Exposing the Photographic Panel
Herbert Blenner
employed various photo analytic techniques. However, their vanishing point
tests produced their most compelling evidence.
In their report, the photographic panels gave a brief description of the
vanishing point technique. (414) The panel correctly stated the necessity
of a distant source of illumination. However, the panel had nothing to say
on the second requirement of the illumining light source.
Following the partial theoretical explanation of the vanishing point
technique the photographic panel considered the methodology. (416) Here
the photographic panel assumed they could draw a line through an object
and the corresponding point on the object shadow. This technique,
discounting measurement errors, requires the shadow has a razor-sharp
edge.
When the illumining source has no perceivable dimensions then the
transition at the shadow edge is razor-sharp. We can understand this
phenomenon by viewing the source of illumining from the edge of the
shadow. The slightest movement at the shadow edge either totally uncovers
or completely conceals the illuminating source. In other words, a
razor-sharp shadow edge requires a point source of illumination.
With a finite size source of illumination, such as the sun, the shadow
edges are diffused. As one moves across the shadow edge, they see a
changing portion of the illuminating source. This is the technicality the
photographic panel overlooked in their theoretical description of the
vanishing point technique.
The sharpness of the shadow edge is critical to the vanishing point
analysis. When a shadow edge is diffused, the direction of a line from a
point on an object through its corresponding point on the shadow edge is
uncertain. Lines drawn from different objects through the corresponding
points of their diffused shadow edges will fall within some small area.
More than two lines lines will never meet at a single point.
The photographic panel found their lines met at the vanishing point. They
declared the shadows were directionally consistent. (417) Then pompously
proclaimed the vanishing point analysis settles the issue. (418) On this
point, I have no objection.
Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
the evidence.
Source: Volume VI of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The
following references are from section B, Photograph Authentication
(414) The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of
the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point"
perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to
photography as well. (178) This concept simply means that parallel lines
in object space are depicted as converging lines on the image which will
eventually meet at a point. Because the Sun's distance from Earth is so
great that it may be considered infinitely distant, it follows that, in
any sunlit scene, lines from objects to their shadows are parallel. When
these parallel lines are pictured the corresponding lines on the picture
converge at a point known as the vanishing point. A picture of parallel
railroad tracks provides a good illustration; the tracks are seen to
converge to a point at the horizon.
(415) In the case of the railroad tracks, the vanishing point is in the
picture. This may not always occur. If the lines are perpendicular to the
camera axis (the line from the center of the lens to the center of the
film), the images of the lines will not appear to converge at a point, on
the picture. The vanishing point may then be considered to be at infinity.
In other cases, where the parallel lines are not perpendicular to the
camera axis, the vanishing point is either in the picture or some finite
distance outside it.
(416) When this is the case, the directional consistency of shadows may be
tested by drawing lines from images of objects to the corresponding points
on the images of their shadows, and then extending these lines (beyond the
actual picture if necessary) to see if they are meet at one point. If the
lines do meet at one point, they are parallel and therefore consistent. If
they do not met at one point, they are not parallel and consequently are
not consistent.
(417) When this analysis was applied to the backyard prints by drawing
lines from a part of the stairway, the butt of Oswald's pistol, the muzzle
of the rifle, Oswald's nose, et cetera, to the corresponding points on the
shadows cast by these objects, the lines all met at the vanishing point.
(See figs. IV-34 and IV-35, JFK exhibits Nos. F-387 and F-388.)
Accordingly, the shadows were determined to he directionally consistent. A
vanishing point analysis on 133C(Stovall) also yielded consistent results.
(418) While the vanishing point analysis settles this issue, comparisons
between shadows depicted in different backyard pictures cannot be validly
made unless the illumination, precise geometry of the head and the exact
location of the camera are considered. It is for this reason that the
allegation of fakery, based on the observation that a shadow has not moved
between pictures despite movement of the object casting it, is
fundamentally misconceived. The argument fails to account for the
compensating effect of movement by the camera.(179) This principle is
illustrated in the RIT Technical Report, pars. 470-74 infra.
Joe Durnavich
>Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
>would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
>would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
>photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
>lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
>objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
>
>The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
>under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
>the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
>oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
>the evidence.
You miss the point. The case still has to be decided on the evidence.
If the critics charge that the shadows are inconsistent, they have the
same issue with diffusion of shadow edges. VPA is still the better
test here. The VPA shows the shadows consistent within a particular
range of error.
By the way, the sun subtends a half-angle of only 0.26 degrees at the
Earth. I suspect this is not too much different than the error
inherent in drawing lines between points on a photograph. (That
equates to 1.4 mm of error in a line 30 cm long.)
--
Joe Durnavich
Russell Burr
Very interesting Herbert! Though I did have some trouble understanding all
the technical jargon, I still rely on "cruder" means to assess the
validity of the backyard photos, such as Marina's statements following the
assassination (when she believed he was guilty) and statements in the past
couple decades (when she believed him to be innocent). Over the years
since the assassination she has maintained a consistent explanation for
the photos: she took them! Add to that is the fact that Oswald showed the
photos to Michael Paine (Ruth confirmed this the last time I talked to
her) and that he mailed one copy to the "Militant". I realize that witness
recollection can be tricky as far as validity but I'm comfortable with my
acceptance of the photos as genuine based on the few people in Oswald's
life who saw them prior to the assassination..
RB
David Wimp
Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>
> (414) The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of
> the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point"
> perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to
> photography as well. (178)
This is one of my principle complaints about the conclusion. The concept is
widely known and would be known to a competent forger. Passing the vanishing
point test only means that the test fails to reveal forgery. It really offers
no reason for believing the photos are genuine. Another major complaint is
that the vanishing point test only tests the validity of the shadows in one
dimension when the image is two dimensional. Simply put, the test only says a
shadow should fall on a line. It does not say where on the line the shadow
should fall. There are then an infinite number of shadow configurations that
would pass the test when, for a given scene, only one is correct. The test
performed by the panel is quite simple and quite well known. Testing the
shadows in two dimensions is a lot harder but that is the type of thing I
would expect to distinguish the work of a highly competent panel.
--
Dave
It's easier to get smart people to act stupid than to get stupid people to act
smart.
Mitch Todd
> Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > (414) The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of
> > the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point"
> > perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to
> > photography as well. (178)
> This is one of my principle complaints about the conclusion. The concept is
> widely known and would be known to a competent forger. Passing the vanishing
> point test only means that the test fails to reveal forgery. It really offers
> no reason for believing the photos are genuine....
This is getting surreal. Here's why (in highly condensed form):
CT: "This photo can't be authentic!"
FPP: "Why not?"
CT: "The shadows are inconsistent! They go every which way!"
FPP: [explains the vanishing point thing]
CT: "Well, that doesn't prove a thing! Any forger would know that, and
use it!"
I did the same thing when I was nine: "heads, I win; tails, you lose!"
