Where's the "new" Back Yard photo?
Caeruleo
> >Subject: Re: Where's the "new" Back Yard photo?
> >From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 6/22/03 9:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <caeruleo-A96FBC...@news.fu-berlin.de>
> >
> >In article <3EF61F59...@flash.net>, Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Walt wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mr. Caeruleo recently posted that he has a new Back Yard photo. He claims
> >> > the new photo shows that the shadow of the rifle in CE 133B is not at
> odds
> >> > with the way the rifle is actually being held by "Oswald".
> >> >
> >> > Has anybody seen the new BY photo?
> >>
> >> elvis gave a copy to bigfoot
> >
> >Whether or not The King & Sasquatch are now also in posession of it,
> >John Hill of course posted the photo in alt.assassination.jfk way back
> >on Wednesday June 11. It seems only to be visible on some news-servers,
> >but I looked just now on Dr. McAdams' news-server & the photo is still
> >there. We can of course also all see my direct reply to the article in
> >which he posted it in both that newsgroup & this under the thread,
> >"Backyard Photo," in which I enumerate the flaws in my positioning of
> >the broom & take full blame for not having accurately reproduced 133-B.
> >Still, it shows enough to demonstrate that anyone & their dog's mother
> >can reproduce the shadow accurately merely by going outside at the right
> >time of day when the sun is out, the manner of which has of course been
> >explained repeatedly in these groups.
>
> Just what time of day does the June sun occupy the same position in the sky as
> a late March or early April sun? According to my astronomical references the
> midday June sun is about twenty degrees higher than the early spring sun. Is
> this what you call an accurate reproduction?
First of all, I don't recall that John, Ricky, or I ever claimed that
the sun on that day was in the same "position" as it was on the day
133-B was taken; in fact I said quite plainly in my first reply in
"Trip To Dallas 003 - Backyard Photos" on June 8 that "the sun was
apparently a bit higher in the sky than it was in the BYP & this was
a different time of year, causing my shadow to be a bit shorter than
Oswald's." In this present thread & also in "Backyard Photo" I have
said quite plainly that the photo posted by John Hill of me holding
that broom is NOT an accurate representation, so I am confused as to
why you're asking me why I'm "calling" it accurate when I've done no
such thing. Secondly, it is not the position of the sun so much as
its *height* that is crucial in reproducing this shadow; one can catch
the sun at the same declination from straight overhead that it was on
that day in 1963 on most days of the year in most of both hemispheres.
Pictures taken in *that* backyard only of course won't necessarily
have the shadows extending the same direction away from the person
standing in it in relation to the stairs, etc., depending on the time
of year, but as I *also* said in that same article on June 8, full
reproductions of all the shadows are today no longer possible in that
particular backyard because, "The trees overhead are apparently a good
deal larger than they were in 1963, as yesterday there was only
filtered sunlight reaching the ground, with no patches of sunlight
large enough to show my entire shadown [sic] & that of the broom."
That's all irrelevant to the shadow itself anyway, as I've quite
clearly explained in multiple articles on multiple dates since then.
All one has to do is to go outside on any day of the year in which the
sun is approximately the same *height* (its "position," as in north,
south, east, or west is irrelevant) as to cause one's shadow to be
approximately the same length as Oswald's is seen to be in 133-B &
stand in an open patch of sunlight which is large enough to show one's
entire shadow. Then one simply stands so that the shadow extends to
one's rear & at a slight angle to the right as Oswald's shadow is seen
to do in the photo. One then holds any long narrow object which is
approximately 3 feet long (many such objects can be used, including
many common household items) with the lower end of the object resting
on one's right hip & the upper end pointing up & to the right at
approximately an 11 o'clock angle to a viewer from one's front,
grasping the object about halfway up. One then simply tilts the
object forward without changing the right angle until the shadow of
the object points directly to one's right. Voila, the "odd" rifle
shadow in 133-B is reproduced instantly to perfection.
Caeruleo
> "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vfd133r...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030622225106...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >
> > Good for you, Herb.... Yer exactly right.... IF Mr. Caeruleo wants to
> > attempt to duplicate the shadows of CE133B he can only duplicate them a few
> > days out of the year.....He has to strike the pose seen in CE133B at about
> > 4:30pm on March 31 +- a couple of days, or on September 30.....
> >
> > Walt
> >
> For years and years the CTs have claimed that the BY photos were
> faked, using the shadows as proof. The idea presented was that the
> shadows in the photo could not go in different directions. If this
> photo by Caeruleo and company does show that shadows can indeed appear
> at different angles in a photo, than that idea was false, regardless
> of when the photo is taken.
And Walt is entirely wrong that that shadow can only be accurately
reproduced on such a limited number of days per year. If one wants
the person's shadow to point the correct direction in *that* backyard
only in relation to the house, stairs, etc., then indeed one can only
do that at certain times of the year. In the winter, for example, the
shadow will be more northerly as the sun is farther to the south. And
in the morning, the shadow of the person will of course point the
*other* way in relation to the house & stairs, etc. But the rifle
shadow in & of itself can be reproduced anywhere in any open patch of
sunlight on any day of the year at any time on that date in which the
sun is at the correct *height*; whether it is east, west, north,
south, etc. is irrelevant. It has been explained repeatedly how this
can easily be done by practically any average human on earth.
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/23/03 9:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cd18691f.03062...@posting.google.com>
If you did your homework then you would say the elevation of the Sun would have
matched the early spring sun at two times of day during June. The only
difference being all shadows would rotate by the same angle with respect to
geographical north.
>That's all irrelevant to the shadow itself anyway, as I've quite
>clearly explained in multiple articles on multiple dates since then.
>All one has to do is to go outside on any day of the year in which the
>sun is approximately the same *height* (its "position," as in north,
>south, east, or west is irrelevant) as to cause one's shadow to be
>approximately the same length as Oswald's is seen to be in 133-B &
>stand in an open patch of sunlight which is large enough to show one's
>entire shadow. Then one simply stands so that the shadow extends to
>one's rear & at a slight angle to the right as Oswald's shadow is seen
>to do in the photo. One then holds any long narrow object which is
>approximately 3 feet long (many such objects can be used, including
>many common household items) with the lower end of the object resting
>on one's right hip & the upper end pointing up & to the right at
>approximately an 11 o'clock angle to a viewer from one's front,
>grasping the object about halfway up. One then simply tilts the
>object forward without changing the right angle until the shadow of
>the object points directly to one's right. Voila, the "odd" rifle
>shadow in 133-B is reproduced instantly to perfection.
>
Anyone who wants to end this fruitless shadow debate needs to identify points
on objects with points on their shadows. Extending straight lines from points
on the shadows through the corresponding points on the objects would converge
near the apparent position of the Sun. I suggest you apply this vanishing point
technique to your photo and the backyard photographs.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
light in the same position as the sun on that day. That was done at the
Sudbury, Ontario conference, and reproduced the shadows exactly.
Martin
Caeruleo
a1e...@aol.com (Herbert Blenner) wrote:
Exactly. So the *height* of the sun from the horizon can be matched to
its height at the instant 133-B was taken at 2 different times of the
day on practically any day of the year here in Texas, & in many other
parts of the world, thus almost anyone can simply go outside on most
days & match this rifle shadow precisely.
That's been my point all along, since June 8, the very first day I
posted about this business after I returned from Dallas. Thanks for
confirming it. ;-)
> >That's all irrelevant to the shadow itself anyway, as I've quite
> >clearly explained in multiple articles on multiple dates since then.
> >All one has to do is to go outside on any day of the year in which the
> >sun is approximately the same *height* (its "position," as in north,
> >south, east, or west is irrelevant) as to cause one's shadow to be
> >approximately the same length as Oswald's is seen to be in 133-B &
> >stand in an open patch of sunlight which is large enough to show one's
> >entire shadow. Then one simply stands so that the shadow extends to
> >one's rear & at a slight angle to the right as Oswald's shadow is seen
> >to do in the photo. One then holds any long narrow object which is
> >approximately 3 feet long (many such objects can be used, including
> >many common household items) with the lower end of the object resting
> >on one's right hip & the upper end pointing up & to the right at
> >approximately an 11 o'clock angle to a viewer from one's front,
> >grasping the object about halfway up. One then simply tilts the
> >object forward without changing the right angle until the shadow of
> >the object points directly to one's right. Voila, the "odd" rifle
> >shadow in 133-B is reproduced instantly to perfection.
>
> Anyone who wants to end this fruitless shadow debate
"Fruitless" is indeed the operative word. The natural means by which
that rifle shadow can be recreated should be abundantly clear to any
average person by now.
> needs to identify points
> on objects with points on their shadows. Extending straight lines from points
> on the shadows through the corresponding points on the objects would
> converge
> near the apparent position of the Sun. I suggest you apply this vanishing
> point
> technique to your photo and the backyard photographs.
Or, just go outdoors where the sun shines, away from the computer, on
any sunny day, morning or afternoon, at a time of day when the sun is
the same height from the horizon as it was in 133-B, stand so that one's
shadow extends back at the same angle as Oswald's, hold the object at an
11 o'clock angle to the right, then tilt it forward until the shadow of
the object points at a 9 o'clock angle directly to one's right. The
shadow is instantly reproduced to perfection, & anyone with any common
sense will instantly know that in a 2-dimensional image shot from the
front, the forward tilt of the object will not necessarily be readily
apparent. Anyone & their dog's mother can do this. Anyone. On well
over half the days of the year, unless perhaps one lives near one of the
poles. I have yet to become aware that any poster in either of these
groups lives anywhere close to that far from the equator.
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <caeruleo-D7585E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Perhaps disproving claims of wolves dressed as sheep satisfies you. Most
open-minded people would insist upon seeing the evidence on which the
photographic panel concluded the shadows were consistent. I refer to the
vanishing point analysis.
Frankly, I consider your exercise either a work of public relations or a
classic example of a botched experiment. You had an opportunity to append
markers to the broomstick. This simple modification would have facilitated
identification of points on the broomstick with their corresponding points on
its shadow. Likewise placement of markers on the holder of the broomstick would
have produced a photograph that would have served as a scientific control in
the vanishing point analysis of the backyard photos.
Rational people suspect the photographic panel made another unsupportable claim
in their assertion that the vanishing point analysis showed the shadows were
consistent. So far the conduct of the backyard photo defenders stands with
these suspicions.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
Walt
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3EF7F346...@concentric.net...
> The photo can be simply reproduced by using a strong, single-source
> light in the same position as the sun on that day. That was done at the
> Sudbury, Ontario conference, and reproduced the shadows exactly.
>
> Martin
>
Walt
Caeruleo
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> The photo can be simply reproduced by using a strong, single-source
> light in the same position as the sun on that day.
Yep, that too. ;-)
> That was done at the
> Sudbury, Ontario conference, and reproduced the shadows exactly.
Yes. Thanks.
Caeruleo
a1e...@aol.com (Herbert Blenner) wrote:
I'm curious as to why I need to rely on such an intricate analysis when
it's easy as pie to reproduce that shadow. That's like saying that I
need to undertake an intricate analysis to determine that the grass in
my front yard is higher today than it was a week ago, even though that's
something I can plainly see for myself.
> Frankly, I consider your exercise either a work of public relations or a
> classic example of a botched experiment. You had an opportunity to append
> markers to the broomstick.
Erm, I had no such "opportunity" on that occasion. Please read
carefully my account of what happened just as the picture was taken in
the thread "Backyard Photo." Suffice it to say here that the owner of
the broom showed up just then.
> This simple modification would have facilitated
> identification of points on the broomstick with their corresponding points on
> its shadow. Likewise placement of markers on the holder of the broomstick
> would
> have produced a photograph that would have served as a scientific control in
> the vanishing point analysis of the backyard photos.
>
> Rational people suspect the photographic panel made another unsupportable
> claim
> in their assertion that the vanishing point analysis showed the shadows were
> consistent. So far the conduct of the backyard photo defenders stands with
> these suspicions.
Hmmm.
All I'm doing in regard to that particular shadow is following simple
common sense. Anyone who posesses that will instantly know that in a
2-dimensional photograph, depth is often not readily apparent. The
forward tilt of the rifle would not be readily apparent. A simple
forward tilt would account for that shadow perfectly. You have seen Mr.
Shackelford's article in this thread, correct?
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <caeruleo-29D88F...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Who is talking about reproducing one shadow? Even two shadows would be too few
to reach any conclusion about their consistency. Only when you have three or
more shadows could we detect an inconsistency. In this simplest case each
individual shadow has an angle and a length. Do these six factors answer your
question of why we need analysis?
