HomeSubscribe Live FeedJFK Research Photo GalleryStoreJFK Youtube ChannelArticlesSearchLinksNotepadLoginRegister
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 22, 2012, 08:21:18 AM
News:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
The Chin Issue  (Read 4107 times)

Super Member
*****

Posts: 8302


 To me this is the easiest way to show the BY photos are faked. The chin is simply NOT the chin LHO had.
Michael Griffith concisely writes about this issue. Here is what he said:

Quote on

------Lines in the Chin Area------

McCamy admitted that a line running across the chin was found on 133-A, as well as on 133-A, deMohrenschildt, and on 133-A, Stovall. This line is shown in Jack White's video FAKE. It is a nearly straight line. It begins on one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and ends on the other side of the neck.

McCamy declared, without any qualification, that this line was caused by a water spot. However, Mr. Mee and other professional photographers with whom I consulted told me that it would be unusual for the edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight line. Mr. Mee noted other problems with McCamy's explanation of the tell-tale line.

AND:

------Explaining the Conflicting Chins------

Now we come to the crucial issue of the chin seen in the backyard photos. As is well known, Oswald had a sharply pointed, cleft chin. This can be seen in any of the undisputed pictures of him (se, for example, Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, pp. 102, 107, 108, 130, 141, 165, 171; hereafter cited as TKOAP). But the chin of the figure in the backyard photos has a square, flat chin. (I might add that in the TKOAP pictures, Oswald's chin is pointed and cleft even when his mouth is in varying positions.)

Mr. McCamy claimed that in some photos of Oswald in his younger years, his chin was "more rounded and didn't seem to show this cleft as much." First of all, the appearance of Oswald's chin as a youth is irrelevant, since the backyard photos supposedly show him as an adult.

Putting that fact aside, and just for the record, however, I dispute McCamy's assertion. I would direct the reader's attention to pp. 188 and 190 of British scholar Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT. Page 188 shows a picture of Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, i.e., when he was about 15 years old. In this photo his chin is just as pointed and cleft as it is in later pictures of him. (This same snapshot can be seen on page 130 of TKOAP, although it is much larger in Smith's book.) Page 190 (of Smith's book) shows a picture of Oswald when he was in school, either junior high or high school. Here, too, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.

The pictures McCamy displayed of the younger Oswald which supposedly showed a more rounded chin with less cleft were so unconvincing that Congressman Fithian said, "I did not visually at least identify any other chin that was even approximately as square as the one in the backyard photograph--from all of the pictures that you put up."
Mr. McCamy's only remaining argument was that the point of the chin in the backyard photos allegedly disappeared in the shadow of the chin. "It just disappears in the shadow," he said. McCamy's "best evidence" to support this claim was a police photograph of Oswald showing a PROFILE view, i.e., a picture that was taken of him FROM THE SIDE. McCamy admitted, grudgingly and obliquely, that none of the frontal shots of Oswald's head supported his theory. But, said McCamy, in the police profile shot, . . . there is apparently a rather wide, broad, flat area here. If
this were illuminated from above, you can see that the shadow might very well be cast, even as high as this. It could be cast fairly high. If it were, then the apparent point that one sees in his EARLIER photographs would not show up. (emphasis added)

Putting aside the speculative nature of this claim, what did McCamy mean by "his EARLIER photographs"? Was he referring to the pictures of Oswald in his younger years? This seems to be the case. If so, what relevance do these photos have given the fact that the backyard snapshots supposedly show Oswald as an adult?

Frankly, I find it hard to take McCamy's waffling and theorizing seriously. Instead of credibly dealing with the numerous photos which show Oswald with a pointed, cleft chin, McCamy appealed to a lone profile picture and then offered an unlikely theory based on speculative assumptions. The plain, undeniable fact of the matter is that in every frontal picture of Oswald's face, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.

Further confusing matters, McCamy cited the eye shadows to support his vanishing-chin-point theory. He said,
The eyes, for example, hardly show up on the backyard photographs because of this overhead illumination. But the eye shadows in the backyard photos surely were caused by sun light at around noon because they fall straight down into the eye sockets. I think McCamy realized this difficulty, for he continued as follows:

“Of course, the nose shadow is produced by that [i.e., the overhead illumination that caused the eye shadows], but the chin form is not delineated well on that picture at all because there is little or no light coming from the front.”

First of all, McCamy certainly had not proven that there was "little or no light coming from the front" in terms of the light hitting the face. There was plenty of light striking the face from the front, which is why the nose and eye shadows are readily visible and fall straight down in a twelve o'clock position. Second, the statement that
"the chin form is not delineated well" was merely McCamy's opinion. McCamy had no choice but to deny that the chin form was fully visible in the backyard photos, otherwise he would have had to admit that the chin in those pictures was not Oswald's.