>Another major complaint is
> that the vanishing point test only tests the validity of the shadows in one
> dimension when the image is two dimensional. Simply put, the test only says a
> shadow should fall on a line. It does not say where on the line the shadow
> should fall. There are then an infinite number of shadow configurations that
> would pass the test when, for a given scene, only one is correct. The test
> performed by the panel is quite simple and quite well known. Testing the
> shadows in two dimensions is a lot harder but that is the type of thing I
> would expect to distinguish the work of a highly competent panel.
The FPP did that, by using the photos to determine the location of the sun
at the time and place the picture taken, then comparing that information
to the known position of the sun at the approximate time and date that the
photographs were taken. It worked out.
MST
Herbert Blenner
>From: Joe Durnavich jo...@earthlink.net
>Date: 6/2/01 10:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <pltghtgj3c1rs7u96...@4ax.com>
>
>Herbert Blenner writes:
>
>>Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
>>would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
>>would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
>>photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
>>lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
>>objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
>>
>>The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
>>under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
>>the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
>>oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
>>the evidence.
>
>You miss the point. The case still has to be decided on the evidence.
>If the critics charge that the shadows are inconsistent, they have the
>same issue with diffusion of shadow edges. VPA is still the better
>test here. The VPA shows the shadows consistent within a particular
>range of error.
>
If the VPA showed the shadows were consistent within a particular range of
error then why did these lines meet at a point? Errors in the directions
of the lines would cause them to fall within a small area. This result
would be the hallmark of any honest vanishing point analysis. The finding
of the Photographic Panel that the lines met at a single point shows they
put salesmanship ahead of scholarship. By doing this they forfeited their
credibility.
>By the way, the sun subtends a half-angle of only 0.26 degrees at the
>Earth. I suspect this is not too much different than the error
>inherent in drawing lines between points on a photograph. (That
>equates to 1.4 mm of error in a line 30 cm long.)
>
How did the Photographic Panel found an exact answer to a problem that
does not have an exact solution?
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/2/01 10:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B187ACF...@foxvalley.net>
Sending the backyard photos to the Militant and the Worker has always
bothered me.
Allegedly Oswald sent letters and the backyard photos to the Communist and
the Socialist Workers Parties. These letters were friendly, polite and
amiable. Obviously the author designed the letters to endear themselves to
the communists. The photographs on the other hand were surly, offensive,
and antagonistic.
Showing someone they cannot keep their own house in order is the surest
way to alienate them. This is exactly what the backyard photos did. By
displaying newspapers from the descendants of the Stalinists and the
Trotskyists they reminded the advocates of unity of their first major
division. After opening this old wound, the backyard photo poured salt in
a new wound. The backyard photo counterpoised two newspapers that
supported peaceful coexistence with two guns that were the symbols of the
revolutionary factions.
If someone intended to produce the most inflammatory photograph then the
backyard photo would have challenged their efforts. One photo taunted the
advocates of unity that their fusion movement fissioned twice.
Herbert
John McAdams
>
>
> Sending the backyard photos to the Militant and the Worker has always
> bothered me.
>
> Allegedly Oswald sent letters and the backyard photos to the Communist and
> the Socialist Workers Parties. These letters were friendly, polite and
> amiable. Obviously the author designed the letters to endear themselves to
> the communists. The photographs on the other hand were surly, offensive,
> and antagonistic.
>
> Showing someone they cannot keep their own house in order is the surest
> way to alienate them. This is exactly what the backyard photos did. By
> displaying newspapers from the descendants of the Stalinists and the
> Trotskyists they reminded the advocates of unity of their first major
> division. After opening this old wound, the backyard photo poured salt in
> a new wound. The backyard photo counterpoised two newspapers that
> supported peaceful coexistence with two guns that were the symbols of the
> revolutionary factions.
>
> If someone intended to produce the most inflammatory photograph then the
> backyard photo would have challenged their efforts. One photo taunted the
> advocates of unity that their fusion movement fissioned twice.
>
So your argument is that the Backyard Photos were produced to taunt
Stalinists and Trotskyists?
In the first place, what was the point of doing that?
In the second place, what about those letters he wrote trying to *suck
up* to Stalinists and Trotskyists?
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Wimp
Mitch Todd wrote:
> David Wimp <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> > > (414) The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of
> > > the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point"
> > > perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to
> > > photography as well. (178)
>
> > This is one of my principle complaints about the conclusion. The concept is
> > widely known and would be known to a competent forger. Passing the vanishing
> > point test only means that the test fails to reveal forgery. It really offers
> > no reason for believing the photos are genuine....
>
> This is getting surreal. Here's why (in highly condensed form):
>
> CT: "This photo can't be authentic!"
> FPP: "Why not?"
> CT: "The shadows are inconsistent! They go every which way!"
> FPP: [explains the vanishing point thing]
> CT: "Well, that doesn't prove a thing! Any forger would know that, and
> use it!"
Here is what the FPP said. We have analyzed the shadows in the
photographs and they have the same characteristics as genuine photos and
the shadows found in paintings that attempt to mimic reality dating back
to the 19th century. What does that show?
>
>
> I did the same thing when I was nine: "heads, I win; tails, you lose!"
No, its more like you want to know if an animal is a dachshund and
somebody performs a test that determines it is a dog. The test could have
shown that it was not a dachshund if it showed the animal was not a dog.
Showing it is a dog does not demonstrate that it is a dachshund.
>
>
> >Another major complaint is
> > that the vanishing point test only tests the validity of the shadows in one
> > dimension when the image is two dimensional. Simply put, the test only says a
> > shadow should fall on a line. It does not say where on the line the shadow
> > should fall. There are then an infinite number of shadow configurations that
> > would pass the test when, for a given scene, only one is correct. The test
> > performed by the panel is quite simple and quite well known. Testing the
> > shadows in two dimensions is a lot harder but that is the type of thing I
> > would expect to distinguish the work of a highly competent panel.
>
> The FPP did that, by using the photos to determine the location of the sun
> at the time and place the picture taken, then comparing that information
> to the known position of the sun at the approximate time and date that the
> photographs were taken. It worked out.
One only needs to know the mechanics of the test and need not know the
theory behind it to see what I am talking about. If you actually know
something about the FPP nailing the shadows down in two dimensions, then
please share it because nobody else seems to have that information.
David Wimp
Herbert Blenner wrote:
I would solve the problem by determining the points and the corresponding
points on the shadows, constructing lines through these points, and then
finding the point that was closest to all the lines in a least squares
sense. Having found that point, I might illustrate that it was a good
solution by drawing lines from it back to the points casting the shadows.
I don't think I would really be cheating if I only showed the finished
product, but somebody might have a legitimate complaint if I did not show
how I arrived at it.
John McAdams
>
> Mitch Todd wrote:
>
> > David Wimp <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is getting surreal. Here's why (in highly condensed form):
> >
> > CT: "This photo can't be authentic!"
> > FPP: "Why not?"
> > CT: "The shadows are inconsistent! They go every which way!"