>> Frankly, I consider your exercise either a work of public relations or a
>> classic example of a botched experiment. You had an opportunity to append
>> markers to the broomstick.
>
>Erm, I had no such "opportunity" on that occasion. Please read
>carefully my account of what happened just as the picture was taken in
>the thread "Backyard Photo." Suffice it to say here that the owner of
>the broom showed up just then.
>
Did you have an opportunity to record the length of the broomstick and the
height of its holder?
>> This simple modification would have facilitated
>> identification of points on the broomstick with their corresponding points
>on
>> its shadow. Likewise placement of markers on the holder of the broomstick
>> would
>> have produced a photograph that would have served as a scientific control
>in
>> the vanishing point analysis of the backyard photos.
>>
>> Rational people suspect the photographic panel made another unsupportable
>> claim
>> in their assertion that the vanishing point analysis showed the shadows
>were
>> consistent. So far the conduct of the backyard photo defenders stands with
>> these suspicions.
>
>Hmmm.
>
>All I'm doing in regard to that particular shadow is following simple
>common sense. Anyone who posesses that will instantly know that in a
>2-dimensional photograph, depth is often not readily apparent. The
>forward tilt of the rifle would not be readily apparent. A simple
>forward tilt would account for that shadow perfectly. You have seen Mr.
>Shackelford's article in this thread, correct?
>
Please explain how fallible human eyes are going to recognize whether a shadow
is consistent or inconsistent with the other shadows?
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bud
Well, theres your problem(s) right there. First off, you did it simply,
and missed an opportunity to overcomplicate it. Secondly, you applied
common sense, which never applies in this case.
Now, go forth Caeruleo, and put markers on your grass, to make sure it
is it growing, and not your soil receding...
-Bud
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/25/03 10:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <efd28d51.03062...@posting.google.com>
Clearly your problem is you don't know your grass from your shadows.
Herbert
> -Bud
>
>
>
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Caeruleo
a1e...@aol.com (Herbert Blenner) wrote:
I was, in every single article I've posted on the subject of our
photographic experiment since June 8, the day after we did it.
> Even two shadows would be too few
> to reach any conclusion about their consistency. Only when you have three or
> more shadows could we detect an inconsistency. In this simplest case each
> individual shadow has an angle and a length. Do these six factors answer your
> question of why we need analysis?
Oh dear...
You didn't read my accounts of the circumstances of our photo like I
suggested, did you? Let's go through this again. On Saturday June 7 we
arranged to take a tour of various assassination-related locations.
Before we stood in that backyard, the idea had not even occurred to us
to investigate any shadows. When John asked someone to stand in for
Oswald so that he could take a picture (he had already taken several
pictures of the backyard itself) I volunteered, & then saw a broom
laying against the picket fence. The idea THEN occurred to me for the
FIRST time to experiment with the PARTICULAR rifle shadow seen ONLY in
133-B, the one which has often been said to be by far the MOST
"inconsistent" of all the shadows in all 3 photographs, as no other
shadows seem to deviate nearly as much from the positions of any object
which is seen to cast a shadow in those photos. I instantly realized,
of course, that by simply tilting the broom forward, but not changing
the 11 o'clock right angle otherwise, that the shadow on the ground
would rotate to point to 9 o'clock. Thus instantly, that shadow in
133-B was demonstrated to not be at all "inconsistent" with the shadow a
real object would naturally cast under such circumstances. Virtually
every author I have ever seen who mentions this shadow & calls it
"inconsistent" or words to similar effect, including several
photographic "experts," neglects to mention anything at all about the
possibility of a simple forward tilt to the rifle as a cause of it. But
as I've already posted repeatedly, in the very articles which you badly
needed to read before you posted this present reply, it is now
impossible to investigate *every* shadow in that backyard. One can't
even come close. Why? Because the trees overhead are now considerably
*larger* than they were in 1963. Trees do that, you know, especially
over 39 years. The trees now prevent there from being any patch of
sunlight nearly large enough to show any person's entire shadow.
Because of this, we *then* went out to the gravel driveway on which the
sunlight *isn't* obscured by trees. Obviously, since we were no longer
in the backyard, we couldn't work on reproducing "every" shadow seen in
all 3 photographs. We concentrated specifically on the rifle shadow in
133-B & on the shadow of my nose. I've also already written repeatedly
(even in articles which you yourself responded to) that the sun was
*higher* at this time than it was at the time 133-B was taken, so there
was no way to reproduce all shadows with perfect accuracy. Ken had to
go back to his truck to find a copy of 133-B to look at, then returned
with it. He, John, & Ricky then spent several minutes working on my
positioning, both my stance & the positioning of the broom. By the time
it was finally correct to the satisfaction of ALL THREE of them & John
was ready to take the picture, we were interrupted by the present renter
of the house, who had not been informed by the realtor that we were
coming, & who just as John was preparing to snap the picture came
walking up asking us what on earth we were doing there, & wondering what
on earth this strange man was doing holding his broom, with another man
aiming a camera at him. John barely snapped the shutter before he had
to drop the camera & help explain our business, & apparently I was
distracted by the renter walking up & inadvertently tilted the broom too
far to the right an instant before John took the picture without
realizing it, & I did not know that I had done this until over a week
later, on the day when I finally saw the photo for the FIRST TIME. Ken
had also not been informed by the realtor that someone had recently
rented the place (the realtor sign was still out front, with pamphlets
about renting the place), even though he had had no trouble accessing
the backyard on many previous occasions with many previous people he had
taken on this tour; thus there was miscommunication both ways. The
renter had also asked the realtor to remove the sign, & the realtor had
not yet done so, further adding to the confusion.
I've posted about every last bit of this before, & in reply to you named
the exact threads in which those articles appeared. Why didn't you read
them as I asked?
> >> Frankly, I consider your exercise either a work of public relations or a
> >> classic example of a botched experiment. You had an opportunity to append
> >> markers to the broomstick.
> >
> >Erm, I had no such "opportunity" on that occasion. Please read
> >carefully my account of what happened just as the picture was taken in
> >the thread "Backyard Photo." Suffice it to say here that the owner of
> >the broom showed up just then.
>
> Did you have an opportunity to record the length of the broomstick and the
> height of its holder?
>From my account above, which is only a rewording of what I've previously
posted in multiple articles, obviously not. The idea did not even occur
to us to investigate any shadow until we were already there, & if there
was measuring equipment in Ken's truck I was never aware of it. And we
were interrupted before we could do any further investigation. I was
holding the man's broom, which he had left leaning against the picket
fence in the backyard, & he didn't have any idea why when he came
walking up. Although he finally understood our business when it was all
explained to him, & said that in the future it would be fine with him if
people were brought by IF he was informed in advance that they were
coming, but at this time he was still asking us to leave. Do you
suggest that instead of putting his broom back when he asked me to I
should have said, "Oh no sir, we can't leave just yet; we need to
measure this broom first"?
John Hill & Ricky Tobias, both of whom are regular posters to this
group, & both of whom were present, can confirm that I am accurately
recounting what occurred.
> >> This simple modification would have facilitated
> >> identification of points on the broomstick with their corresponding points
> >on
> >> its shadow. Likewise placement of markers on the holder of the broomstick
> >> would
> >> have produced a photograph that would have served as a scientific control
> >in
> >> the vanishing point analysis of the backyard photos.
> >>
> >> Rational people suspect the photographic panel made another unsupportable
> >> claim
> >> in their assertion that the vanishing point analysis showed the shadows
> >were
> >> consistent. So far the conduct of the backyard photo defenders stands with
> >> these suspicions.
> >
> >Hmmm.
> >
> >All I'm doing in regard to that particular shadow is following simple
> >common sense. Anyone who posesses that will instantly know that in a
> >2-dimensional photograph, depth is often not readily apparent. The
> >forward tilt of the rifle would not be readily apparent. A simple
> >forward tilt would account for that shadow perfectly. You have seen Mr.
> >Shackelford's article in this thread, correct?
>
> Please explain how fallible human eyes are going to recognize whether a shadow
> is consistent or inconsistent with the other shadows?
"Other shadows"? I've been primarily talking only about one shadow, the
rifle shadow in 133-B. What do other shadows have to do with the fact
that that PARTICULAR shadow can EASILY be reproduced merely by leaning
the object forward? It is the misleading assertions that THAT shadow
ALONE is powerful evidence of fakery, assertions which have been made in
the past by several posters here, that I've been consistently addressing
in these threads. I have never ever ever made the claim that my
objective was to address every last shadow seen in all 3 of those
photos, or to produce proof in every detail that those photos weren't
faked. Never said such a thing. What we HAVE done, however, is prove
beyond all possible doubt that that PARTICULAR rifle shadow is not
nearly as "odd" as some persons have made it out to be.
Walt
> Not a photo--a live demonstration--and yes, I was present when it was
done.
>
> Martin
>
Oh well.....I guess we don't need the verification of a photo.....We have
Martin's word......
Walt
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Caeruleo
In article <3EFA895A...@concentric.net>,
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EF7F346...@concentric.net...
> >
> >>The photo can be simply reproduced by using a strong, single-source
> >>light in the same position as the sun on that day. That was done at the
> >>Sudbury, Ontario conference, and reproduced the shadows exactly.
> >
> > Martin, Have you actually seen the Sudbury photo???
>
> Not a photo--a live demonstration--and yes, I was present when it was
> done.
I am unable at present to see any of Walt's articles directly on this
newsreader, but I have seen some of his texts quoted by others,
including this one, which prove beyond all possible doubt that he has
seen & responded to articles (such as mine quoted above) in which it has
been explained in great detail how he himself, & practically any other
average human on this earth, including children, can easily reproduce
this shadow for themselves. Yet I have still to see any quotation of
any claim by him that he has actually tried it, & described in detail
what he did. Obviously, until he actually tries it for himself, he
cannot make any informed commentary regarding that shadow, & I can think
of no logical reason why he would not *want* entirely of his own free
will to try it for himself at the earliest opportunity.
Caeruleo
In article <3EFC5302...@concentric.net>,
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EFA895A...@concentric.net...
> >
> >>Not a photo--a live demonstration--and yes, I was present when it was
> >
> > done.
> >
> > Oh well.....I guess we don't need the verification of a photo.....We have
> > Martin's word......
>
> Not at all, Walt. There were a lot of other people there, too. Grow up.
I cannot see Walt's original articles on this newsreader at present, but
I still have yet to see him quoted by any other poster as stating that
he has actually tried to reproduce that shadow for himself, & described
in detail what he did in the attempt. By now he knows perfectly well
how to do it, since he has responded to multiple articles in which clear
explanations have been given as to how it can easily be done. Can
anyone at all think of any logical reason whatosever as to why he
wouldn't at least try it at the earliest opportunity? I can't. But let
me explain, yet again, for the umpteenth time, how easily it can be done.
Stand under any light source bright enough, with a large enough lighting
space to show your entire shadow, & the shadow of any object you're
holding. Orient yourself so that your shadow is the same length as
Oswald's in 133-B. Outdoors with the sun will do also, at any time of
the day, on any day of the year, that the sun is at the same height as
it was when 133-B was taken, i.e., when your shadow is the same length
as Oswald's. Orient yourself so that your shadow extends to your rear &
slightly to your right at the same angle as Oswald's shadow. Now take
any long narrow object which is close to 3 feet long. Hold it in your
right hand somewhere near the middle of the object with the lower end of
the object resting on your right hip & the upper end pointing slightly
to your right at an 11 o'clock angle when viewed by someone standing
directly in front of you & looking directly at you. You'll find that to
have your hand directly to the right of your torso will be somewhat
uncomfortable, as you'll have to pull your right elbow back quite a bit
to do so. You'll find that it is more comfortable & natural to ALSO
tilt the object somewhat forward, as this will also allow your hand &
elbow to some forward to a more comfortable position. Start with your
hand directly to the right of your torso, then tilt the object forward
WITHOUT tilting it any further to the right & watch what happens to the
shadow of the object on the floor or ground. The shadow of the object
will rotate until it comes to a precise 9 o'clock angle to the right of
the shadow of your body when viewed from the front. Any average person
with common sense will immediately realize that if a 2-dimensional image
of you were to be photographed at this instant, the forward tilt of the
object would not necessarily be readily apparent, only the tilt to the
side, which has not changed from the 11 o'clock angle if you do it
correctly.
And any such person can have a photograph taken of themselves doing this.
I cannot see how any average reasonable person can take the assertions
of any poster here seriously who continues to express any skepticism
whatsoever about how easily this shadow can be replicated, until that
poster is seen to unequivocally admit that he/she has actually tried it
for themselves, & described in detail the methods that were used. I
furthermore cannot think of any logical reason why any such poster would
not ardently desire, entirely out of her/his own free will, to make such
an attempt at the earliest opportunity, if that person is genuinely
interested in the truth. Any person who continues to express even the
slightest skepticism regarding how absurdly easy it is to replicate that
shadow, yet hypocritically refuses to even try to see if they can do it
themselves, is obviously not interested in the truth.
