***The shadows look normal to me. I don't see any fakery in the shadows. I also saw Jack's explanation in the Garrison tape.  I wasn't impressed with that either.  The photos are genuine, whether you want to believe it or not.  And that is your problem.  ***Ron Judge <<<<< * Mr. Mee said the body shadows in the pictures were not consistent with each other, and that the body was photographed at different times of day. * Mr. Mee, in agreement with Jack White, noted that the patch of sunlight on the side of the house behind and to the left of the post holding the stairway did not change shape in 133-A and 133-B, indicating that the camera did not change positions horizontally, which in turn indicated a sameness of background. This is an important point because such a sameness in background is considered to be virtually impossible using a hand-held camera.    Mr. Mee said he could not comment on White's other examples of non-movement of shadows in the background of the photos without looking at better copies or at the originals themselves. * Mr. Mee took issue with White's view of the blurriness of the right-hand fingers in 133-A.  Mr. Mee said this could easily have been caused by a slight movement of the fingers.  He added that he did not see why a forger would have needed to retouch this area.  Therefore, he said, he did not agree with White's opinion that the blurriness of the fingers was possible evidence of sloppy retouching. * Mr. Mee was quite insistent that the nose and eye shadows were in marked conflict with the body shadows and also with the shadows on the neck.   For the sake of context here, let us briefly review these conflicts:    The nose and eye shadows fall straight down.  In fact, the nose shadow forms a perfect V-shape as it falls straight down.  The position of the nose and eye shadows indicates that the sun was directly above and in front of the head.  In other words, the nose and eye shadows were caused by the sun at around noon time.  Yet, the body shadows in 133-A and C fall at a ten o'clock angle, indicating that the body was photographed much later in the day, at around 4:00 or 4:30.  Furthermore, the nose shadow remains the same in all the pictures even though the head is tilted in different directions.  This is a photographic impossibility.   Additionally, since the nose and eye shadows fall straight down and hence indicate a sun directly above and in front, both sides of the neck should be in shadow.  However, although the right side of neck is almost totally in shadow, only about half of the left side of the neck is in shadow.    Said Mr. Mee, We only have one sun, and that's the problem.  Even if we had two suns, their light still could not produce the differences in the shadows in the backyard photos. * Perhaps the most difficult problem with which the photographic panel wrestled was the difference between the chin of the figure in the backyard photos and Oswald's chin as seen in genuine pictures of him.  The backyard figure has a broad, flat chin, but Oswald had a sharp, cleft chin.  The panel sought to deal with this problem by claiming that the edge of the chin vanished in shadow.  Mr. Mee rejected this theory, pointing out that the sun did not appear to have been in the right position to cause the chin to disappear in shadow.  Mr. Mee saw a serious conflict between the chin in the backyard pictures and Oswald's chin. [Comment: British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson, formerly with Scotland Yard, did not accept the HSCA photographic evidence panel's explanation of the marked discrepancy between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin, either.  Thompson further disputed the panel's claim that available technology could detect all forgeries.] * Mr. Mee was quite surprised at McCamy's statement that he concluded that a Mr. Scott's photo was fake when he detected a discrepancy between the shadows on the suit and the shadows on the railing.  Said Mr. Mee, McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo that others have said about the backyard pictures.  He was not consistent. Mr. Mee is a professional photographer and photo lab technician with over 20 years of experience.  He has had training and experience in negative retouching, print development, shadows, and negative analysis.  In addition, he has had advanced photographic training at the Winona School of Photography in Wisconsin and at the KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York. Mike Griffith MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH.  Check out my Real Issues Home Page at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/

If anyone can debunk the HSCA's grain analysis, which proved the backyard photos not to be composites, now's the time. So much easier to speculate about Marina Oswald, I guess . . . Dave Reitzes ***The shadows look normal to me. I don't see any fakery in the shadows. I also saw Jack's explanation in the Garrison tape.  I wasn't impressed with that either.  The photos are genuine, whether you want to believe it or not.  And that is your problem.  ***Ron Judge <<<<< In further response to these comments, I quote from the introduction to the tran_script_ of my interview with Mr. Mee:

believe it or not.  And that is your problem.  ***Ron Judge <<<<< * Mr. Mee said the body shadows in the pictures were not consistent with each other, and that the body was photographed at different times of day. * Mr. Mee, in agreement with Jack White, noted that the patch of sunlight on the side of the house behind and to the left of the post holding the stairway did not change shape in 133-A and 133-B, indicating that the camera did not change positions horizontally, which in turn indicated a sameness of background. This is an important point because such a sameness in background is considered to be virtually impossible using a hand-held camera.    Mr. Mee said he could not comment on White's other examples of non-movement of shadows in the background of the photos without looking at better copies or at the originals themselves. * Mr. Mee took issue with White's view of the blurriness of the right-hand fingers in 133-A.  Mr. Mee said this could easily have been caused by a slight movement of the fingers.  He added that he did not see why a forger would have needed to retouch this area.  Therefore, he said, he did not agree with White's opinion that the blurriness of the fingers was possible evidence of sloppy retouching. * Mr. Mee was quite insistent that the nose and eye shadows were in marked conflict with the body shadows and also with the shadows on the neck. For the sake of context here, let us briefly review these conflicts:    The nose and eye shadows fall straight down.  In fact, the nose shadow forms a perfect V-shape as it falls straight down.  The position of the nose and eye shadows indicates that the sun was directly above and in front of the head.  In other words, the nose and eye shadows were caused by the sun at around noon time.  Yet, the body shadows in 133-A and C fall at a ten o'clock angle, indicating that the body was photographed much later in the day, at around 4:00 or 4:30.  Furthermore, the nose shadow remains the same in all the pictures even though the head is tilted in different directions.  This is a photographic impossibility. Additionally, since the nose and eye shadows fall straight down and hence indicate a sun directly above and in front, both sides of the neck should be in shadow.  However, although the right side of neck is almost totally in shadow, only about half of the left side of the neck is in shadow.    Said Mr. Mee, We only have one sun, and that's the problem.  Even if we had two suns, their light still could not produce the differences in the shadows in the backyard photos. * Perhaps the most difficult problem with which the photographic panel wrestled was the difference between the chin of the figure in the backyard photos and Oswald's chin as seen in genuine pictures of him.  The backyard figure has a broad, flat chin, but Oswald had a sharp, cleft chin. The panel sought to deal with this problem by claiming that the edge of the chin vanished in shadow.  Mr. Mee rejected this theory, pointing out that the sun did not appear to have been in the right position to cause the chin to disappear in shadow.  Mr. Mee saw a serious conflict between the chin in the backyard pictures and Oswald's chin. [Comment: British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson, formerly with Scotland Yard, did not accept the HSCA photographic evidence panel's explanation of the marked discrepancy between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin, either.  Thompson further disputed the panel's claim that available technology could detect all forgeries.] * Mr. Mee was quite surprised at McCamy's statement that he concluded that a Mr. Scott's photo was fake when he detected a discrepancy between the shadows on the suit and the shadows on the railing.  Said Mr. Mee, McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo that others have said about the backyard pictures.  He was not consistent. Mr. Mee is a professional photographer and photo lab technician with over 20 years of experience.  He has had training and experience in negative retouching, print development, shadows, and negative analysis.  In addition, he has had advanced photographic training at the Winona School of Photography in Wisconsin and at the KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York. Mike Griffith MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH.  Check out my Real Issues Home Page at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.