> > FPP: [explains the vanishing point thing]
> > CT: "Well, that doesn't prove a thing! Any forger would know that, and
> > use it!"
>
> Here is what the FPP said. We have analyzed the shadows in the
> photographs and they have the same characteristics as genuine photos and
> the shadows found in paintings that attempt to mimic reality dating back
> to the 19th century. What does that show?
>
Well conspiracists have been loudly insisting that the shadows *didn't*
have the same characteristics as genuine photos.
Are you admitting that this was wrong.
> >
> >
> > I did the same thing when I was nine: "heads, I win; tails, you lose!"
>
> No, its more like you want to know if an animal is a dachshund and
> somebody performs a test that determines it is a dog. The test could have
> shown that it was not a dachshund if it showed the animal was not a dog.
> Showing it is a dog does not demonstrate that it is a dachshund.
>
But you folks were saying the test *would* show that it wasn't a dog!
Are you folks *still* going to insist that the photos are faked when all
the *other* arguments are likewise debunked on this newsgroup?
Are you going to be insisting "well, of course we don't have any
*evidence* that the photos were faked, but that doesn't mean they were
genuine!"
John McAdams
>
>Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
>would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
>would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
>photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
>lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
>objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
>
>The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
>under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
>the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
>oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
>the evidence.
>
>
It's true they apparently "reverse engineered" this a bit, drawing all
the lines through a single point.
But the point is that this *works.* When you do that, you find no
visible inconsistencies. A line from the vanishing point through a
point on the shadow to a point on the object fits perfectly, so far as
anybody can see. A single "vanishing point" fits all the shadows.
Were they genuine inconsistencies, it would not be possible to do
this.
Imagine that somebody said the Wright brothers were frauds, because
the Wright Flyer could not in fact fly. Engineers tackle this issue,
and instead of producing equations that show it can fly, they just
copy it, down to micro precision. And their copy can take off and
circle the airfield.
The exercise is hardly fraudulent.
Joe Durnavich
>How did the Photographic Panel found an exact answer to a problem that
>does not have an exact solution?
Where do they use the word "exact"?
My understanding is that the critics were charging at that time that
the shadows were significantly inconsistent. We can take the VPA
results as showing that this is not the case.
--
Joe Durnavich
David Wimp
John McAdams wrote:
> David Wimp wrote:
> >
> > Mitch Todd wrote:
> >
> > > David Wimp <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is getting surreal. Here's why (in highly condensed form):
> > >
> > > CT: "This photo can't be authentic!"
> > > FPP: "Why not?"
> > > CT: "The shadows are inconsistent! They go every which way!"
> > > FPP: [explains the vanishing point thing]
> > > CT: "Well, that doesn't prove a thing! Any forger would know that, and
> > > use it!"
> >
> > Here is what the FPP said. We have analyzed the shadows in the
> > photographs and they have the same characteristics as genuine photos and
> > the shadows found in paintings that attempt to mimic reality dating back
> > to the 19th century. What does that show?
> >
>
> Well conspiracists have been loudly insisting that the shadows *didn't*
> have the same characteristics as genuine photos.
>
> Are you admitting that this was wrong.
If a painting passed the VPA test, would you say that showed it was a
genuine image? There are examples of this. VPA does not show the shadows
are correct. It does not show that the shadows of the figure do not have
the wrong angles, for example. I have explained this simple concept to
you several times and have even drawn you pictures. If you have not
gotten it by now, I don't believe that you ever will.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I did the same thing when I was nine: "heads, I win; tails, you lose!"
> >
> > No, its more like you want to know if an animal is a dachshund and
> > somebody performs a test that determines it is a dog. The test could have
> > shown that it was not a dachshund if it showed the animal was not a dog.
> > Showing it is a dog does not demonstrate that it is a dachshund.
> >
>
> But you folks were saying the test *would* show that it wasn't a dog!
I am not now claiming, nor have I ever, directly or indirectly, claimed to
be speaking for any group. So who is "you folks"? You, by saying that
VPA proved that the shadows were correct, have said passing the dog test
showed the animal was a dachshund.
>
>
> Are you folks *still* going to insist that the photos are faked when all
> the *other* arguments are likewise debunked on this newsgroup?
Are you still claiming that VPA proves the shadows are correct?
>
>
> Are you going to be insisting "well, of course we don't have any
> *evidence* that the photos were faked, but that doesn't mean they were
> genuine!"
I am saying that the FPP's treatment of the shadows really shows nothing
at all. Are you still going to be insisting that they proved the shadows
are correct?
Joe Durnavich
I'm trying to understand how they might do such a test. Wouldn't they
need to construct a precise 3D model of the scene to determine where
each shadow falls? If so, was this really practical in 1978?
--
Joe Durnavich
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/2/01 10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b19a176...@news.alt.net>
>
>On 1 Jun 2001 19:50:38 -0500, a1e...@aol.com (Herbert Blenner) wrote:
>
>>
>>Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
>>would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
>>would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
>>photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
>>lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
>>objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
>>
>>The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
>>under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
>>the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
>>oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
>>the evidence.
>>
>>
>
>It's true they apparently "reverse engineered" this a bit, drawing all
>the lines through a single point.
>
Your explanation raises one question. How did they find the unique single point
through which to draw their lines? The obvious answer is they localized the
position of this single point by an honest application of the vanishing point
technique. In other words, they draw lines through points on objects and their
corresponding points on the shadow edges. The smallest area common to these
lines localized their single point.
>But the point is that this *works.* When you do that, you find no
>visible inconsistencies. A line from the vanishing point through a
>point on the shadow to a point on the object fits perfectly, so far as
>anybody can see. A single "vanishing point" fits all the shadows.
>
>Were they genuine inconsistencies, it would not be possible to do
>this.
>
The vanishing point analysis can only detect shadow inconsistences arising from
cutting and pasting pieces of different photos. This narrow class of
inconsistencies does not encompass all forms of fakery. Thus passing the
vanishing point test does mean the photo is genuine.
For example, photographically changing the print on the tabloids would not
alter any shadows. This form of fakery would pass the vanishing point test and
would be a candidate for detection by the grain test. However, the grain test
would only detect this type of fakery if the fakers were too amateurish to
start with a fine grain negative, perform their alterations, then photograph
their fraud with a standard grain film. Unfortunately we have only one negative
of the backyard photo so we cannot exclude the possibility of this form of
fraud.
>Imagine that somebody said the Wright brothers were frauds, because
>the Wright Flyer could not in fact fly. Engineers tackle this issue,
>and instead of producing equations that show it can fly, they just
>copy it, down to micro precision. And their copy can take off and
>circle the airfield.
>
>The exercise is hardly fraudulent.
>
I heard someone say if the Wright brothers were intended to fly they would have
been born with wings. Well, they were born with minds and built a flying
machine.
Regards,
Herbert
Jaykhill
The ineptitude of the legal beagles working for the Warren Commission is
obvious to anyone who reads some of the staements about furearns natters,
Such must be the case in attempting to make final evaluations of
photographic prints and the problem is compunded as each generation of
reproduction takes place.