John McAdams
wrote:
Come on Walt. I may not trust how Martin interprets this or that
piece of evidence, but I absolutely trust him not to just make up
something like this.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
This from a guy who called me close minded. Walt, you don`t accept when
people assert the shadows in the BY photo are duplicatable, and you
haven`t said you tried duplicating them yourself, so what does that leave?
Continuing to claim forever that they are suspicious, no matter what?
I wouldn`t expect different from a person who sees an ordinary library
card as a secret spy identification card.
-Bud
John Hill
Amen.
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
John Hill
Indeed I can, and do.
Absolutely true.
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
Rouser
>>Any person who continues to express even the
> slightest skepticism regarding how absurdly easy it is to replicate that
> shadow, yet hypocritically refuses to even try to see if they can do it
> themselves, is obviously not interested in the truth.
>>Amen.
A chorus of 10,000 angels chanting how easy it is to replicate does
not add up to a single replication. Gawd, you guys just never admit
defeat. Get over it. The photos are fake.
-- Rouser
John Hill
news:e5afd86a.0307...@posting.google.com...
Prove it.
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
> -- Rouser
>
Caeruleo
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
>
> >>Any person who continues to express even the
> > slightest skepticism regarding how absurdly easy it is to replicate that
> > shadow, yet hypocritically refuses to even try to see if they can do it
> > themselves, is obviously not interested in the truth.
>
> >>Amen.
>
> A chorus of 10,000 angels chanting how easy it is to replicate does
> not add up to a single replication.
10,000 average humans going outside & doing it for themselves does,
however, & not a single one of them have any need whatsoever to see a
photo after they've done it.
> Gawd, you guys just never admit
> defeat.
Perhaps because we haven't come within light-years of being defeated yet?
> Get over it. The photos are fake.
That, of course, has never come close to being conclusively established.
And that particular rifle shadow certainly does not in & of itself
establish it.
--
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.
Rouser
Re:
> >
> > A chorus of 10,000 angels chanting how easy it is to replicate does
> > not add up to a single replication.
>
> 10,000 average humans going outside & doing it for themselves does,
> however, & not a single one of them have any need whatsoever to see a
> photo after they've done it.
So now you've gone from one person attempting, and failing to
replicate to 10,000 who could have, but did not. Your numbers are
impressive; your results still equal zero.
>
> > Gawd, you guys just never admit
> > defeat.
>
> Perhaps because we haven't come within light-years of being defeated yet?
>
> > Get over it. The photos are fake.
>
> That, of course, has never come close to being conclusively established.
> And that particular rifle shadow certainly does not in & of itself
> establish it.
No. There are any number of additional clues -- the diverse head
sizes; the rounded chin, the cut and paste lines; the ghosted photo
found in 1992; the report of a BY transparency held by FBI on
11/22/63; Det. Brown's re-enactment photo; the denials of authenticity
by the alleged photographer, Marina O... The evidence is so
overwhelming as to be a slam-dunk case of official, under color of
law, frame-up and flim-flammery, your 10,000 non-replicators to the
contrary, notwithstanding.
-- Rouser
Caeruleo
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<caeruleo-
>
> Re:
> > >
> > > A chorus of 10,000 angels chanting how easy it is to replicate does
> > > not add up to a single replication.
> >
> > 10,000 average humans going outside & doing it for themselves does,
> > however, & not a single one of them have any need whatsoever to see a
> > photo after they've done it.
>
> So now you've gone from one person attempting, and failing to
> replicate
You mean, failed to replicate in every detail 133-B in the one & only
photo (of several that were taken of me at that location) which has yet to
be published on the Internet. I certainly didn't "fail" to replicate a
significant difference between the angle of the image of the broom & the
angle of the image of the shadow, I merely had the broom tilted farther to
the right than the rifle in 133-B. I have certainly not "failed" to
replicate it more accurately in real life, & as you were not present on
any of those occasions, you know nothing to the contrary.
> to 10,000 who could have, but did not.
How do you know they "did not." For all you know, there may be 100 times
that number of people currently alive who have seen that sort of shadow
inconsistency for themselves, & have no need to see any photo representing
it, as they already know it, just as they need no photo to show that most
living leaves on plants are green. They haven't set out to "prove" it
merely because there is no need, because it is a common everyday
observance.
> Your numbers are
> impressive; your results still equal zero.
In your mind almost alone. Just because YOU say they equal zero doesn't
automatically mean that is the actual truth.
> > > Get over it. The photos are fake.
> >
> > That, of course, has never come close to being conclusively established.
> > And that particular rifle shadow certainly does not in & of itself
> > establish it.
>
> No. There are any number of additional clues -- the diverse head
> sizes;
Indicating that perhaps he simply wasn't exactly the same distance from
the camera in all 3 photos?
> the rounded chin,
Uh-huh, in that far less than ideally clear old b&w photograph, we're to
say that the point of it absolutely "can't" disappear in shadow?
> the cut and paste lines;
Where are those, exactly, in each of the 3 photos?
> the ghosted photo
> found in 1992;
Which does not in & of itself "prove" that the 3 photos of Oswald were
"faked."
> the report of a BY transparency held by FBI on
> 11/22/63;
Don't know anything about that one. Please clarify exactly what it is
about that report which indicates that the photos were "faked." Thanks.
> Det. Brown's re-enactment photo;
How does a mere re-enactment photo have any bearing on whether or not
the 3 photos of Oswald are "faked"?
> the denials of authenticity
> by the alleged photographer, Marina O...
Denials which were not made for the first time until more than a decade
later, by which time she is documented as being influenced by conspiracy
theorists in coming to doubt her husband's guilt. And she denied it far
fewer times than she acknowledged it.
> The evidence is so
> overwhelming as to be a slam-dunk case of official, under color of
> law, frame-up and flim-flammery,
"Overwhelming" is a mere opinion, far from unanimously shared.
> your 10,000 non-replicators to the
> contrary, notwithstanding.
Oh, the 10,000 people that you don't actually know have not observed
this very phenomenon in their everyday lives?
Rouser
Where's the new photo? Hell, where's my posted response? What the hell
kind of board is this? You post a post and it doesn't get posted?! I
demand a refund!
-- Rouser
Boosh
to newsgroups,... you can answer to the whole group or to an individual.
Maybe you've hit the wrong button. I've had that three times allready. It
is not a conspiracy,just a fact of being carefull hittin the right button.
Check your sent items folder and you can see who you've send it too.
"Rouser" <rou...@core.com> schreef in bericht
news:e5afd86a.03072...@posting.google.com...
Rouser
RE:
>>> No. There are any number of additional clues -- the diverse head
> sizes;
>>Indicating that perhaps he simply wasn't exactly the same distance
from
the camera in all 3 photos?
Not at all. My error. It's not the heads that are diffent sizes but
the bodies the heads are attached to. The heads are exactly the same
indicating composite fraud.
> the rounded chin,
>>Uh-huh, in that far less than ideally clear old b&w photograph,
we're to
say that the point of it absolutely "can't" disappear in shadow?
> the cut and paste lines;
Where are those, exactly, in each of the 3 photos?
Horizontal cut and paste lines visible at the point where Oswald's
head was placed on someone else's chin.
> the ghosted photo
> found in 1992;
Which does not in & of itself "prove" that the 3 photos of Oswald were
"faked."
Certainly does not help to prove they were not faked. With everything
else taken together it is slam-dunk "proof" of attemted frame-up
flim-flammery.
> the report of a BY transparency held by FBI on
> 11/22/63;
Don't know anything about that one. Please clarify exactly what it is
about that report which indicates that the photos were "faked."
Thanks.
Photo processor Robert Hester told author Jim Mars the FBI had color
transparencies of the Neely backyard on Nov. 22nd -- the day before
the photos were "found". The proof of fakey is in the photos
themselves.
> Det. Brown's re-enactment photo;
How does a mere re-enactment photo have any bearing on whether or not
the 3 photos of Oswald are "faked"?
The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
"un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
detective has nothing better to do.
> the denials of authenticity
> by the alleged photographer, Marina O...
>>Denials which were not made for the first time until more than a
decade
later, by which time she is documented as being influenced by
conspiracy
theorists in coming to doubt her husband's guilt. And she denied it
far
fewer times than she acknowledged it.
There were no conspiracy theorists who held M.O. incommunicado with
implict threats of deportation following JFK's murder.
> The evidence is so
> overwhelming as to be a slam-dunk case of official, under color of
> law, frame-up and flim-flammery,
"Overwhelming" is a mere opinion, far from unanimously shared.
> your 10,000 non-replicators to the
> contrary, notwithstanding.
>>Oh, the 10,000 people that you don't actually know have not observed
this very phenomenon in their everyday lives?
10,000? Why not Ten million. Could have, but did not replicate.
-- Rouser
P.S. This is my second attempt to publish this post on this very weird
board.
Rouser
> I had the same problem,... I didn't see my responses posted,.... I'm new
> to newsgroups,... you can answer to the whole group or to an individual.
> Maybe you've hit the wrong button. I've had that three times allready. It
> is not a conspiracy,just a fact of being carefull hittin the right button.
> Check your sent items folder and you can see who you've send it too.
I sure don't know what you are talking about. The "wrong" button?
There is only one button to post. "Sent items folder"? Where's that?
Boosh
which says : answer to group and next to that is a button which says answer.
The first one lets your message appear in the thread. The second one sends a
message to the original poster of the messages email adress.
In outlook express you have folders like received email and send emails.
Boosh
"Rouser" <rou...@core.com> schreef in bericht
news:e5afd86a.03072...@posting.google.com...
John Hill
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<caeruleo-
>
> RE:
>
> >>> No. There are any number of additional clues -- the diverse head
> > sizes;
>
> >>Indicating that perhaps he simply wasn't exactly the same distance
> from
> the camera in all 3 photos?
>
> Not at all. My error. It's not the heads that are diffent sizes but
> the bodies the heads are attached to. The heads are exactly the same
> indicating composite fraud.
>
> > the rounded chin,
>
> >>Uh-huh, in that far less than ideally clear old b&w photograph,
> we're to
> say that the point of it absolutely "can't" disappear in shadow?
>
> > the cut and paste lines;
>
> Where are those, exactly, in each of the 3 photos?
>
> Horizontal cut and paste lines visible at the point where Oswald's
> head was placed on someone else's chin.
The thing that's always seemed odd about that contention to me is that I
can't see why anyone would paste the top portion of Oswald's head onto
someone else's chin. Why not just paste ALL of Oswald's head, chin included,
there? Was there something wrong with his chin in the photo they got his
head from so that they couldn't use it and needed to use someone else's chin
instead? I've never heard anyone claim that it's someone else's chin in the
other BY photos. If they could use Oswald's chin in those, why not in the
other one too?
What would be the point in not using Oswald's chin?
> > the ghosted photo
> > found in 1992;
>
> Which does not in & of itself "prove" that the 3 photos of Oswald were
> "faked."
>
> Certainly does not help to prove they were not faked. With everything
> else taken together it is slam-dunk "proof" of attemted frame-up
> flim-flammery.
It is, at least, quite interesting. My question about it would be, WHY was
DPD experimenting with methods to alter any BY photo?
If they had proven that a photo could be faked, so what? We all know photos
can be faked. That they CAN be faked is no evidence that any particular
photo HAS been faked. DPD would have proven nothing along those lines by
their efforts. It certainly wasn't going to prove they could NOT have been
faked.
So, what was their motivation?
it is
> about that report which indicates that the photos were "faked."
> Thanks.
>
> Photo processor Robert Hester told author Jim Mars the FBI had color
> transparencies of the Neely backyard on Nov. 22nd -- the day before
> the photos were "found". The proof of fakey is in the photos
> themselves.
Sounds a bit like having curtain rods 8 days before you find them. :-)
t photo have any bearing on whether or not
> the 3 photos of Oswald are "faked"?
>
> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
> detective has nothing better to do.
Yeah, that strikes me as a VERY weak argument.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Dgosha
This is exactly what I have always wondered about this argument too. It
just doesn't make any sense. Here you have these guys who were so good
that they have fooled the experts but duh! forgot to use the whole face.
Maybe they were particularily aware of the esthetic qualities of a human
face and thought Oswald's chin was too ugly to include in such an
important venture.
I know that Rouser is going to come back with the usual "they didn't fool
anybody because the photos are so obviously faked" argument, but I would
really, for once, like to hear him explain this. This kind of thought
seems to escape him.
