", Patrick, is the moment David Atlee Phillips announced Oswald never was in Mexico City 7 weeks before the assassination, your lone nut party was over ... ended ... completed .. finished .... kaput ....bye-bye...hasta la vista, baby ... down the toilet (the loo in England).

Lee Abbott Wrote:What's really "academic", Patrick, is the moment David Atlee Phillips announced Oswald never was in Mexico City 7 weeks before the assassination, your lone nut party was over ... ended ... completed .. finished .... kaput ....bye-bye...hasta la vista, baby ... down the toilet (the loo in England).

The strongest evidence that Oswald was never in Mexico City comes from, ironically; the very CIA that attempted to frame him.

It's the fact that despite numerous visits to two embassies, the CIA was unable to produce even a single photo of Oswald.

This beggars the imagination... and is the strongest evidence that Oswald wasn't in Mexico...

I'm an agnostic on the issue, as there's strong evidence in both directions. The only problem is that while critics can easily give credible explanations for the known evidence, WC Supporters cannot... and often refuse to even try.

Quote:Hmm... you saw the comparison image I posted earlier. You have to consider where the shoe meets the ground, so I'd say up to half a foot. I also think he might be standing slightly more erect in 133C, but I admit it's subjective.

I think you are being generous by saying half a foot, but I'll go with that.

If Oswald was standing 6" further back in C133C than he is in C133a, then, I think you would have to agree that his shadow should also be about six inches longer.

It is about a foot longer (the size of the shadow of his head on the palings.)

This despite the fact that as the sun has moved, which should have made his shadow longer in C133A.

But Marina remembered taking the photo right....?

That sort of makes the whole "issue" disappear.......

Quote:But Marina remembered taking the photo right....?

That sort of makes the whole "issue" disappear.......

She remembered taking one photo, oh no, then she remembered taking two, oh no, then it turned out she had taken three.

She remembered taking them with a black camera holding it up to her eye,when it was a grey camera which is held at waist level.

You were saying?

Does not matter, that she remembered taking a photo is enough. That she got the camera confused or that she thought she only took one is largely irrelevant

Here is what author Mike Majerus has to say about the postal workers.....you could easily say the same about Marina...people make mistakes, don't remember, forget etc etc....

"I think it is all too easy to second-guess these guys and why they did what they did, or did not do what we would have hoped they would have done. They are just typical workers, and like the rest of us, they make mistakes and are not always as conscientious as we would hope they would be. You could say the same thing about Buell Frazier seeing Oswald carrying a long paper sack into the Depository on the day the president was going to go right by the building. I would hope that I would have at least wondered if there was a weapon in there. The same thing happens every day in America. That's why nut cases like the shooter in Dallas this week slipped through the cracks, as did 19 hijackers on 9/11. People are too busy with their everyday lives to pay attention to this kind of stuff. Just my two cents worth. But it seems that the conspiracy people always take something like this and twist it into some vast conspiracy. Life is full of nutty things. Our entire book is about those odd happenstances."

Marina took the pics. And as I stated before - if you were plotting to frame Oswald ....why ON EARTH would you fake a photo.....it is just nuts and it is a silly theory. It just another red herring among dozens of others that make up this conspiracy nonsense.

Patrick C Wrote:"Marina took the pics. And as I stated before - if you were plotting to frame Oswald ....why ON EARTH would you fake a photo.....it is just nuts and it is a silly theory. It just another red herring among dozens of others that make up this conspiracy nonsense."

"Nonsense"----from guy who believes the single bullet theory?

Without the photos, they have nothing to link Oswald to the rifle.