06-22-2016, 05:45 AM
Mark Ulrik Wrote:No comments, Garry?
I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say.
It seemed to me there was nothing left to say.
06-22-2016, 05:45 AM
06-22-2016, 05:53 AM
Nick Principe Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:I post this only as part of an ongoing discussion about the photos.
BYPs.jpg
(Reference to image in this post: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=344#p344">viewtopic.php?p=344#p344</a><!-- l --> )
Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm under the impression that the photo on the right was 'discovered' in the 90's... and the one on the left was known back in 193-64 time period as a DPD 'recreation' photo.
The one on the left is not a recreation of the one on the right. The one on the left IS the one on the right, minus Oswald's face. The similarities between the two are too far beyond exactitude to be recreations.
Examples:
- The small gap between the index and middle finger on the left hand.
- The way the middle finger on the left hand pokes out at the third knuckle
- The way the legs are spaced
- The way "Oswald's" shadow falls.
- The way the shadow of "Oswald's" head falls on the same fence slat
- The exactness of the shadows on all surrounding inanimate objects, down to the slivers.
- The way the newspapers in the right hand are angled
- The flat paleness of the chin in both
- The recession of the fence slat nearest the left leg
There are a hundred more examples, and anyone who wishes to refute my claim must cite ONE difference between the two photos (other than the face, of course). Absolutely not a DPD recreation.
Nick, did you read the entire discussion between Ben and me about this?
[attachment=24]
06-22-2016, 06:11 AM
Garry Puffer Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:No comments, Garry?
I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say.
It seemed to me there was nothing left to say.
Wow, seems you guys would rather have a root canal that admit you're wrong. Classy.
06-22-2016, 06:51 AM
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:No comments, Garry?
I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say.
It seemed to me there was nothing left to say.
Wow, seems you guys would rather have a root canal that admit you're wrong. Classy.
Oh, so that's what you meant. Sorry, not ready to do that yet. I need to examine the issue a bit more, and I admitted that Shaneyfelt's testimony was troublesome. To take the arguments of a WC defender without examining what other people have said about it is, I have learned, not a good idea. I could be wrong in this small side issue, but I'm not yet convinced.
06-22-2016, 08:44 AM
Garry Puffer Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say.
It seemed to me there was nothing left to say.
Wow, seems you guys would rather have a root canal that admit you're wrong. Classy.
Oh, so that's what you meant. Sorry, not ready to do that yet. I need to examine the issue a bit more, and I admitted that Shaneyfelt's testimony was troublesome. To take the arguments of a WC defender without examining what other people have said about it is, I have learned, not a good idea. I could be wrong in this small side issue, but I'm not yet convinced.
OK. Fair enough.
06-22-2016, 01:51 PM
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Wow, seems you guys would rather have a root canal that admit you're wrong. Classy.
Oh, so that's what you meant. Sorry, not ready to do that yet. I need to examine the issue a bit more, and I admitted that Shaneyfelt's testimony was troublesome. To take the arguments of a WC defender without examining what other people have said about it is, I have learned, not a good idea. I could be wrong in this small side issue, but I'm not yet convinced.
OK. Fair enough.
Quote:Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the ....I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration. I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
This rather strongly reminds me of the fiber testimony. In both cases, the testimony does nothing more than merely support that the WCR might be right... yet cannot be used to prove the critics wrong.
In both cases, despite the strong bias to find the rifles to be the same, or the fibers to have come from the blanket - the Warren Commission was unable to elicit what they truly wanted to have on the record. And that failure allowed critics to point to issues that have yet never been resolved.
06-24-2016, 06:19 AM
I love how the LNers cite the conclusions of the WC and the HSCA to prove that the backyard photos are genuine, as if a government-endorsed panel is impartial and infallible.
I also love that they think a water spot is the reason for the straight line across the chin, where Oswald's face has been inserted above someone else's chin. A water spot in the same place on three separate photos! How stupid do you have to be to fall for that one?
From John G. Kays:
The two official investigations of the backyard photos were both rather shallow. The Warren Commission tried to do a reenactment of the scene, and left the head off in their print published in the Warren Report! Why did they do this?
Their main proof that the photos are genuine, is that the markings on the negatives were legitimately from the Imperial Reflex Camera. [The conspirators most likely] first built the composite in a sophisticated laboratory using a much better camera, then they photographed the photograph with the Imperial Reflex Camera, so that the negative would have matching forensics to the camera.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did not jive [sic]. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their report, so they were omitted!
http://thesop.org/story/movie/2009/05/09...xposed.php
Me:
So to simply cite the findings of these two panels is, to be kind, incredibly naive and misleading.
[attachment=26]
I also love that they think a water spot is the reason for the straight line across the chin, where Oswald's face has been inserted above someone else's chin. A water spot in the same place on three separate photos! How stupid do you have to be to fall for that one?
From John G. Kays:
The two official investigations of the backyard photos were both rather shallow. The Warren Commission tried to do a reenactment of the scene, and left the head off in their print published in the Warren Report! Why did they do this?
Their main proof that the photos are genuine, is that the markings on the negatives were legitimately from the Imperial Reflex Camera. [The conspirators most likely] first built the composite in a sophisticated laboratory using a much better camera, then they photographed the photograph with the Imperial Reflex Camera, so that the negative would have matching forensics to the camera.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did not jive [sic]. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their report, so they were omitted!
http://thesop.org/story/movie/2009/05/09...xposed.php
Me:
So to simply cite the findings of these two panels is, to be kind, incredibly naive and misleading.
[attachment=26]
06-24-2016, 09:15 AM
Except that Marina remembered taking the pictures - yes she recalled taking just one, but I do not think that is significant at all.
Anyhow, why would you want to leave any kind of paper trail around forgery of a photo when you have the Carcano up on the 6th floor.....
Frankly it is bonkers.
Incidentally FYI....Mary Ferrell and Larry Harris did not think the back yard photos were fakes.
Neither does Paul Hoch up in Berkeley and neither does Tony Summers......
You will of course have heard of these A list pro conspiracy researchers and authors.....
Anyhow, why would you want to leave any kind of paper trail around forgery of a photo when you have the Carcano up on the 6th floor.....
Frankly it is bonkers.
Incidentally FYI....Mary Ferrell and Larry Harris did not think the back yard photos were fakes.
Neither does Paul Hoch up in Berkeley and neither does Tony Summers......
You will of course have heard of these A list pro conspiracy researchers and authors.....
06-24-2016, 02:08 PM
Patrick C Wrote:Except that Marina remembered taking the pictures - yes she recalled taking just one, but I do not think that is significant at all.
You have to be fairly desperate to rely on Marina's testimony.
Patrick C Wrote:Anyhow, why would you want to leave any kind of paper trail around forgery of a photo when you have the Carcano up on the 6th floor.....
Frankly it is bonkers.
Incidentally FYI....Mary Ferrell and Larry Harris did not think the back yard photos were fakes.
Neither does Paul Hoch up in Berkeley and neither does Tony Summers......
You will of course have heard of these A list pro conspiracy researchers and authors.....
I'm sure you're aware of the CIA efforts to discredit critics...
I'm also sure you're aware that one of the methods used by the CIA was to put in place wolves in sheep's clothing... in order to discredit whatever organization they wished to discredit.
Not every "critic" is truly a critic.
And true critics have no need to accept the false authority of other critics.
06-24-2016, 02:19 PM
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.
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.
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.