>> > the ghosted photo
>> > found in 1992;
>>
>> Which does not in & of itself "prove" that the 3 photos of Oswald were
>> "faked."
>>
>> Certainly does not help to prove they were not faked. With everything
>> else taken together it is slam-dunk "proof" of attemted frame-up
>> flim-flammery.
I like this, "does not help to prove they were not faked". Hilarious!
>It is, at least, quite interesting. My question about it would be, WHY was
>DPD experimenting with methods to alter any BY photo?
>If they had proven that a photo could be faked, so what? We all know photos
>can be faked. That they CAN be faked is no evidence that any particular
>photo HAS been faked. DPD would have proven nothing along those lines by
>their efforts. It certainly wasn't going to prove they could NOT have been
>faked.
>So, what was their motivation?
>
>
>
>it is
>> about that report which indicates that the photos were "faked."
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Photo processor Robert Hester told author Jim Mars the FBI had color
>> transparencies of the Neely backyard on Nov. 22nd -- the day before
>> the photos were "found". The proof of fakey is in the photos
>> themselves.
>
>Sounds a bit like having curtain rods 8 days before you find them. :-)
Yes and Rouser seems to grab onto and cherish any "evidence" that supports
him regardless of its reliability.
>
>t photo have any bearing on whether or not
>> the 3 photos of Oswald are "faked"?
>>
>> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
>> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
>> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
>> detective has nothing better to do.
Gee, could it be that maybe they were trying to investigate Oswald's claim
that somebody cut off his head and pasted it on an existing photo? There
is such a thing as curiosity you know.
Doug
Rouser
Re:
>The thing that's always seemed odd about that contention to me is
that I
> >can't see why anyone would paste the top portion of Oswald's head onto
> >someone else's chin. Why not just paste ALL of Oswald's head, chin included,
> >there? Was there something wrong with his chin in the photo they got his
> >head from so that they couldn't use it and needed to use someone else's chin
> >instead? I've never heard anyone claim that it's someone else's chin in the
> >other BY photos. If they could use Oswald's chin in those, why not in the
> >other one too?
> >What would be the point in not using Oswald's chin?
>
> This is exactly what I have always wondered about this argument too. It
> just doesn't make any sense. Here you have these guys who were so good
> that they have fooled the experts but duh! forgot to use the whole face.
> Maybe they were particularily aware of the esthetic qualities of a human
> face and thought Oswald's chin was too ugly to include in such an
> important venture.
>
> I know that Rouser is going to come back with the usual "they didn't fool
> anybody because the photos are so obviously faked" argument, but I would
> really, for once, like to hear him explain this. This kind of thought
> seems to escape him.
No, they did not fool any the un-hired experts, but only the safe
"experts" with connections to Am. Intelligence, but the pasting of a
head upon a chin may well have been for the very fact that to paste an
entire head would reveal even clearer cut and paste lines in the
shadow below the chin, which they may well have initially tried.
>>
> >> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
> >> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
> >> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
> >> detective has nothing better to do.
>
> Gee, could it be that maybe they were trying to investigate Oswald's claim
> that somebody cut off his head and pasted it on an existing photo? There
> is such a thing as curiosity you know.
>
> Doug
Gee, but if that were so, you might think that Det. Brown could have
given that rather weak explanation rather than the even weaker one he
gave: "I did it just to be doing something."
-- Rouser
Dgosha
There's another of those "may well have" assertions (two actually). Pure
speculation on your part. You always resort to this when cornered. Why
would it be more difficult to "cut and paste" in a shadow, which is black,
than in an area where there is detail?
>>>
>> >> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
>> >> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
>> >> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
>> >> detective has nothing better to do.
>
>>
>> Gee, could it be that maybe they were trying to investigate Oswald's claim
>> that somebody cut off his head and pasted it on an existing photo? There
>> is such a thing as curiosity you know.
>>
>> Doug
>
>
>Gee, but if that were so, you might think that Det. Brown could have
>given that rather weak explanation rather than the even weaker one he
>gave: "I did it just to be doing something."
This is minutia. Stock-in-trade of Cts. Who cares?
Doug
Rouser
The whys and wherefores of a frame-up photo forgery do not trump the
fact that the unreplicated photo has indeed been forged. Speculation
as to why the paste was made in one place and not in another is only
an answer to another's speculation as to why? Such speculation is
really just another LN Red Herring detour which only avoids the real
issue of the clear evidence of such photo fakery and the implications
therein. Thus, in order to avoid the clear facts, the LN poster would
rather deal in subjectively safe speculations.
>
> >>>
> >> >> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
> >> >> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
> >> >> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
> >> >> detective has nothing better to do.
>
> >>
> >> Gee, could it be that maybe they were trying to investigate Oswald's claim
> >> that somebody cut off his head and pasted it on an existing photo? There
> >> is such a thing as curiosity you know.
> >>
> >> Doug
> >
> >
> >Gee, but if that were so, you might think that Det. Brown could have
> >given that rather weak explanation rather than the even weaker one he
> >gave: "I did it just to be doing something."
>
> This is minutia. Stock-in-trade of Cts. Who cares?
>
> Doug
Minutia, indeed. But only in answer to more speclulative "minutia"
served up by the LN poster. But just out of curiosity? Do you,
yourself ever add anything of substance to these discussions? I just
can't recall a thing. Ever.
-- Rouser
Dgosha
You're working backwards, Rouser. You insist that the photos are faked and
so any evidence that says they're not MUST be speculation. You need to
work on your critical thinking skills. Your arguements are just completely
illogical.
>> >>>
>> >> >> The logical question is, why the re-enactment? In Det. Day's words
>> >> >> "un, well, I did it just to be doing something." Poor Dallas
>> >> >> Detective. The President gets killed on the DPD watch and the DPD
>> >> >> detective has nothing better to do.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Gee, could it be that maybe they were trying to investigate Oswald's
>claim
>> >> that somebody cut off his head and pasted it on an existing photo? There
>> >> is such a thing as curiosity you know.
>> >>
>> >> Doug
>> >
>> >
>> >Gee, but if that were so, you might think that Det. Brown could have
>> >given that rather weak explanation rather than the even weaker one he
>> >gave: "I did it just to be doing something."
>>
>> This is minutia. Stock-in-trade of Cts. Who cares?
>>
>> Doug
>
>Minutia, indeed. But only in answer to more speclulative "minutia"
>served up by the LN poster. But just out of curiosity? Do you,
>yourself ever add anything of substance to these discussions? I just
>can't recall a thing. Ever.
You obviously don't look at all the threads or posts do you? Have you
looked at the recent threads regarding the Tippit murder? Doesn't appear
so. And, you view my above contribution as totally without substance?
Wait, I already know your answer to that. Your attitude is that nobody,
nohow, has offered anything of substance wrt this subject because they
haven't gone back to March or April of 1963 and turned into Oswald and
posed with his guns. That would be the only possible way anybody could
convince you that the photos are NOT faked and I'm not really sure even
THAT would do it.
On the other hand, all you do is keep asserting that the photos are faked
without any proof of any kind. Your big argument is that the shadows can't
be replicated and when Careuleo, John H., and Ricky all stated that they
saw, first hand, that the shadows CAN be replicated (even in the SAME
BACKYARD for God's sake), you poo pooed it like you're some omniscient
god. Everybody else is wrong and you're right. Even the experts are wrong
or liars or compelled by the government to comply with the official story.
How many people here do you think buy into your baseless protestations? I
know, you don't care.Methinks you're a little too sure of yourself.
Doug
Rouser
Re:
> >The whys and wherefores of a frame-up photo forgery do not trump the
> >fact that the unreplicated photo has indeed been forged. Speculation
> >as to why the paste was made in one place and not in another is only
> >an answer to another's speculation as to why? Such speculation is
> >really just another LN Red Herring detour which only avoids the real
> >issue of the clear evidence of such photo fakery and the implications
> >therein. Thus, in order to avoid the clear facts, the LN poster would
> >rather deal in subjectively safe speculations.
>
> You're working backwards, Rouser. You insist that the photos are faked and
> so any evidence that says they're not MUST be speculation. You need to
> work on your critical thinking skills. Your arguements are just completely
> illogical.
Quite the opposite. It is you and your cohorts who presume the photos
are genuine, without having had a single succes in proving their
various anomalis possible via replication. Thus, all you are left with
is attempting to tear down the strawman arguments that you yourselves
have erected via speculation as to motive.
> On the other hand, all you do is keep asserting that the photos are faked
> without any proof of any kind. Your big argument is that the shadows can't
> be replicated and when Careuleo, John H., and Ricky all stated that they
> saw, first hand, that the shadows CAN be replicated (even in the SAME
> BACKYARD for God's sake), you poo pooed it like you're some omniscient
> god.
No. Careuleo and associates admitted they had not successfully
replicated 133B.
-- Rouser
John Hill
But we also made it perfectly clear that we found it ridiculously easy to
get widely varying shadow angles without even trying. I think if you'd
been there, you'd be a bit less convinced the photo was faked.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Rouser
If I'd been there? Nonsense. Anyone can do the test from any light
source anywhere. It has been tried many times. No one has succeeded,
including you. In 1966 THE LONDON TIMES conducted its own backyard
rifle photo simulation in an attempt to duplicate the variant shadows.
Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in
COVER-UP.
Anyone can produce a 9 o'clock shadow with at rifle, a yard stick, a
brooom. But you cannot produce a 9 o'clock shadow with the angle and
pitch of the rifle in 133B.
You can prove that 2 plus two equals four. You can prove that 3 plus 1
equals four. But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can also equal
five -- that will be the day you can successfully replicate the
shadows in 133B.
-- Rouser
Caeruleo
> dgo...@aol.com (Dgosha) wrote in message
> news:<20030728165656.02382.00000602@mb-
>
> > On the other hand, all you do is keep asserting that the photos are faked
> > without any proof of any kind. Your big argument is that the shadows can't
> > be replicated and when Careuleo, John H., and Ricky all stated that they
> > saw, first hand, that the shadows CAN be replicated (even in the SAME
> > BACKYARD for God's sake), you poo pooed it like you're some omniscient
> > god.
>
> No. Careuleo and associates admitted they had not successfully
> replicated 133B.
'Scuse me, we "admitted" no such thing. What we admitted (only 2 of the
3 of us actually) was that in the *one* photo of several John took which
has been posted so far on the Internet, which you still apparently still
haven't seen, even though I told you repeatedly how easy it was to use
this news-server to view it, I tilted the broom a bit too far to my
right. Yet the photo *still* shows a different angle in the shadow of
the broom on the ground. All 3 of us, however, have stated clearly that
with our own eyes we saw it replicated more accurately. I did it over &
over & over during a period of at least 10 minutes. The instant that
one photo was taken, the last of the photos he took at that address, was
not the only instant in which I attempted the replication.
Interesting that 2 witnesses, both of whom are regular posters here, &
neither of whom is an LN, have agreed that they *saw* me replicate that
shadow quite accurately, with all of us having a copy of 133-B to
consult at the time, whether or not I did so in the one & only photo of
several that were taken of me doing it that has yet been posted on the
Internet. You weren't there so you wouldn't know. Martin Shackelford
has also stated that the shadow was replicated to perfection at Sudbury.
He also is not an LN. In your very next article, please state plainly,
yes or no, are you calling all 4 of us liars?
Caeruleo
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:<3f26...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
> > news:e5afd86a.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > dgo...@aol.com (Dgosha) wrote in message
> > news:<20030728165656.02382.00000602@mb-
> >
> > > > On the other hand, all you do is keep asserting that the photos are
> > faked
> > > > without any proof of any kind. Your big argument is that the shadows
> > can't
> > > > be replicated and when Careuleo, John H., and Ricky all stated that
> > > > they
> > > > saw, first hand, that the shadows CAN be replicated (even in the SAME
> > > > BACKYARD for God's sake), you poo pooed it like you're some omniscient
> > > > god.
> > >
> > > No. Careuleo and associates admitted they had not successfully
> > > replicated 133B.
> >
> > But we also made it perfectly clear that we found it ridiculously easy to
> > get widely varying shadow angles without even trying. I think if you'd
> > been there, you'd be a bit less convinced the photo was faked.
>
> If I'd been there? Nonsense. Anyone can do the test from any light
> source anywhere. It has been tried many times. No one has succeeded,
> including you.
You weren't there so you don't know that we didn't succeed. All 3 of us
say we did, & only one of us is an LN. Two of us have said only that
the angles weren't precisely those of 133-B in the one photo of several
John took there which has been reproduced on the Internet. NONE of us
have said that we didn't accurately reproduce the shadow at all, & 2 of
us have said that we've reproduced the shadow multiple times since then.
