Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout  (Read 13598 times)

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2018, 12:20:40 PM »
Advertisement
As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.

Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.



Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.

The world's greatest photographer (IHOO) says that Oswald was leaning at a greater angle the  Farid said, so by default he is disagreeing with Farid. Whether ia m correct or not is immaterial. A lone nutter has agreed  that the so called expert, Farid, was wrong, which is  what I have said all along.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 12:34:03 PM by Ray Mitcham »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2018, 12:20:40 PM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2018, 05:20:02 PM »
Rather than check out what I said in my previous post about perspective possibly being a factor, you would rather promote a false narrative that Lamson and Craig are in disagreement.

Farid says that Oswald was leaning at an angle of 5˚. Lamson says 7˚. Only to a lone nutter would this mean that they don't disagree about the angle of lean.


Quote

And bask in the self-illusion that you're smarter than them all.

Not at all. Just pointing out that Farid was not infallible. Maybe you believe you are.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2018, 12:37:53 AM »
Rather than check out what I said in my previous post about perspective possibly being a factor, you would rather promote a false narrative that Lamson and Craig are in disagreement.

Lamson and Craig are the same person.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2018, 12:37:53 AM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2018, 11:49:15 AM »
Lamson and Craig are the same person.

Lamson and Craig regularly disagree with each other. They are both very disagreeable. :D

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2018, 11:41:55 AM »
Hey, Ray. How's that Mitcham fellow -- who talked something about 10˚ -- doing these days? ::)

He's fine Jerry. How's that guy, Organ, who believes in the daft single bullet theory doing?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2018, 11:41:55 AM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2018, 01:07:03 PM »
Still tooting the "physically implausible" horn. And the experts got it wrong.

The only expert who got it wrong was Farid. Proven by your fellow Lone nutter.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Z-317 shows no rearward blowout
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2018, 01:07:03 PM »