It seems to me that the chin form is definitely visible in the DeM photo, and it is still square and flat, as it is in the other backyard pictures. Furthermore, in a reenactment photograph shown in Jack White's video FAKE, the chin form of the man is also visible. The man is standing in Oswald's backyard; he is striking a pose almost identical to that of the figure in the backyard snapshots; and the sun is at about a four o'clock position in relation to his body, thus causing the body shadows to fall at a ten o'clock slant, as in 133-A.

Yet, the man's chin form is visible.

Mr. Mee disputed McCamy's assertion that the chin form disappeared in shadow, pointing out that the sun was not in the necessary position to cause this alleged effect.

Quote off


-------------------------

-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy

"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


Why NOT mock old herbie, he's a  cop.

Whats to resolve, the BY photos are real.

Just my dollars worth.....

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Craig, why don't you just ... no ! not shutup :D

why don't you just help to resolve the issue by sharing your allegedly vast knowledge in the field of photography with the people on this board, if someone is wrong on a certain issue why don't you just correct him instead of mocking him.

just my 2 cents


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Newbie
*

Posts: 39


Herbert,

You're wasting your time and talent(s) with Lampoon Lamson. I'm not convinced the dude has EVER had a paying photography client... you've dealt with photomask, photoetching issues and problems in the semiconductor manufacturing business, Lamson can't touch you, my friend.... the best he has is name calling, and HE knows it!  rofl


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


LOL! the technically naive healy at it once again!

Semiconductor work is such a great skillset to apply to the extant JFK photography.  Thats why herbie ( and lets not forget you) look so stupid.

I'll be happy to take you and herbie on any day...any time.  Maybe I can make you run away and hide like that fool J. P. Costella.

BTW, you ever find ANYONE who can refute this davie?  Of course not!

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Herbert,

You're wasting your time and talent(s) with Lampoon Lamson. I'm not convinced the dude has EVER had a paying photography client... you've dealt with photomask, photoetching issues and problems in the semiconductor manufacturing business, Lamson can't touch you, my friend.... the best he has is name calling, and HE knows it!  rofl


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


The line on the chin...for gods sake how long will the ignorant continue to pimp the nonsense that a watermark cannot produce a non circular mark?

This is photo 101 people.

I've seen it personally more than once and I'm not alone.  Try a quick google...I'll even get you started.

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Don't tell mikey, he can't handle the truth....


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 747


I don't believe the photos are fake myself, I think Oswald is posing for them as part of a convoluted infiltration operation of left wing groups.

But there is an interesting story about the HSCAs photographic panel, who declared the photos genuine and whose verdict is seen as the final word on the matter by most CTs. The panel had a photo expert fake 3 similar photos, each using a different photo fakery technique. These were then shown to the photo panel. On each occasion they completely failed to spot how each photo was faked, giving the wrong reason each time. Blakey had this embarrassing report classified.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


Why is this suprising? Then as today ther are differnt ways to accomplish the same goal.

I've seen it happen many times with very talented and highly skilled photographers and retouchers.  Give a group of them a photo that has been manipulated (which we now do to almost EVERY image used for commerce) and everyone will have a different view as to how it was done.   That aside, the manipulation can be found. 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't believe the photos are fake myself, I think Oswald is posing for them as part of a convoluted infiltration operation of left wing groups.

But there is an interesting story about the HSCAs photographic panel, who declared the photos genuine and whose verdict is seen as the final word on the matter by most CTs. The panel had a photo expert fake 3 similar photos, each using a different photo fakery technique. These were then shown to the photo panel. On each occasion they completely failed to spot how each photo was faked, giving the wrong reason each time. Blakey had this embarrassing report classified.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 747


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why is this suprising? Then as today ther are differnt ways to accomplish the same goal.

I've seen it happen many times with very talented and highly skilled photographers and retouchers.  Give a group of them a photo that has been manipulated (which we now do to almost EVERY image used for commerce) and everyone will have a different view as to how it was done.   That aside, the manipulation can be found. 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't believe the photos are fake myself, I think Oswald is posing for them as part of a convoluted infiltration operation of left wing groups.

But there is an interesting story about the HSCAs photographic panel, who declared the photos genuine and whose verdict is seen as the final word on the matter by most CTs. The panel had a photo expert fake 3 similar photos, each using a different photo fakery technique. These were then shown to the photo panel. On each occasion they completely failed to spot how each photo was faked, giving the wrong reason each time. Blakey had this embarrassing report classified.

For a sophisticated forgery, how can you spot its fake unless you can spot the technique used and replicate it? Just use some kind of intuition?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


Aside from compositing errors, like edge lines, retouching artifacts etc, you look for the subtle things like correct lighting of the parts, sizing, perspective, shadows, grain structure etc.  For example creating a proper shadow in a composite is almost impossible.  Still VERY difficult with a computer, even more so with an airbrush....

Technique is only plays a small part.

