JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: 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]
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/17/60/28/90/2-133a10.jpg)
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/17/60/28/90/3-133b10.jpg)
1964 re-enactment below
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2015/images_jcarter4/9metapth338417_l_DSMA_91-001-12A57002-XXXX_01.jpg)
Committee exhibit133C produced Dec 1976 The negative was never found
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2015/images_jcarter1/8-133-C.jpg)
Documentary...
Article....
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3#_n1
-
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?
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!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hef5txoej/Ossychin_zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/905879/20116412/1346654908417/10560294-15782524-thumbnail.jpg?token=S3rf1HkWrLoXCF%2BesJOMQo%2BKk34%3D)
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
JohnM
-
Here we go again another "photo expert" offers his "opinion".
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... (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
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]
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/17/60/28/90/2-133a10.jpg)
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/17/60/28/90/3-133b10.jpg)
1964 re-enactment below
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2015/images_jcarter4/9metapth338417_l_DSMA_91-001-12A57002-XXXX_01.jpg)
Committee exhibit133C produced Dec 1976 The negative was never found
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2015/images_jcarter1/8-133-C.jpg)
Documentary...
Article....
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3#_n1
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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?
I know I'm going to regret asking given the source,
IOW.....I know I'm going to get my ass kicked given the source,
if one BY photo is authentic why would there be a need to fake others since they show basically the same thing?
George De Morhenschildt had copyright on the original photo......
-
I know I'm going to regret asking given the source,
IOW.....I know I'm going to get my ass kicked given the source,
if one BY photo is authentic why would there be a need to fake others since they show basically the same thing?
George De Morhenschildt had copyright on the original photo......
LOL. Could you translate that bizarre response into a non-kook translation? Again, if the purpose of the BY photos was to frame Oswald by linking him to the rifle, and he was willing to pose for such a picture, then why fake any of them? Try to focus.
-
Oswald's chin is always his own..
Except when it isn't...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RcPjXLLVG6s/VnD6Jw0SG5I/AAAAAAAAqa0/5wfX8E1fxK8/s640/phony%2Bchin%2Bcollage.jpg)
-
Except when it isn't...
Have you ever taken a photograph? Try taking a few snaps outdoors in sunlight at various times of day then compare with the same subject indoors with a flash then without a flash. Maybe you'll find the 'mystery' of shadows and light by direct experience which is often the best way to learn something.
-
Except when it isn't...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RcPjXLLVG6s/VnD6Jw0SG5I/AAAAAAAAqa0/5wfX8E1fxK8/s640/phony%2Bchin%2Bcollage.jpg)
Thumb1:
Thanks for copying and reinforcing my original post but seriously where does your theory go from here, all you've done is confirm that the overhead lighting in the unaltered TV footage creates a squared off chin exactly like the backyard photos.
JohnM
-
...where does your theory go from here...
I guess that was a question?
Actually it's not my 'theory' and you know that and it seems to really bother you huh?
Stay tuned.
-
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!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hef5txoej/Ossychin_zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/905879/20116412/1346654908417/10560294-15782524-thumbnail.jpg?token=S3rf1HkWrLoXCF%2BesJOMQo%2BKk34%3D)
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
JohnM
Is it just me or does the outline of the head remain in the exact same location within the parameters of the frame in all four pictures
Interesting to see the hostility to Jerry simply raising the subject Pretty clear it is the WC critics who raise almost all new topics here. The only time the LNers seem to post is a demand for some final conclusion from the WCC folks
Interesting also that when photographs that show Oswald's chin may be more squared off the response is its all shadows and lighting But when we see photos that show a more pointed chin lighting can be assumed to be not a factor
-
Is it just me or does the outline of the head remain in the exact same location within the parameters of the frame in all four pictures
Interesting to see the hostility to Jerry simply raising the subject Pretty clear it is the WC critics who raise almost all new topics here. The only time the LNers seem to post is a demand for some final conclusion from the WCC folks
Interesting also that when photographs that show Oswald's chin may be more squared off the response is its all shadows and lighting But when we see photos that show a more pointed chin lighting can be assumed to be not a factor
Is it just me or does the outline of the head remain in the exact same location within the parameters of the frame in all four pictures
It's just you.
Interesting to see the hostility to Jerry simply raising the subject Pretty clear it is the WC critics who raise almost all new topics here. The only time the LNers seem to post is a demand for some final conclusion from the WCC folks
Ffs Read Jerry's OP!
Interesting also that when photographs that show Oswald's chin may be more squared off the response is its all shadows and lighting But when we see photos that show a more pointed chin lighting can be assumed to be not a factor
Well duh, when Oswald is being lit from in front we can see all his chin and when he is lit from above his chin is hidden in the shadow. If you can find any photos of Oswald that breaks these rules then please show us.
JohnM
-
Is it just me or does the outline of the head remain in the exact same location within the parameters of the frame in all four pictures
It's just you
Pretty clear it is the WC critics who raise almost all new topics here.
The CTers are always on the look out to restore the reputation of St Oswald. The smart guys know that Oswald is a double murderer, an attempted murderer, a wife basher and a general deadbeat.
Interesting also that when photographs that show Oswald's chin may be more squared off the response is its all shadows and lighting But when we see photos that show a more pointed chin lighting can be assumed to be not a factor
Lighting is always a factor whether the chin be pointy, square or somewhere in between. At it's essence that's what photography is, capturing light.
-
What a breakthrough
-
What a breakthrough
Stick around and keep an open mind and you might learn some more.
-
Have you ever taken a photograph? Try taking a few snaps outdoors in sunlight at various times of day then compare with the same subject indoors with a flash then without a flash. Maybe you'll find the 'mystery' of shadows and light by direct experience which is often the best way to learn something.
There is indeed darkness around chins if lighting is coming fro above Looks a lot more like Oswald chin changes when his facial expression changes either from a frown or a kind of smirk Lets see a smirkless Oswald with a pointed chin His chin changes in the four picture sequence in the front yard photo Is that because of the lighting
-
That Marina is one slick photographer perfectly centered photographs every time
Hahaha, yep perfectly centered every time! LOLOLOLOL!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/71yfhygzv/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
Btw do some research next time because your endless baseless accusations are getting real old.
JohnM
-
There is indeed darkness around chins if lighting is coming fro above Looks a lot more like Oswald chin changes when his facial expression expression changes either a frown or a kind of smirk Lets see a smirkless Oswald with a pointed chin His chin changes in the four picture sequence in the front yard photo Is that because of the lighting That Marina is one slick photographer perfectly centered photographs every time
Are you looking at cropped photos? That's the only explanation I can think of.
-
Hahaha, yep perfectly centered every time! LOLOLOLOL!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/71yfhygzv/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
Btw do some research next time because your endless baseless accusations are getting real old.
Yes I was just noticing that elsewhere it just centered in your little montage
JohnM
-
And Roscoe Whites little cutout of this picture was for what purpose?
-
And Roscoe Whites little cutout of this picture was for what purpose?
The backyard plants at Neeley Street in the Roscoe White cutout picture shows dramatic growth as compared to Oswald's photo and therefore was taken much later and prove nothing.
But what is interesting is that Oswald when in custody denied living at this address, why would Oswald lie? I'll give you a hint;
http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
JohnM
-
The backyard plants at Neeley Street in the Roscoe White cutout picture shows dramatic growth as compared to Oswald's photo and therefore was taken much later and prove nothing.
But what is interesting is that Oswald when in custody denied living at this address, why would Oswald lie? I'll give you a hint;
http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
JohnM
Nice one John. Have the newspapers he's holding been dated? Presumably he'd have the most recent issue on hand and that might help in fixing a time range for that particular photo.
-
The backyard plants at Neeley Street in the Roscoe White cutout picture shows dramatic growth as compared to Oswald's photo and therefore was taken much later and prove nothing.
But what is interesting is that Oswald when in custody denied living at this address, why would Oswald lie? I'll give you a hint;
http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
I believe the predicate is the cutout picture 'proves' nothing
JohnM
-
The backyard plants at Neeley Street in the Roscoe White cutout picture shows dramatic growth as compared to Oswald's photo and therefore was taken much later and prove nothing.
But what is interesting is that Oswald when in custody denied living at this address, why would Oswald lie? I'll give you a hint;
http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
So Oswald just went out another time and took another picture of this same spot with nobody in the picture, and Roscoe wanted to place this weird cut out in it? Or did Oswald accidentally photograph an apparition?
JohnM
-
Thanks for copying... my original post ..the unaltered TV footage creates a squared off chin
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RcPjXLLVG6s/VnD6Jw0SG5I/AAAAAAAAqa0/5wfX8E1fxK8/s640/phony%2Bchin%2Bcollage.jpg)
I didn't 'copy' your post. You flatter yourself too much.
I'll have the readers take another glance at the photos. On the left side a normal Oswald. On the right ...a squashed up, distorted..flattened face Oswald. So I wouldn't call it 'unaltered'. [Maybe a crappy lens at worst]
Take a comparison to the screen and measure the respective tip of chin to eyebrow vs ear to ear difference.
-
There's no doubt in my mind that CE 133A ( same as De Morhenchildt print) is an authentic photo taken by Marina at the request of Lee Oswald. Ther is evidence in both CE 133B and 133c of photo alteration. Who altered the photos an why??
-
Mytton is up to his old tricks again. Lighting cannot make a cleft chin into a square chin no matter how many times he claims it.
Sorry Rob there is no tricks, it's always Oswald!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/kmq4jqunf/Caprioyoulose.gif)
JohnM
-
And your evidence for this claim is?
The bush next to Oswald over the summer has dramatically increased its foliage, become much taller and has a much thicker trunk by the time that the cutout photo was taken.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dks6xx1fv/bush1.gif)
JohnM
-
Baloney. When CE 133-A and CE 133-B where overlayed the head was in the exact same postion.
Instead of the heavily cropped and photocopy quality backyard photos as seen in your manipulative conspiracy books, here we have the full frame CE 133-A and CE 133-B and Oswald's head is in very different positions and upon close examination both heads show a multitude of expected differences and are not perfect duplicates. As they say in the classics, try again.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/71yfhygzv/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
JohnM
-
Instead of the heavily cropped and photocopy quality backyard photos as seen in your manipulative conspiracy books, here we have the full frame CE 133-A and CE 133-B and Oswald's head is in very different positions and upon close examination both heads show a multitude of expected differences and are not perfect duplicates. As they say in the classics, try again.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/71yfhygzv/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
JohnM
I believe my question to Walt was who studied them and was in regard to facial expression and not just the position
-
There's no doubt in my mind that CE 133A ( same as De Morhenchildt print) is an authentic photo taken by Marina at the request of Lee Oswald. Ther is evidence in both CE 133B and 133c of photo alteration. Who altered the photos an why??
Why don't you give your own question some thought like a rational person for once? If Oswald was willing to pose for one BY photo and that one is authentic, why would there be a need to fake others? LOL. They are either all genuine - as the evidence suggests - or all fakes as the kooks desperately want to believe. What makes absolutely no sense is that one would be authentic and others faked as you have stupidly suggested.
-
I believe my question to Walt was who studied them and was in regard to facial expression and not just the position
The World doesn't revolve around you, look again, I was replying to Caprio. Doh
JohnM
-
And Roscoe Whites little cutout of this picture was for what purpose?
For the readers who otherwise don't know about it...
This image was re-shot and re-done about a year after the original.
Dodging and burning was the old school technique for modern day photo shopping.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XgeenY6NqQE4d_N9HXM0XE_88-_kdgPSg6m3mTnKyP5T6M2Mb190RY5oBUYXakpfBeXGOTs4aOZJqQnHvesIse2KLLk=s0-d)
example...this was done using an an enlarger and a bit of practice.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/521370bce4b088f3b672b62b/t/56c58792d51cd4ce64d3bab2/1455785882902/)
Roscoe White was an expert in darkroom work.
A full review here....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning
-
example...this was done using an an enlarger and a bit of practice.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/521370bce4b088f3b672b62b/t/56c58792d51cd4ce64d3bab2/1455785882902/)
This obviously fake composite with wrong lighting, mismatching grain, terrible contrast which just looks fake is a perfect example of how difficult it is to combine two images.
To get Oswald to fit into the scene seamlessly requires photographing Oswald in the exact same position with what would have to be perfect recreated lighting and as seen in Jerry's example above, it ain't as easy as your imagination wants it to be.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/71yfhygzv/Photo_hsca_ex_179.jpg)
JohnM
-
There's no doubt in my mind that CE 133A ( same as De Morhenchildt print) is an authentic photo taken by Marina at the request of Lee Oswald. Ther is evidence in both CE 133B and 133c of photo alteration. Who altered the photos an why??
Hi Walt I responded to this yesterday and see today I totally misread it I am having big time kidney stones and drugs and perhaps need to stop posting. I erased the original post from yesterday I am not sure if you did not respond out of apathy and disregard or a mild sense of tolerance Either way things have been embarrassing enough for me the last couple of days so thanks one way or another
-
Hi Walt I responded to this yesterday and see today I totally misread it I am having big time kidney stones and drugs and perhaps need to stop posting. I erased the original post from yesterday I am not sure if you did not respond out of apathy and disregard or a mild sense of tolerance Either way things have been embarrassing enough for me the last couple of days so thanks one way or another
Hi Matt.....I believe that the BY photo(s) are a pivotal aspect of the entire case....
I believe that originally the critics of LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee knew that the report from that farce patsy railroading committee were desperate to refute the decree that LBJ's Warren Commission handled down but they were handicapped by LBJ's power in the White house. They couldn't prove anything that their common sense dictated.
So in desperation they tried to work with the meager information they had and refute Hoover's decree.....LBJ had all of the aces and a stacked deck.....The critics (CT's) had very little, so in frustration and desperation they pointed out that Lee Oswald had declared A SINGLE Back Yard photo to be a fake..... To this day we don't know what photo Lee was shown....( My belief is, that it was 133c) Whatevr photo Fritz displayed to lee ...Lee immediately pronounced that photo to be a fake.....apparently he told the interrogators that the image of his head had been placed on some other man's body.....So based on that we can safely assume that ONE of the BY photos is a fake....AND Marina is on record as swearing that she took CE 133A at Lee's request.
So we have solid evidence that at least one BY photo is a fake and at least one is authentic....
The problem...Very few want to separate the photos....Most students want to lump all three known photos together as fakes ...or authentic...
If we can't examine the BY photos rationally and objectively.....this key aspect of the case will never be resolved. and The CT's are stuck in an endless rut
-
Hi Matt.....I believe that the BY photo(s) are a pivotal aspect of the entire case....
I believe that originally the critics of LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee knew that the report from that farce patsy railroading committee were desperate to refute the decree that LBJ's Warren Commission handled down but they were handicapped by LBJ's power in the White house. They couldn't prove anything that their common sense dictated.
