Can you be more specific about what the "oddities" are? What exactly does the "forensic software" do?
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-2008x2104.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Uncolorized Photo of CE 133-B | (https://images2.imgbox.com/93/41/1bXdBIVT_o.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) ELA Applied |
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-2008x2104.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Uncolorized Photo of CE 133-B (https://images2.imgbox.com/93/41/1bXdBIVT_o.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
ELA Applied
Not the same rifles ...Question: Isn't it more likely that Oswald just changed straps?
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8
The rifle in the backyard photo has a light colored shoulder strap and is one solid piece without a shoulder pad.
The 6th floor rifle has a darker strap and is 2 pieces connected by a shoulder pad. Just saying. Lots of fuckery for sure.
The HSCA panel also concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle that was recovered from the sniper's next/sixth floor window.
Here is one of my favorite photos from the case. What you're seeing here is not Bob Groden and Dave Lifton in Dealey Plaza goofing around. What you're seeing are FBI officials conducting their official investigation of the case by recreating the shots. Let's forget for a moment, which people like you ALWAYS bring up when this photo is shown, that the car is not the same. Let's forget, too, that the Kennedy stand in may be too high or the Connolly guy may be too low. These don't matter at all here.
What matters is this - the FBI guys have 100% access to the autopsy record and photos. This is mere months after 11/22. So basing their work on this official record, they say, "OK, let's put a sticker on the Kennedy guy based on the bullet that hit him in the back." And because they knew that based on the official record, there was NO bullet of entry or exit in that rear sticker ABOVE the back wound. Therefore, that sticker on the rear neck is where the THROAT wound is. In other words, the wound that Kennedy in the front in his throat.
So now thy're like, "Great! But wait a minute. How in the xxxx could this lower sticker exit UPWARD and out of the front in the throat area when the shot is coming DOWNWARD?!"
So Steve, try to explain that. But you see, Steve, you won't so, therefore, you'll just ignore it. And the reason why you'll ignore it is simply because you can't logically and plausibly explain how that could physically happen.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)
It is amazing how you people think you can just make evidence disappear.
What's the problem? The bullet enters at the C7 level and exits at the T1 level. I don't see a conflict in the photos, other than they're taken from different camera angles and aren't directly comparable as you try to present.
Sure, Jerry, sure. And need I remind you that there was NO termination hole on the other side of his body? In other words, Humes himself stuck either a probe or finger in that rear back wound and found NO exit.
Uh, huh. Right, Jerry, right.
No, Jerry. Both bullet holes were clearly defined. A bullet traveling at that speed and to make such a defined hole would have made a clear path. The problem with your argument, Jerry, is you keep taking this testimony verbatim. For example, you said that patch on the neck because according to the testimony, it came in and out at a certain spinal #. But you still don't explain how a bullet traveling downward from roughly 90 feet in the air will hit a person's back and then exit ABOVE in the frontal neck area - which is where the upper white patch is located in my image, Jerry.
And now you're doing it again, Jerry, using the panel as they fumble around with "it could have been because of rigor..." or whatever.
Here's the same reenactment, Jerry. You can see the back patch and this is from the TSBD. There's no way a bullet traveling that fast and from that high up would exit ABOVE where it came in.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4A8PwaFEtq8/Wi197pas0wI/AAAAAAAAE-Y/oIRwr-vTckIAnuzuoujevx_zlwqdat-3wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/FBI%2Breenactment%2Bfrom%2Brear%2Bphoto.jpg)
The BY scene only proves that some guy was photographed enacting out some sort of machismo deal. That's it.I think the photos indicate something more such as he wasn't pretending to hold radical views as cover work for US intelligence/CIA/FBI or whoever. After all those were Marxist anti-US publications he was holding up and not Time and Newsweek. This was more of a political pose than a machismo one. Marina said that after developing the photos that he gave one copy to her to save for their baby girl. Swell, what daughter wouldn't want a photo of their dad in that outfit? In any case, the significance of these photos re Oswald the person is another question for another day.
