single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[phillyboy]

As I understand it, Marina--being relatively new to America, and not knowing our legal system--was petrified that she would be held as an accomplice to JFK's murder. Consequently, some of her answers to initial questioning were evasive. Her statements were all over the place.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My son is a professional photographer.

Well then, I can cite myself as an expert. When I was a kid, my brother had a twin-lens reflex camera with the viewfinder on the top, just like the Imperial Reflex. The viewfinder projected a picture on to a glass plate on top of the body, and you looked down on to it to line up the shot. If you held the camera at waist level, the viewfinder picture was quite a long way away, and in any kind of sunlight it was quite difficult to see anything. If you look at the picture of the camera on the link you so helpfully posted, though, you'll see it's got an angled shade over the viewfinder so that you can cut out the sunlight. The only problem with this - and again, it's very clear from the link you posted - is that, if you hold the camera at waist level, this shade is in the way of the viewfinder. The way round this is to hold the camera a little below eye level, look down on to the viewfinder, and take the photo with it shaded.

There were some clear shadows in the photos of Oswald, so it must have been quite sunny. Exactly the conditions where, in a twin lens camera, you needed to use the shade and hold it up to about chin level. But, since SLR cameras have made them obsolete, today's basement warriors for truthiness don't know all that, so they think there's a discrepancy. As usual, it's simply that they lack knowledge that they don't know they lack.

I know this. I've used these things. Have you?

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

By the way, it's "Alzheimer's".

TOUCHÉ

 

[Fourbrick]

And Rolleiflex.

TOUCHÉ again!

 

[Fourbrick]

And moron.

Thank you for your valued contribution.

 

[Fourbrick]

. The way round this is to hold the camera a little below eye level, look down on to the viewfinder, and take the photo with it shaded.

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level. The highest you can hold it is top of the chest, which is way below eye level, not just below eye level, otherwise you can't see the viewfinder. (You have to bend your head down to see the viewfinder, and that's not at eye level) But then there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras. I suppose it would be possible to stir my cream into my coffee with my walking stick, but I don't suppose it's common.

I know this. I've used these things. Have you?

Dave

Yes.

 

[Ranb]

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level.

What a surprise. Fourbrick would not believe it is possible to use one at just below eye level even if we were to demonstate it for him. He is just like the moonbats who would not believe it is posible to travel to the moon even if they were sent there.

If I still had access to one of these cameras, then I would demonstrate its use, but I do not. It would be a waste of time anyway.

Ranb

 

[Dave Rogers]

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level. The highest you can hold it is top of the chest, which is way below eye level, not just below eye level, otherwise you can't see the viewfinder. (You have to bend your head down to see the viewfinder, and that's not at eye level)

So now it doesn't have to be held at waist level, it can be held at the top of the chest. Don't you think you're backpedalling a bit?

But even that isn't exactly right, is it? You see, if you incline your head downwards slightly, you can see the viewfinder picture very clearly with the top of the camera just a couple of inches below eye level. In fact, in sunlight, you'll see it more clearly if it's that close. And that's a little higher than the top of the chest, and so close to eye level that even an expert like Jack White probably couldn't tell the difference in the angle.

And, of course, if you bend your head down, "eye level" is a little lower, and you are in fact holding the camera up to your eye to see the viewfinder.

But then there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras. I suppose it would be possible to stir my cream into my coffee with my walking stick, but I don't suppose it's common.

Put your statement that "there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras" next to your absolute certainty that Marina Oswald used one in the specific way you claimed this type of camera must be used, and that next to your admission that there are in fact other ways it can be used, and your argument here is looking pretty threadbare, isn't it?

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

So now it doesn't have to be held at waist level, it can be held at the top of the chest. Don't you think you're backpedalling a bit?

No. It's not at eye level.

But even that isn't exactly right, is it? You see, if you incline your head downwards slightly, you can see the viewfinder picture very clearly with the top of the camera just a couple of inches below eye level. In fact, in sunlight, you'll see it more clearly if it's that close.