Are you calling all 3 of us liars, Rouser?
> In 1966 THE LONDON TIMES conducted its own backyard
> rifle photo simulation in an attempt to duplicate the variant shadows.
> Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in
> COVER-UP.
If that is so, then whoever did it for the Times didn't know what they
were doing, if they "failed" to reproduce that rifle shadow in 133-B.
But I note that you don't say specifically that they failed to reproduce
that exact shadow. Have you seen their "failed" attempts with your own
eyes, or are you merely taking Galanor's word for it?
> Anyone can produce a 9 o'clock shadow with at rifle, a yard stick, a
> brooom. But you cannot produce a 9 o'clock shadow with the angle and
> pitch of the rifle in 133B.
Rofl, I've done it repeatedly & I'll do it again. The only thing I've
"admitted" failing to do was replicate it in absolute accuracy in that
one particular photo.
> You can prove that 2 plus two equals four. You can prove that 3 plus 1
> equals four. But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can also equal
> five -- that will be the day you can successfully replicate the
> shadows in 133B.
What a silly argument. Obviously we wouldn't attempt to prove that 2 +
2 = 5 because it doesn't. The rifle shadow is nothing like that. You
simply hold it at the same angle to the right that Oswald is seen to
hold it in 133-B & tilt it forward without changing the angle to the
right until the shadow on the ground points directly to your right. You
have offered not a shred of evidence that Oswald "didn't" tilt the rifle
forward in exactly that manner. I have offered solid evidence, however,
that he *did*. See how there's no shadow on his upper arm? For him to
rest the butt of the rifle on his waist & NOT also tilt the rifle
forward, he'd absolutely HAVE to pull his elbow back considerably, since
that's the only way he could get his hand to be no more forward of his
torso than the butt of the rifle, putting his upper arm at least
somewhat in shadow. But his upper arm from shoulder to elbow appears to
be almost perpendicular to the ground, & is fully-lighted by the sun, &
the image of it does not appear to be shorter than his upper arm should
be, indicating that there was little tilt, if any, to his upper arm.
That would automatically put his hand FORWARD of his torso, thus
necessitating a forward lean to the rifle, since the butt of the rifle
is NOT forward of his torso & his hand is holding the rifle farther up.
Where is your comparable evidence that there "wasn't" just such a
forward lean to the rifle? Show us how the positioning of all parts of
his right arm are consistent with "no" forward lean to the rifle.
Rouser
No. All I have is your word that you did NOT succeed. I also have your
word that you DID succeed. Sure sounds like Orwellian Double-think to
me.
< All 3 of us
> say we did, & only one of us is an LN. Two of us have said only that
> the angles weren't precisely those of 133-B in the one photo of several
> John took there which has been reproduced on the Internet. NONE of us
> have said that we didn't accurately reproduce the shadow at all, & 2 of
> us have said that we've reproduced the shadow multiple times since then.
> Are you calling all 3 of us liars, Rouser?
I refer you to your own words, previously stated in this thread, to
wit:
"I enumerate the flaws in my > positioning of the broom & take full
blame for not having accurately > reproduced 133-B." Your words, Mr.
C. Not mine.
> > In 1966 THE LONDON TIMES conducted its own backyard
> > rifle photo simulation in an attempt to duplicate the variant shadows.
> > Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in
> > COVER-UP.
>
> If that is so, then whoever did it for the Times didn't know what they
> were doing, if they "failed" to reproduce that rifle shadow in 133-B.
> But I note that you don't say specifically that they failed to reproduce
> that exact shadow. Have you seen their "failed" attempts with your own
> eyes, or are you merely taking Galanor's word for it?
No. Just like your own photographic failures, there is no point in
seeing an unsucessful attempt. I have made many such attempts and
could not produce the effect and so have you. What is worth seeing is
a successful replication.
>
> > Anyone can produce a 9 o'clock shadow with at rifle, a yard stick, a
> > brooom. But you cannot produce a 9 o'clock shadow with the angle and
> > pitch of the rifle in 133B.
>
> Rofl, I've done it repeatedly & I'll do it again. The only thing I've
> "admitted" failing to do was replicate it in absolute accuracy in that
> one particular photo.
Uh, well, that is the entire, point, isn't it?
>
> > You can prove that 2 plus two equals four. You can prove that 3 plus 1
> > equals four. But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can also equal
> > five -- that will be the day you can successfully replicate the
> > shadows in 133B.
>
> What a silly argument. Obviously we wouldn't attempt to prove that 2 +
> 2 = 5 because it doesn't. The rifle shadow is nothing like that. You
> simply hold it at the same angle to the right that Oswald is seen to
> hold it in 133-B & tilt it forward without changing the angle to the
> right until the shadow on the ground points directly to your right. You
> have offered not a shred of evidence that Oswald "didn't" tilt the rifle
> forward in exactly that manner.
????? Evidence for what? 133B speaks for itself. The rifle is pitched
and and angeled exactly as it is pitched and angeled. I don't need a
"shred" of evidence to prove what is self-evident. The picture speaks
for itself. No additional "shreds" required.
-- Rouser
Rouser
RE:
> > No. Careuleo and associates admitted they had not successfully
> > replicated 133B.
>
> 'Scuse me, we "admitted" no such thing. What we admitted (only 2 of the
> 3 of us actually) was that in the *one* photo of several John took which
> has been posted so far on the Internet, which you still apparently still
> haven't seen, even though I told you repeatedly how easy it was to use
> this news-server to view it, I tilted the broom a bit too far to my
> right.
So exactly what is the point in viewing an unsuccessful attempt? The
idea is to prove YOUR point, not mine.
> Yet the photo *still* shows a different angle in the shadow of
> the broom on the ground.
Well, duh!!!. All shadows show a different angle.
> All 3 of us, however, have stated clearly that
> with our own eyes we saw it replicated more accurately. I did it over &
> over & over during a period of at least 10 minutes. The instant that
> one photo was taken, the last of the photos he took at that address, was
> not the only instant in which I attempted the replication.
>
> Interesting that 2 witnesses, both of whom are regular posters here, &
> neither of whom is an LN, have agreed that they *saw* me replicate that
> shadow quite accurately, with all of us having a copy of 133-B to
> consult at the time, whether or not I did so in the one & only photo of
> several that were taken of me doing it that has yet been posted on the
> Internet. You weren't there so you wouldn't know.
Again, I only have your own word -- both ways. You did and you didn't:
"I enumerate the flaws in my > positioning of the broom & take full
blame for not having accurately > reproduced 133-B. "
>>Martin Shackelford
> has also stated that the shadow was replicated to perfection at Sudbury.
Yep. And no picture to prove it, either. After jousting with Mr.
Shackleford over what he did, or did not see in Groden's book
regarding the Dillard photo, I can't automatically assume his eyes are
as reliable as you might want to think. An allagedly accurate
replication with no photo to prove it is not very scientific, nor very
rational and I certainly have no confidence in Mr. S's eyesight.
> He also is not an LN. In your very next article, please state plainly,
> yes or no, are you calling all 4 of us liars?
All I've done is quoted your own words.
-- Rouser
Caeruleo
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<caeruleo-
>
> RE:
>
>
> > > No. Careuleo and associates admitted they had not successfully
> > > replicated 133B.
> >
> > 'Scuse me, we "admitted" no such thing. What we admitted (only 2 of the
> > 3 of us actually) was that in the *one* photo of several John took which
> > has been posted so far on the Internet, which you still apparently still
> > haven't seen, even though I told you repeatedly how easy it was to use
> > this news-server to view it, I tilted the broom a bit too far to my
> > right.
>
> So exactly what is the point in viewing an unsuccessful attempt?
Depends on what you mean by "unsuccessful." It was not successful only
in the sense of a slightly extreme rightward tilt. It was quite
successful in showing a different angle to the shadow on the ground, &
if one wasn't already aware that I had also tilted the broom forward, it
would not be apparent in the image of the broom that I had done so.
> The
> idea is to prove YOUR point, not mine.
Ah yes, that. I'll remind you yet again that your claim that the shadow
cannot be replicated predates by many months mine that it can. Since
your claim is the earlier one, why is not the burden of proof on you
first to prove your claim first? Where are YOUR photos of your
"unsuccessful" attempts to reproduce the shadow, Rouser? Why I am
expected to prove my claim when you haven't proven yours yet? All you
ever say is that it can't be done, yet you've produced no photographic
documentation that it can't be done.
> > Yet the photo *still* shows a different angle in the shadow of
> > the broom on the ground.
>
> Well, duh!!!. All shadows show a different angle.
Yep. Just like the rifle shadow in 133-B, which was achieved by him
simply tilting the rifle foward. One doesn't even have to see a
photograph to view that phenomenon outdoors, or under any bright source
of light.
> > All 3 of us, however, have stated clearly that
> > with our own eyes we saw it replicated more accurately. I did it over &
> > over & over during a period of at least 10 minutes. The instant that
> > one photo was taken, the last of the photos he took at that address, was
> > not the only instant in which I attempted the replication.
> >
> > Interesting that 2 witnesses, both of whom are regular posters here, &
> > neither of whom is an LN, have agreed that they *saw* me replicate that
> > shadow quite accurately, with all of us having a copy of 133-B to
> > consult at the time, whether or not I did so in the one & only photo of
> > several that were taken of me doing it that has yet been posted on the
> > Internet. You weren't there so you wouldn't know.
>
> Again, I only have your own word -- both ways. You did and you didn't:
There's no "both ways" about it. All I've said that in ONE photograph I
didn't reproduce all the angles precisely. That one photo is the only
one to this day that I have seen of me doing the demonstration. I was
not the photographer, & I am not in posession of any of the other
photos, as I have already explained many many many times, so I don't
have the slightest idea how much more successful I might have been in
those. I do know for a fact that while we were all standing there I
repeatedly duplicated that shadow to perfection. I've never deviated an
iota from any of the assertions I'm making now; I've been making them
since the day we did this, & since the day I first saw the one photo.
> "I enumerate the flaws in my > positioning of the broom & take full
> blame for not having accurately > reproduced 133-B. "
Yeppers, which is not even mildly inconsistent with anything I've said
since. In the ONE photo, not ALL angles match 133-B. The only photo of
several of me that I have yet seen. I have no control whatsoever over
when I'll be able to see the others.
> >>Martin Shackelford
> > has also stated that the shadow was replicated to perfection at Sudbury.
>
> Yep. And no picture to prove it, either.
Just as you have no picture to prove your claim. I'd almost bet money
that if I saw a photo of you doing your "unsuccessful" attempt with your
golf club, I'd be able to stop what you were doing wrong in an instant.
I strongly suspect that you did not do precisely what I described when I
explained to you repeatedly how it could be done.
And good lord, Rouser, it's just common sense. Ya just tilt the thing
forward until the shadow points to 9 o'clock. Why on earth do you need
to see a "photo" of something so incredibly mundane? Do you need to see
a photo to prove to you that leaves on living plants are usually green?
> After jousting with Mr.
> Shackleford over what he did, or did not see in Groden's book
> regarding the Dillard photo, I can't automatically assume his eyes are
> as reliable as you might want to think. An allagedly accurate
> replication with no photo to prove it is not very scientific, nor very
> rational and I certainly have no confidence in Mr. S's eyesight.
Maybe. You also have no photo to prove your claim. And what about
Ricky Tobias' eyesight, & John Hill's?
> > He also is not an LN. In your very next article, please state plainly,
> > yes or no, are you calling all 4 of us liars?
>
> All I've done is quoted your own words.
None of which said that I never was successful in replicating the photo
to perfection at any time, only that I was not entirely successful in
one photo of several that were taken of me. I will ask you once again
to say plainly, yes or no, with no equivocation whatsoever, do you think
we are lying?
Caeruleo
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<caeruleo-
>
> > You weren't there so you don't know that we didn't succeed.
>
> No. All I have is your word that you did NOT succeed. I also have your
> word that you DID succeed. Sure sounds like Orwellian Double-think to
> me.
You claim a contradiction that I've never expressed. I said I didn't
succeed in one photo. I said I did succeed at numerous other moments, &
have 3 witnesses who agreed, none of whom is an LN, & 2 of whom have
posted their agreement here. Four against one, Rouser, & you weren't
even there.
Yes or no, do you think we are all lying?
> < All 3 of us
> > say we did, & only one of us is an LN. Two of us have said only that
> > the angles weren't precisely those of 133-B in the one photo of several
> > John took there which has been reproduced on the Internet. NONE of us
> > have said that we didn't accurately reproduce the shadow at all, & 2 of
> > us have said that we've reproduced the shadow multiple times since then.
