Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Picture Not Faked


Recommended Posts

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe".

Oh my little Craigy

I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack

I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember

White is Right

Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we.

Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites.

And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory...

Jack is a Hack.

I can do that

But I gave you a challenge that you did not take

Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination

So are these the things you want me to post?

1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work

2. What I did to check it myself

3. What conclusions did I come up

4. What I used or how I went about checking it?

Is that a good enough list of things you want posted?

If not tell me what would make you happy and go away

I conceded the "assassination knowlege" quiz to you. You have me beat, fair and square. What more do you want?

I'm asking the three best proofs for the backyard photos being fake, as produced by Jack White ...how did you say it....your research backs up, and lets see what you have. Just give us the three proofs you feel are White's best for the backyard photos and how your "research" was done to validate his claims.

If, as you think, your work is not meaningless then you simply will wipe the floor with me.

Clear enough?

Oh and using your rules, your thoughts only, don't go running for help.

BTW, I'm not going away....

I didnt mean go away from this website, I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face, I know you will always be here ready to try and take down anybody who dosent have 25 years of "expert" photography work

Now I know your going to go crazy and say a whole bunch of stuff about how dumb I am because I know nothing about photography but let me explain

My main focus has always been on the photgraphic record of the actual assassination

The backyard photos (while important im not saying they are not) are not my main area of study

I dont even own the book "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong, and I know I should own it but I dont focus on LHO, I have not put enough time and study into LHO or pictures of him (besides the man in the doorway, who I believe is Billy Lovelady anyways)

So I have view Jack's video on the backyard photos and read his posts and work on them but have never studied them myself.

I am in no way sie stepping your challange, i just need you to pick a photo subject that Jack has done on the actual assassination pictures

Any of his studies that are in his part of TGZFH (The photographic evidence from A-Z) you can choose and I will show you what I have done to prove jack's work to myself.

Please just be civil about this and understand that for me to try and reply to your challange in an area that I have not fully researched would not only make me look stupid but if I tried to come up with reasons why I thought he was 100% correct I would be selling both of us short.

Thanks in advance for understanding, I await your picks so I can get started on proving that I dont just see something Jack has worked on and just "believe"

Dean

I'm simply blown away. Here we are, in a thread about the backyard photos. You reply to one of my posts...about the backyard photos...where I suggest someone simply BELIEVES instead of knows. Your reply:

"I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack"

Note that I was not even talking to you yet you say...

"I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face"

Lets recap.

You state you are done with me in another thread and within a few posts you are telling me something unasked. Then you reply AGAIN!

You post to me in this tread unasked and make your I just don't believe " statement...again unasked.

The you ask me to go away ...all the while you are continuing to make comments to me.

Good grief deano, you are massive mess.

Now back the the backyard stuff.

You tell me in a backyard thread you don't just believe in Jack your research backs it up...in a backyard photo thread.

Asked to give the three best proofs of Jacks for the backyard photos you now claim, well I don't really know because I've not studied them....after making your claim...in a backyard photo thread.

Color me simply amazed but not suprised.

Now you want me to "pick some claims" Well I have...the backyard photos.

But I'll cut you some slack. Start a new thread. Give us the three best White proofs, YOU HAVE RESEARCHED, that PROVE alteration. Note that these proof must rest on Photographic Principles, no "I think I see a bunny in the clouds" opinion bullcrap. Tell us HOW you research the work and HOW you verified it.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe".

Oh my little Craigy

I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack

I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember

White is Right

Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we.

Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites.

And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory...

Jack is a Hack.

I can do that

But I gave you a challenge that you did not take

Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination

So are these the things you want me to post?

1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work

2. What I did to check it myself

3. What conclusions did I come up

4. What I used or how I went about checking it?

Is that a good enough list of things you want posted?

If not tell me what would make you happy and go away

I conceded the "assassination knowlege" quiz to you. You have me beat, fair and square. What more do you want?

I'm asking the three best proofs for the backyard photos being fake, as produced by Jack White ...how did you say it....your research backs up, and lets see what you have. Just give us the three proofs you feel are White's best for the backyard photos and how your "research" was done to validate his claims.

If, as you think, your work is not meaningless then you simply will wipe the floor with me.

Clear enough?

Oh and using your rules, your thoughts only, don't go running for help.

BTW, I'm not going away....

I didnt mean go away from this website, I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face, I know you will always be here ready to try and take down anybody who dosent have 25 years of "expert" photography work

Now I know your going to go crazy and say a whole bunch of stuff about how dumb I am because I know nothing about photography but let me explain

My main focus has always been on the photgraphic record of the actual assassination

The backyard photos (while important im not saying they are not) are not my main area of study

I dont even own the book "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong, and I know I should own it but I dont focus on LHO, I have not put enough time and study into LHO or pictures of him (besides the man in the doorway, who I believe is Billy Lovelady anyways)

So I have view Jack's video on the backyard photos and read his posts and work on them but have never studied them myself.

I am in no way sie stepping your challange, i just need you to pick a photo subject that Jack has done on the actual assassination pictures

Any of his studies that are in his part of TGZFH (The photographic evidence from A-Z) you can choose and I will show you what I have done to prove jack's work to myself.