I can understand why the hubris-driven ambulance chasers of the Warren
Commission would ignore this fact and not deal solely with the extant negative_
you what is the excuse you all have for dealing in arguments based upon
multi-generation reproductions.
Having been a photographer--professional and not--for more than forty years
and printed too many black and white negatives to count, I can assure you that
a final statement about a photographic image can be attempted only by dealing
with the original negative.
You are dealing with chimeras unless you do otherwise. Is there anyone out
there who recognizes this simple, unassailable fact?
John in VA
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/2/01 9:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B1985...@marquette.edu>
>
>Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sending the backyard photos to the Militant and the Worker has always
>> bothered me.
>>
>> Allegedly Oswald sent letters and the backyard photos to the Communist and
>> the Socialist Workers Parties. These letters were friendly, polite and
>> amiable. Obviously the author designed the letters to endear themselves to
>> the communists. The photographs on the other hand were surly, offensive,
>> and antagonistic.
>>
>> Showing someone they cannot keep their own house in order is the surest
>> way to alienate them. This is exactly what the backyard photos did. By
>> displaying newspapers from the descendants of the Stalinists and the
>> Trotskyists they reminded the advocates of unity of their first major
>> division. After opening this old wound, the backyard photo poured salt in
>> a new wound. The backyard photo counterpoised two newspapers that
>> supported peaceful coexistence with two guns that were the symbols of the
>> revolutionary factions.
>>
>> If someone intended to produce the most inflammatory photograph then the
>> backyard photo would have challenged their efforts. One photo taunted the
>> advocates of unity that their fusion movement fissioned twice.
>>
>
>So your argument is that the Backyard Photos were produced to taunt
>Stalinists and Trotskyists?
On the contrary, John, my argument is the backyard photos unwittingly
taunted the communists. This conclusion is apparent from the clash between
the friendly letters and the way the recipients viewed the photos.
>
>In the first place, what was the point of doing that?
>
The backyard photos show the level of political understanding of their
producers. These photos show a stereotypical communist. Now can you show
us how an ideological defector to the Soviet Union had such an immature
understanding of the Socialist movement?
>In the second place, what about those letters he wrote trying to *suck
>up* to Stalinists and Trotskyists?
>
Thanks to the *suck up* letters, we know they cannot stand with the *put
down* photographs.
Herbert
Joe Durnavich
>The vanishing point analysis can only detect shadow inconsistences arising from
>cutting and pasting pieces of different photos. This narrow class of
>inconsistencies does not encompass all forms of fakery. Thus passing the
>vanishing point test does mean the photo is genuine.
>
>For example, photographically changing the print on the tabloids would not
>alter any shadows. This form of fakery would pass the vanishing point test and
>would be a candidate for detection by the grain test. However, the grain test
>would only detect this type of fakery if the fakers were too amateurish to
>start with a fine grain negative, perform their alterations, then photograph
>their fraud with a standard grain film. Unfortunately we have only one negative
>of the backyard photo so we cannot exclude the possibility of this form of
>fraud.
We can decide this case only on the evidence. The only way to
conclude the photos are forgeries is to find evidence and make a case
that they are forgeries. Imagining ways they could be forged is not
evidence of forgery.
The photos were found among the Oswalds' possessions. Marina says she
took the photos. Others said they have seen them or copies of them.
They were taken with the Oswalds' camera. The HSCA looked for signs
of forgery and found none.
The only conclusion we can draw at this time is that the photos are
authentic.
--
Joe Durnavich
David Wimp
Joe Durnavich wrote:
I would expect a blue ribbon panel to go all out and even come up with
analyses that I never would have thought of. I know of a way to relate
the positions of the shadows to the points on the ground lying directly
below the objects casting the shadows assuming level ground. I think it
could be extended to flat but not necessarily level ground. The potential
unevenness of the ground would have to be considered. It is not really
easy to explain but it is based on the principle that the shadows of
vertical posts will converge to a point on the horizon line.
David Wimp
Joe Durnavich wrote:
Some people have the impression that the direction that the shadow of the
figure is "pointing" is not consistent between the photos. VPA as done be
the HSCA does not settle that issue at all.
David Wimp
John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2001 19:50:38 -0500, a1e...@aol.com (Herbert Blenner) wrote:
>
> >
> >Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they
> >would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result
> >would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the
> >photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They draw their
> >lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on
> >objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.
> >
> >The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this
> >under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from
> >the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical
> >oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they fraudulently handled
> >the evidence.
> >
> >
>
> It's true they apparently "reverse engineered" this a bit, drawing all
> the lines through a single point.
>
> But the point is that this *works.* When you do that, you find no
> visible inconsistencies. A line from the vanishing point through a
> point on the shadow to a point on the object fits perfectly, so far as
> anybody can see. A single "vanishing point" fits all the shadows.
>
> Were they genuine inconsistencies, it would not be possible to do
> this.
Simply not true. The proportions of the shadows could be wrong, the
shadows in the different photos could reflect an altogether different sun
direction, and more.
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/3/01 10:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mfolhtge1a57f7bvb...@4ax.com>
>
>Herbert Blenner writes:
>
>>The vanishing point analysis can only detect shadow inconsistences arising
>from
>>cutting and pasting pieces of different photos. This narrow class of
>>inconsistencies does not encompass all forms of fakery. Thus passing the
>>vanishing point test does mean the photo is genuine.
>>
>>For example, photographically changing the print on the tabloids would not
>>alter any shadows. This form of fakery would pass the vanishing point test
>and
>>would be a candidate for detection by the grain test. However, the grain
>test
>>would only detect this type of fakery if the fakers were too amateurish to
>>start with a fine grain negative, perform their alterations, then photograph
>>their fraud with a standard grain film. Unfortunately we have only one
>negative
>>of the backyard photo so we cannot exclude the possibility of this form of
>>fraud.
>
>We can decide this case only on the evidence.
Evidence has to pass the test of physical reality. Any so-called evidence that
fails this test must be labeled as false.
>The only way to conclude the photos are forgeries is to find evidence and make
a case that they are forgeries.
I agree. We should only call a photo a fake after finding evidence of fakery.
This principle works both ways. We should only call a photo genuine after
testing excludes every means of falsification.
>Imagining ways they could be forged is not evidence of forgery.
Showing how a particular set of tests fails to uncover every form of forgery
refutes the position that passing those particular tests, means the photos are
genuine.
>The photos were found among the Oswalds' possessions.
Attention to detail will foster your case. The photos belonging to Oswald were
found in the possession of Ruth Paine.
>Marina says she took the photos. Others said they have seen them or copies of
them.
Who examined these witnesses and found they identified the weapons and tabloids
in the backyard photos? Without specific recognition of the weapons and
tabloids, we have no way of knowing if the witnesses saw the same photos that
we see.
>They were taken with the Oswalds' camera.
Everyone, expect the experts of the HSCA, knows they had to use their victim's
tools to produce false evidence.