So in desperation they tried to work with the meager information they had and refute Hoover's decree.....LBJ had all of the aces and a stacked deck.....The critics (CT's) had very little, so in frustration and desperation they pointed out that Lee Oswald had declared A SINGLE Back Yard photo to be a fake..... To this day we don't know what photo Lee was shown....( My belief is, that it was 133c) Whatevr photo Fritz displayed to lee ...Lee immediately pronounced that photo to be a fake.....apparently he told the interrogators that the image of his head had been placed on some other man's body.....So based on that we can safely assume that ONE of the BY photos is a fake....AND Marina is on record as swearing that she took CE 133A at Lee's request.
So we have solid evidence that at least one BY photo is a fake and at least one is authentic....
The problem...Very few want to separate the photos....Most students want to lump all three known photos together as fakes ...or authentic...
If we can't examine the BY photos rationally and objectively.....this key aspect of the case will never be resolved. and The CT's are stuck in an endless rut
Thanks Walt Very interesting Of course it is totally weird, but that is not necessarily a reason to continue going down an endless rut as you say
-
133C was not seen or heard of until Mrs White found it in some of Roscoe's belongings sometime in late 1976.
Marina told the Warren Commission that she forgot she had taken two different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere.
"I thought there was only one" she claimed.
Does this sound like someone lying [ to anyone else besides me]?
If that was a lie, why isn't the rest of it.
Then Mrs Porter testified to the HSCA...
Mr. McDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Porter, I have got two exhibits to show you, if the clerk would procure them from the representatives of the National Archives.
We have two photographs to show you. They are Warren Commission Exhibits C-133-A and B, which have been given JFK Nos. F-378 and F-379. If the clerk would please hand them to you, and also if we could now have for display purposes JFK Exhibit F-179, which is a blowup of the two photographs placed in front of you.
Mrs. Porter, do you recognize the photographs placed in front of you?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I do.
Mr. McDONALD. And how do you recognize them?
Mrs. PORTER. That is the photograph that I made of Lee on his persistent request of taking a picture of him dressed like that with rifle.
Mr. McDONALD. Please tell us what happened? This was at the Neely Street address.
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.
Maybe she took TWO pictures? ::)
Mr. McDONALD. Now if you will look at the photographs as are displayed on the exhibit, he is wearing, he is holding a rifle and he has got a handgun in a holster attached to his belt.
Had you seen the handgun before, before you took the photograph?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't think so. Anyway I do not recall.
Mr. McDONALD. Well, do you recall if this was the first time when you were taking the photograph that you had seen him, or that you had known that he owned both the rifle and a handgun?
Mrs. PORTER. R. It is possible.
Mr. McDONALD. Did Lee appear to be nervous at all when you took the photograph?
Mrs. PORTER. No. He was just angry with me because I refused. I was making fun of him.
Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all?
Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what?
He was "angry" Oh boo hoo hoo
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/trainwreck.gif)
-
Sorry John, but 😀🤣😃😃😆. Please.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/kmq4jqunf/Caprioyoulose.gif)
What are you sorry about? The above evidence is rock solid, the arrested Oswald footage with the same overhead lighting shows the EXACT same chin as the backyard photos with the overhead sun, You Lose!
So you have no evidence to cite for your claim. Got it.
No you made a silly claim without evidence and I present irrefutable photographic proof. The backyard bush has thickened and shows phenomenal growth.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dks6xx1fv/bush1.gif)
Without an overlay supporting your claim these are empty assumptions. Experienced people have done this and found no differences.
Who cares about your memories, your claim your proof, Well?
Where is your supporting evidence?
Muhahaha!
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
JohnM
-
Marina told the Warren Commission that she forgot she had taken two different poses.
"I thought there was only one" she claimed.
But then there were three poses right?
Put the ego and trick stuff aside....who took the pictures?
-
But then there were three poses right?
Put the ego and trick stuff aside....who took the pictures?
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
So in essence Marina was trying to remember a non event almost a year later and you all expect her to have Total Recall, hilarious.
Think back last year to the day Trump became President, can you remember every detail of this day in excruciating detail, like what time did you get up, was the sun shining, what did you have for breakfast/lunch/dinner, how was the weather, what were you wearing, who did you talk to and what did you say or were you all just like Marina and have vague recollections?
JohnM
-
Well, if Oswald's face has been superimposed over another body, then Marina must either be a conspirator, or was coerced to lie about taking the photos, and someone else made the photos.
Where and by whom, was the film roll processed?
-
Well, if Oswald's face has been superimposed over another body, then Marina must either be a conspirator, or was coerced to lie about taking the photos, and someone else made the photos.
Where and by whom, was the film roll processed?
Well, if Oswald's face has been superimposed over another body, blah blah blah...
Before you go any further, who's proved that the backyard photos have been altered?
The most detailed analysis was conducted by the HSCA and they discovered along with a plethora of scientific facts that all across the frame there was consistent grain structure meaning nothing was added.
(http://www.jfk-online.com/100grain.jpg)
https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html
JohnM
-
Think back last year to the day Trump became President ......
I prefer to think of it as the day that Clinton didn't become president.
That stated, what does all that have to do with a photograph that Marina [by her own omission] didn't take and that wasn't discovered until about fourteen years after the events that she couldn't recall? Furthermore, how did this particular photo wind up in a location supposedly unrelated to Oswald or the assassination of President Kennedy?
The HSCA 'settled this issue' just like the Warren Commission did ...by ignoring it.
-
I prefer to think of it as the day that Clinton didn't become president.
That stated, what does all that have to do with a photograph that Marina [by her own omission] didn't take and that wasn't discovered until about fourteen years after the events that she couldn't recall? Furthermore, how did this particular photo wind up in a location supposedly unrelated to Oswald or the assassination of President Kennedy?
The HSCA 'settled this issue' just like the Warren Commission did ...by ignoring it.
Marina has always admitted taking the backyard photos, even years later when she herself publicly states her husband was framed Marina still admits taking the backyard photos. Btw so far in 54 years nobody has even come close to proving any fakery!
JohnM
-
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
So in essence Marina was trying to remember a non event almost a year later and you all expect her to have Total Recall, hilarious.
Think back last year to the day Trump became President, can you remember every detail of this day in excruciating detail, like what time did you get up, was the sun shining, what did you have for breakfast/lunch/dinner, how was the weather, what were you wearing, who did you talk to and what did you say or were you all just like Marina and have vague recollections?
JohnM
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
Are you serious Mytton? If the B.Y. photo ( SINGULAR) meant nothing to Marina....Why did she destroy the copy that Lee had created for his daughter on the night of the coup d e'tat? Why did she conceal her knowledge of it?
-
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
Are you serious Mytton? If the B.Y. photo ( SINGULAR) meant nothing to Marina....Why did she destroy the copy that Lee had created for his daughter on the night of the coup d e'tat? Why did she conceal her knowledge of it?
Huh? Of course Marina would destroy any backyard photos because they showed her husband with the assassination weapon.
JohnM
-
Huh? Of course Marina would destroy any backyard photos because they showed her husband with the assassination weapon.
JohnM
Whoa.....Wait a minute Mr Mytton.... From the left side of your mouth you said the B.Y. photo meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to Marina.....
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
But from the right side of your mouth you said....
Of course Marina would destroy any backyard photos because they showed her husband with the assassination weapon.
Was the B.Y photo significant to Marina or not?? BTW.....Would you please post the proof that the B.Y. photo shows her husband with the assassination weapon? The photo shows Lee Oswald holding a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano that is significantly different that the rifle that was well hidden beneath boxes of books on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
-
Whoa.....Wait a minute Mr Mytton.... From the left side of your mouth you said the B.Y. photo meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to Marina.....
You people can't be serious, the photos that you and your kooky brethren think are so important meant absolutely nothing to Marina and why would they, Marina herself thought that Lee looked stupid and laughed at him.
But from the right side of your mouth you said....
Of course Marina would destroy any backyard photos because they showed her husband with the assassination weapon.
Was the B.Y photo significant to Marina or not?? BTW.....Would you please post the proof that the B.Y. photo shows her husband with the assassination weapon? The photo shows Lee Oswald holding a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano that is significantly different that the rifle that was well hidden beneath boxes of books on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Huh? I never said she totally forgot because she did remember taking the photos but until the assassination they were just Lee looking stupid.
JohnM
-
Huh? I never said she totally forgot because she did remember taking the photos but until the assassination they were just Lee looking stupid.
JohnM
they It ( CE 133A) were was just Lee looking stupid.
Exactly right!....Although Lee never intended the photo to appear to be a carnival silly photo....that is basically what he created in an attempt to trick the viewer into believing that he really was a well armed communist revolutionary, much like Fidel Castro.
Lee thought that the photo would be published in the news paper along with the story about how he had tried to shoot General Edwin Walker who was a very radical and outspoken foe of Fidel Castro. And in that context the photo had a small chance of fooling Castro's agents into accepting Lee Oswald as a friend of the revolution.
-
Quote from: John Mytton
Of course Marina would destroy any backyard photos because they showed her husband with the assassination weapon.
Then how come they were found?
Every time you post on this subject...your skirt keeps blowing back up in your face.
**********************************************************************
Well, if Oswald's face has been superimposed over another body, then Marina must either be a conspirator, or was coerced to lie about taking the photos, and someone else made the photos.
Where and by whom, was the film roll processed?
**************************************************************************
----------From the testimony of Robert Oswald before the Warren Commission---------
Mr. JENNER. And did she have an aversion to being interviewed by the FBI agent on this occasion?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, she did.
Mr. JENNER. And she expressed that aversion?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, she did.
*************************************************************
Mr. JENNER. By whom; Mr. Gopadze, by interpretation, interpreting Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. There, again, sir, this was knowledge given to me after their departure.
****************************************************************
Mr. JENNER. In the home?
Mr. OSWALD. In or outside of the home. I do not know whether it took place on the inside--but within the immediate grounds of the home, at least.
Mr. DULLES. And was this early in 1963? Prior, anyway, to November 1963, was it not?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct. And that this particular one agent--not the Mr. Brown I have referred to, but the other gentleman that I do not recall his name--she had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews, and my observation of this at this time, at this particular interview, was attempting to start--I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh sir.
Mr. JENNER. Harsh towards Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, Mr, it most certainly was. And by the tone of conversation by Marina to Mr. Gopadze, who was interpreting----
Mr. JENNER. In your presence?
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia .
I arose and called Mr. Mike Howard of the United States Secret Service into the back bathroom, and stated this to him. And I also stated that I realized there was some friction here between the United States Secret Service and the FBI to the extent that I was of the opinion that they did not want the FBI at that time to be aware of the tape recording that had been made of Marina N. Oswald, that she had been interviewed, in other words, by the United States Secret Service before the FBI arrived at the location.
Mr. JENNER. You mean that the Secret Service did not want the FBI to know that they had taped an interview with Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
***************************************************************
Dulles tried to cover up for the FBI...but it didn't work very well.
It seems to me that for Marina [after the assassination], it was either play ball or zap -back to the Soviet Union.
Then they would decide what to do with her kids...maybe a foster home?
-
I have asked this question for many years and have never received an answer. There is NO evidence showing that LHO ever had the BYPs deveoped anywhere.
In that case seeing as there's no evidence of anyone having developed them the BYP simply don't exist. Is that where your logic takes you?
It becomes a case of probability. Oswald was in a position to personally develop them (unlike the vast majority of citizens anywhere on the planet at that time) and would have wanted them to be developed as he had them taken in the first place. He is a strong enough suspect to make this a case of 'beyond reasonable doubt' on this issue. That is an acceptable standard of evidence. Your standard appears to be 'no one saw him develop them so it didn't happen'.
Then, to top it off ....
Hunter of fascists - ha, ha, ha.
-
Then how come they were found?
For a start you're assuming that Marina knew where the photos were or that she knew other photos even existed, and even on the off chance that she knew that they did exist when did she have the time to discreetly rummage through her husbands stuff. The realization that she had one of the backyard photos and that it needed to be destroyed was much later in the weekend because as I keep repeating the backyard photos and the act of taking them meant nothing to Marina
Every time you post on this subject...your skirt keeps blowing back up in your face.
From the logic demonstrated in your last question, you my boy have a lot to be worried about.
JohnM
-
For a start you're assuming that Marina knew where the photos were or that she knew other photos even existed, and even on the off chance that she knew that they did exist when did she have the time to discreetly rummage through her husbands stuff. The realization that she had one of the backyard photos and that it needed to be destroyed was much later in the weekend because as I keep repeating the backyard photos and the act of taking them meant nothing to Marina
Pull the skirt back now.
All [im]pure theory.
-
Baloney.
What's baloney?
That authentic unaltered television footage of Lee Harvey Oswald with the same overhead lighting as the sun shows the EXACT same chin as the backyard photos? Oops!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/kmq4jqunf/Caprioyoulose.gif)
Or that the bush next to Lee Harvey Oswald shows at least a full summers worth of growth as compared to the cut-out BY photo? Double Oops!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dks6xx1fv/bush1.gif)
Or that I supplied the evidence that you couldn't, that shows all three Backyard photos of Oswald's face and they all show the expected differences of shading, angle and facial expressions. Triple Oops.
(http://www.jfk-online.com/oz-faces-backyard.gif)
Caprio that's three strikes and you're out!
JohnM
-
The flock of parrots here say that there was no conspiracy...but that's not what the Warren Commission said.
-
The flock of parrots here say that there was no conspiracy...but that's not what the Warren Commission said.
You've really lost the plot, at first we were parrots that were parroting the Warren Commission but now we have gained the ability for independent thought and are now denying our very own Fathers, where does your nonsense go next and how are you going to dig yourself out of this hole? LOL!
JohnM
-
..how are you going to dig yourself out of this hole?
Easy...I was wrong.
I feel terrible now..... having insulted parrots :-[
-
Easy...I was wrong.
I feel terrible now..... having insulted parrots :-[
You were wrong?.....about what specifically. Was it this erroneous statement?
The flock of parrots here say that there was no conspiracy...but that's not what the Warren Commission said.
-
You were wrong?.....about what specifically.
Walt....It means-
I will no longer compare the Oswald did it alone and the was no conspiracy gang to parrots.
Parrots are pretty and intelligent birds and it is an insult to juxtapose them like that....(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/emot83.gif)
The LN crowd ignores the Warren Report statement .... "no conspiracy could be found"
Of course we know....no one looked for one.
-
Walt....It means-
I will no longer compare the Oswald did it alone and the was no conspiracy gang to parrots.
Parrots are pretty and intelligent birds and it is an insult to juxtapose them like that....(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/emot83.gif)
The LN crowd ignores the Warren Report statement .... "no conspiracy could be found"
Of course we know....no one looked for one.