> > Are you calling all 3 of us liars, Rouser?
>
> I refer you to your own words, previously stated in this thread, to
> wit:
>
> "I enumerate the flaws in my > positioning of the broom & take full
> blame for not having accurately > reproduced 133-B." Your words, Mr.
> C. Not mine.
Which is entirely consistent with everything I've said, as that
statement was made regarding ONLY that one photo.
> > > In 1966 THE LONDON TIMES conducted its own backyard
> > > rifle photo simulation in an attempt to duplicate the variant shadows.
> > > Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in
> > > COVER-UP.
> >
> > If that is so, then whoever did it for the Times didn't know what they
> > were doing, if they "failed" to reproduce that rifle shadow in 133-B.
> > But I note that you don't say specifically that they failed to reproduce
> > that exact shadow. Have you seen their "failed" attempts with your own
> > eyes, or are you merely taking Galanor's word for it?
>
> No. Just like your own photographic failures,
"Failures," plural? What "failures"? I've only seen one photo of me
attempting the demonstration. And where, praytell, is your photo of
your own "failure" to replicate the shadow? Your claim predates mine by
many months, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim first.
So far, you haven't even come close.
> there is no point in
> seeing an unsucessful attempt. I have made many such attempts and
> could not produce the effect and so have you.
Lol, so have I, in many many such attempts? No, I reproduced it quite
successfully in quite a few attempts, just not at the instant John
snapped that one photo. And have you forgotten what distracted me just
as he was about to snap the shutter? I've explained it repeatedly. And
you could not reproduce the effect? ROFL!!! Do you mean to tell us you
can't tilt an object forward until the shadow points to 9 o'clock? A
mere CHILD can do that, Rouser.
> What is worth seeing is
> a successful replication.
Good. Go outside & do one. Ya just tilt it forward until the shadow
points to 9 o'clock. Then you'll see a successful replication with your
own eyes without even needing to photograph it.
> > > Anyone can produce a 9 o'clock shadow with at rifle, a yard stick, a
> > > brooom. But you cannot produce a 9 o'clock shadow with the angle and
> > > pitch of the rifle in 133B.
> >
> > Rofl, I've done it repeatedly & I'll do it again. The only thing I've
> > "admitted" failing to do was replicate it in absolute accuracy in that
> > one particular photo.
>
> Uh, well, that is the entire, point, isn't it?
Oh dear no, that has NEVER been the entire point. From the beginning,
the day after I returned from Dallas, I described in tremendous detail
how extraordinarily easy it is to reproduce that shadow, & photographic
evidence of it played only a secondary role in my explanations. I told
everyone that they could go right outside & do it themselves in an
instant. One single photo, of several that were taken, has never been
the "entire point."
> > > You can prove that 2 plus two equals four. You can prove that 3 plus 1
> > > equals four. But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can also equal
> > > five -- that will be the day you can successfully replicate the
> > > shadows in 133B.
> >
> > What a silly argument. Obviously we wouldn't attempt to prove that 2 +
> > 2 = 5 because it doesn't. The rifle shadow is nothing like that. You
> > simply hold it at the same angle to the right that Oswald is seen to
> > hold it in 133-B & tilt it forward without changing the angle to the
> > right until the shadow on the ground points directly to your right. You
> > have offered not a shred of evidence that Oswald "didn't" tilt the rifle
> > forward in exactly that manner.
>
> ????? Evidence for what? 133B speaks for itself. The rifle is pitched
> and and angeled exactly as it is pitched and angeled.
Yep, it's tilted to his right & also tilted forward. His elbow would be
considerably farther back if it wasn't.
> I don't need a
> "shred" of evidence to prove what is self-evident. The picture speaks
> for itself.
That it certainly does.
> No additional "shreds" required.
So why do you still act as if you require them?
John Hill
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-445E26...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Hill
BINGO. I saw it.
> I've never deviated an
> iota from any of the assertions I'm making now; I've been making them
> since the day we did this, & since the day I first saw the one photo.
>
> > "I enumerate the flaws in my > positioning of the broom & take full
> > blame for not having accurately > reproduced 133-B. "
>
> Yeppers, which is not even mildly inconsistent with anything I've said
> since. In the ONE photo, not ALL angles match 133-B. The only photo of
> several of me that I have yet seen. I have no control whatsoever over
> when I'll be able to see the others.
I swear I'll get them to you. I just have zero time!!! My life is very
harried right now.
You know, if you'll e-mail me a mailing address I'll send you the
negatives. Maybe you can get a better printing job than I did. Maybe I can
send them to your school or something.
> > >>Martin Shackelford
> > > has also stated that the shadow was replicated to perfection at
Sudbury.
> >
> > Yep. And no picture to prove it, either.
>
> Just as you have no picture to prove your claim. I'd almost bet money
> that if I saw a photo of you doing your "unsuccessful" attempt with your
> golf club, I'd be able to stop what you were doing wrong in an instant.
> I strongly suspect that you did not do precisely what I described when I
> explained to you repeatedly how it could be done.
I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to see myself well enough to
duplicate it, but I'm going to try this weekend.
> And good lord, Rouser, it's just common sense. Ya just tilt the thing
> forward until the shadow points to 9 o'clock.
Yep. Pitifully easy.
> Why on earth do you need
> to see a "photo" of something so incredibly mundane? Do you need to see
> a photo to prove to you that leaves on living plants are usually green?
>
> > After jousting with Mr.
> > Shackleford over what he did, or did not see in Groden's book
> > regarding the Dillard photo, I can't automatically assume his eyes are
> > as reliable as you might want to think. An allagedly accurate
> > replication with no photo to prove it is not very scientific, nor very
> > rational and I certainly have no confidence in Mr. S's eyesight.
>
> Maybe. You also have no photo to prove your claim. And what about
> Ricky Tobias' eyesight, & John Hill's?
>
> > > He also is not an LN. In your very next article, please state
plainly,
> > > yes or no, are you calling all 4 of us liars?
> >
> > All I've done is quoted your own words.
I certainly beg to differ. You've put plenty of your own words in, too.
> None of which said that I never was successful in replicating the photo
> to perfection at any time, only that I was not entirely successful in
> one photo of several that were taken of me. I will ask you once again
> to say plainly, yes or no, with no equivocation whatsoever, do you think
> we are lying?
I know I'm not. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
Rouser
> You claim a contradiction that I've never expressed. I said I didn't
> succeed in one photo. I said I did succeed at numerous other moments, &
> have 3 witnesses who agreed, none of whom is an LN, & 2 of whom have
> posted their agreement here. Four against one, Rouser, & you weren't
> even there.
Seems to me, this is a rather belated declaration. All you've
previously said is that you proved different shadow angles could be
achieved by moving the rifle/broom.
>
> Yes or no, do you think we are all lying?
This board does not post such accusations. Why don't you ask me the
question on the un-censored board?
Oh, but now you challenge me to prove a negative. I cannot replicate 133B,
but that is not necessary. All anyone need do is view 133C which casts a
natural shadow for what the figure is holding (a commie newspaper) in the
same right hand pitched and angled reletively the same as the rifle in
133B.
-- Rouser
Rouser
Re:
> > The
> > idea is to prove YOUR point, not mine.
>
> Ah yes, that. I'll remind you yet again that your claim that the shadow
> cannot be replicated predates by many months mine that it can. Since
> your claim is the earlier one, why is not the burden of proof on you
> first to prove your claim first?
Uh, uh. That would be reverse logic again -- proving a negative. You
say the photo is genuine, prove it via replication. Can't be done.
> Where are YOUR photos of your
> "unsuccessful" attempts to reproduce the shadow, Rouser? Why I am
> expected to prove my claim when you haven't proven yours yet? All you
> ever say is that it can't be done, yet you've produced no photographic
> documentation that it can't be done.
But I can once again point out the arm, angle and pitch or the right
hand in 133C, which is very close to being the same as 133B, but with
a very differnt shadow.
>
> > > Yet the photo *still* shows a different angle in the shadow of
> > > the broom on the ground.
> >
> > Well, duh!!!. All shadows show a different angle.
>
> Yep. Just like the rifle shadow in 133-B, which was achieved by him
> simply tilting the rifle foward. One doesn't even have to see a
> photograph to view that phenomenon outdoors, or under any bright source
> of light.
Which I have done many times. Quite easy. All you have to do is pitch
the rifle/broom/golf club or commie paper substantially lower than the
object is pitched in 133B or 133C. The idea is to achieve the same
9'c'clock shadow with the same rifle angle and pitch as in 133B. Can't
be done.
-- Rouser
Caeruleo
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<caeruleo-
>
> Re:
>
> > > The
> > > idea is to prove YOUR point, not mine.
> >
> > Ah yes, that. I'll remind you yet again that your claim that the shadow
> > cannot be replicated predates by many months mine that it can. Since
> > your claim is the earlier one, why is not the burden of proof on you
> > first to prove your claim first?
>
> Uh, uh. That would be reverse logic again -- proving a negative.
There are plenty of negatives that can be proven, Rouser. I can easily
prove that I have never died, for example. You cannot prove that it
can't be done without first proving honest attempts to do it to be
unsuccessful. All you've ever done is claim that attempts to do it have
been unsuccessful, but you've never proven it.
> You
> say the photo is genuine, prove it via replication. Can't be done.
Yes it can. Ya just tilt it forward until the shadow points to 9
o'clock. The fact that it wasn't precisely done in the only photo of me
doing it that has yet been posted on the Internet (which you still
haven't seen, so you don't have the slightest idea how *close* I came to
being successful) doesn't automatically mean that it "can't" be done,
only that I failed to do it with precise accuracy in that one photo
taken at that one instant. And the photo itself still comes close
enough to duplicating all the angles precisely that anyone at all with
common sense looking at it should instantly see how only a minor
alteration in my positioning would have resulted in a successful
replication.
> > Where are YOUR photos of your
> > "unsuccessful" attempts to reproduce the shadow, Rouser? Why I am
> > expected to prove my claim when you haven't proven yours yet? All you
> > ever say is that it can't be done, yet you've produced no photographic
> > documentation that it can't be done.
>
> But I can once again point out the arm, angle and pitch or the right
> hand in 133C, which is very close to being the same as 133B, but with
> a very differnt shadow.
It isn't "very close" to the circumstances of the rifle & it's shadow in
133-B at all. Oswald in 133-C is holding the paper in his hand
*without* resting any part of it against his torso, thus there is no
indication from the image itself that the paper is tilted. The rifle is
a far different matter. In 133-B it is quite clear that the butt of the
rifle is resting against his stomach at about his beltline; we can see
how it's pulling his shirt down. Since his hand is holding the rifle
far above that point, for him NOT to be tilting the rifle forward, his
hand MUST be above & directly right of the point on his body on which
the butt of the rifle is resting. Yet do do that, he MUST also pull his
elbow back considerably to get his hand that far back; his elbow would
have to be to the rear of his entire torso. This is also rather an
uncomfortable position in which to hold such an object that way; it
would be far more natural & comfortable to have the hand *forward* of
the front of the torso, with the upper arm from shoulder to elbow closer
to perpendicular to the ground, rather than tilted back so far. The
photo seems plainly to show that indeed the upper arm is not tilted back
that far, because the apparent length of the image of the upper arm is
not as reduced as it would be if it were tilted that much in relation to
the camera, & there is no shadow to be seen on his upper arm, as there
should be if his elbow was indeed pulled back that far, with the front
of the upper arm not facing the sun as much. This whole business about
the elbow & the upper arm I have not seen you address at all, even
though I've already mentioned it several times in reply to you. I
mentioned it twice on July 9 & once on July 31. I am looking right now
at your reply to that very July 31 article, & you completely snipped
that entire part about the elbow & upper arm & did not address it at
all. In another article on August 1 I mentioned only the elbow in this
text:
"Yep, it's [the rifle] tilted to his right & also tilted forward. His
elbow would be considerably farther back if it wasn't."
But you again snipped this part completely out of the portion of my text
that you quoted in your reply to that article, & did not address it at
all.
> > > > Yet the photo *still* shows a different angle in the shadow of
> > > > the broom on the ground.
> > >
> > > Well, duh!!!. All shadows show a different angle.
> >
> > Yep. Just like the rifle shadow in 133-B, which was achieved by him
> > simply tilting the rifle foward. One doesn't even have to see a
> > photograph to view that phenomenon outdoors, or under any bright source
> > of light.
>
> Which I have done many times. Quite easy. All you have to do is pitch
> the rifle/broom/golf club or commie paper substantially lower than the
> object is pitched in 133B or 133C.