You have to incline your head more than slightly. Then if you incline your head to look into the view finder you are not holding it up to eye level

And that's a little higher than the top of the chest, and so close to eye level that even an expert like Jack White probably couldn't tell the difference in the angle.

I'd love to be able to see you take a decent photo from that position.

And, of course, if you bend your head down, "eye level" is a little lower, and you are in fact holding the camera up to your eye to see the viewfinder.

Semantically, yes, but in the normal use of eye level, no. You are lowering your eye to below "eye level"

Put your statement that "there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras" next to your absolute certainty that Marina Oswald used one in the specific way you claimed this type of camera must be used, and that next to your admission that there are in fact other ways it can be used, and your argument here is looking pretty threadbare, isn't it?

Dave

Not at all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No. It's not at eye level.

But a loosely-worded answer could easily describe it as being at eye level.

You have to incline your head more than slightly. Then if you incline your head to look into the view finder you are not holding it up to eye level.

But a loosely-worded answer could easily describe it as being at eye level.

Semantically, yes, but in the normal use of eye level, no. You are lowering your eye to below "eye level".

But a loosely-worded answer could easily describe it as being at eye level.

So your argument is that Marina Oswald could not possibly have used the words "eye level" loosely enough to mean "close to eye level so I could see the viewfinder clearly, but not exactly at eye level." Which, as I said, is at best a little threadbare.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Combine that with the fact that we actually do have pictures of Oswald holding his guns and Marina saying that she took the pictures and the negatives absolutely coming from that camera and the pictures are beyond a shadow of a doubt not faked and it's really a moot point, isn't it?

 

[Aitch]

I don't own a Rolleiflex, but I do own a TLR - a Yashica 124g.

You can hold it just below eye-level and look down. I've just tried. In fact, if you use the magnifier option, it helps.

Or, and I don't know if this is possible with a Rollei, there is a direct view option. The centre of the top cover (while it is open) drops down and you look through a smaller hole in the back of the cover. Intended, I think, for action photography as it ignores the TLR focusing.

 

[JimBenArm]

Thank you for your valued contribution.

I can hear the jealousy in your post.
Don't be sad. Not everyone can be as awesome as I am.
Least of all JFK loons.

 

[Fourbrick]

I can hear the jealousy in your post.
Don't be sad. Not everyone can be as awesome as I am.
Least of all JFK loons.

Jealous of what? And it's certainly not sadness, just sarcasm, but then that is probably lost on you.

Congratulations on being awesome. There are plenty of people who think the same but they are normally not allowed to use anything sharp.

Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

 

[TraneWreck]

Jealous of what? And it's certainly not sadness, just sarcasm, but then that is probably lost on you.

Congratulations on being awesome. There are plenty of people who think the same but they are normally not allowed to use anything sharp.

[qimg]http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF[/qimg]

Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

Because the person taking the picture, his wife, isn't standing in the exact same spot.

 

[Fourbrick]

Really? If the photographer changed his/her position, why does the relationship between the Post supporting the Stairs and the fence end post to the left of both photos, not change?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jealous of what? And it's certainly not sadness, just sarcasm, but then that is probably lost on you.

Congratulations on being awesome. There are plenty of people who think the same but they are normally not allowed to use anything sharp.

[qimg]http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF[/qimg]

Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

Because the sun moves in the sky.


ETA: If you observe a sundial, you will see this principle in action.

 

[Fourbrick]

Supposedly the three photos were all taken at the same time, with just a minute or so between images. Tell me how the sun could have moved that much in such a short time.

Or does the sun move faster in Dallas than anywhere else?

 

[Ranb]

Can somebody explain why in these two photos the shadows of Oswald are at a different angle?

What times of day were these photos taken? How did you measure the angle of each shadow?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

So who is the witness you are relying on for this information?

Supposedly the three photos were all taken at the same time, with just a minute or so between images.

Would it be the same person you quoted in post #456 and characterized as;

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.... .Yeh, a great witness.

So we can't rely on witness testimony, but you can when it is convenient to prop up your theories?

Ranb