>The HSCA looked for signs of forgery and found none.
The scientists of the photographic panel looked for signs of forgery by
specific and admittedly amateurish methods. In summarizing the work of these
scientists, the committee omitted the limitations of the tests. They distorted
the conditional conclusions of the scientists into unconditional
generalizations. As a result, the conclusions of the HSCA committee do not
follow from the scientific evidence.
>The only conclusion we can draw at this time is that the photos are authentic.
If only the HSCA distorted the results of the photographic panel one step
further then humanity would have been cleansed of original sin.
Herbert
>--
>Joe Durnavich
>
>
Jaykhill
>that
>fails this test must be labeled as false.
>
******
This is far too philosphical for a lab rat like myself--but if Herbert is
all wrapped up in ''physical reality'' then he must, of necessity, be aware
that the only physical 'reality' is the photographic negative itself.
I have to ASS u ME that Herbert is a photographer with many years of
darkroom experience evaluating photographic negatives and the prints made
therefrom. What expertise in photography do you bring to the discussion,
friend Herbert?
John in VA
lowkey
"David Wimp" <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B19A035...@ix.netcom.com...
I've noticed this debating tactic is used quite often on this newsgroup.
It enables a poster to "pin" other peoples' arguments onto a poster
who has never even mentioned those arguments.
Phony as a two dollar bill imo.
Peter
Joe Durnavich
>Joe Durnavich wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to understand how they might do such a test. Wouldn't they
>> need to construct a precise 3D model of the scene to determine where
>> each shadow falls? If so, was this really practical in 1978?
>
>I would expect a blue ribbon panel to go all out and even come up with
>analyses that I never would have thought of. I know of a way to relate
>the positions of the shadows to the points on the ground lying directly
>below the objects casting the shadows assuming level ground. I think it
>could be extended to flat but not necessarily level ground. The potential
>unevenness of the ground would have to be considered. It is not really
>easy to explain but it is based on the principle that the shadows of
>vertical posts will converge to a point on the horizon line.
Ok. So we need to know the topography of the ground. Is there a way
to determine this accurately enough?
What else? Do we need to know the heights of objects, like the height
of the end of the pistol handle off the ground?
--
Joe Durnavich
NAI
***Just wondering of the shadows on the frence make a difference or not
in the BackYard Photos? In "First Day Evidence" they show two separate
photos, the one photo shows LHO's shadow barely touching the bottom of
the fence. The other photo shows his shadow up on the wooden part of
the fence. While it doesn't look like he moved, (relative to the steps)
the shadow is in a dramatically different location on the fence. I
don't know anything about photography, lighting, etc. So if anyone could
explain this difference I would appreciate it.
thanks!!
David Wimp
Joe Durnavich wrote:
> David Wimp writes:
>
> >Joe Durnavich wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to understand how they might do such a test. Wouldn't they
> >> need to construct a precise 3D model of the scene to determine where
> >> each shadow falls? If so, was this really practical in 1978?
> >
> >I would expect a blue ribbon panel to go all out and even come up with
> >analyses that I never would have thought of. I know of a way to relate
> >the positions of the shadows to the points on the ground lying directly
> >below the objects casting the shadows assuming level ground. I think it
> >could be extended to flat but not necessarily level ground. The potential
> >unevenness of the ground would have to be considered. It is not really
> >easy to explain but it is based on the principle that the shadows of
> >vertical posts will converge to a point on the horizon line.
>
> Ok. So we need to know the topography of the ground. Is there a way
> to determine this accurately enough?
I would pose the question as, "Will the topography of the ground
significantly affect the analysis?". What really counts is how the ground
projects in the image so the effect of deviations in elevation will be
somewhat negated by the non parallel angle of the camera to the ground.
I think the approach should be to do the analysis and then if any
discrepancies arise, determine how deep a hole or how high a mound it
would take to account for them.
>
>
> What else? Do we need to know the heights of objects, like the height
> of the end of the pistol handle off the ground?
All that is really needed is the horizon line and the vertical direction,
or, alternatively, the elevation angle of the camera. If you drop a
vertical line from some object, the point on the ground will lie on that
line. A line drawn from the point of convergence of vertical posts
through the shadow of the object will intersect the vertical line at the
point on the ground directly under the object. I have fooled around with
this a bit and it does seem that Oswald's posture would have to be
contorted to produce the shadows, but I have not really done a thorough
job. If I ever actually do this, I will write some software that allows
some information to be entered and the rest is computed. Something like,
given an elevation angle for the camera and one point on the horizon line
(one should be computable from the siding on the house), where would the
various parts of the figure lie on the ground. It is fairly complicated
and that is why I have not done it. That and not really having good
enough prints.
>
>
> --
> Joe Durnavich
David Wimp
lowkey wrote:
It is a standard propaganda technique, actually.
David Wimp
NAI wrote:
That is useful information but it is not sufficient to say anything by
itself. The shadow could be higher on the fence because Oswald was closer
to the fence or standing taller. It would have to be combined with other
information to be able to make any determinations about anything. That
goes whether the photos are genuine or not.
Robert Johnson
news:20010604074342...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> Who examined these witnesses and found they identified the weapons
> and tabloids in the backyard photos? Without specific recognition of
> the weapons and tabloids, we have no way of knowing if the witnesses
> saw the same photos that we see.
So what's the implication here? They were shown pictures of Oz holding
what, "Readers Digest" and "Life", and he has a Mauzer and a water
pistol??
Kindly explain for me how being able to identify the "tabloids" and the
"weapons" has any bearing whatsoever!!
--
---- Robert J. Johnson
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/4/01 12:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010604111601...@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>
>>Evidence has to pass the test of physical reality. Any so-called evidence
>>that
>>fails this test must be labeled as false.
>>
>
>******
>
> This is far too philosphical for a lab rat like myself--but if Herbert is
>all wrapped up in ''physical reality'' then he must, of necessity, be aware
>that the only physical 'reality' is the photographic negative itself.
Do you mean the photographic negatives that store works of fiction and
illusion in Hollywood represent physical reality?
> I have to ASS u ME that Herbert is a photographer with many years of
>darkroom experience evaluating photographic negatives and the prints made
>therefrom. What expertise in photography do you bring to the discussion,
>friend Herbert?
>
Darkroom expertise is not required to design diffraction lenses and
interference filters. The unreal images these optical parts could put on a
negative would amaze you.
Regards old friend, John.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/4/01 8:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0GUS6.2141$Kx2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010604074342...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
>> Who examined these witnesses and found they identified the weapons
>> and tabloids in the backyard photos? Without specific recognition of
>> the weapons and tabloids, we have no way of knowing if the witnesses
>> saw the same photos that we see.
>
>So what's the implication here?
Recognition of specific detail is how we distinguish the singular from the
particular.
>They were shown pictures of Oz holding
>what, "Readers Digest" and "Life", and he has a Mauzer and a water
>pistol??