What do you mean by "lower" than it is in 133-B? You mean the top of
the rifle? Exactly how "low" is the top of the rifle, Rouser? And if
he isn't tilting the rifle forward, why isn't he pulling his elbow &
hand back far enough so that there is no forward tilt? As for 133-C,
there's no similar evidence that he's tilting the paper at all.
> The idea is to achieve the same
> 9'c'clock shadow with the same rifle angle and pitch as in 133B. Can't
> be done.
Yes it can. I've done it many times on several different dates, some of
them in front of witnesses who unanimously agreed that I did it
perfectly. John says he's done it too. I just didn't get every single
angle exactly right in the one & only photo of several that were taken
of me which has yet been posted on the Internet, which you still haven't
seen, & for all you know, once you see it, you might actually think I
came closer to doing it accurately than I do, lol. Even so, the photo
still shows that with only a slight alteration of positioning, I would
have duplicated 133-B remarkably well. You haven't seen it (even though
I told you repeatedly how to access the news-server on which it could be
seen, & even though I've offered to email it to you) so you don't have
the slightest idea how close I came. Perhaps you'll finally look at it
before you continue to voice opinions on how close I did or did not
come. Simply reading my own commentary about the photo, & posting &
reposting that one sentence in which I took responsibility for the angle
inaccuracies, does not tell you what your own eyes would see if you
looked at it.
But to speak of that, you voiced some doubts about the quality of
Martin's eyesight because he didn't see the same things you do in
another photo. I must now voice doubts about your own eyesight.
Several months ago you persisted in claiming that the Dallas Morning
News motorcade map was about one-sixth the size of the entire page, &
claimed that if one made several copies of the page then cut out several
of the maps, only 6 of them could fit on that page, despite the fact
that anyone with even average eyesight can plainly see that the width of
the map is equivalent to 2 columns of text right above it, that there
are 4 more such columns across the width of the page, & that to the
right of those is an additional column of text which is twice as wide as
the other 6 columns, making it quite clear that the width of the map
alone is only one-fourth the width of the entire page. One could fit 4
maps along the bottom of the page alone. In addition, it is quite
obvious that the height of the map is again approximately one-fourth the
height of the entire page.
4 x 4 = 16.
The map is approximately one-sixteenth the size of the entire page.
That is clear as a bell to anyone with even average eyesight who looks
at it, & no other poster here has ever agreed with you that the map is
nearly as large as you claimed.
You are also the sole remaining poster in this newsgroup who is
disputing John, Ricky, & I on this rifle shadow in the slightest. The
others of the tiny handful who were doing that back in June have long
since become silent.
Caeruleo
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<caeruleo-445E26...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
>
>
> > You claim a contradiction that I've never expressed. I said I didn't
> > succeed in one photo. I said I did succeed at numerous other moments, &
> > have 3 witnesses who agreed, none of whom is an LN, & 2 of whom have
> > posted their agreement here. Four against one, Rouser, & you weren't
> > even there.
>
> Seems to me, this is a rather belated declaration.
Not at all. I've said all of this since I first saw the photo on June
17.
> All you've
> previously said is that you proved different shadow angles could be
> achieved by moving the rifle/broom.
I've said much more than that, Rouser, & have been saying it for well
over a month.
> > Yes or no, do you think we are all lying?
>
> This board does not post such accusations. Why don't you ask me the
> question on the un-censored board?
If by that you mean alt.conspiracy.jfk, I posted just such an article
there several hours ago. The Subject of the thread begins with "Yes or
no Rouser," so it should be quite easy to find.
> > > > > In 1966 THE LONDON TIMES conducted its own backyard
> > > > > rifle photo simulation in an attempt to duplicate the variant
> > > > > shadows.
> > > > > Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in
> > > > > COVER-UP.
> > > >
> > > > If that is so, then whoever did it for the Times didn't know what they
> > > > were doing, if they "failed" to reproduce that rifle shadow in 133-B.
> > > > But I note that you don't say specifically that they failed to
> > > > reproduce
> > > > that exact shadow. Have you seen their "failed" attempts with your own
> > > > eyes, or are you merely taking Galanor's word for it?
> > >
> > > No. Just like your own photographic failures,
> >
> > "Failures," plural? What "failures"? I've only seen one photo of me
> > attempting the demonstration. And where, praytell, is your photo of
> > your own "failure" to replicate the shadow? Your claim predates mine by
> > many months, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim first.
> > So far, you haven't even come close.
>
> Oh, but now you challenge me to prove a negative. I cannot replicate 133B,
> but that is not necessary. All anyone need do is view 133C which casts a
> natural shadow for what the figure is holding (a commie newspaper) in the
> same right hand pitched and angled reletively the same as the rifle in
> 133B.
I've already dealt with the differences between 133-B & C in my other
reply. And why, praytell, did you once again ignore my statement about
the elbow? Here's the text about that which you snipped completely &
again did not address in your present reply:
**********
> > > You can prove that 2 plus two equals four. You can prove that 3 plus 1
> > > equals four. But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can also equal
> > > five -- that will be the day you can successfully replicate the
> > > shadows in 133B.
> >
> > What a silly argument. Obviously we wouldn't attempt to prove that 2 +
> > 2 = 5 because it doesn't. The rifle shadow is nothing like that. You
> > simply hold it at the same angle to the right that Oswald is seen to
> > hold it in 133-B & tilt it forward without changing the angle to the
> > right until the shadow on the ground points directly to your right. You
> > have offered not a shred of evidence that Oswald "didn't" tilt the rifle
> > forward in exactly that manner.
>
> ????? Evidence for what? 133B speaks for itself. The rifle is pitched
> and and angeled exactly as it is pitched and angeled.
Yep, it's tilted to his right & also tilted forward. His elbow would be
considerably farther back if it wasn't.
**********
This is now at least the 4th time since July 9 that you have ignored
this evidence regarding the upper arm & elbow. Will you finally now
address it for the first time ever?
Rouser
>>But to speak of that, you voiced some doubts about the quality of
Martin's eyesight because he didn't see the same things you do in
another photo. I must now voice doubts about your own eyesight.
Several months ago you persisted in claiming that the Dallas Morning
News motorcade map was about one-sixth the size of the entire page,
Another nice little diversion, weak as it is, from the topic at hand.
It was the Dillard photo and Martin's absolute conviction that the
ambiguous smear and blur of dots could not have been either Nicolotti
or Cain -- an amazing conclusion considering the quality of the image.
Martin also averred that there was no "artist's rendering" on the page
-- a point he later conceded. Thus, like a lot of LNs and CTs, his
perceptions, just like yours, seem tainted and biased by knee-jerk
preconceptions.
-- Rouser
Caeruleo
ROFL, it was a "diversion" that I posted, when all I was doing was EXACTLY
the same thing you did? The photo we were originally discussion here was
133-B. THAT photo alone was the original "topic at hand." When you were
reminded about Martin's statements that that rifle shadow had been
reproduced to perfection in front of a live audience in Sudbury, it was
YOU who FIRST "diverted" the topic of 133-B to a completely DIFFERENT
photo, claiming that because Martin did not appear to see the same thing
as you did in that photo, legitimate "questions" about his eyesight
should be raised. I merely provided exactly the SAME sort of "diversion"
regarding your own eyesight, in exactly the same manner citing a DIFFERENT
image from 133-B in which your claims were plainly at variance with the
width of that image in comparison to the columns of text immediately above
it.
I "diverted" the discussion no more than you had already done, Rouser.
You had already "diverted" it in precisely the same manner I did. There
is no essential difference whatsoever.
Rouser
Your "diversion" hardly dealth with eyesight, but rather the
fractional size of a map, the clarity of which was not in dispute. As
to the actual percentage of the page it occupied, that is a matter of
how you define the size of a page, whether as to columns, margins,
etc. -- a very weak diversionary remark on your part.
Ed Cage
CUT&PASTED.. Everyone else has. There's no
evidence to support this theory unless you
include own dubious Oswald's claim that his
"head was cut & pasted"..
* Extensive tests show it/them to be legit..
* Are A=L=L the Oz heads cut & pasted?
* What about the film found later in the camera?
Was it ALSO altered? Why/H=O=W was this unique*
ruse perfected?!?
* Your biggest problem is you cannot produce any
CUT&PASTE marks.. They don't exist Rouser.
* You have NO EVIDENCE Rouser, only chatter..
Talk is cheap Rouser.. Time for you to anti-up
some EVIDENCE of the cut&paste marks on LHO's
head (Please explain ALL the BY pics while
you're at it..) A theory is not E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E
Rouser.. You have claims & theories but you are
unable to p-r-o-d-u-c-e your..
CUT&PASTE MARKS ON OSWALD'S HEAD<--A Problem 4U.
Ed Cage ecag...@earthlink.net AU60841
* The old "U=N=D=E=V=E=L=O=P=E=D NEGS/altered
photos" in the camera found later trick.. (The
oldest trick in the book..)
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Ed Cage
==========================================
"But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can
also equal five -- that will be the day you
can successfully replicate the shadows in
===========================================
FACT: Shadow anomalies (especially outdoors)
are extremely common.
Here's yet another problem 4U Rouser:
The technology DOES exist to determine if a
photo has been retouched.. There is/was no
evidence to support your "retouching claim"
on the BY photos or the BY photos in the
camera (NEGATIVES; A neat trick if you can
do this one..)
You have only claims, theories and Qs..
Your problem is that talk/theories are not
EVIDENCE.. Technology has passed you by..
COMMON SENSE: The MC is/was ALREADY linked
to Oswald!!!!! W=H=Y would anyone do a
S-E-R-I-E-S
of altered photos (fake) to shore up a
claim virtually everybody already AGREED
with?!?
Ed ecag...@earthlink.net AU60905
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03073...@posting.google.com>...
Russ Burr
As I've said in the past Marina has consistently stated she took the pictures.
Despite her inconsistencies in her statements and her fervent conspiracy stance
she even told me in '97 that she took the photos. What she didn't remember was
whether she signed the back of one of them as "Hunter of Facists".
And the Photographic Panel of the HSCA conclusively proved that the Imperial
Reflex camera that Oswald gave to Marina to take the photos, was the camera used
to take the photos.
Russ
Ed Cage
You've MET & TALKED w Marina?!?
She's still a very attractive woman in my view..
Your opinion?
She also appears to be quite secure; if not
"affluent" to some degree..
Your opinion?
She should be fixed for life.. Oswald's signature
r-e-p-o-r-t-e-d-l-y sells for 10x what JFK's does..
(Hearsay: $30,000 vs. $3,000!!)
IF she took back that ring during/after the
exhumation.. I think it would/could bring $100K.
Does she live in Fort Worth?
Ed Cage ecag...@earthlink.net AU70143
>Russ Burr <Russ_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bgrin...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Rouser
Re:
> >
> >FACT: Shadow anomalies (especially outdoors)
> >are extremely common.
That is false. There is no such a thing as a shadow anomaly unless it
is one that cannot be replicated.
> >Here's yet another problem 4U Rouser:
> >The technology DOES exist to determine if a
> >photo has been retouched.. There is/was no
> >evidence to support your "retouching claim"
> >on the BY photos or the BY photos in the
> >camera (NEGATIVES; A neat trick if you can
> >do this one..)
Evidence of re-touching is the bulge of background into the pillar of
the backyard stairs to the left of O's face in 133B.
> >
> >You have only claims, theories and Qs..
> >Your problem is that talk/theories are not
> >EVIDENCE.
Quite the contrary. It is you and your LN associates who make a claim,
but have zero evidence to back it up -- namely, evidence via
replication, the only kind of evidence that the Scientific Method
accepts.
> Technology has passed you by..
> >COMMON SENSE: The MC is/was ALREADY linked
> >to Oswald!!!!! W=H=Y would anyone do a
> > S-E-R-I-E-S
> >of altered photos (fake) to shore up a
> >claim virtually everybody already AGREED
> >with?!?
The M/C's link or contrived link to Oswald has nothing whatsoever to
do with the evidence of photo fakery, but is just another red herring
LNs continually serve up in order to avoid the issue of evidence.
> >
> >Ed ecag...@earthlink.net AU60905
>
> As I've said in the past Marina has consistently stated she took the pictures.
> Despite her inconsistencies in her statements and her fervent conspiracy stance
Marina denies taking the photos which are in evidence as did
Marguerite deny she saw any of the photos in evidence.
> she even told me in '97 that she took the photos. What she didn't remember was
> whether she signed the back of one of them as "Hunter of Facists".
She told Harrison Livingston and others that she did not take the
photos in evidence.
>
> And the Photographic Panel of the HSCA conclusively proved that the Imperial
> Reflex camera that Oswald gave to Marina to take the photos, was the camera used
> to take the photos.