Of course a conspiracy was found.....The warren commissioners knew it very early in the "investigation"...
They realized that J.Edgar Hoover was the key conspirator and he held all of the aces and a stacked deck. They knew that he was an untouchable American icon and to expose him as the lunatic that he was, would rip the very fabric of our nation ( national security was at stake) So they took the cowards way out ..... and Hoover and LBJ got away with murders....
-
You wish. I have never seen one piece of footage that shows LHO with a square chin.
Get real, nobody cares what you can't prove, in the following two videos which originated from a variety of sources, Ossy's square chin is on repeated display. You Lose!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/srb5ekkff/ossy_square_chin.jpg)
Photoshop is fun, isn't it?
No, fun is presenting irrefutable proof that reinforces that you're a paranoid maniac with delusions of grandeur.
Btw this isn't the first time you have accused me of the heinous crime of falsifying evidence and if you persist I will be forced to take further action.
JohnM
-
Photoshop is fun, isn't it? LHO had a cleft chin. End of story.
Hahaha, you lose.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/srb5ekkff/ossy_square_chin.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald was in a position to personally develop them.
Hunter of fascists - ha, ha, ha.
Perhaps referring to his being employed at Jaggars-Chiles?
With access to photographic equipment?
Oswald had no darkroom apparatus of his own besides the cameras [that I've seen]
According to the established timeline [which is worthless for the most part]] Oswald was fired the very next day after the pictures were supposedly taken.
March 31, 1963: Marina takes the infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO.
April 1, 1963: LHO is fired by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
April 2, 1963: The Oswalds attend a dinner party at the home of Ruth and Michael Paine,
where General Walker is mentioned.
April 6, 1963: LHO's last day at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
April 10, 1963: LHO (according to evidence discovered later) fires a single shot at General
Walker, which misses him.
April 12, 1963: LHO files for unemployment benefits.
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Theoretically and that is...in theory, Oswald could have printed the B.Y. photos at JCS during that week [that is highlighted]
However, it seems odd that an employer would fire someone and then give them a week to have the run of their darkroom ???
People are let go and most usually it's 'You're fired...hit the road'.
Mr Stovall of JCS was a bit more lenient ....
Gleaning another look at Oswald's occupational opportunity at JCS-----
[If the reader is not familiar with this aspect of Oswald's life]
Mr. JENNER. And it records the date of termination of Oswald's employment?
Mr. STOVALL. Right.
Mr. JENNER. The sixth day of April 1963?
Mr. STOVALL. He was given notice the latter part of March, and our company's procedure is to give a fellow a week or 10 days notice prior to the termination.
Mr. JENNER. Was his termination prospectively or otherwise discussed with you prior to it?
Mr. STOVALL. Oh probably it was--I would not say for sure whether it was or wasn't.
********************************
Mr. JENNER. What was this man's skill to the extent that you recall, in these areas in which you sought to train him?
Mr. STOVALL. He had no skill. He had no training whatsoever. You see, we employed him only as a trainee and I think we probably started him at $1.25 or $1.35, or something like that, and automatically we give a youngster a 10-or 15-cent raise quarterly, but within 6 months, if they have shown no aptitude, we give up on them and have a parting of the ways.
Mr. JENNER. And that is what happened here?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes; because we give them a raise doesn't mean that the person is competent, it means that it is just a system of employment we have when we start someone on minimum, or generally a 90-day basis, and we give them a nickel or dime, and then within a maximum of 6 months, if they have shown no aptitude, we just have to terminate them.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stova_ro.htm
As a sidepoint, Jenner told Robert Stovall no less than three times that if he wanted a copy of his statement, it would cost $.35 a page :D
John Graef was Oswald's supervisor at JCS....
Mr. Jenner- Since your earlier answer that Oswald was employed at one time in October 1962, by this company, do you have knowledge or reasonably direct information as to the circumstances leading up to his employment, and What kind of an employee he was?
Mr. Graef- That's correct--I'll have to recall as best I can.
In about October 1962, as director of our photographic department we found ourselves in need of another man, so at this time I called the Texas Employment Commission and spoke to them about sending me someone having as close as possible the abilities that might work out in our photographic department. ****
Mr. JENNER. Do you recall how he looked--how he was attired, for example, on that occasion--that's a pretty big order?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes--my memory fails me a little here, but it seems to me he wore a suit, a dark gray suit, modestly dressed and he was very businesslike and likeable.***
Mr. JENNER. You say your recollection doesn't serve you well as to his attire on this particular occasion?
Mr. GRAEF. That's correct.
Mr. JENNER. It could be that he did not have a suit--gray? A collar, or otherwise?
Mr. GRAEF. It could have been, yes, but that's just an impression that hits my mind, but I could very easily be wrong.
Mr. JENNER. Could he have had a white T-shirt and one of these lightweight zipper jackets on?
Mr. GRAEF. No--no, definitely not.
Mr. JENNER. Definitely not?
Mr. GRAEF. No.
Mr. JENNER. You have a definite recollection that he had a suit coat on?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes, his appearance was as most young men would appear in applying for a job---tend to look nice and he made a nice appearance.
Mr. JENNER. All right.
Mr. GRAEF. So, he came in----
Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, did he have a tie?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. He did have a tie?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes; I'm pretty certain he had a tie.****
Jenner seems to disbelieve the concept that LHO was capable of wearing a suit and that he always appeared [everywhere he went] as some kind of bum. Oswald wore a white collar shirt and tie as he passed out leaflets in New Orleans.
Mr. JENNER. What inquiries did you make of him with respect to your qualifications for this position--his prior experience, if any?
Mr. GRAEF. None--none. I assumed that--now, he was sent over, if I remember right--I was also told by this Mrs. Latham, something about that he had perhaps some photographic experience in the Marines or there was some--there was some quality there that helped. And I believe it was that he had had a little bit of photograph experience in the Marines that might be helpful. In other words, he was a little familiar with the processing of film and so forth and, of course, this would add a little weight to his becoming a successful employee.
Mr. JENNER. And it might even have been that if this man had no photographic experience whatsoever, but seemed--well, let's say clean cut and eager and intelligent, just out of the Marines and seeking to obtain employment and settle down, that that might have been sufficient qualifications for you?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes--if, of course, there was no one with any better promise that came along.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
Mr. GRAEF. There have been several times when we have needed someone, when they would send two or three people over, and it was necessary for us to pick someone who had practically no experience in this work because you don't find anyone who is experienced in the type work we do. It is a very highly specialized trade.
The best you can hope to find is perhaps, and I'll tell you as I told this Mrs. Latham, the person that stands the best chance of success is perhaps someone who is industrious, willing to work, and not afraid of work, who perhaps has some artistic ability, because the area is opaquing of negatives with brushes and so forth, and possibly has some photographic experience, where they may know about paper and at least there will be some processes that they may have already learned or become familiar with and we won't have to begin from the very beginning.
Mr. JENNER. You are talking about photographic paper?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. For example, some young man who has had an abiding interest in amateur photography, in developing his own film----
Mr. GRAEF. That's correct, and so you see he would become familiar with quite a few things in his hobby that he would know about when he came to work for us. We wouldn't have to start from the very beginning and say, "Now, this is film, and this is paper," and the difference between the two and start from the very beginning. So, to explain a little bit about why I didn't make any inquiries, I didn't frankly feel that any were necessary.*****
Mr. JENNER. Do you recall inquiring of him the extent, if any, of his skills with respect to photography and his experience in that connection, if any?
Mr. GRAEF. I don't recall; no. I believe I may have because this would be one of the normal things I would do in an interview. I think that he exhibited enough, as I recall--I think he exhibited enough knowledge that there again--about photography, that there was no curiosity raised on my part that he didn't know about it.***
Mr. JENNER. Does this include color work?
Mr. GRAEF. No; all black and white.***
Mr. JENNER. Now, I put words in your mouth that he was discharged?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes; he was discharged.
Mr. JENNER. Did you discuss this with him?
Mr. GRAEF. I did.
Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us about that, please?
Mr. GRAEF. His record, as all this has brought out was--adding up to where he was not a desirable employee. His relationships with other employees had reached the point where no one that I know of was really friendly or liked him. His work as we progressed into the more intricate details of our production, didn't improve and it began to be evident after all the training that we had given up to this point that now that he was in a position where he should be able to produce jobs, actually he was not able to do so, and after a reasonable----
Mr. JENNER. Was there ever any thought in your mind as to his ability ultimately to be able to do so?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes; I reached the opinion that he would not have--he would never be the kind of an employee that I was looking for.....***
... you can make a mistake on one job or two jobs, and you always feel like you must--"Let's try it one more time," and this was my thought, because after all, there had been several months passed where we had brought him up to this point and I feel we gave him every chance or tried to give him every chance to make a success, and still he was falling down and making these mistakes--sizing errors-- and camerawork.
When he had to make these things over, he would be mad at himself. He would go back and shoot it again, but it is obvious that he was taking twice as long when these things happened to produce one job because he was having to do the whole thing over again to get it right, that it couldn't be tolerated for much longer.
About this time, I think it was in April, we had a fluctuation in business--it dropped and I thought, "Well, this is the time to let Lee Harvey Oswald--to let him go, so I called him back into the darkroom one day and I said, "Lee, business is"----
Mr. JENNER. When you say this conversation took place in the darkroom, was the room dark?
Mr. GRAEF. There were dim red lights.
Mr. JENNER. Why did you call him back in the darkroom rather than some other place?
Mr. GRAEF. At the time it was the--I didn't want to embarrass the boy.
Mr. JENNER. This was a private talk?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.****
.... I would have had to say something about his relations with other employees.
Mr. JENNER. And that would have been somewhat negative?
Mr. GRAEF. That's correct; but he did try to become a worker. It wasn't that he wasn't industrious---he was not lazy. He, to the best of his ability, tried but the ability was not there....
......By this time you see, this 6 months had elapsed and at this time work was suffering and he at this time--it was definite that he had no friends. Everyone couldn't be wrong, and so all of this evidence weighed against the decision to keep him on as an employee.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/graef.htm
So Oswald was terminated from JCS after a 6-7 month career...didn't cut the mustard...couldn't carry the ball.....nobody liked him.
Supposedly [four days later] Oswald takes a shot at a US Army general while sitting at his desk and misses. And here I thought he was a crack shot.
охотник фашистов ха ха ха----Hunter of fascists - ha, ha, ha.
I don't think they ever found out who wrote that.
-
Perhaps referring to his being employed at Jaggars-Chiles?
With access to photographic equipment?
Oswald had no darkroom apparatus of his own besides the cameras [that I've seen]
According to the established timeline [which is worthless for the most part]] Oswald was fired the very next day after the pictures were supposedly taken.http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Theoretically and that is...in theory, Oswald could have printed the B.Y. photos at JCS during that week [that is highlighted]
However, it seems odd that an employer would fire someone and then give them a week to have the run of their darkroom ???
People are let go and most usually it's 'You're fired...hit the road'.
Mr Stovall of JCS was a bit more lenient ....
Gleaning another look at Oswald's occupational opportunity at JCS-----
[If the reader is not familiar with this aspect of Oswald's life]
********************************http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stova_ro.htm
As a sidepoint, Jenner told Robert Stovall no less than three times that if he wanted a copy of his statement, it would cost $.35 a page :D
John Graef was Oswald's supervisor at JCS....
Jenner seems to disbelieve the concept that LHO was capable of wearing a suit and that he always appeared [everywhere he went] as some kind of bum. Oswald wore a white collar shirt and tie as he passed out leaflets in New Orleans.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/graef.htm
So Oswald was terminated from JCS after a 6-7 month career...didn't cut the mustard...couldn't carry the ball.....nobody liked him.
Supposedly [four days later] Oswald takes a shot at a US Army general while sitting at his desk and misses. And here I thought he was a crack shot.I don't think they ever found out who wrote that.
Theoretically and that is...in theory, Oswald could have printed the B.Y. photos at JCS during that week [that is highlighted]
However, it seems odd that an employer would fire someone and then give them a week to have the run of their darkroom ???
People are let go and most usually it's 'You're fired...hit the road'.
Mr Stovall of JCS was a bit more lenient ....
Gleaning another look at Oswald's occupational opportunity at JCS-----
[If the reader is not familiar with this aspect of Oswald's life]
Are you aware that Lee went to work at JCS after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962......??? Are you aware that JCS had a contract with the USG to work with photos taken from U-2 planes?
Lee wasn't fired from JCS....He was released so that he would be free to work on the plot to make the ruse attempt on General Walker's life.
-
You're obviously clueless about how the legal system works. No surprise there. If you can't support the claim that LHO had the BYP taken and developed, and you can't, then legally they don't exist as evidence. You're sunk. 🚣
It isn't what Caprio doesn't know about the legal system that is concerning. It's what he knows for certain that just isn't so that is really alarming.
-
(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2014-Josephs/pic8.gif)
-
Another clue that the head of Oswald was pasted onto another body might be...
Notice that there is a distinct bump on the gunman's right wrist.
Roscoe White had such a bump.
Find another photo of Oswald that has a bump...I'd like to see it.
(http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/mar,_63-11.jpg)
-
Also....
If a an application parallel with the stairs... buildings... the gate...the rest of the world is utilized...one can easily tell that the fake image is out of kilter --
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/Fourbrick/Back%20yard%20photosCE133Aperspective_zpshb3oewgs.jpg)
-
It isn't what Caprio doesn't know about the legal system that is concerning. It's what he knows for certain that just isn't so that is really alarming.
Surely you mean what he thinks he knows for certain
-
Also....
If a an application parallel with the stairs... buildings... the gate...the rest of the world is utilized...one can easily tell that the fake image is out of kilter --
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/Fourbrick/Back%20yard%20photosCE133Aperspective_zpshb3oewgs.jpg)
And he is leaning to his right which is ideologically inconsistent
-
And he is leaning to his right which is ideologically inconsistent
But the murder weapon is to his left... the weight of which shifts his centre of balance to his left
That photo was the closest he ever got to stability
;D
-
Also....
If a an application parallel with the stairs... buildings... the gate...the rest of the world is utilized...one can easily tell that the fake image is out of kilter --
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/Fourbrick/Back%20yard%20photosCE133Aperspective_zpshb3oewgs.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/8733ournf/116780857.jpg)
JohnM
-
Hahaha, you wish. Your Photoshop tricks aren't fooling anyone. LHO had a cleft chin. End of story.
Naughty naughty, you removed my graphic that I took directly from public domain TV footage from the post you replied to and no wonder because it proves Oswald's square chin in the background pix is just a lighting effect.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/srb5ekkff/ossy_square_chin.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/kmq4jqunf/Caprioyoulose.gif)
And this of course nothing new, Hollywood and Professional Photographers have known for decades that overhead lighting creates a strong jawline.