Now you are catching on. Readers Digest, Life, Mauzer, and water pistol
represents the singulars. This is in contrast to tabloids and weapons that
correspond to the particulars.
>
>Kindly explain for me how being able to identify the "tabloids" and the
>"weapons" has any bearing whatsoever!!
Identification of the tabloids and weapons amount to recognition of the
singular.
Herbert
Joe Durnavich
>>From: Joe Durnavich jo...@earthlink.net
>
>>We can decide this case only on the evidence.
>
>Evidence has to pass the test of physical reality. Any so-called evidence that
>fails this test must be labeled as false.
>
>>The only way to conclude the photos are forgeries is to find evidence and make
>a case that they are forgeries.
>
>I agree. We should only call a photo a fake after finding evidence of fakery.
>This principle works both ways. We should only call a photo genuine after
>testing excludes every means of falsification.
The HSCA panel did this. After all the tests, they thought any
forgery scenarios that could produce the 3 photos were too
impractical.
>>Imagining ways they could be forged is not evidence of forgery.
>
>Showing how a particular set of tests fails to uncover every form of forgery
>refutes the position that passing those particular tests, means the photos are
>genuine.
This is not being objective. The mere possibility of forgery is not
evidence of forgery.
>>The photos were found among the Oswalds' possessions.
>
>Attention to detail will foster your case. The photos belonging to Oswald were
>found in the possession of Ruth Paine.
So start getting to work on a forgery scenario that involves Ruth
Paine. Find evidence to support it.
>>Marina says she took the photos. Others said they have seen them or copies of
>them.
>
>Who examined these witnesses and found they identified the weapons and tabloids
>in the backyard photos? Without specific recognition of the weapons and
>tabloids, we have no way of knowing if the witnesses saw the same photos that
>we see.
Ok. You have another piece of the puzzle. Now you have to fit it
into the rest. Marina took a photo of Lee with a different type of
rifle and different tabloids. What conspiracy scenario requires
changing these and involving Ruth Paine?
>>They were taken with the Oswalds' camera.
>
>Everyone, expect the experts of the HSCA, knows they had to use their victim's
>tools to produce false evidence.
You are hot on the trail. Look for evidence that the camera was
stolen from the Oswald's, used to take snapshots in the backyard, and
replaced at a later date.
>>The HSCA looked for signs of forgery and found none.
>
>The scientists of the photographic panel looked for signs of forgery by
>specific and admittedly amateurish methods. In summarizing the work of these
>scientists, the committee omitted the limitations of the tests. They distorted
>the conditional conclusions of the scientists into unconditional
>generalizations. As a result, the conclusions of the HSCA committee do not
>follow from the scientific evidence.
Can you list some of these conclusions? I don't see the backyard
photos as that big of a deal. They have the palm print on the rifle
and the order in Oswald's writing to tie the rifle to him.
>>The only conclusion we can draw at this time is that the photos are authentic.
>
>If only the HSCA distorted the results of the photographic panel one step
>further then humanity would have been cleansed of original sin.
Herbert, let's look at the scenario you are implying:
* The Conspiracy decides--at least by early 1963--that they want to
assassinate JFK and frame Lee Oswald with the shooting.
* They need to tie Lee to a rifle and make him look like a Communist.
Miracle of miracles, the numbskull asks his wife to take photos of him
with a rifle and two newspapers. For some reason, they want to tie
him to a different rifle, and they don't think the fact that he
defected to Russia pegs him as a Commie.
* So they steal the negatives and the camera and hand them to the
best forgers ever--special effects artists that Kubrick and Lucas
would have given a right arm for, but apparently, these guys prefer to
stay on the government payroll. They forge the 3 photos to have a new
rifle and tabloids, give one to DeMohrenschildt, and convince Ruth
Paine to plant them immediately after the assassination so the police
will find them.
* They hope that Marina never notices the different rifle or
tabloids. They cross their fingers hoping she never turns in any
original photos to the police.
--
Joe Durnavich
Jaykhill
>Darkroom expertise is not required to design diffraction lenses and
>interference filters.
****
Herbert,
Diffraction lenses and interference filters!? Well over my head, of
course.
I just wonder why no one in this discussion is willing to give the
same kind of attention to the backyard photographs as I trained my
employees to do with someone's baby pictures in a retail camera store.
Lots of things can happen to a print during and after processing.
Examine the negative first.
Don't compexify the matter more than need be.
John in VA
Jaykhill
>particular.
****
Boy, youse guys are beyond me. I think I'll go print some black and
white pictures......<vbg>
John in VA
Joe Durnavich
>The backyard photos show the level of political understanding of their
>producers. These photos show a stereotypical communist. Now can you show
>us how an ideological defector to the Soviet Union had such an immature
>understanding of the Socialist movement?
The fact that Oswald was still a communist even after living in
communist paradise for a while shows how immature he was.
--
Joe Durnavich
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/5/01 8:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010605173552...@ng-ci1.aol.com>
Yes, things should be keep simple but not too simple. The problem is they
have only one negative. Nobody has figured out how to do comparative
analysis on a single negative.
Herbert in NY
Michael T. Griffith
<rcb...@foxvalley.net> writes:
>Over the years
>since the assassination she has maintained a consistent explanation for
>the photos: she took them! Add to that is the fact that Oswald showed the
>photos to Michael Paine (Ruth confirmed this the last time I talked to
>her) and that he mailed one copy to the "Militant".
Marina has been all over the map about the backyard photos, at one point
saying the photos in evidence are **not** the ones that she took.
Michael Paine could charitably be called a hostile witness. And there is
no proof that Oswald ever sent a backyard rifle photo to "The Militant."
The biggest objection to the photos is that the variant shadows in them
have never been duplicated. The FBI didn't duplicate them. THE LONDON
TIMES failed to duplicate them. Lawrence Schiller failed to duplicate
them. And the HSCA didn't even do a simulation in the back yard.
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Visit my Real Issues Home Page, where you'll find web pages
on the LDS Church, creation vs. evolution, American politics,
and the JFK assassination:
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/index.htm
Robert Johnson
news:20010605230828...@nso-ff.news.cs.com...
> The biggest objection to the photos is that the variant shadows in them
> have never been duplicated. The FBI didn't duplicate them. THE LONDON
> TIMES failed to duplicate them. Lawrence Schiller failed to duplicate
> them. And the HSCA didn't even do a simulation in the back yard.
Perhaps this has more to say about those that would expect that such a
duplication would be of any value. Did the HSCA experts believe the
shadows needed to be duplicated to make a judgment of the authenticity of
the photographs?
The shadow argument is just that...
Jaykhill
>have only one negative. Nobody has figured out how to do comparative
>analysis on a single negative.
>
*****
Yes. I see that.
Am wondering (and wondering--I am in over my head)--would it not be possible to
use the various parts of the image in the sole surviving negative as a baseline
to project how the tonal values changed in making the first print, and then
the additional changes wrought by the reproduction of the reproductions?
And, of course, it is my understanding that some of the reproductions were
retouched by the news services or whatever.
The thing to do is to stay as close to square one, the original negatives,
as possible. Any competent photographer or darkroom person would, I think,
understand that.
John in VA
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 6/5/01 10:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <q7vqhtg4id8170qla...@4ax.com>
The evidence shows Oswald was a Marxist and not a communist. On three
separate occasions Oswald differentiated between Marxists and communists.
When Aline Mosby asked Oswald in 1959 if he was a communist, Oswald
replied "I am a Marxist." During an interview in New Orleans, they asked
Oswald the same question and he said, I'm a Marxist. On November 24, 1963,
Captain Fritz asked Oswald, "Are you a Communist?" Oswald answered, "No,
I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist."
Herbert
Ricky Tobias
>In article <3B187ACF...@foxvalley.net>, Russell Burr
><rcb...@foxvalley.net> writes:
>
>>Over the years
>>since the assassination she has maintained a consistent explanation for
>>the photos: she took them! Add to that is the fact that Oswald showed the
>>photos to Michael Paine (Ruth confirmed this the last time I talked to
>>her) and that he mailed one copy to the "Militant".
>
>Marina has been all over the map about the backyard photos, at one point
>saying the photos in evidence are **not** the ones that she took.
>Michael Paine could charitably be called a hostile witness. And there is
>no proof that Oswald ever sent a backyard rifle photo to "The Militant."
>
>have never been duplicated. The FBI didn't duplicate them. THE LONDON
>TIMES failed to duplicate them. Lawrence Schiller failed to duplicate
>them. And the HSCA didn't even do a simulation in the back yard.
Jack White was able to reproduce them in a darkroom in his attempts to
make composites showing how they were faked. He was never able to take a
simple unaltered photo of a model that would reproduce the shadows and
stance of the BY photos. Thus it appears that the shadows can only be
created in a dark room.
Ricky
Joe Durnavich
>>From: Joe Durnavich jo...@earthlink.net
>>
>>Herbert Blenner writes:
>>
>>>The backyard photos show the level of political understanding of their
>>>producers. These photos show a stereotypical communist. Now can you show
>>>us how an ideological defector to the Soviet Union had such an immature
>>>understanding of the Socialist movement?
>>
>>The fact that Oswald was still a communist even after living in
>>communist paradise for a while shows how immature he was.
>>
>
>The evidence shows Oswald was a Marxist and not a communist.
There is little to no practical distinction between these. The
central idea of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism is the common
ownership of the means of production.
--
Joe Durnavich
G. McNally
Peter,
>Phony as a two dollar bill imo.
As there are genuine [US] two dollar bills, the phrase is: 'phony as a
three dollar bill'.
Jerry
Paul Seaton
"Joe Durnavich" <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lsntht0s81avifp9p...@4ax.com...
Joe,
Britain (just post WW2) was 'socialist'.... but by no stretch could you call
it 'communist'.
Clement Atlee (Prime Minister at the time) would have been *horrified* to
have been called a 'communist'.
Posted in haste... from the People's Republic Of England......
--
® Þ§
art:¿
http://users.breathemail.net/paulseaton/
jfk:¿
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/
>
> --
> Joe Durnavich
>
>
Joe Durnavich
>"Joe Durnavich" <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:lsntht0s81avifp9p...@4ax.com...
>> Herbert Blenner writes:
>>
>> >The evidence shows Oswald was a Marxist and not a communist.
>>
>> There is little to no practical distinction between these. The
>> central idea of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism is the common
>> ownership of the means of production.
>
>Joe,
>
>Britain (just post WW2) was 'socialist'.... but by no stretch could you call
>it 'communist'.
>Clement Atlee (Prime Minister at the time) would have been *horrified* to
>have been called a 'communist'.
>
>Posted in haste... from the People's Republic Of England......
Economist Ludwig von Mises says in his book "Socialism", containing
material written from 1922 to 1951, that the terms "socialism" and
"communism" were originally synonymous.
He does point out that although Lenin did NOT differentiate between
socialism and communism as social systems (notice that Lenin called the
Soviet government the Union of the *Socialist* Soviet Republics), he did
call those who sincerely supported Marxist revolutionary principles
"communists" because, von Mises says, "he wanted to distinguish them from
the 'treacherous hirelings of the capitalists exploiters,' the wicked
Social Democratic leaders like Kautsky and Albert Thomas."
After this distinction was introduced, I suppose one could say that
communists were impatient socialists. They thought it best to establish a
Socialist Paradise as quickly as possible with a lot of rioting, purges,
and bloodshed. But the end result is the same: a lot of standing in long
lines.
--
Joe Durnavich
Jaykhill
>duplication would be of any value. Did the HSCA experts b
*****
I admit to being in over my head in astronomy, but it seems to me that
the only way the shadows could be at exactly the same angle in duplicate
photographs would be if the duplications were photographed at the precise
time, one full year to the second later--nicht wahr?
John in VA
Robert Johnson
news:20010607213945...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> the only way the shadows could be at exactly the same angle in
> duplicate photographs would be if the duplications were
> photographed at the precise time, one full year to the second
> later--nicht wahr?
I don't even know if even that would work. It would appear logical that
one would have to duplicate all of the variables that go into making that
print - and even then, I don't know that one could be assured a duplicate
of the print.
At a minimum you would need the same angle of the sun with cloud mixture -
how does one get that? Next the same size person would have to hold the
camera *exactly* the same way, and be in the exact same position, as
Marina and photograph someone exactly the size of Oz wearing the same
clothing. At this point we haven't even begun to consider those things
that influence the reflection of light. The foliage would have to be
trimmed back to exactly what it was like at the time. All of the buildings
and surfaces would have to be returned to the same reflective
characteristics that they had at that time. Can we be sure the surface of
the terrain is exactly as it was at the time of the pictures also? Any
structures that have been added since then, in the line of, or effecting
the reflective characteristics of the natural lighting, would have to be
torn down.
Then if you could find someone that could duplicate exactly the manner and
method of developing and printing of the originals, made from film with
the exact same characteristics of the original stock, and printed in the
exact same manner, you might be on the way to an attempted duplicate.
lowkey
What communist paradise do you refer too?
Peter
lowkey
Oswald believed there was a difference. And if it is Oswald you are trying
to understand then it is Oswald's point of view you must consider. Oswald
would have argued with you, and done so with a fair degree of
self-confidence.
Peter
lowkey
"Paul Seaton" <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3b1f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
"Joe Durnavich" <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lsntht0s81avifp9p...@4ax.com...
> Herbert Blenner writes:
>
> >>From: Joe Durnavich jo...@earthlink.net
> >>
> >>Herbert Blenner writes:
> >>
> >>>The backyard photos show the level of political understanding of their
> >>>producers. These photos show a stereotypical communist. Now can you show
> >>>us how an ideological defector to the Soviet Union had such an immature
> >>>understanding of the Socialist movement?
> >>
> >>The fact that Oswald was still a communist even after living in
> >>communist paradise for a while shows how immature he was.
> >>
> >
> >The evidence shows Oswald was a Marxist and not a communist.
>
> There is little to no practical distinction between these. The
> central idea of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism is the common
> ownership of the means of production.
Joe,
Britain (just post WW2) was 'socialist'.... but by no stretch could you
call it 'communist'. Clement Atlee (Prime Minister at the time) would have
been *horrified* to have been called a 'communist'.
Posted in haste... from the People's Republic Of England......
Peter writes
Long live Comrade Elizabeth and Comrade Phillip -:)) Have they turned the
royal portraits around to face the wall yet? It would conclusively prove
royals have no BOH and firmly place JFK in the royal tradition!
Peter
Jaykhill
>exact same manner, you might be on the way to an attempted duplicate.
>--
*****
Oh Robert, not to worry. Any teenager could do it. Just ask them. And
while your at it, find one to program my VCR. <vbg>
John in VA
John McAdams
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Exposing the Photographic Panel
>>From: John McAdams john.m...@marquette.edu
>>Date: 6/2/01 9:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3B1985...@marquette.edu>
>>
>>Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sending the backyard photos to the Militant and the Worker has always
>>> bothered me.
>>>
>>> Allegedly Oswald sent letters and the backyard photos to the Communist and
>>> the Socialist Workers Parties. These letters were friendly, polite and
>>> amiable. Obviously the author designed the letters to endear themselves to
>>> the communists. The photographs on the other hand were surly, offensive,
>>> and antagonistic.
>>>
>>> Showing someone they cannot keep their own house in order is the surest
>>> way to alienate them. This is exactly what the backyard photos did. By
>>> displaying newspapers from the descendants of the Stalinists and the
>>> Trotskyists they reminded the advocates of unity of their first major
>>> division. After opening this old wound, the backyard photo poured salt in
>>> a new wound. The backyard photo counterpoised two newspapers that
>>> supported peaceful coexistence with two guns that were the symbols of the
>>> revolutionary factions.
>>>
>>> If someone intended to produce the most inflammatory photograph then the
>>> backyard photo would have challenged their efforts. One photo taunted the
>>> advocates of unity that their fusion movement fissioned twice.
>>>
>>
>>So your argument is that the Backyard Photos were produced to taunt
>>Stalinists and Trotskyists?
>
>On the contrary, John, my argument is the backyard photos unwittingly
>taunted the communists. This conclusion is apparent from the clash between
>the friendly letters and the way the recipients viewed the photos.
>
OK, Oswald didn't *intend* to taunt the Trotskyists he sent the photo
to.
>>
>>In the first place, what was the point of doing that?
>>
>
>The backyard photos show the level of political understanding of their
>producers. These photos show a stereotypical communist. Now can you show
>us how an ideological defector to the Soviet Union had such an immature
>understanding of the Socialist movement?
Are you telling me that the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy -- who
supposedly produced the photos -- were less knowledgable of the
Stalinist / Trotskyist rift than Oswald?
What about that fact that Oswald did indeed subscribe to these
publications?
Why did he sign a copy of a photograph that was faked?
>
>>In the second place, what about those letters he wrote trying to *suck
>>up* to Stalinists and Trotskyists?
>>
>
>Thanks to the *suck up* letters, we know they cannot stand with the *put
>down* photographs.
>
Your theory is *way* too elaborate. Oswald was really an ideological
naif.
Have you checked out his ideological writings?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ownwords.htm
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
lowkey
"G. McNally" <jerr...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B25...@MailAndNews.com...
Canada eliminated the two dollar bill.
So my phrase is accurate north of the border where I live. -:))
Peter
>
> Jerry
Michael T. Griffith
Brian Mee about this, he said he didn't think the analysis was any kind of
proof of authenticity. He was unimpressed by it. He said he didn't think it
proved anything substantive, and he added he was puzzled the panel would even
make such an argument.
John McAdams
Griffith) wrote:
>Interesting comments about the panel's vanishing point analysis. When I asked
>Brian Mee about this, he said he didn't think the analysis was any kind of
>proof of authenticity. He was unimpressed by it. He said he didn't think it
>proved anything substantive, and he added he was puzzled the panel would even
>make such an argument.
>
>
And just who is Brian Mee?
And just how do his credentials compare to those of the HSCA PEP?
Joe Zircon
> Interesting comments about the panel's vanishing point analysis. When I asked
> Brian Mee about this, he said he didn't think the analysis was any kind of
> proof of authenticity. He was unimpressed by it. He said he didn't think it
> proved anything substantive, and he added he was puzzled the panel would even
> make such an argument.
>
You're missing the entire point. For over a decade, *critics* of the
WC conclusions claimed the photos were faked, and pointed to
inconsistent shadows as one proof of the fakery.
But when the HSCA photo panel checked out the shadows, they found they
were entirely consistent and appropriate, and that the critics claims
regarding the shadows were what was truly bogus.
Now, you, a WC commission *critic*, question why they even studied the
point. Because that's what the HSCA was commissioned to do -
investigate the assassination, and determine if there was any evidence
of conspiracy. They found none in the photographic evidence they
studied. None whatsoever.
If they hadn't studied the shadows, you'd still be claiming the
shadows were inconsistent, wouldn't you? Now they they've destroyed
that critics talking point entirely, you question why they bothered
with anything so insubstantive.
Gee, if it is such an insubstantive point, what does that say about
the critics who questioned the shadows initially?
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 7/17/01 5:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7f2b02a8.01071...@posting.google.com>
They were strawmen used by the panel.
I doubt they were employed by their users. For this would have been more
transparent than the findings of the panel you ignore.
For the benefit of new readers, I repost what you deplore.
Source: Photographic Panel Report of the HSCA.
"(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis.
Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the
scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped
out by any of the prints' white borders. The analysis clearly indicated
that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each
photograph. (See figs. IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)"
"(450) We had intended to make a quantitative comparison of the edge
markings on the various photographs, as suggested by a panel member, by
aligning parts of edge markings, measuring the displacement at fixed
intervals and calculating the standard deviation. Careful examination of a
roll of film we exposed in the Oswald camera revealed that while the
distinctive marks appeared consistently on each frame of film, the
straightness of the lines varied considerably-apparently due to slight
buckling of the film. Instead, we made prints that compare pairs of edges
on all four sides of the picture frame."
Let me summerize for the benefit of any new readers.
Careful examination of film exposed in Oswald's camera showed distinctive
marks and considerable variations. However, the backyard photographs
showed "scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each
photograph." Now if the photo processor printed the backyard photographs
from negatives exposed in Oswald's camera then they would show variations
in signatures comparable to the test roll of film. Clearly scratch marks
in precisely the same location proves the backyard photographs had a
single signature of Oswald's camera impressed on them. In other words,
PRECISELY SAME SIGNATURE = FRAUD.
Backyard photo defenders have an insoluble problem. Of course they can
declare the camera signature invariant. However, they would make the
photographic panel look like keystone investigators and undermine the
firearm identification.
Herbert