Also, totally irrelevent to the evidence of photo fakery.
-- Rouser
Rouser
> Rouser in response to your quote:
> ==========================================
> "But the day you can prove that 2 plus 2 can
> also equal five -- that will be the day you
> can successfully replicate the shadows in
> 133B." <--Rouser Quote.
> ===========================================
>
> FACT: Shadow anomalies (especially outdoors)
> are extremely common.
> Here's yet another problem 4U Rouser:
> The technology DOES exist to determine if a
> photo has been retouched.
And that technology is...????
>>There is/was no
> evidence to support your "retouching claim"
> on the BY photos or the BY photos in the
> camera (NEGATIVES; A neat trick if you can
> do this one..)
A baby simple "trick".
> You have only claims, theories and Qs..
> Your problem is that talk/theories are not
> EVIDENCE.
Ah, but it is you and your LN friends who make the claim of
authenticity but with zero evidence to back it up.
>> Technology has passed you by..
> COMMON SENSE: The MC is/was ALREADY linked
> to Oswald!!!!! W=H=Y would anyone do a
> S-E-R-I-E-S
> of altered photos (fake) to shore up a
> claim virtually everybody already AGREED
> with?!?
>
> Ed ecag...@earthlink.net
Everybody does not agree with your claims. But if everybody did, that
would not address the evidence of photo fakery. But then, that is your
ploy. Talk is cheap. But Science only recognizes measurement and
replication.
-- Rouser
Ed Cage
An "anomaly" is something "deviating from the
common order." - Look it up; I did.
99% of the leaves & shadows behind the grassy
knoll are normal looking.. But in 2 places
there is an abnormal (anomaly) effect:
1) BadgeMan (Who never existed)
2) There is a non existent "Man & Woman kissing"
in a full embrace which I BELIEVE John F. will
include in his upcoming JFK book.
These are anomalies "deviating from the
normal" tree, shadow, leave pattern.. They do
exist Rouser.
ANSWER A Q 4 ME ROUSER:
Are ALL the Oz heads in the BY photos Cut
& pasted? Are just some? If they are A=L=L
Cut&Pasted, why wouldn't the forger be
satisfied w just ONE? ?? If only ONE is
Cut&Pasted, that means the other Oz heads
are legit!
Your nutz are in a vice on this one Rouser.
Ed AU71814
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Ed Cage
"There is/was no evidence to support your "retouching
claim" on the BY photos or the BY photos in the camera
(NEGATIVES; A neat trick if you can > do this one..)"
NEGATIVE I-N-S-I-D-E a camera..
U-N-D-E-V-E-L-O-P-E-D, mind you..
Is a hell of a way to alter/CUT&PASTE a BY photo!!
The original photo would have to be DEVELOPED
Then.. ALTERED/CUT&PASTED..!
Then converted BACK TO A NEGATIVE!!!
(Still w me Rouser?)
Then the NEGATIVE is somehow
TRANSFORMED to
A PRE SHOT CAMERA=ROLL,(?!??!!??!!!)
I=N=S=E=R=T=E=D B=A=C=K in the camera..!!
(Somehow in an U-N-D-E-V-E-L-O-P-E-D form!?!)
W=H=Y?
And why the
S
E
R
I
E
S
of altered Cut & Pasted BY Oz headSSS?!?
Your answer/response is..
"A baby simple 'trick'".<--ACTUAL ROUSER QUOTE!
<:~?
Ed "Baby Simple Trick" Cage AU71851
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ed "Baby Simple Trick" Cage ecag...@earthlink.net
Rouser
> Rouser: I'd give up on the BY photo(s) being
> CUT&PASTED.. Everyone else has.
Eveyone else that I've posted to, including McAdams, Davison, Careulo,
Hill and you have given up all right, because they cannot produce a
replicated photo of 133B.
>>There's no
> evidence to support this theory unless you
> include own dubious Oswald's claim that his
> "head was cut & pasted".
The evidence is clear, and never countered by anyone via replication.
> * Extensive tests show it/them to be legit..
I don't know what "tests" you are talking about and neither do you.
Esoteric theories about "vanishing points" and "photogremetrics" is
not evidence. The only evidence that the Rule of Science accepts is
measurment and replication, two subjects you and the HSCA would rather
not address.
> * Are A=L=L the Oz heads cut & pasted?
> * What about the film found later in the camera?
> Was it ALSO altered? Why/H=O=W was this unique*
> ruse perfected?!?
> * Your biggest problem is you cannot produce any
> CUT&PASTE marks.. They don't exist Rouser.
> * You have NO EVIDENCE Rouser, only chatter..
There is a horizontal cut and paste line in 133B where Oswald's head
was pasted on someone else's chin.
-- Rouser
Ed Cage
Rouser years ago we had an elected School Board
Trustee who fell in L-O-V-E w the sound of the word
"scenario." He wove it into most of his responses.
We began to call him the "Scenario Kid."
You have latched on to what you may feel is a
sophisticated word of some sort, "replicate." A=L=L
of your responses on this subject demonstrate how your
favorite word, "replicate" can be used as a noun, verb,
adverb, article, adjective, or dangling participle..
Rouser, "replicate" means to "duplicate." If I
asked you to DUPLICATE what the BY photos SHOULD look
like, you wouldn't know where to start.. Am I right?
I will point out to you that the HSCA used twenty-
two (22) separate photo experts to analyze & test
the BY photos.. Their official conclusion:
"The BY photos were NOT altered"..
I ask you why a forger would create a forgery to
support a position* already well established.. I ask
you WHY a potential forger would forge a S=E=R=I=E=S
of Cut&Pasted headSSSS,..Your response remains the same:
"I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU REPLICATE THE BY PHOTOS."
You have bombed on this subject Rouser.. But I honestly
don't think you will ever know it..
Ed AU81500
*Everybody had already accepted that the MC was Oswald's.
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
>>Rouser, "replicate" means to "duplicate." If I
asked you to DUPLICATE what the BY photos SHOULD look
like, you wouldn't know where to start.. Am I right?
You are wrong. As usual. Replicate does not mean duplicate. But if you
want to know how a natural shadow should look, then all you need do is
examine the right hand shadow with commie paper held upright in 133C.
>> I will point out to you that the HSCA used twenty-
two (22) separate photo experts to analyze & test
the BY photos.
Wrong again. There were just seven -- all with ties to American
Intelligence.
>> Their official conclusion:
"The BY photos were NOT altered".
Science has no use for conclusions unsupported by facts and no use for
belief in any phenomena which cannot be replicated.
>> I ask you why a forger would create a forgery to
support a position* already well established.
"Well established" only in the minds of those who prefer to have
others do their thinking for them.
-- Rouser
Ed Cage
"McAdams, Davison, Careulo, Hill and Cage have
all given up"<--Rouser quote.
* You also say I'm rong in saying "replicate"
means "duplicate"
* You say I'm rong about there being an unbiased
analysis of the series of BY photos by the HSCA
in which they found the BY photos NOT to be..
Cut&Pasted Oz headSSS.. (altered)
* You say that my claim that Oswald's ownership
of the MC was "Well established only in the minds
BUT I'M NOT RONG ABOUT THIS..
If I ask you if the entire S=E=R=I=E=S of Oz headSSS
in the BY photos were A=L=L Cut&Pasted, you WILL:
D - U - C - K
the question.*
mR eD au101405
* In lieu of an ANSWER, you will INSTEAD challenge
me to "replicate" the Cut&Pasted Oz head(SSS)..
> rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
> Okay Rouser.. You say:
> "McAdams, Davison, Careulo, Hill and Cage have
> all given up"<--Rouser quote.
> * You also say I'm rong in saying "replicate"
> means "duplicate"
> * You say I'm rong about there being an unbiased
> analysis of the series of BY photos by the HSCA
> in which they found the BY photos NOT to be..
> Cut&Pasted Oz headSSS.. (altered)
> * You say that my claim that Oswald's ownership
> of the MC was "Well established only in the minds
> of those who prefer to have others do their
> thinking for them." <--Rouser quote.
>
> BUT I'M NOT RONG ABOUT THIS..
> If I ask you if the entire S=E=R=I=E=S of Oz headSSS
> in the BY photos were A=L=L Cut&Pasted, you WILL:
>
>
> D - U - C - K
> the question.*
>
>
> mR eD au101405
> * In lieu of an ANSWER, you will INSTEAD challenge
> me to "replicate" the Cut&Pasted Oz head(SSS)..
So what's the question?
Ed Cage
My question is:
Are you saying the entire
S=E=R=I=E=S
of Oz headSSS in the BY photos were
A=L=L
Cut&Pasted?
YES or NO <--This is baby simple Rouser.
(Hoping I get an ANSWER this time rather
than another diversion..)
Ed Cage au120254
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
> My question is:
>
>
> Are you saying the entire
> S=E=R=I=E=S
> of Oz headSSS in the BY photos were
> A=L=L
> Cut&Pasted?
> YES or NO <--This is baby simple Rouser.
I have only pointed out the evidence for fraud in 133B though I
believe they are all fraudulent.
-- Rouser
Ed Cage
Try again Rouser.. (#4)
Ed au130217
rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.0308...@posting.google.com>...
Ed Cage
You believe, "they are ALL fraudulent."*
W=H=Y o W=H=Y would someone create a
S-E-R-I-E-S
of fraudulent altered Cut&Pasted
Oz headS=S=S?!?
WHY would he then place some of them in an
U=N=D=E=V=E=L=O=P=E=D form on a
ROLL INSIDE the camera ?!???!?
Explain plez Mr. Rouser
Ed au130754
* The Cut&Pasted Oz headS=S=S.
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.0308...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
> You believe, "they are ALL fraudulent."*
>
> W=H=Y o W=H=Y would someone create a
> S-E-R-I-E-S
> of fraudulent altered Cut&Pasted
> Oz headS=S=S?!?
> WHY would he then place some of them in an
> U=N=D=E=V=E=L=O=P=E=D form on a
> ROLL INSIDE the camera ?!???!?
>
All I know for sure is that they are a fraud. I don't know that the
fraud was placed on an undeveoped roll in a camera and neither do you.
Ed Cage
and preparing for a PDQ EXIT!!
==============Rouser Response=============
"All I know for sure is that they are a fraud.
I don't know that the fraud was placed on an
undeveoped roll in a camera and neither do
==========================================
Stick around Rouser.. Before you hit the EXIT
door let's see if we agree on where we stand:
1) You finally agree the entire S=E=R=I=E=S of
Oz heads were Cut&Pasted; Not just ONE of em..
The entire collection of Oz heads are
"fraudulent" according to you.
2) You are now saying you don't know if any
part of the SERIES of Cut&Pasted Oz headSSS
were found in the camera BEFORE being DEVELOPED..
Answer:Yes.. That IS TRUE.
That's how it happened Rouser..
You are now faced w EXPLAINING W-H-Y o
W-H-Y the forger stuck a few E=X=T=R=A*
UNDEVELOPED Oz heads in the camera.. Please
explain this before you exit..
Ed au141817
* EXTRA forged Oz headSSS Rouser? w-h-y-?
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
>>You are now saying you don't know if any
part of the SERIES of Cut&Pasted Oz headSSS
were found in the camera BEFORE being DEVELOPED..
Answer:Yes.. That IS TRUE.
How do you know that?
Ed Cage
E
R
I
E
S
headS-S-S
on this dead* BY photo issue,
Let's say the entire S*E*R*I*E*S of forged Oz
head-S-S-S-S
were all found at once! None in Marina's
camera.. OK?
So what??!!??
U R still stuck w W=H=Y o W=H=Y the forger(S)
would submit a S*E*R*I*E*S of forged Oz headSSSS
rather than just ONE.. Can U explain that Rouser?
;~?
mR eD au190417
* U R ALL A-L-O-N-E here Rouser.. Even Richie &
Ricky will not help you on this one..
:-) :-) :-) :-) <==S*E*R*I*E*S of FORGED/FAKE Oz headSSSS
>rou...@core.com (Rouser) wrote in message news:<e5afd86a.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Rouser
> OK Rouser, since U R on Life=Support on this
> S
> E
> R
> I
> E
> S
> of Cut&Pasted Oz
> headS-S-S
> on this dead* BY photo issue,
> Let's say the entire S*E*R*I*E*S of forged Oz
> head-S-S-S-S
> were all found at once! None in Marina's
> camera.. OK?
> So what??!!??
> U R still stuck w W=H=Y o W=H=Y the forger(S)
> would submit a S*E*R*I*E*S of forged Oz headSSSS
> rather than just ONE.. Can U explain that Rouser?
The more the merrier?
-- Rouser