Look at the similarities of Arnie's photos to Oswald in the backyard, the darkened shadowed eyes, the triangular shadow under the nose and the square jawline!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ua3bs7bd7/squarechinsa.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://s15.postimg.cc/8733ournf/116780857.jpg)
JohnM
LOL. I've experienced that position more than once, as I've slipped in winter while carrying heavy bags of groceries a few times. The groceries acted as a counterweight and kept me from falling down.
-
LOL. I've experienced that position more than once, as I've slipped in winter while carrying heavy bags of groceries a few times. The groceries acted as a counterweight and kept me from falling down.
I'd love you to explain how the bag the guy in the photo is carrying is acting as a counterweight.
-
I'd love you to explain how the bag the guy in the photo is carrying is acting as a counterweight.
It's got helium balloons in it lifting him to an upright position.
-
It's got helium balloons in it lifting him to an upright position.
Ahhhh...at last.... A glimmer of intelligence from Mr Howsley.....
-
I'd love you to explain how the guy is acting.
There, I fixed it. It is not an 'act'. That is how he walks.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/4b/bb/624bbbf5b3c8a293950c8ed24a0c4eef.jpg)
-
Naughty, naughty. You're using Photoshop images again. LHO had a cleft chin. End of story.
So no proof of my alleged "photoshopping", well that was to be expected because you never provide proof of anything.
The screen grabbed images in my collage of Oswald's light affected chin is on full display in the following public domain videos.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/srb5ekkff/ossy_square_chin.jpg)
Btw do you even know what a photoshop is?
JohnM
-
Maybe it's a reversible chin.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/crowded-by-police-and-members-of-the-press-the-accused-assassin-of-picture-id161580312?k=6&m=161580312&s=612x612&w=0&h=CqamDDexEhdjyZKWWjXf4kbbqq19d7EtGdXxbIC-0YI=)
-
Is that a watch on the left wrist?
Oswald wore a watch?
Where are other pictures of Ozzy wearing a watch?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
-
Is that a watch on the left wrist?
Oswald wore a watch?
Where are other pictures of Ozzy wearing a watch?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
(https://russianlife.com/default/cache/file/A6839FBC-E56A-5853-C4D63AB0BDA9CF2B.jpg)
JohnM
-
So have all the questions been answered by Mytton yet? :D
-
So have all the questions been answered by Mytton yet? :D
The watch has been. I guess if he hadn't posted that photo there'd be CTers declaring proof that the BYP is fake as Oswald had never been seen wearing a watch.
It's unreasonable for lazy people to expect John to scoot around posting stuff that could have easily been found by genuine amateur researchers yet criticize him if he doesn't.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D1F_G5ku7KM/hqdefault.jpg)
A more up to date photo....
Is that a watch or a bracelet?
-
Oswald wore a watch in the USSR...looks like-
Can we find this routine stateside?
When did he stop using a wristwatch and start wearing a bracelet?
(https://practicallyhistorical.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald2.gif?w=500)
-
Is that a watch on the left wrist?
Oswald wore a watch?
Where are other pictures of Ozzy wearing a watch?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
Can we zoom in on that watch? Can we compare it to the watch that Lee was wearing in the photo taken in Minsk?
Is it my imagination or does the man's arm seem more muscular in this photo (133c) than in CE 133A ??
-
So have all the questions been answered by Mytton yet?
The watch has been.
A quick answer but then as you can see.............
This case is like a Hydra.
For every answer...two more questions pop up.
Another glance....................................
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6gjQjazkBZg/VxhZwWiV6sI/AAAAAAAAtrU/vRsrGOXr6u8zR_gyL2bxvcRjlddmYRSYwCKgB/s1600/Screen%2BCaptures1.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JQ98S7qsImI/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Just what are your two questions? I hope it's nothing about Oswald sometimes being seen with a watch and other times not. That would be lame.
-
Oswald wore a watch in the USSR...looks like-
Can we find this routine stateside?
When did he stop using a wristwatch and start wearing a bracelet?
(https://practicallyhistorical.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald2.gif?w=500)
Why is this even important? The issue is just another line into nothingness.
I can offer two possible reasons for wearing the bracelet and not a watch straight off the top of my head.
1. The strap broke and he was too cheap to have it replaced.
2. Maybe he started wearing the bracelet once he opened the gift box and saw it inside just before giving Marina a punch in the mouth a peck on the cheek.
-
Why is this even important? The issue is just another line into nothingness.
I can offer two possible reasons for wearing the bracelet and not a watch straight off the top of my head.
1. The strap broke and he was too cheap to have it replaced.
2. Maybe he started wearing the bracelet once he opened the gift box and saw it inside just before giving Marina a punch in the mouth a peck on the cheek.
Steve you really should think a bit more rationally and refrain from allowing your unmitigated bias against Lee Oswald from blinding you to the truth.
-
Steve you really should think a bit more rationally and refrain from allowing your unmitigated bias against Lee Oswald from blinding you to the truth.
Apparently trying to convince himself of something.
-
Here is my 1st of 5 smoking gun questions for the LNers re the BYPs, each will be more uncomfortable for them than the prev:
Setup
March 31, 1963: Marina takes at least 5 infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO and burns 1. (Originally she recalled only taking 1).
April 5, 1963: Date written on back of 5"x5" print of CE 133-A allegedly written by Oswald and given to George de Mohrenschildt.
The two prints originally found among Oswald?s possessions were described by the HSCA panel as ?drugstore or photofinisher prints because they appeared to have been produced on the type of commercial photo printing machine used by photofinishers for camera stores, drugstores and mass-produced prints.? The prints are small 3?x3?, with a white border and markings consistent with an automated commercial machine.
The de Mohrenschildt print is larger 5?x5? and described as ?probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens? due to its increased resolution. The panel notes that ?the entire negative area is printed? (showing more picture than the cropped ?drugstore? print), and that the print had yellowed, ?indicating that it was not adequately fixed or washed during the development process?.
So correct me if I'm wrong, Oswald had the film roll developed in a drugstore, cut up the negatives into single frames and had at least 1 print made of CE 133-A in a photo-lab, wrote an inscription on the back and gave it to his handler George de Mohrenschildt all in less than 5 days.
My question
What drugstore back in 63 had a turnaround time of a couple of days so that Oswald could take the negative to a photo-lab to create de Mohrenschildt's print, which also had a turnaround time of only a couple of days?
-
My question
What drugstore back in 63 had a turnaround time of a couple of days ...?
JT..I would believe that if something as famous as the backyard pictures had been processed at a commercial lab...they would have been recognized by some employee somewhere down the line.
They were put together to vilify Oswald before the public.
-
No one has explained why the watch and bracelet are important. That's what was questioned here. I say it's not an issue at all. What are the deeply mysterious possibilities?
You've got empty questions that can't be answered definitely which you think is evidence of what? It amounts to three parts of SFA.
-
How does making up a name make a difference?,
Someone somewhere has to apply advanced scientific principles to current methodology to create a more visual representation and that person is me!
JohnM
You're just someone who found the "fade" feature on your image editor. Otherwise, exactly what scientific principles to current methodology are you advancing? You do realize that every interleaved frame is a cheat, right? Every frame between the 2 originals is interpolated/interleaved and not real. All these morphing algorithms look good but are they meaningful?
For example, the 2 photos found in LHO's possession, CE 133-A,B were taken with the same camera at the same approximate distance from the camera by [insert photographer], correct? I used your fade technique to scale Oswald's head to the same size for both photos. But look how his body becomes the Hulk in 133-A. The head/body proportions are out, big time.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
Question 2 of 5
What do you attribute this head/body proportion discrepancy to: perspective (explain), lens distortion, different lenses, or jiggery-pokery? You're the self proclaimed image expert here, what say you?
-
JT..I would believe that if something as famous as the backyard pictures had been processed at a commercial lab...they would have been recognized by some employee somewhere down the line.
They were put together to vilify Oswald before the public.
The HSCA thought they were processed in a commercial lab...in 2-3 days.
-
As a side note to the BYPs regarding the obvious sheep-dipping of LHO...
From Jeff Carter:
The Identification Bureau would create copies from the negatives, including an 8x10 enlargement of the backyard photo later identified as 133A (CE134). An hour later, at approximately 6 PM, Lee Oswald underwent another round of questioning and was confronted with the enlargement. Oswald rejects it as a fake, claiming ?somebody has superimposed my face on that picture? (Rose WC testimony). Oswald is subsequently shown the found print of the second photograph, 133-B, which he dismisses as simply a smaller version of the larger doctored print. He accuses the Dallas police of being responsible for the creation of a fake photograph and states he will not discuss this photograph further without the advice of an attorney. Oswald assures his interrogators that he was familiar with photographic processes and would, in the fullness of time, demonstrate the technique used to create this composite.
At this same time, the content of the photos was being leaked to reporters. The Dallas Police had been under pressure all day to explain their certainty the suspect was indeed the president?s assassin. At a press scrum,
Police Chief Jesse Curry?s announcement of the other big discovery of the day, the Klein?s order letter for the mail order rifle, was upstaged by inquiries regarding these photos:
Q. These are the photographs of the revolver and the rifle?
A. There is a photograph of him with a revolver on his hip and holding a rifle in his hand.
Q. Does it look like the one you have, that you think is the murder weapon?
A. It does.
Q. Does it have a telescopic sight?
A. It does.
Q. Is he aware of this?
A. I don?t believe he knows all this as yet. I think the captain is talking to him about this at the present time ...
Q. Did he have in his hand a copy of the communist publication The Worker? With a headline ?Be Militant??
A. It seems there?s two papers there. On one you can see the words Be Militant. On the other you see The Worker ...
Q. Do you consider the case shut tight now, Chief?
A. We will continue to work on it and get every shred of evidence that?s possible.
Whether Oswald smuggled in a disassembled rifle into the TSBD or not, this is why the scope was kept on the rifle. To match the BYPs.
-
Question 3 of 5 re the infamous photo CE 133-C!
Setup
There were actually 3 known prints of infamous CE 133-C found in the possession of Stovall, Dees and Roscoe White of the DPD, who must have somehow got access to the negative of 133-C to be able to make several prints. However, this negative was never admitted into evidence, yet was used by the DPD for inexplicable re-enactments in 1964 using a "cutout" of 133-C. The "cutout" will be the subject of question 4 of 5.
Question
The HSCA claimed there should be a ?drugstore? print of 133-C as well, which has never come to light. So how did the DPD get the negative for CE 133-C if it was not found in Oswald's possession and why was CE 133-C not admitted into evidence?
-
JT..I would believe that if something as famous as the backyard pictures had been processed at a commercial lab...they would have been recognized by some employee somewhere down the line.
They were put together to vilify Oswald before the public.
Jerry, I agree. What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"? Baaa. (including a rifle with a useless scope). Give me a break.
-
Jerry, I agree. What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"? Baaa. (including a rifle with a useless scope). Give me a break.
Unless his controllers wanted him too
-
Unless his controllers wanted him too
That's known as "sheep-dipping an agent", which is essentially grooming them to take the fall. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent drawn from the fake defector program to be the designated patsy for the coup. The only thing I'm not sure of is when Oswald realized he was being double-crossed and went "rouge".
However, anyway you slice it, LHO was NOT a lone nut, so get over it LNers.
-
What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"?
What big event? The Walker shooting? That was always a possibility but not the murder of JFK. How could Oswald or any conspirator have foreseen Dallas and the TBD months in advance?
Why would Oswald have wanted pictures? Because he was a BIG man in his own estimation. When he looked in the mirror he saw a hero.
-
What big event? The Walker shooting? That was always a possibility but not the murder of JFK. How could Oswald or any conspirator have foreseen Dallas and the TBD months in advance?
Why would Oswald have wanted pictures? Because he was a BIG man in his own estimation. When he looked in the mirror he saw a hero.
Really? The "Big Event" is what E. Howard Hunt called it on his death bed. Why would he lie?
-
Really? The "Big Event" is what E. Howard Hunt called it on his death bed. Why would he lie?
Why wouldn't he lie? Impending death isn't a guarantee of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth passing someone's lips.
-
Why wouldn't he lie? Impending death isn't a guarantee of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth passing someone's lips.
He wasn't the only one that called it the "Big Event".
-
He wasn't the only one that called it the "Big Event".
Hunt was a professional liar. It was as much a part of his job as a kid in McDonald's saying "have a nice day" to every customer.
-
Hunt was a professional liar. It was as much a part of his job as a kid in McDonald's saying "have a nice day" to every customer.
Have you no other response to my posts other than Hunt was a pro liar? What did Hunt have to gain on his death bed from lying, especially if it implicated him in a coup?
-
Have you no other response to my posts other than Hunt was a pro liar? What did Hunt have to gain on his death bed from lying, especially if it implicated him in a coup?
Notoriety? Exactly what Oswald hoped for except Oswald thought it would be fame. Actually, he did achieve fame with some people whereas I see it as downright dog act infamy.
-
Hunt was a professional liar. It was as much a part of his job as a kid in McDonald's saying "have a nice day" to every customer.
Hunt's family seemed to say he was drugged up as well, on his death bed, not too coherent and may have been led on in what he said.
Hunt actually wrote a number of spy novels, I read one of them. This shows he had a creative mind.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q9feFiCsL._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_.jpg)
-
Hunt's family seemed to say he was drugged up as well, on his death bed, not too coherent and may have been led on in what he said.
Hunt actually wrote a number of spy novels, I read one of them. This shows he had a creative mind.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q9feFiCsL._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_.jpg)
Was the book any good?
-
Was the book any good?
Only the dumbest, most desparate CTers believe that Hunt deathbed nonsense. Even conspiracy sites like JFKFacts and Mary Ferrell pretty much trash it.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Confession_of_Howard_Hunt.html
-
Jerry, I agree. What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before ....
Consider the source of that timing==Marina.
They could have been produced 3 weeks before the assassination for all we really know.
-
Why would Oswald have wanted pictures? Because he was a BIG man in his own estimation. When he looked in the mirror he saw a hero.
Conjecture
-
Notoriety? Exactly what Oswald hoped for except Oswald thought it would be fame. Actually, he did achieve fame with some people whereas I see it as downright dog act infamy.
Speculation
-
Jerry, I agree. What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"? Baaa. (including a rifle with a useless scope). Give me a break.
A nut like Oswald. In addition, at the time the BY photos were taken, Oswald had no clue that he would be assassinating JFK. He wouldn't have known that until he found out around Nov. 19 that JFK was visiting Dallas and would pass his place of work. And do you think Oswald anticipated getting away with this crime? LOL. Death or arrest was part of the equation in committing that act and Oswald knew it. It didn't matter how much evidence he left behind. If he didn't want to pay the price, his only real option was not to commit the crime.
