JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Backyard Photos Have Insomnia
Jerry Freeman:
Every time that the media has stated that the authenticity of the Oswald Backyard pictures have 'finally been put to rest', it seems like it all just keeps waking up again.
Still, if you're a 'kook'...they're fake.
If you're a 'parrot'... then [of course] they're genuine.
According to Marina [after serving the Warren Commission a myriad assortment of lies and a cocktail of deceit, distortion, fabrications and fables].. Lee coerced her to take the weapons photos because he wanted to submit them to the Communist publication to which he was an apparent subscriber.
Yet, after all that was said and done, no evidence was ever produced that he actually did.
All that endeavor for nothing it seems.
When the Backyard photo graced the cover of Life magazine in that February of 1964, Sylvia Meager became among the first to notice that Oswald's face just didn't look right. Also the stance seemed awkward like he's falling forward.
The editor's response was that certain airbrushing and retouching was done to their copy of the print.
One then wonders why would all that would be necessary?
By the time this question arrived to the HSCA, it was demonstrated that the original negative contained a square jawed Oswald and the Life story was relegated to the droppings of a bovine.
How then, did the Committee deal with the chin transplant? It became a water spot that had inattentively dripped onto the negative. Only, there were two such negatives each with an exact identical drip?
Back in 1964, for some reason, a Dallas cop went out to that Neely street backyard and posed with a newspaper and a rifle or shotgun [maybe his handgun was concealed?]
It was the way he posed that was unique. Arms slightly raised with the long gun in his left hand.
Not like the first two BY photos [shown below]. Twelve years later, another BY photo showed up...identical to the Dallas cop picture taken 12 years earlier ..rifle in the left hand and paper in the right.
"So what'' the parrots will exclaim..."Coincidence" they will advance..."And the point is?" they will utter.
The umpteenth-thousandth coincidence I can only reply.
The cops knew about those photographs long before they were ever "found".
Commission exhibit 714 [became Committee exhibits 133A and 133B]
1964 re-enactment below
Committee exhibit133C produced Dec 1976 The negative was never found
Documentary...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQZ5F5XLQk
Article....
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3#_n1
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Jerry Freeman on June 17, 2018, 04:20:01 AM ---
By the time this question arrived to the HSCA, it was demonstrated that the original negative contained a square jawed Oswald and the Life story was relegated to the droppings of a bovine.
How then, did the Committee deal with the chin transplant? It became a water spot that had inattentively dripped onto the negative. Only, there were two such negatives each with an exact identical drip?
--- End quote ---
Here we go again like some mindless dog barking at the night, another "photo expert" offers his "opinion".
Oswald's chin is always his own, it's simply a matter of how his face is lit. In the following footage of Oswald we can see the exact duplicate effect and it's simply the overhead light which funnily enough is where the sun is!
JohnM
Jerry Freeman:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on June 17, 2018, 04:37:14 AM ---
Here we go again another "photo expert" offers his "opinion".
--- End quote ---
Actually, it's not "here we go again" as you put it.
I searched the forum and...
There was not a thread on the Backyard photos that I could find...so I started one.
You don't have to agree, enjoy, or even read it. No one has a gun to your head.
And yeah, I have my opinion and you have yours I'm sure...
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: Jerry Freeman on June 17, 2018, 04:20:01 AM ---Every time that the media has stated that the authenticity of the Oswald Backyard pictures have 'finally been put to rest', it seems like it all just keeps waking up again.
Still, if you're a 'kook'...they're fake.
If you're a 'parrot'... then [of course] they're genuine.
According to Marina [after serving the Warren Commission a myriad assortment of lies and a cocktail of deceit, distortion, fabrications and fables].. Lee coerced her to take the weapons photos because he wanted to submit them to the Communist publication to which he was an apparent subscriber.
Yet, after all that was said and done, no evidence was ever produced that he actually did.
All that endeavor for nothing it seems.
When the Backyard photo graced the cover of Life magazine in that February of 1964, Sylvia Meager became among the first to notice that Oswald's face just didn't look right. Also the stance seemed awkward like he's falling forward.
The editor's response was that certain airbrushing and retouching was done to their copy of the print.
One then wonders why would all that would be necessary?
By the time this question arrived to the HSCA, it was demonstrated that the original negative contained a square jawed Oswald and the Life story was relegated to the droppings of a bovine.
How then, did the Committee deal with the chin transplant? It became a water spot that had inattentively dripped onto the negative. Only, there were two such negatives each with an exact identical drip?
Back in 1964, for some reason, a Dallas cop went out to that Neely street backyard and posed with a newspaper and a rifle or shotgun [maybe his handgun was concealed?]
It was the way he posed that was unique. Arms slightly raised with the long gun in his left hand.
Not like the first two BY photos [shown below]. Twelve years later, another BY photo showed up...identical to the Dallas cop picture taken 12 years earlier ..rifle in the left hand and paper in the right.
"So what'' the parrots will exclaim..."Coincidence" they will advance..."And the point is?" they will utter.
The umpteenth-thousandth coincidence I can only reply.
The cops knew about those photographs long before they were ever "found".
Commission exhibit 714 [became Committee exhibits 133A and 133B]
1964 re-enactment below
Committee exhibit133C produced Dec 1976 The negative was never found
Documentary...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQZ5F5XLQk
Article....
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3#_n1
--- End quote ---
Every time that the media has stated that the authenticity of the Oswald Backyard pictures have 'finally been put to rest', it seems like it all just keeps waking up again.
Still, if you're a 'kook'...they're fake.
If you're a 'parrot'... then [of course] they're genuine.
What if you believe that one of the BY photos (CE 133A) is an authentic photo that was created by Lee Oswald and George Demorhenschildt as a ruse...like a carnival photo which depicts the person in the photo as a convict.....
and 133c is a fake that was created by the conspirators.......who wanted to be sure they had evidence that their patsy, and arch villain, Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald owned the rifle that was planted near the scene of the murder.
Richard Smith:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on June 17, 2018, 01:14:33 PM ---Every time that the media has stated that the authenticity of the Oswald Backyard pictures have 'finally been put to rest', it seems like it all just keeps waking up again.
Still, if you're a 'kook'...they're fake.
If you're a 'parrot'... then [of course] they're genuine.
What if you believe that one of the BY photos (CE 133A) is an authentic photo that was created by Lee Oswald and George Demorhenschildt as a ruse...like a carnival photo which depicts the person in the photo as a convict.....
and 133c is a fake that was created by the conspirators.......who wanted to be sure they had evidence that their patsy, and arch villain, Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald owned the rifle that was planted near the scene of the murder.
--- End quote ---
I know I'm going to regret asking given the source, but if one BY photo is authentic why would there be a need to fake others since they show basically the same thing?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version