But CTers seem to want to infer that others think it proves that this guy was guy who shot the guy. Yo. Not on my watch. I need a lot more faked, planted and altered evidence to arrive at which guy was the guy who shot the guy.
I think the photos indicate something more such as he wasn't pretending to hold radical views as cover work for US intelligence/CIA/FBI or whoever. After all those were Marxist anti-US publications he was holding up and not Time and Newsweek. This was more of a political pose than a machismo one. Marina said that after developing the photos that he gave one copy to her to save for their baby girl. Swell, what daughter wouldn't want a photo of their dad in that outfit? In any case, the significance of these photos re Oswald the person is another question for another day.
The question here is whether they're authentic or not. I think the evidence is overwhelming that they are.
A conclusion for me in this is that it shows the peculiar thinking of the conspiracy believers who seemingly think all of this is faked or staged to help frame Oswald. Right, they didn't manufacture one photo they created three. Why on Earth would you create three of these? Isn't one enough?
Too many conspiracy believers think the "conspirators" had unlimited powers and resources and could just alter this and fake that and cover it all up for half a century. Sorry, that's not a world I think exists.
(https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/art/ferriebig.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, NOVA 1993 ( Link (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/ferrie.html) ) |
Two ("B" and "C") have less resolution than "A". Turns out only in "A" was the subject within the camera's set focus plane and, being closer in space to the film plane than "B" and "C", had more resolution and so presented more detail.Jerry, but isn't the evidence pretty strong that these were, indeed, three separate photos? And, from that, the HSCA photographic experts said that the photos (A and B specifically) allowed them to employ "stereoscopic techniques" that enabled a three dimensional analysis. Any alterations (in either photo) could not escape detection because the alterations would appear to be either behind or in front of the three dimensional image.
LNers never went on for decades about the CAP Picnic Photo being a fake. LNers respect evidence, while being able to spot CT-generated fake evidence -- like Doorman and Zapruder film alteration -- a mile away.
(https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/art/ferriebig.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, NOVA 1993 ( Link (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/ferrie.html) )
If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?
Mr. McDONALD. Please tell us what happened? This was at the Neely Street address.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscamar1.htm
What happened on this occasion when Lee asked you to take those photographs?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, first of all, I refused to take picture because I did not know how to operate camera, and he told me, he insist that I will take it, and he said he will show me how, if I just push the button. So I took one picture, I think, and maybe he changed the pose, I don't recall. Maybe I took two pictures, but I was very annoyed by all the incidents.
Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand?DEPOSITIONS OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, did he own-will, did he own a camera?
A. I really don't remember.
Q. Did he own any kind of--
A. I remember in Russia, he took pictures. It was our camera or somebody's camera but I know he was taking pictures. I do believe it was our camera because he was carrying it with him.
Q. When you lived in Texas did he own a camera?
A. I don't recall but, according to some pictures we had he might have because he had some pictures that were taken recently, I mean during our living there. I do believe he probably had. But I would not recognize the camera. If somebody said was that yours, I would not claim it.
Q. Did he ever to your knowledge have any photography equipment, like developing or other photography equipment?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember anything?
A. I don't remember.
.................................................................................
Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?
A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.
Q. So he have you back the camera?
A. For the second time; yes.
Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?
A. Yes.
If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?At first..Marina didn't seem to know anything about the pictures. Then she said she took one. Then she testified that she didn't know how to advance the film. Then she said that Lee had to show her how to do it. Then somehow Lee assumed the same exact position [an impossibility] and she took another. Then a third picture mysteriously appears in later years ::)
The photos don't have to be fake as they prove nothing.Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?
LHO obviously was involved in some fringe groups and this photo session could be a part of fitting in with those groups. Or he could have been told to pose for the photos by people setting up, under some guise.
Either way, it doesn't prove he killed or wanted to kill Kennedy. Doesn't prove his innocence either.
To me, they are interesting but not crucial.
Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?
I think that's significant.
The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.
There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.