Why do suppose the thrust of the alerationists claims center on the content and not the process?
 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why is this suprising? Then as today ther are differnt ways to accomplish the same goal.

I've seen it happen many times with very talented and highly skilled photographers and retouchers.  Give a group of them a photo that has been manipulated (which we now do to almost EVERY image used for commerce) and everyone will have a different view as to how it was done.   That aside, the manipulation can be found. 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't believe the photos are fake myself, I think Oswald is posing for them as part of a convoluted infiltration operation of left wing groups.

But there is an interesting story about the HSCAs photographic panel, who declared the photos genuine and whose verdict is seen as the final word on the matter by most CTs. The panel had a photo expert fake 3 similar photos, each using a different photo fakery technique. These were then shown to the photo panel. On each occasion they completely failed to spot how each photo was faked, giving the wrong reason each time. Blakey had this embarrassing report classified.

For a sophisticated forgery, how can you spot its fake unless you can spot the technique used and replicate it? Just use some kind of intuition?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 747


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aside from compositing errors, like edge lines, retouching artifacts etc, you look for the subtle things like correct lighting of the parts, sizing, perspective, shadows, grain structure etc.  For example creating a proper shadow in a composite is almost impossible.  Still VERY difficult with a computer, even more so with an airbrush....

Technique is only plays a small part.

Why do suppose the thrust of the alerationists claims center on the content and not the process?
 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why is this suprising? Then as today ther are differnt ways to accomplish the same goal.

I've seen it happen many times with very talented and highly skilled photographers and retouchers.  Give a group of them a photo that has been manipulated (which we now do to almost EVERY image used for commerce) and everyone will have a different view as to how it was done.   That aside, the manipulation can be found. 

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't believe the photos are fake myself, I think Oswald is posing for them as part of a convoluted infiltration operation of left wing groups.

But there is an interesting story about the HSCAs photographic panel, who declared the photos genuine and whose verdict is seen as the final word on the matter by most CTs. The panel had a photo expert fake 3 similar photos, each using a different photo fakery technique. These were then shown to the photo panel. On each occasion they completely failed to spot how each photo was faked, giving the wrong reason each time. Blakey had this embarrassing report classified.

For a sophisticated forgery, how can you spot its fake unless you can spot the technique used and replicate it? Just use some kind of intuition?

If they could ever demonstrate a process by which their claims could achieved it'd certainly go a long way to convincing more people. But they never do, because it's unbelievably hard to create a convincing fake, especially with the technology of 1963. The problem with just saying you can spot a fake without showing how it was done is that whilst fakes usually don't pass the cannyness test, real photographs often don't either.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Newbie
*

Posts: 8


 


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 2557


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even shorter herbie...I have ZERO photographic experience.




We finally get a true confession from the legend in his own mind.....So what experience do you have with the equipment they used at Hawkeye and the NPIC in 1963?

How many composite films have you created Craig using this same equipment?

I, like so many others, am curious since it seems as if you are saying you've made your livlihood proving to others what is and isn't possibe with film....

When and where have YOU ever tried to combine separate films into a single one and failed, so we would know that YOU can't do it...
which of course means no one else can...

right?     


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 1374


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We finally get a true confession from the legend in his own mind.....So what experience do you have with the equipment they used at Hawkeye and the NPIC in 1963?

How many composite films have you created Craig using this same equipment?

I, like so many others, am curious since it seems as if you are saying you've made your livlihood proving to others what is and isn't possibe with film....

When and where have YOU ever tried to combine separate films into a single one and failed, so we would know that YOU can't do it...
which of course means no one else can...

right?    


I see davie has once again proven in spades he has the reading ability of a gnat....

Thousands of frames davie jo...THOUSANDS.

I've made composites on all manner of equipment.  Loved doing aerial imaging on an old Oxberry animation camera, and optical printers.  Did boatloads with a pin registered process camera and darkroom equipment too.  Ah the good old days.  Of course we do the exact same thing now but on the computer instead.  Same basic methods too, just different tools.  Its just still image compositing regardless of format.

You see I know this stuff because I'VE LIVED IT my entire working life.

You on the other hand don't have the first clue.


ANYONE can take a 24fps film clip and chop out frames.  Heck you can grab your DSLR if it shoots 24p video and do it yourself.

The problem of course in a video that contains continuous motion is that every frame you excise DOUBLES the distance traveled between the frames on either side.  This is NOTICEABLE and MEASURABLE.

Just as your sto pidity is NOTICEABLE AND MEASURABLE.

if you had even the first clue you would understand.  You don't.  its ALL fantasy to you.




-------------------------
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 12:58:07 PM by Craig Lamson »

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Kennedy Assassination JFK Assassination Forum JFK Dealey Plaza Dallas November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Gallery

JFKForum.com

JFK Assassination Kennedy Assassination JFK Assassination Forum JFK Dealey Plaza Dallas November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines