Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery  (Read 11738 times)

Offline Michael Walton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2020, 07:04:56 PM »
Advertisement
No, Jerry. Both bullet holes were clearly defined. A bullet traveling at that speed and to make such a defined hole would have made a clear path. The problem with your argument, Jerry, is you keep taking this testimony verbatim. For example, you said that patch on the neck because according to the testimony, it came in and out at a certain spinal #. But you still don't explain how a bullet traveling downward from roughly 90 feet in the air will hit a person's back and then exit ABOVE in the frontal neck area - which is where the upper white patch is located in my image, Jerry.

And now you're doing it again, Jerry, using the panel as they fumble around with "it could have been because of rigor..." or whatever.

Here's the same reenactment, Jerry. You can see the back patch and this is from the TSBD. There's no way a bullet traveling that fast and from that high up would exit ABOVE where it came in.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2020, 07:04:56 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2020, 10:15:38 PM »
No, Jerry. Both bullet holes were clearly defined. A bullet traveling at that speed and to make such a defined hole would have made a clear path. The problem with your argument, Jerry, is you keep taking this testimony verbatim. For example, you said that patch on the neck because according to the testimony, it came in and out at a certain spinal #. But you still don't explain how a bullet traveling downward from roughly 90 feet in the air will hit a person's back and then exit ABOVE in the frontal neck area - which is where the upper white patch is located in my image, Jerry.

And now you're doing it again, Jerry, using the panel as they fumble around with "it could have been because of rigor..." or whatever.

Yer a forensic pathologist now? LOL. ::)

Quote
Here's the same reenactment, Jerry. You can see the back patch and this is from the TSBD. There's no way a bullet traveling that fast and from that high up would exit ABOVE where it came in.



How do you know where a bullet through the "back patch" would exit the front? :D

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2020, 02:02:28 PM »
Is the theory that before the assassination - at some time on some occasion and in some way - the conspirators who framed Oswald for the shooting obtained Oswald's rifle, his camera, access to the backyard at the Neely Street residence, and copies of the two radical publications that are seen in the photo?

Then these unnamed conspirators took a photo. Actually several. They then pasted a - obvious to conspiracy believers but not photographic experts - head shot of Oswald onto the staged photos.

Then they made three - not one, mind you - but three faked/staged photos and planted them. Including a negative.

Moreover, they got the DeMohrsenschildts to lie about being given one of the photos by the Oswalds. And, of course, got Marina to lie about taking them. But there's one more, the handwriting on the back of their photo given to the DeMohrenschildts was identified as belonging to Lee Oswald. But that is wrong too.

And they were so good at this fakery that photographic experts using microscopic analysis of the originals and the negative (matching it to the camera) were unable to discover this fakery. Even modern analysis, some 50 years later, using digital techniques (see for example Harry Farid and his team's work on this) is unable to discover these alterations.

This is simply not believable. Or doable. Not to me.

This farfetched explanation is a classic example of how the conspiracy believers believe literally anything and everything in order to make their conspiracy work. It is simply impossible to do all of the above. But never mind, "they" just did and, hey lone assassin fools, prove "they" didn't.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 05:02:35 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2020, 02:02:28 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2020, 09:11:31 PM »
Marina didn't say she took 3 photos.

It's unnecessary to posit photo alteration anyway, since the photos tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2020, 09:32:05 PM »
The BY scene only proves that some guy was photographed enacting out some sort of machismo deal. That's it.

But CTers seem to want to infer that others think it proves that this guy was guy who shot the guy. Yo. Not on my watch. I need a lot more faked, planted and altered evidence to arrive at which guy was the guy who shot the guy.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 05:02:06 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2020, 09:32:05 PM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2020, 07:21:04 PM »
The BY scene only proves that some guy was photographed enacting out some sort of machismo deal. That's it.

But CTers seem to want to infer that others think it proves that this guy was guy who shot the guy. Yo. Not on my watch. I need a lot more faked, planted and altered evidence to arrive at which guy was the guy who shot the guy.
I think the photos indicate something more such as he wasn't pretending to hold radical views as cover work for US intelligence/CIA/FBI or whoever. After all those were Marxist anti-US publications he was holding up and not Time and Newsweek. This was more of a political pose than a machismo one. Marina said that after developing the photos that he gave one copy to her to save for their baby girl. Swell, what daughter wouldn't want a photo of their dad in that outfit? In any case, the significance of these photos re Oswald the person is another question for another day.

The question here is whether they're authentic or not. I think the evidence is overwhelming that they are.

A conclusion for me in this is that it shows the peculiar thinking of the conspiracy believers who seemingly think all of this is faked or staged to help frame Oswald. Right, they didn't manufacture one photo they created three. Why on Earth would you create three of these? Isn't one enough?

Too many conspiracy believers think the "conspirators"  had unlimited powers and resources and could just alter this and fake that and cover it all up for half a century. Sorry, that's not a world I think exists.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 09:23:13 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2020, 03:36:19 PM »
I think the photos indicate something more such as he wasn't pretending to hold radical views as cover work for US intelligence/CIA/FBI or whoever. After all those were Marxist anti-US publications he was holding up and not Time and Newsweek. This was more of a political pose than a machismo one. Marina said that after developing the photos that he gave one copy to her to save for their baby girl. Swell, what daughter wouldn't want a photo of their dad in that outfit? In any case, the significance of these photos re Oswald the person is another question for another day.

The question here is whether they're authentic or not. I think the evidence is overwhelming that they are.

A conclusion for me in this is that it shows the peculiar thinking of the conspiracy believers who seemingly think all of this is faked or staged to help frame Oswald. Right, they didn't manufacture one photo they created three. Why on Earth would you create three of these? Isn't one enough?

Two ("B" and "C") have less resolution than "A". Turns out only in "A" was the subject within the camera's set focus plane and, being closer in space to the film plane than "B" and "C", had more resolution and so presented more detail.

Quote
Too many conspiracy believers think the "conspirators"  had unlimited powers and resources and could just alter this and fake that and cover it all up for half a century. Sorry, that's not a world I think exists.

LNers never went on for decades about the CAP Picnic Photo being a fake. LNers respect evidence, while being able to spot CT-generated fake evidence -- like Doorman and Zapruder film alteration -- a mile away.



Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, NOVA 1993 ( Link )

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2020, 03:36:19 PM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2020, 04:27:59 PM »
Two ("B" and "C") have less resolution than "A". Turns out only in "A" was the subject within the camera's set focus plane and, being closer in space to the film plane than "B" and "C", had more resolution and so presented more detail.

LNers never went on for decades about the CAP Picnic Photo being a fake. LNers respect evidence, while being able to spot CT-generated fake evidence -- like Doorman and Zapruder film alteration -- a mile away.



Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, NOVA 1993 ( Link )
Jerry, but isn't the evidence pretty strong that these were, indeed, three separate photos? And, from that, the HSCA photographic experts said that the photos (A and B specifically) allowed them to employ "stereoscopic techniques" that enabled a three dimensional analysis. Any alterations (in either photo) could not escape detection because the alterations would appear to be either behind or in front of the three dimensional image.

I don't know whether this technique was available in 1963 (I would guess so but that's a guess) and thus the alleged fakers of these photos knew this. But it seems to me that the point is that anyone faking photos would not be able to predict whether future advances in photographic analysis - digital imaging for example - would expose their acts.

This is framing a person for the assassination of the president not for robbing a convenience store. The evidence used would be studied and studied and studied for generations. Any fakery, over that time, would emerge. And the framers/conspirators could not be confident that it wouldn't.