-
A nut like Oswald. In addition ...
Additional blah blah.
Assumptions all based on nothing.
-
Was the book any good?
Yes, dime store novels.
-
Additional blah blah.
Assumptions all based on nothing.
This is the kind of high-level CT response that really sheds light on how someone can be a CTer by dismissing inconvenient reality. A poster claims Oswald would not have posed for the BY photos prior to the assassination because they are incriminatory. When it is pointed out that at the time the photos were taken, Oswald didn't have a clue that he would be assassinating JFK because he didn't even know at that time that JFK would be coming to Dallas or that he would be working in building overlooking the motorcade, that factual point is somehow deemed an "assumption." As though the timeline of events is not based on chronology but speculation.
-
Now that Oswald's chin, nostrils, and watch have been covered, I hope Caprio moves on to other important matters like whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs and asks us to prove where he purchased them. Giving new meaning to supporting evidence.
-
This is the kind of high-level CT response that really sheds light on how someone can be a CTer by dismissing inconvenient reality. A poster claims Oswald would not have posed for the BY photos prior to the assassination because they are incriminatory. When it is pointed out that at the time the photos were taken, Oswald didn't have a clue that he would be assassinating JFK because he didn't even know at that time that JFK would be coming to Dallas or that he would be working in building overlooking the motorcade, that factual point is somehow deemed an "assumption." As though the timeline of events is not based on chronology but speculation.
Interested Richard how you know what was in Oswald's mind Maybe he took the job at TSBD because it fit perfectly on something he was already working on
-
A nut like Oswald. In addition, at the time the BY photos were taken, Oswald had no clue that he would be assassinating JFK.
That's because he was not a lone nut and didn't assassinate JFK. He may or may not have known he was being sheep-dipped to be the patsy. Or maybe he was telling the truth that the BYPs were faked and the DPD superimposed his face on another body. It's simple to edit a photo this way then take a picture of the doctored print to remove any signs of tampering. The DPD and SS were definitely up to dark room shenanigans. Roscoe White had extensive experience faking photos in the dark room.
But Roscoe wasn't savvy enough to scale Oswald's head consistently with his body for CE 133-A & B:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
He wouldn't have known that until he found out around Nov. 19 that JFK was visiting Dallas and would pass his place of work.
Oswald didn't need to know anything about the Big Event to be the patsy. His handlers could have told him anything to stage the backyard photos, which made them fake whether he actually posed for them or not. At the very least they were contrived.
And do you think Oswald anticipated getting away with this crime? LOL.
What crime? LOL. He was the patsy that never even took a shot.
Death or arrest was part of the equation in committing that act and Oswald knew it.
How do you know this?
It didn't matter how much evidence he left behind. If he didn't want to pay the price, his only real option was not to commit the crime.
He didn't commit the crime. He was the patsy. The conspirators would never rely on Oswald to commit the crime. Token shots were taken from the TSBD with the Mauser, but not by Oswald. The MC was already planted by then, otherwise, after the shooting Oswald would have found a rag, wiped off ALL the prints from the rifle, ditched it, then ran down 4 flights of stairs, bought himself a coke in under 90 seconds, without breaking a sweat. Tell me why that is more likely.
-
That's because he was not a lone nut and didn't assassinate JFK. He may or may not have known he was being sheep-dipped to be the patsy. Or maybe he was telling the truth that the BYPs were faked and the DPD superimposed his face on another body. It's simple to edit a photo this way then take a picture of the doctored print to remove any signs of tampering. The DPD and SS were definitely up to dark room shenanigans. Roscoe White had extensive experience faking photos in the dark room.
But Roscoe wasn't savvy enough to scale Oswald's head consistently with his body for CE 133-A & B:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
Oswald didn't need to know anything about the Big Event to be the patsy. His handlers could have told him anything to stage the backyard photos, which made them fake whether he actually posed for them or not. At the very least they were contrived.
What crime? LOL. He was the patsy that never even took a shot.
How do you know this?
He didn't commit the crime. He was the patsy. The conspirators would never rely on Oswald to commit the crime. Token shots were taken from the TSBD with the Mauser, but not by Oswald. The MC was already planted by then, otherwise, after the shooting Oswald would have found a rag, wiped off ALL the prints from the rifle, ditched it, then ran down 4 flights of stairs, bought himself a coke in under 90 seconds, without breaking a sweat. Tell me why that is more likely.
That is quite a yarn. I'm surprised you haven't taken this to the NY Times and won a pultizer prize for solving the assassination of the president. All you lack is any real evidence. Honestly, I hope you don't believe any of that. Experts - and not the type of self-proclaimed "researchers" who frequent these boards - have confirmed without any doubt that the photos are not faked. That has been put to rest. But I was addressing your point that Oswald would not have posed for these photos had he been the JFK assassin. That argument is entirely without merit since at the time they were taken Oswald had no clue that he would assassinate JFK. As a result, why would be care at the time they were taken if they showed him with the rifle in a nutty pose? His intent at that time appears to have been to cultivate an image of himself as a pro-commie revolutionary to gain entry to Cuba. So the photos worked perfectly in Oswald's demented narrative of himself. He was a kook. Doing what kooks do. Exactly the type of nut who might take his gun to work when he became aware that the opportunity to assassinate the president had fallen right into his lap.
-
Interested Richard how you know what was in Oswald's mind Maybe he took the job at TSBD because it fit perfectly on something he was already working on
Why would I have to know what was in "Oswald's mind" to reach this conclusion? It's just a matter of the limits of what could be known at the time that specific events occurred. The BY photos were taken before Oswald or anyone had a clue that he would be working at the TSBD or that JFK would be coming to Dallas later that year. In fact, Oswald was trying to leave the country for Cuba. As a result, Oswald could not have taken into consideration the implications of the photos in the context of the JFK assassination. Thus, suggesting that the photos are somehow evidence of his innocence because the real assassin would never have implicated himself by posing for such pictures is not only absurd but actually impossible given the sequence of events (i.e. Oswald poses for the BY photos in March but doesn't learn of the JFK visit/motorcade until Nov.)
-
That is quite a yarn. I'm surprised you haven't taken this to the NY Times and won a pultizer prize for solving the assassination of the president. All you lack is any real evidence. Honestly, I hope you don't believe any of that. Experts - and not the type of self-proclaimed "researchers" who frequent these boards - have confirmed without any doubt that the photos are not faked. That has been put to rest.
You don't have a clue, do you? The DPD supposedly found 2 negatives (they lied) and only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for. HSCA analysed this negative and 7 various prints that had been made from 3 negatives. They found no sign of fakery.
Didn't you read/comprehend my post that it is simple to fool analysts by creating new negatives by photographing doctored prints? The film grain is consistent and all trace of tampering goes poof. You need to get out more.
But I was addressing your point that Oswald would not have posed for these photos had he been the JFK assassin. That argument is entirely without merit since at the time they were taken Oswald had no clue that he would assassinate JFK.
I never claimed that and it was not my argument. Lee's handler didn't have to tell him what he was being sheep-dipped for. Get it?
As a result, why would be care at the time they were taken if they showed him with the rifle in a nutty pose? His intent at that time appears to have been to cultivate an image of himself as a pro-commie revolutionary to gain entry to Cuba.
Who exactly were these photos for then? Roscoe White, de Mohrenschildt? How were they going to advance his lone nut pro-commie agenda? LOL
So the photos worked perfectly in Oswald's demented narrative of himself. He was a kook. Doing what kooks do. Exactly the type of nut who might take his gun to work when he became aware that the opportunity to assassinate the president had fallen right into his lap.
Thank you Dr. Freud. We all know who the kook is here. But you are right about 1 thing, JFK did fall right into his lap. Imagine that.
-
But Roscoe wasn't savvy enough ....
JT...Those pictures were sufficient enough to accomplish the purpose of vilifying Oswald as the assassin. I concede that it was done quite professionally.
Posted by: Richard Smith
Now that Oswald's chin, nostrils, and watch have been covered, I hope Caprio moves on to other important matters like whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs and asks us to prove where he purchased them. Giving new meaning to supporting evidence.
Supporting evidence would also include a whichever jock strap?
Rick's contributions are just absolutely underwhelming.
-
JT...Those pictures were sufficient enough to accomplish the purpose of vilifying Oswald as the assassin. I concede that it was done quite professionally.
Posted by: Richard Smith
Supporting evidence would also include a whichever jock strap?
Rick's contributions are just absolutely underwhelming.
Those pictures were sufficient enough to accomplish the purpose of vilifying Oswald as the assassin.
Those pictures??..... There was only ONE photo originally.....And that photo by itself was NOT sufficient to convict Lee Oswald in the public's mind ...and that's why the authorities kept it hidden from the public. Lee Oswald immediately pronounced the photo they showed him to be a fake... They reasoned that if Lee Oswald spotted the fakery so quickly then they dare not show the photo to the public where there were thousands of photo analysts who might also spot the fakery...( What the dunder neads failed to realize was Lee KNEW what the photo that he had Marina take looked like because he had worked with that photo CE 133A)....So naturally when they showed him 133c he knew it was a fake.
The authorities finally released the photo ( CE 133A ) on the cover of Life Magazine. where is was displayed like a post Office wanted fugitive flyer and captioned...Lee Harvey Oswald with the guns he used to kill President Kennedy and Officer JD Tippit.
If viewers had just used their own God given brain they would have laughed at the ridiculous carnival photo aspect of the amateur attempt to trick the viewer into believing the man in the photo was a armed and ready communist revolutionary.
-
Still waiting for a brave LNer to take a stab at my 1st question...
Setup
March 31, 1963: Marina takes at least 5 infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO and burns 1. (Originally she recalled only taking 1).
April 5, 1963: Date written on back of 5"x5" print of CE 133-A allegedly written by Oswald and given to George de Mohrenschildt.
The two prints originally found among Oswald?s possessions were described by the HSCA panel as ?drugstore or photofinisher prints because they appeared to have been produced on the type of commercial photo printing machine used by photofinishers for camera stores, drugstores and mass-produced prints.? The prints are small 3?x3?, with a white border and markings consistent with an automated commercial machine.
The de Mohrenschildt print is larger 5?x5? and described as ?probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens? due to its increased resolution. The panel notes that ?the entire negative area is printed? (showing more picture than the cropped ?drugstore? print), and that the print had yellowed, ?indicating that it was not adequately fixed or washed during the development process?.
So correct me if I'm wrong, Oswald had the film roll developed in a drugstore, cut up the negatives into single frames and had at least 1 print made of CE 133-A in a photo-lab, wrote an inscription on the back and gave it to his handler George de Mohrenschildt all in less than 5 days.
My question
What drugstore back in 63 had a turnaround time of a couple of days so that Oswald could take the negative to a photo-lab to create de Mohrenschildt's print, which also had a turnaround time of only a couple of days?
-
But Roscoe wasn't savvy enough to scale Oswald's head consistently with his body for CE 133-A & B:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
Wow, so you've matched two heads and then say that the bodies don't match, are you for real?
Btw thanks for the animation, it shows Oswald's head in two distinct orientations, Caprio won't be pleased!
In fact the more that I look at the gif the more logical differences become apparent, like when the head rotates backwards the nose shadow is affected and becomes longer, similarly the eye shadows are also affected, the ears and the respective shadows rotate slightly and the chin shadow is affected by the slight variation.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim3.gif)
JohnM
-
I never claimed that and it was not my argument. Lee's handler didn't have to tell him what he was being sheep-dipped for. Get it?
Here is what you posted: "What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"? Baaa. (including a rifle with a useless scope). Give me a break." I can realize why you want to runaway from it now, but the fact remains that you suggested that Oswald would not have posed for the BY photos in March while contemplating the JFK assassination 8 months later. Thus, they must be faked. What you apparently failed to understand is that Oswald had no clue at the time the photos were taken that he would be assassinating JFK. Get it?
-
I almost forgot this...
The rifle doesn't match with the shadows against the body
and of course: "Clumpy the Hand"
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
This is CE 133B....And there's no doubt that it's a fake. The question is WHO? altered the photo?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
Why does everybody overlook the most obvious indication of photo tampering in CE 133B?? The black triangle on the fence was added when the background was used in creating a photo..... The black triangle was added beside the man's right thigh to enhance the rifle and make it more visible in the photo. The photo apparently didn't meet the approval of the "artist" and it was destroyed but he forgot that he had added the bit of rifle butt to the background when he created CE 133B.......
-
Also.. in this one it looks like a dog is sticking it's nose through the gate.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
-
Also.. in this one it looks like a dog is sticking it's nose through the gate.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
Yes that is what I was referring to.....The black triangle on the fence....It is actually something that the "artist" added to another photo (similar to CE 133A with he rifle at an angle across the body)) in which he used the background .....The rifle didn't show up well against the black trousers so he added a couple of inches of stock that protruded out past the right leg and that showed up well against the white fence in the background. But apparently he didn't like the results of his photo alteration and destroyed that photo.....But he used the same background when he created CE 133B and he forgot to white out that that bit of rifle butt on the fence.....
And you are 100% correct in pointing out the shadow of the rifle on the ground is totally askance and it dos not correspond to the angle the rifle as it is being held in CE 133B.
The ONLY photo that is genuine is CE 133A..... That's the photo that Marina took and that's the photo that Lee autographed for his handler, George De Morhenschildt.
-
BY photos found at the Paine house
At 4:30 PM (CST) November 23, 1963, the Dallas Police Identification Bureau received two negatives matching photographic prints showing ?Lee Harvey Oswald holding rifle with scope.? Earlier in the afternoon, Dallas Police detectives had undertaken a second search at Ruth Paine?s home in Irving, Texas, concentrating on the small one-car garage where seabags, suitcases and boxes belonging to Lee Oswald were stored. The Investigation Report (CE Stovall D) states ?found by Dets. Rose was two snapshots and negatives showing Oswald holding the rifle (murder weapon) and wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip (Tippitt murder weapon).?
-
BY photos found at the Paine house
At 4:30 PM (CST) November 23, 1963, the Dallas Police Identification Bureau received two negatives matching photographic prints showing ?Lee Harvey Oswald holding rifle with scope.? Earlier in the afternoon, Dallas Police detectives had undertaken a second search at Ruth Paine?s home in Irving, Texas, concentrating on the small one-car garage where seabags, suitcases and boxes belonging to Lee Oswald were stored. The Investigation Report (CE Stovall D) states ?found by Dets. Rose was two snapshots and negatives showing Oswald holding the rifle (murder weapon) and wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip (Tippitt murder weapon).?
Captain conspirator Fritz showed Lee Oswald a Back Yard photo(133c?) at 12:45 that Saturday , 11 / 23 / 63 but there were no photos found until about 4:00pm that afternoon. That's when the detectives said they found the photo among Lee Oswald's possessions in Micheal Paine's garage. The photo that Fritz displayed to Lee was 133c....and Lee knew it was not a photo that he had created....
-
I almost forgot this...
The rifle doesn't match with the shadows against the body
and of course: "Clumpy the Hand"
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
Unbelievable, Capasse again alters the photographic record in an attempt to support his ludicrous juvenile observations.
By drastically compressing this backyard photo reduces Oswald's normal arm into Capasse's "baby arm", Capasse for the umpteenth time shows just how "fair and balanced" he really is!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/4mydk66d7/Capasselies.gif)
JohnM
-
Michael Paine intersects with the backyard photo story at least six ways, surprising since the official story portrays him as akin to a bystander, simply caught up in events. Michael Paine was one of a handful of known visitors to 214 West Neely Street. The Imperial Reflex camera said to have taken the backyard photos was apparently stored at his house in the autumn of 1963. He saw a backyard photo at the Dallas Police station the night of the assassination. The backyard photos known as 133-A and 133-B were discovered at his house the following day. He was involved in the delivery of a box of records, from which the de Mohrenschildt backyard photo would be later discovered. Michael Paine, with his wife Ruth, had dinner with the de Mohrenschildts soon after the photo was discovered in 1967
-
He saw a backyard photo at the Dallas Police station the night of the assassination.
That was his recollection. But it was not an accurate one. As you noted, the photos were not discovered until the next day.
Mr. PAINE - I am too confused. Maybe it was on the next night that I spent at the police station.
-
In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963. If Michael Paine?s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments. If Oswald showed Michael Paine a backyard photo in the Spring of 1963 it must have been, according to Paine?s timeline, during the visit to the Neely Street address when Paine arrived to drive the Oswald?s to dinner in Irving. This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine?s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission. If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina. Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children.
-
what are you blabbering now?
:D what normal arm -- to what? ...and how is it out of proportion with the rest of the manipulations?
I did nothing to that picture and there is nothing you can do to help "Clumpy the Hand"
the only one creating distortions here is you
Michael, he didn't notice when he compressed the photo that his arm still stayed the same size.
https://s15.postimg.cc/4mydk66d7/Capasselies.gif
Desperation is closing in on the feluccas.
-
In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963. If Michael Paine?s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments. If Oswald showed Michael Paine a backyard photo in the Spring of 1963 it must have been, according to Paine?s timeline, during the visit to the Neely Street address when Paine arrived to drive the Oswald?s to dinner in Irving. This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine?s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission. If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina. Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children.
during the visit to the Neely Street address when Paine arrived to drive the Oswald?s to dinner in Irving.
The Paines went waaaaay out of their way to cultivate a relationship with Lee and Marina....WHY???
Clearly Ruth Paine was spying on the Oswald's.... She revealed during her testimony before the WC that she was an informer for the FBI. The question is:..... Was she merely an informer or did she have a far bigger job? What ordinary housewife would drive to New Orleans and spend a couple of days there working on convincing Marina to come back to Irving with her?? This episode clearly was a blatant action to get Marina out of the way while Lee made a trip to Mexico City in an attempt to visit Cuba.
-
what are you blabbering now?
:D what normal arm -- to what? ...and how is it out of proportion with the rest of the manipulations?
I did nothing to that picture and there is nothing you can do to help "Clumpy the Hand"
the only one creating distortions here is you
The shadow of the rifle on the ground is clear evidence that the photo has been altered or created by inserting the man's figure into a backdrop of the Neeley Street Yard.
-
That was his recollection. But it was not an accurate one. As you noted, the photos were not discovered until the next day.
Mr. PAINE - I am too confused. Maybe it was on the next night that I spent at the police station.
Tin It would see like this special visit from the Paines was distinct and perhaps remarkable occasion which would be a stand out memory for Mr Paine You have demonstrated his memory was not perfect, but the overall context suggests it would have been something he would have remeberde distinctly imo
-
what are you blabbering now?
:D what normal arm? -- to what? ...and how is it out of proportion with the rest of the manipulations?
I did nothing to that picture and there is nothing you can do to help "Clumpy the Hand"
the only one creating distortions here is you
and it shows; along with responses from others
You can stop your pathetic backpedalling right now, the following fraudulent image is more than clear and shows that you compressed Oswald so you could your make your Dufus claims including a smaller and slimmer baby arm
(https://s15.postimg.cc/4mydk66d7/Capasselies.gif)
Anyway, why on Earth would they need to manipulate bodyparts wouldn't the procedure be a simple cut and paste, your Ralph Cinque connection is sinking you again! Muhahaha!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/epio39y7v/oldhabits.jpg)
Btw are you still a member of Cinques team?
JohnM
-
Sorry Mytton - I have no control over how YOU manipulate anything you post
OOPS!
This is your post and even blind Freddy can see that your image is HEAVILY compressed, or maybe that look is normal on Planet Kook? Muhahahahaha!
I almost forgot this...
The rifle doesn't match with the shadows against the body
and of course: "Clumpy the Hand"
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/34844557353_789a524cd7_b.jpg)
Btw after all this time the best response you could come up with was to accuse me of a crime that you and you alone perpetrated and amusingly believe at the same time that all the members and the guests are complete Fools?, you truly suck at this!
JohnM
-
and once again - you are FoS - and I have no control how you repost with your manipulations [gif]
I did nothing to that picture and tagged it the way I got it from the web
is it the freakish baby arm or clumpy hand that bothers you so much !!!
(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/point-and-laugh-gif-14.gif)
Wow talk about back pedalling, you were caught out, the photo is littered with phases that you use and now you are trying to blame someone else, FK'N PATHETIC!
Btw please explain why you think the conspirators put in a "freakish baby arm and hand", this oughta be good!
JohnM
-
Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson who ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years.
He is also an ex-president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers,
the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Mr. THOMPSON. The arm in photograph B just doesn't look natural; in fact it looks as if it has been stuck on the body.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2m2ynhg.jpg)
INTERROGATOR. After examining these photographs what is your professional opinion on them?
MR THOMPSON My opinion is those photographs are fake.
maybe you're right Mytton
:D that looks more natural
DOUBLE OOPS!!
When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic, Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures. However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is different from his chin in other pictures.0
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
After being corrected by the HSCA photographic panel Thompson beat a hasty retreat and his only problem left remaining was Oswald's chin but as I have shown Oswald's chin being affected by light and shadow was easily replicated in the hallways of the Dallas Police Department!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/srb5ekkff/ossy_square_chin.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/kmq4jqunf/Caprioyoulose.gif)
And this of course nothing new, Hollywood and Professional Photographers have known for decades that overhead lighting creates a strong jawline.
Look at the similarities of Arnie's photos to Oswald in the backyard, the darkened shadowed eyes, the triangular shadow under the nose and the square jawline!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ua3bs7bd7/squarechinsa.jpg)
Try again! Muhahahahahahaha!
JohnM
-
so what?
Run Forest, run! Hehehe!
JohnM
-
about Clumpy?[/i]
Nobody understands what the heck you are trying to say?
What is a clumpy and can you explain what you think it means?
JohnM
-
I will replace my graphic with the above "Clumpy the Hand"[/i]
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/844/28184858597_66ecfdf986_z.jpg)
Which hand is supposed to be the "clumpy hand"?
JohnM
-
run from what? - who's Forest?
you post some pictures of chins that supposed to prove something about Clumpy?
Show us Oswald's chin cleft
-
Nothing to do with chin
try and pay attention
This thread is about the BY photos, including the chin
Again, show us Oswald's chin cleft
-
Which hand is supposed to be the "clumpy hand"?
JohnM
Capasse has also noticed that the fingertips on the right hand are missing.
Oh yeah, and that the left arm is coming out of the stomach.
-
:D what are you some kinda boss?
again, I said nothing about Oswald's chin cleft
You just did
-
that's right...
appears to be something done to the arm / hand that holds the newspaper...
Gorilla arm / hand with cut off fingertips - freakish baby arm from the stomach with clump of hand - and the Olive Oyl wrist
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/884/28117795057_e47800b73e_z.jpg)
appears to be something done to...../b]
Gorilla arm
freakish baby arm
hand with cut off fingertips
from the stomach with clump of hand
the Olive Oyl wrist
What Capasse, something like this? LMFAO!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/epio39y7v/oldhabits.jpg)
JohnM
-
and that's all you got ?
:D -- good night Mytton - try again tomorrow
Really, I have been running circles around you since we started this debate, so much so that you even thanked me for setting you straight on the correct ratioed backyard photo which only proves that your unprovable observations are just deluded fantasies.
At least Cinque had the courage to actually present his ideas for examination whereas your hodge podge of unconnected silliness doesn't even make sense even on the simplest of scales.
appears to be something done to....
Gorilla arm
freakish baby arm
hand with cut off fingertips
from the stomach with clump of hand
the Olive Oyl wrist
Even back in 1963 Oswald who actually had much more experience and knowledge than you didn't suggest your bizarro ideas and simply suggested that there was a head transplant because no doubt Oswald would have known that your list is absurd.
Btw you're not fooling anyone just admit you work for the government and your posts are just trying to have a negative impact on the Conspiracy movement.
JohnM
-
Don't forget these...
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/mcapas/ezgif.gif)
Sorry Capasse but the background bush to Oswald's left shows at least a summers worth of growth meaning that your cut-out has zero value.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dks6xx1fv/bush1.gif)
Btw how does a cut-out that shows a whole person even remotely resemble your baby/gorilla arm theory? Just admit that you honestly don't have a clue!
JohnM
-
:D --too funny
Yep, that's the exact empty response that I expected, you are so predictable.
JohnM
-
you're blabbering again
what now?
Look Capasse, it's way past your bedtime and obviously you've one to many Brandivino's so pack up while you're behind and rack off.
JohnM
-
Really, I have been running circles around you since we started this debate, so much so that you even thanked me for setting you straight on the correct ratioed backyard photo which only proves that your unprovable observations are just deluded fantasies.
At least Cinque had the courage to actually present his ideas for examination whereas your hodge podge of unconnected silliness doesn't even make sense even on the simplest of scales.
Even back in 1963 Oswald who actually had much more experience and knowledge than you didn't suggest your bizarro ideas and simply suggested that there was a head transplant because no doubt Oswald would have known that your list is absurd.
Btw you're not fooling anyone just admit you work for the government and your posts are just trying to have a negative impact on the Conspiracy movement.
JohnM
Even back in 1963 Oswald who actually had much more experience and knowledge than you didn't suggest your bizarro ideas and simply suggested that there was a head transplant
So you recognize that Lee Oswald was a very intelligent and talented man......
And we simply don't know WHICH Back Yard photo Captain Fritz displayed to Lee Oswald. ( It most probably was 133c because CE 133A had not yet been found at 1:00pm 11/23/63.) At any rate Lee never had the opportunity to scrutinize the photo and it examine it for other indications of fakery....
-
At least Cinque had the courage to actually present his ideas for examination whereas your hodge podge of unconnected silliness doesn't even make sense even on the simplest of scales.
JohnM
Did he submit it for peer review? The Journal of Kidnapped Heiresses and Associated Stockholm Syndrome Phenomenon perhaps?
-
that's right...
appears to be something done to the arm / hand that holds the newspaper...
Gorilla arm / hand with cut off fingertips - freakish baby arm from the stomach with clump of hand - and the Olive Oyl wrist
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/884/28117795057_e47800b73e_z.jpg)
'appears' that you're not involved in drawing or photography
Shadows, cast shadows, perspective, low resolution... yawn
-
Here is what you posted: "What would-be assassin has himself photographed holding both murder weapons and commie lit 8 months before the "Big Event"? Baaa. (including a rifle with a useless scope). Give me a break." I can realize why you want to runaway from it now, but the fact remains that you suggested that Oswald would not have posed for the BY photos in March while contemplating the JFK assassination 8 months later. Thus, they must be faked. What you apparently failed to understand is that Oswald had no clue at the time the photos were taken that he would be assassinating JFK. Get it?
LOL. You're still being obtuse. 1st off, you don't know what Oswald knew and when he knew it. You're a partisan LNer. The only reason Oswald would have himself photographed with the alleged murder weapons is for purposes of sheep-dipping, whether he knew about the Big Event, or not. But if Oswald was a lone nut, then at some point he knew the photos would be incriminating. So why did he keep them and still carry thru with the assassination?
2ndly, what possible reason besides sheep-dipping would lone nut Oswald have 5+ photos of himself taken holding the alleged murder weapons and commie lit if he was only going to give them to Roscoe White and George de Mohrenschildt? Who were the target for these photos?
Lastly, an internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 stated: ?Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.? The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, ?made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.? So I ask you, how many negatives did the DPD find, why did they only admit 1 into evidence and where are they now?
-
Sorry Capasse but the background bush to Oswald's left shows at least a summers worth of growth meaning that your cut-out has zero value.
So what was the cut out for then dufus? And why was Roscoe White and the DPD dicking around with the infamous CE133-C negative? And why didn't they declare finding the negative with Oswald's possessions? It had to be there right? And why didn't they admit it into evidence? And why did they only make 1 negative (CE133-A) available to the WC? They certainly had great interest in CE133-C to stage several re-enactments, make at least 2, 8"x10" prints from it and of course make a curious cutout from it.
The CE133-C cut-out has zero value you say? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
-
So what was the cut out for then dufus?
This thread
To All Concerned, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE
No more warnings.....Do not insult fellow members...No more warnings.
Instant Non Negotiable 7 days ban to the next person who posts a personal insult towards a fellow member of this Forum.
JohnM
-
Funny thing about that funny stance in the photos... would you believe I have a screenshot from a video in which one of the well known people in the assassination aftermath is showing how, he said, Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD, and this person replicates, without knowing it, the exact leaning position seen in the BY photos. That is right, Mr. Frazier is the person standing like that. I have always suspected that Mr. Frazier had been more involved in the plot than is known.
He was arrested the 22nd. His rifle, clip and ammo were placed into evidence. I'm not sure how hard they pressed him, maybe even told him he would be charged as a second assassin if he did not give a statement against Lee. Maybe even had him hold the papers and rifle for the photos? After all, the one negative, with the cutouts, was found in DPD custody.
I hate to admit this, but, I don't know how to upload a file to show his stance,.
-
I hate to admit this, but, I don't know how to upload a file to show his stance,.
There are plugins and other 3rd party services that you might use to do that.
Yes, Wes Frazier and his family was pressured and threatened with charges to rat on Oswald.
-
No more warnings.....Do not insult fellow members...No more warnings.
... like some mindless dog barking at the night, another "photo expert" offers his "opinion".
Works both ways.
-
LOL. You're still being obtuse. 1st off, you don't know what Oswald knew and when he knew it. You're a partisan LNer. The only reason Oswald would have himself photographed with the alleged murder weapons is for purposes of sheep-dipping, whether he knew about the Big Event, or not. But if Oswald was a lone nut, then at some point he knew the photos would be incriminating. So why did he keep them and still carry thru with the assassination?
2ndly, what possible reason besides sheep-dipping would lone nut Oswald have 5+ photos of himself taken holding the alleged murder weapons and commie lit if he was only going to give them to Roscoe White and George de Mohrenschildt? Who were the target for these photos?
Lastly, an internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 stated: ?Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.? The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, ?made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.? So I ask you, how many negatives did the DPD find, why did they only admit 1 into evidence and where are they now?
No one knew in March '63 that JFK would be coming to Dallas and that his motorcade would pass the TSBD and that LHO would be working in that building. As a result, you don't have to be Nostradamus to conclude that at the time the BY photos were taken that Oswald could not have contemplated his involvement in the assassination. We do know from his actions at that time that he was attempting to gain entry to Cuba. And prior to doing so, he was trying to cultivate his image as a pro-commie. The BY photos were part of that process. They depict Oswald in the role of a commie revolutionary with his guns and pamphlets. Granted, we know Oswald was a loon but in his demented mind he was attempting to portray himself as some type of revolutionary figure. He sent one to a pro-commie mag before the assassination.
-
He sent one to a pro-commie mag before the assassination.
Really? Cite evidence .......
Marina lied and said that Lee told her he would....but other than that, there is absolutely no proof of that statement.
-
Really? Cite evidence .......
Marina lied and said that Lee told her he would....but other than that, there is absolutely no proof of that statement.
Cite where Marina lied about that.
-
Cite where Marina lied about that.
Bottom paragraph
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83#relPageId=132
-
No one knew in March '63 that JFK would be coming to Dallas and that his motorcade would pass the TSBD and that LHO would be working in that building. As a result, you don't have to be Nostradamus to conclude that at the time the BY photos were taken that Oswald could not have contemplated his involvement in the assassination. We do know from his actions at that time that he was attempting to gain entry to Cuba. And prior to doing so, he was trying to cultivate his image as a pro-commie. The BY photos were part of that process. They depict Oswald in the role of a commie revolutionary with his guns and pamphlets. Granted, we know Oswald was a loon but in his demented mind he was attempting to portray himself as some type of revolutionary figure. He sent one to a pro-commie mag before the assassination.
We do know from his actions at that time that he was attempting to gain entry to Cuba. And prior to doing so, he was trying to cultivate his image as a pro-commie. The BY photos were part of that process.
Exactly right!!..... Lee thought the police would have police dogs that would find the carcano that he had buried beneath a pile of brush near General Walker's house after he fired a bullet through the window of Walker's house. He thought the cops could easily trace that unusual rifle to him and make a big case about the Castro lovin Commie Lee Harvey Oswald being sought for trying to kill Walker. ( A foe of Castro) The police would have published the picture and Lee and George hoped that the photo would convince Castro Agents that Lee should be granted asylum in Cuba.
-
No one knew in March '63 that JFK would be coming to Dallas and that his motorcade would pass the TSBD and that LHO would be working in that building. As a result, you don't have to be Nostradamus to conclude that at the time the BY photos were taken that Oswald could not have contemplated his involvement in the assassination.
Again, you don't know what Oswald knew during the BYP shoot. He was being sheep-dipped as the patsy. What his handlers told him at the time was irrelevant. Oswald got his job at the TSBD 3 weeks before the Big Event, long after the motorcade route was established. He was plan B after the Chicago hit got nixed. Thomas Arthur Vallee was plan A.
We do know from his actions at that time that he was attempting to gain entry to Cuba. And prior to doing so, he was trying to cultivate his image as a pro-commie. The BY photos were part of that process.
Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent who thought he was being sheep-dipped as a fake defector. Little did he know...
They depict Oswald in the role of a commie revolutionary with his guns and pamphlets. Granted, we know Oswald was a loon but in his demented mind he was attempting to portray himself as some type of revolutionary figure. He sent one to a pro-commie mag before the assassination.
Baaaa. If Oswald was a loon that had 1 (or 5) photos taken of him as a revolutionary figure by his wife on March 31, 1963, then how the hell did he get the roll developed at a drugstore, then take the negatives to a photolab to have selected prints made by April 5, 1963? Ask your buddy Mytton to explain that one.
The BYPs were so obviously contrived to sheep-dip Oswald it is laughable that you continue to attribute them to him being a lone nut.
Also, please explain the DPD and SS involvement with the BYPs. All the photos came from the DPD including the infamous CE133-C negative, which was not found with Oswald's possessions, not admitted into evidence and not provided to the WC. Somehow it got into Roscoe White's hands and he made several prints and a curious cutout from a re-enactment photo. Explain that one away if you dare. LOL.
-
:'( Duncan, Trojan called me a dufus.
JohnM
Sorry if I hurt your feelings snowflake. Let me try again and this time don't obfuscate.
So what was the cut out for then? And why was Roscoe White and the DPD dicking around with the infamous CE133-C negative? And why didn't they declare finding the negative with Oswald's possessions? It had to be there right? And why didn't they admit it into evidence? And why did they only make 1 negative (CE133-A) available to the WC? They certainly had great interest in CE133-C to stage several re-enactments, make at least 2, 8"x10" prints from it and of course make a curious cutout from it.
The CE133-C cut-out has zero value you say? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
-
Works both ways.
I don't see your point? Trojan insulted me whereas to you I merely presented a metaphor to indicate your behaviour.
JohnM
-
Sorry if I hurt your feelings snowflake.
snowflake
This thread
To All Concerned, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE
No more warnings.....Do not insult fellow members...No more warnings.
Instant Non Negotiable 7 days ban to the next person who posts a personal insult towards a fellow member of this Forum.
JohnM
-
snowflake
JohnM
Dr. Daffy the Proctologist, or was it Physicist, has the thinnest skin of the bunch. Also these new nuts are a real sensitive bunch too. They whine quite a bit about all sorts of things. I think we need to light the beacon on the roof and hopefully the biggest Fluffernutter of them Larry the Almighty will arrive to defend their honor.
-
Dr. Daffy the Proctologist, or was it Physicist, has the thinnest skin of the bunch. Also these new nuts are a real sensitive bunch too. They whine quite a bit about all sorts of things. I think we need to light the beacon on the roof and hopefully the biggest Fluffernutter of them Larry the Almighty will arrive to defend their honor.
:D When has a single post of yours contributed anything to the conversation except for adolescent insults? Grow up for cripes sakes and for the last time, stop coming on to me. I will not be your proctologist.
-
Trojan insulted me....
Not really.
-
Here is my theory re the BYPs:
The 5+ BYPs were shot as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping but not by Marina and while complicit, I doubt Oswald knew he was being set up as the patsy at the time. Also I am convinced that not all of the original photos were taken with the same Imperial Reflex camera. The photos appeared to be taken with a very poor quality lens except for CE 133-A. This photo was clearly different. It was the money shot and it was probably a darkroom creation. The DPD's intention was to leak 1 clear BYP to link Oswald to the assassination. All the other photos were samples taken with the Imperial Reflex which were directly linked to Oswald's camera.
Why is CE 133-A the anomaly? Because it was in focus, with minimal spherical aberration and the only photo that clearly identified Oswald, the murder weapons and you can actually read the name of the commie lit he was holding. I believe this photo was taken with a different camera and a large print was photographed with the Imperial Reflex camera to link it to the other photos to disguise its origin.
If a different lens was not used for CE133-A then some darkroom shenanigans took place since Oswald's head is grossly oversized which put his body proportions out of whack relative to the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex.
When you scale CE133-A & C so that Oswald has the same leg length, this synchronizes Oswald's distance from the camera. So then how does the rest of his body match up?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
It doesn't, big time. Also note the grossly different spherical aberration between photos. The exposure for CE133-A is also unique. Funny that the lens distortion matches up perfectly between CE133-B & C, but A stands out like a sore thumb. CE133-A is the outlier and hence the fake. This photo was taken with a different camera and after an 8"x10" print was made from it, the Imperial Reflex camera was used to photograph the print to create a negative with the same grain as the other photos from this camera.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-
Dr. Daffy the Proctologist, or was it Physicist, has the thinnest skin of the bunch. Also these new nuts are a real sensitive bunch too. They whine quite a bit about all sorts of things. I think we need to light the beacon on the roof and hopefully the biggest Fluffernutter of them Larry the Almighty will arrive to defend their honor.
This is some kind of code... right?
-
... to you I merely presented a metaphor to indicate your behaviour.
My behavior? :D
What are you... a third grade school teacher?
BTW R U British ..Aussie ....Kiwi?
-
Posted by: Michael Capasse
? on: July 04, 2018, 11:20:40 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1822/41267611580_36c62c42e3_b.jpg)
Conveniently found was the Kliens ad of the "murder weapon"
-
2 Negatives, I'm Positive!
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/845/41387154000_14f74c78dc_z.jpg)
Sometime after 2 o'clock on November 22 Fritz tells detectives to get a search warrant and go out to the Paine residence and pick Oswald up.
Gerald Hill
He walked up to Rose and Stovall and made the statement to them, "Go get a search warrant and go out to some address on Fifth Street," and I don't recall the actual street number, in Irving, and "pick up a man named Lee Oswald."
Mr. STOVALL. I'm not positive on that--I believe it was [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, I'm not sure. And he also had identification of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I believe that was on a Social Security card and at that time Captain Fritz opened the door to the office there and sent Rose and I to go out to this address in Irving at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving. That was--I don't know where the Captain got the address, but it was an address where he was supposed to be staying part of the time.
Mr. BALL. The captain had you get another man to go with you?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes; we got J. P. Adamcik to go with us.
Mr. BALL. The three of you?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes; the three of us---we went out to the location and parked, oh, a block or half block from the house. We were supposed to meet some county officers out there.
Mr. BALL. Why were you to meet the county officers out there?
Mr. STOVALL. Well, Irving is out of our jurisdiction, actually, we had to either have the Irving police or the county officers with us.
Mr. BALL. Would that be within the jurisdiction of the sheriff's office?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you meet some county officers there?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; they arrived about 30 to 45 minutes after we did--after we got out there; yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you wait for them?
Mr. STOVALL Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where did you wait for them?
Mr. STOVALL. This was about one-half a block or a block from the house address.
The officers waited 40 minutes for the deputies that did not know the purpose of the mission until told at the scene.
How could the Police get a search warrant ordered by the Chief of Homicide to perform police functions where they had no jurisdiction?
Nobody had a search warrant.
Stovall makes it clear to Mrs. Paine he does not have a warrant, Mrs. Paine allows the search anyway waiving Marina's legal rights.
Stovall also makes it clear that it was he and not the deputies that conducted the search.
Mr. STOVALL. I don't believe there was anybody went with me at the time I went in. I heard--I think Rose started to the back bedroom, which would be Ruth Paine's bedroom and Ruth Paine was standing there talking to him--I could hear her talking to him and she told him that Marina suggested that he look out into the garage and so they looked and they were out of my sight then.
The concluding statement of the Inventory Exhibit A is
"the above property was recovered from 2515 5th Ave., Irving by detectives G F Rose, R S Stovall, and J P Adamcik, all the property has been initialized and marked for evidence by Stovall and Rose"
as noted on the documents and in statements, this search was done by the Police, though that had no jurisdiction. It was not done by the Sheriffs.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1805/42174807515_25cc3c545f_b.jpg)
Sat 11/23
The backyard photos were found by Rose.
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
Mr. BALL. They were in the garage, were they?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And where were they in the garage that you saw?
Mr. STOVALL. As well as I remember, they were in a brown cardboard box about, I guess, 2 feet by a foot and a half or something like that.
Mr. BALL. What was in the box with them?
Mr. STOVALL. There were, as well as I remember, a few books in there and letters and papers and photographs
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
On November 23, 1963, Detective Rose submitted the two negatives to the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. J. B. Hicks signed a receipt for these properties and noted 2 photos printed and given to Det. Rose.
"Form concerning photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle ... " described as the original has the phrase "negative also ret'd" written by a different hand after production of the carbon and the photocopies lack this comment.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1822/41267611580_36c62c42e3_b.jpg)
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 139
(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated primarily in the garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (126)
(Only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.) (127)
NO Search Warrant / Improper Search on Friday 11/22 [that waived Marina's right to refuse...and withholding evidence]
Thumb1: oh yea...2 negatives secured; I'm positive!
"Also found by Det. Stovall was a cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Klein Department store in Chicago showing an advertisement for the murder weapon. All these items were confiscated along with other items and marked for evidence."
Here we have evidence that Lee had a Klein's advertisement from a magazine among his belongings!!
This could be a vital piece of evidence.... Does anybody know if that magazine ad has a CE number?? And if so could you please post a picture of that specific ad?
-
(https://postimg.cc/image/rjt8tc3vn/)
I have no luck with these at all. if you can't see the photo, type the link url into your browser.
That is frazier describing the way that he allegedly saw Oswald holding that "bag" on the way into work.
Does that sound even remotely like the way anybody would carry a bag? Maybe a broken down rifle without a bag, but, come on, this is fantasy in my opinion.
-
This is some kind of code... right?
Yes it is , it means one of the new nutbags should start another thread about the sniper's nest (because you can never have enough of those). By the looks of it you've cracked the code.
-
:D When has a single post of yours contributed anything to the conversation except for adolescent insults? Grow up for cripes sakes and for the last time, stop coming on to me. I will not be your proctologist.
Contribute? To what? The tower of whimsical conclusions you nuts have been erecting? Ha ha, you're such a load Daffy. You're laser contribution , now that's a contribution. ::)
-
Quote from: Steve Logan
Dr. Daffy the Proctologist
When has a single post of yours contributed anything to the conversation except for adolescent insults? Grow up ...........
Did Howard Gee die and reincarnate as Steve Logan?
-
But if the Dallas police made CE 134 from "the CE 133-A negative", then where is that negative?
How does any of this make Oswald less guilty?
JohnM
-
How does any of this make Oswald less guilty?
Uh...you haven't actually demonstrated that he is at all guilty.
What it shows is that we have yet another piece of evidence that was used by the WC to form their conclusions that is now "missing" and unavailable to be examined.
-
Uh...you haven't actually demonstrated that he is at all guilty.
What it shows is that we have yet another piece of evidence that was used by the WC to form their conclusions that is now "missing" and unavailable to be examined.
Uh...you haven't actually demonstrated that he is at all guilty.
Sorry Iacoletti, wrong again.
Oswald killed a police officer in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald's shells discarded at the scene were a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle
Oswald was seen by more eyewitnesses fleeing while fumbling with a gun.
Oswald's jacket was recovered between Tippit's murder and where Oswald was arrested.
Oswald resisted arrest.
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theater.
What it shows is that we have yet another piece of evidence that was used by the WC to form their conclusions that is now "missing" and unavailable to be examined.
How could they use evidence that they never saw? Doh!
JohnM
-
Oswald killed a police officer in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald's shells discarded at the scene were a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle
Oswald was seen by more eyewitnesses fleeing while fumbling with a gun.
Oswald's jacket was recovered between Tippit's murder and where Oswald was arrested.
Oswald resisted arrest.
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theater.
Living proof that you actually can fool some of the sheeple all of the time.
-
Living proof that you actually can fool some of the sheeple all of the time.
Yep, and the obvious way your opinion is molded by your manipulative conspiracy elders indicates that you're the classic example of a sheeple. Congrats!
JohnM
-
Yep, and the obvious way your opinion is molded by your manipulative conspiracy elders indicates that you're the classic example of a sheeple. Congrats!
"manipulative conspiracy elders"? Mad Jack is just too much!
(https://media.tenor.com/images/94fdca75e958652f645f50b3b76c679e/tenor.gif)
-
Interested if anyone has any ideas on how we would come up with criteria for measuring sheppelism There3 must be social scientists that try to measure this, but I had trouble finding any
-
Appeal to rebellion
CTers want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.
Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.
As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."
People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.
Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psychological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". Cters want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.
This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory: "In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"
(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)
-
-
Plenty of evidence for well documented funding for the mechanisms of indoctrination and assimilation. Bernay's perhaps being the most accessible example Some here may scoff at the relationship of materialism and authoritarianism, but what is the need of authoritarian system if it doesn't have something to sell The bastardization of Smith and Ricardo also appear high on the list of the corruption of mainstream authoritarianism. I am not sure what the estimates are for the dollar amounts dedicated to 'marketing' from the beneficent overlord class, but lets say it is a few bucks more than any countervailing efforts
Interesting that the previous poster makes no effort at identifying markers of indoctrination and the deterioration of critical thought, instead just a singular narrative of an individually derived proclamation. Hayek, at least, believed the capitalist and/or entrepreneur was the personification of rebellion.
-
In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"
(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)
It is not the government's function to tell people what to believe. It is the governments function to administer and implement the Constitution of the United States.
Let's get this thread back to the Backyard Photos that can't seem to be put to rest.
-
Sorry Iacoletti, wrong again.
Sorry "Mytton", lying again.
Oswald killed a police officer in front of eyewitnesses.
Wrong. Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.
Oswald's shells discarded at the scene were a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle
Wrong. You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.
Oswald was seen by more eyewitnesses fleeing while fumbling with a gun.
Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.
Oswald's jacket was recovered between Tippit's murder and where Oswald was arrested.
Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.
Oswald resisted arrest.
Wrong. Not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Who told him he was being arrested and on what charge? And why does the arrest report not have the "resisted" box checked? But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theater.
Wrong. Not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.
How could they use evidence that they never saw? Doh!
Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on? Doh!
-
Bill ignored the response the first time he cleverly and methodically and with great effort posted a link to this same video. Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.
(http://qncasli123.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/klik-disini-1.gif)
Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill! That's some impressive research.
As for the actual video. That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back. Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.
His "5 Stupid things":
1. The endless list of potential suspects
This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth. As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.
2. The equally endless list of possible motives
As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.
3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative
As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.
4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists
I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid". But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.
5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories
Also not about anything stupid. I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video. Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened. Ask what sounds good to you". Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.
Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.
-
Sorry "Mytton", lying again.
Really, let's examine your answers Honest John!
Wrong. Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Wrong. You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.
Oswald ordered and possessed and was photographed with C2766
Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.
Hilarious since your "unfair lineup" approach wasn't working now it's a "bogus unfair lineup", what's next?
Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's...
Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on? Doh!
HSCA ≠ WC Double Doh!
Hmmm, not so honest are you John!
JohnM
-
Sorry "Mytton", lying again.
Wrong. Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.
Wrong. You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.
Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.
Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.
Wrong. Not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Who told him he was being arrested and on what charge? And why does the arrest report not have the "resisted" box checked? But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.
Wrong. Not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.
Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on? Doh!
Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing
Do you actually believe that?
It's exactly what LBJ's cover up committee wanted you to believe.... They painted Markham as a lunatic that couldn't even read a clock, as a slick way of discrediting her very precise statement that she saw Officer Tippit shot to death at 1:06 pm.
They avoided a much better witness in Domingo Benavides.....He was closer to th scene and he saw the killer eye to eye.
They sure as hell didn't want Benavides telling reporters that The police arrested the wrong man....Because Lee Oswald was NOT the man he faced eye to eye at the murder scene.
-
Wrong. Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKcPGd9tn9ForD7nK8Ncfb1aXtSlRCALYdEgXaC2AHtZwfcOcvmw)
One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they?ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn?t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women, can anyone make the argument that although someone else shot Tippit, it was Oswald who was seen running from the Tippit murder scene with a revolver in his hand unloading shells? And when Scoggins saw Oswald approach Tippit?s car and then lost sight of him for a moment, Tippit?s true killer appeared out of nowhere, shot and killed Tippit, then vanished into thin air, whereupon Scoggins then saw Oswald again, running away from Tippit?s car with a pistol in his hand?
RHVB
JohnM
-
Really, let's examine your answers Honest John!
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Keep going.....
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
. . .
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just--
Nothing dishonest about anything I said.
Oswald ordered and possessed and was photographed with C2766
That's a claim, not evidence. Now how about proving that those shells had anything to do with the assassination?
Hilarious since your "unfair lineup" approach wasn't working now it's a "bogus unfair lineup", what's next?
It was bogus and unfair. "Wasn't working". LOL. It's just a fact. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's...
Again, keep going, Mr. Dishonest.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
No, Mr. Rankin. She said "shirt". Don't lead the witness.
Now "Mytton", how about proving that the old shirt had anything to do with the murder of Tippit? And about those laundry tags...
HSCA ≠ WC Double Doh!
Where do you suppose the HSCA got CE134? Hint: not from the FBI. Triple-doh!
Hmmm, not so honest are you John!
Yes, I am quite honest. But you lied by commission or ommission at least 3 times in a single post.
-
Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing
Do you actually believe that?
Yes. And the reason I do is because it's the truth. Benavides didn't see Tippit being shot. Deal with it.
-
"Mytton" has been completely reduced to spewing Bugliosi quotes.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that Tatum was anywhere near 10th and Patton that day. Everything he reported could have been gleaned from reading the Warren Commission books. And if Tatum had said anything inconvenient, Mr. Lawyer Rhetoric would be the first one squawking.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/PR6ys3k_uVtVEEH_x4A9ZVNtk7nhO-LnGQ6nB9RP5dNiVoW6bsHQENWJ2AQ0IABxkcLUppyxJBfn0WqpA6_IuJ9E8mS0yUnYtUtIp5_EGD6-5g4Fbg1pykWK6ikEZwMK6he2f2C0yQ=w1024-h444-no)
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/PR6ys3k_uVtVEEH_x4A9ZVNtk7nhO-LnGQ6nB9RP5dNiVoW6bsHQENWJ2AQ0IABxkcLUppyxJBfn0WqpA6_IuJ9E8mS0yUnYtUtIp5_EGD6-5g4Fbg1pykWK6ikEZwMK6he2f2C0yQ=w1024-h444-no)
Changing the focal length and distance to subject.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/98b0keeq3/focallength.gif)
JohnM
-
Changing the focal length and distance to subject.
So? What are you saying?
She has the same ears....he doesn't.
Looks pretty clear to me.
-
Yes. And the reason I do is because it's the truth. Benavides didn't see Tippit being shot. Deal with it.
I don't know if Benavides saw the actual shooting..... But I believe he did... based on his story of approaching the scene in his pickup truck and witnessing Tippit stepping out of the police cruiser and walking toward the front of the car, "When this other man shot him" .
Those are Benavides words..... So no matter what the liars wrote in the WR , Benavides DID witness the murder and he was by far the best witness. And the bottom line is:....Benavides DID NOT describe Lee Oswald as the man who he saw shoot J.D. Tippit.
-
I don't know if Benavides saw the actual shooting..... But I believe he did... based on his story of approaching the scene in his pickup truck and witnessing Tippit stepping out of the police cruiser and walking toward the front of the car, "When this other man shot him" .
Those are Benavides words..... So no matter what the liars wrote in the WR , Benavides DID witness the murder and he was by far the best witness. And the bottom line is:....Benavides DID NOT describe Lee Oswald as the man who he saw shoot J.D. Tippit.
He stated very clearly that he only heard the shots.
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.
-
He stated very clearly that he only heard the shots.
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.
I'm sure that you've seen the video in which Benavides describes Tippit emerging from the police cruiser and walking toward the front of the car when... quote "WHEN THIS OTHER GUY SHOT HIM".....unquote
Benavides was relating what he SAW.
-
Every thread seems to wind up becoming another thread >:(
So back to the back yard------
Notice which finger on which hand has a ring...
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ni1ti1.jpg)
Now notice which finger on which hand has a ring....
(http://i68.tinypic.com/289v1up.jpg)
Notice which finger on which hand wore a ring for an extended time...
(http://i66.tinypic.com/qozkzs.jpg)
Notice which hand has no ring and no ring mark...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/22/article-2373793-1AED2DED000005DC-431_634x541.jpg)
Notice which hand wears a ring....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsKAwMRr-1zuNmd-NM01e49u0LqJQCmFyUGJ_4lgd9Zxv2HGPj)
-
Every thread seems to wind up becoming another thread >:(
So back to the back yard------
Notice which finger on which hand has a ring...
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ni1ti1.jpg)
Now notice which finger on which hand has a ring....
(http://i68.tinypic.com/289v1up.jpg)
Notice which finger on which hand wore a ring for an extended time...
(http://i66.tinypic.com/qozkzs.jpg)
Notice which hand has no ring and no ring mark...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/22/article-2373793-1AED2DED000005DC-431_634x541.jpg)
Notice which hand wears a ring....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsKAwMRr-1zuNmd-NM01e49u0LqJQCmFyUGJ_4lgd9Zxv2HGPj)
I understand that in Russia the wedding band is worn on the right hand on the finger next to the little finger.
Lee wore his prized Marine Corp ring on his left hand ..... Kinda odd that a disgruntled American Marine would continue to wear that Marine Corp ring if he was a communist....
-
I understand that in Russia the wedding band is worn on the right hand on the finger next to the little finger.
Lee wore his prized Marine Corp ring on his left hand .....
The band shows in this photo...
Oswald loooks very different in this picture
(https://bulletin.swarthmore.edu/sites/bulletin.swarthmore.edu/files/styles/article_floating_image/public/assets/Summer18/ce-2629-oswalds-depart-russia-l.JPG?itok=971cv6hl)
However, there is no band mark on the jail pictures.
Why not?
Supposedly took off and left it at the Paines.
Why the ring switch in the BY photos?
Roscoe White also wore a Marine ring.
-
Oswald loooks very different in this picture[/b]
(https://bulletin.swarthmore.edu/sites/bulletin.swarthmore.edu/files/styles/article_floating_image/public/assets/Summer18/ce-2629-oswalds-depart-russia-l.JPG?itok=971cv6hl)
That's because these are glove puppets created to look like Oswald and wife.
:D
-
The band shows in this photo...
Oswald loooks very different in this picture
(https://bulletin.swarthmore.edu/sites/bulletin.swarthmore.edu/files/styles/article_floating_image/public/assets/Summer18/ce-2629-oswalds-depart-russia-l.JPG?itok=971cv6hl)
Oswald loooks very different in this picture
Yawn, not this again.
Upon close examination of your two Oswald's that you say "look very different" we again see perfect rotation proving that the proportions between the fixed landmarks such as the the left eye, the right eye, the left ear, the right ear, the nose and the overall head size all share the same relative depth map in both photos. And beyond all that the size, shape and intricate structure of each pair of corresponding ears which are said to be like fingerprints, are again identical.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/5jcn6ny3f/ossyjerry_Fagain.gif)
Btw there are literally millions of face photos on the internet, I challenge anyone to find a doppelganger for Oswald and let's put it to the above test and see if we can replicate identical results?
JohnM
-
Yawn, not "proof" by artificial morphing software again...
-
Yawn, not "proof" by artificial morphing software again...
Hey John, have you found anymore footage of what seems to you of the Limo going backwards! What a joke!
Btw there are literally millions of face photos on the internet, I challenge anyone to find a doppelganger for Oswald and let's put it to the above test and see if we can replicate identical results?
JohnM
-
Hey John, have you found anymore footage of what seems to you of the Limo going backwards! What a joke!
No, but the joke is how you still continue to lie about this.
Btw there are literally millions of face photos on the internet, I challenge anyone to find a doppelganger for Oswald and let's put it to the above test and see if we can replicate identical results?
What's the point? You'll just declare that they are "clearly" not the same guy and pretend like the morph "speaks for itself".
-
No, but the joke is how you still continue to lie about this.
What's the point? You'll just declare that they are "clearly" not the same guy and pretend like the morph "speaks for itself".
No, but the joke is how you still continue to lie about this.
Yawn, you said what you said and I perfectly understand why you would want to deny it.
What's the point? You'll just declare that they are "clearly" not the same guy and pretend like the morph "speaks for itself".
Just as I thought, you got nothing.
JohnM
-
Yawn, you said what you said and I perfectly understand why you would want to deny it.
Just as I thought, you got nothing.
You're not even a very good troll.
-
You're not even a very good troll.
You trolled me, Idiot!
JohnM
-
Every thread seems to wind up becoming another thread >:(
So back to the back yard------
Notice which finger on which hand has a ring...
Okay, so what is your point? I really don't get it.
-
What's the point? You'll just declare that they are "clearly" not the same guy and pretend like the morph "speaks for itself".
Here's a very close Oswald look alike but through the miracle of morphing we see immediately that they are clearly not the same person.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/n6z1i8uq3/oswald_lookalike_1.gif)
Btw I gave a challenge and there are millions of faces on the internet how about you find one and let's do it!
JohnM
-
..there are literally millions of face photos on the internet, I challenge anyone to find a doppelganger for Oswald and let's put it to the above test and see if we can replicate identical results?
All that didn't explain the ring stuff did it? BTW ...challenge yourself [should keep you busy]
-
Here's a very close Oswald look alike but through the miracle of morphing we see immediately that they are clearly not the same person.
Just as I predicted you would do.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Mytton's shtick is to morph two photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are the same person". Then morph two other photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are not the same person". Then claim that his "clear" opinions of the results are "scientific". Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.