Please just be civil about this and understand that for me to try and reply to your challange in an area that I have not fully researched would not only make me look stupid but if I tried to come up with reasons why I thought he was 100% correct I would be selling both of us short.

Thanks in advance for understanding, I await your picks so I can get started on proving that I dont just see something Jack has worked on and just "believe"

Dean

I'm simply blown away. Here we are, in a thread about the backyard photos. You reply to one of my posts...about the backyard photos...where I suggest someone simply BELIEVES instead of knows. Your reply:

"I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack"

Note that I was not even talking to you yet you say...

"I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face"

Lets recap.

You state you are done with me in another thread and within a few posts you are telling me something unasked. Then you reply AGAIN!

You post to me in this tread unasked and make your I just don't believe " statement...again unasked.

The you ask me to go away ...all the while you are continuing to make comments to me.

Good grief deano, you are massive mess.

Now back the the backyard stuff.

You tell me in a backyard thread you don't just believe in Jack your research backs it up...in a backyard photo thread.

Asked to give the three best proofs of Jacks for the backyard photos you now claim, well I don't really know because I've not studied them....after making your claim...in a backyard photo thread.

Color me simply amazed but not suprised.

Now you want me to "pick some claims" Well I have...the backyard photos.

But I'll cut you some slack. Start a new thread. Give us the three best White proofs, YOU HAVE RESEARCHED, that PROVE alteration. Note that these proof must rest on Photographic Principles, no "I think I see a bunny in the clouds" opinion bullcrap. Tell us HOW you research the work and HOW you verified it.

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my "own" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject?

So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct?

And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them

Craigy are you ok?

Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject?

So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct?

And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them

Craigy are you ok?

Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose.

deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES.

Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble.

It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble.

Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject?

So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct?

And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them

Craigy are you ok?

Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose.

deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES.

Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble.

It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble.

Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces.

Look for the first post tonight sometime, im making scans and getting things ready

Soory I cant post right away Craig but I have this little problem called a family, you know a wife and three kids, and while today is one of my days off I still have to mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms.

I know Craig its horrible a wife that makes me work, can you "believe" that?

I dont think your married or have any children

You dont need to tell me how many kids or how long you have been married I dont care about the details, but just tell me if im right or wrong

It will help me understand you better, you see if your a single guy living the good life (at home all day waiting for Jack and other alterationists to post) or if your married and have kids (stuck at home working around the house all day while not at work)

Be patient Craig, I will make sure the post is directed at you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject?

So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct?

And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them

Craigy are you ok?

Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose.

deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES.

Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble.

It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble.

Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces.

Look for the first post tonight sometime, im making scans and getting things ready

Soory I cant post right away Craig but I have this little problem called a family, you know a wife and three kids, and while today is one of my days off I still have to mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms.

I know Craig its horrible a wife that makes me work, can you "believe" that?

I dont think your married or have any children

You dont need to tell me how many kids or how long you have been married I dont care about the details, but just tell me if im right or wrong

It will help me understand you better, you see if your a single guy living the good life (at home all day waiting for Jack and other alterationists to post) or if your married and have kids (stuck at home working around the house all day while not at work)

Be patient Craig, I will make sure the post is directed at you

I'm not a single guy and have not been since 1972 Same wonderful woman I might add). I wash the dishes, cook, taking care of a sick wife at the moment, walk the dogs, care for my mom who is doing chemo for colon cancer and run a business. And I get to bust alterationists chops...life is very good indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was waiting for someone to post Frog's latest...guess I'll toss this into the ring. It's interesting anyway...quite a few areas of interest - shoes, fingers, slope to the shoulders, shadows, etc - stuff missing though - like the gunnysack under the porch or whatever that is supposed to be - plus the Oswald photo has this area that doesn't seem to jive with this other one.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my \\\"own\\\" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!

Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject?

So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct?

And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them

Craigy are you ok?

Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose.

deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES.

Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble.

It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble.

Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces.

Look for the first post tonight sometime, im making scans and getting things ready

Soory I cant post right away Craig but I have this little problem called a family, you know a wife and three kids, and while today is one of my days off I still have to mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms.

I know Craig its horrible a wife that makes me work, can you "believe" that?

I dont think your married or have any children

You dont need to tell me how many kids or how long you have been married I dont care about the details, but just tell me if im right or wrong

It will help me understand you better, you see if your a single guy living the good life (at home all day waiting for Jack and other alterationists to post) or if your married and have kids (stuck at home working around the house all day while not at work)

Be patient Craig, I will make sure the post is directed at you

I'm not a single guy and have not been since 1972 Same wonderful woman I might add). I wash the dishes, cook, taking care of a sick wife at the moment, walk the dogs, care for my mom who is doing chemo for colon cancer and run a business. And I get to bust alterationists chops...life is very good indeed.

Im glad to hear that Craig, my opinion of you just went up a notch (not thats its huge to begin with but hey you gota start somewhere)

So I guess my next question is why do you look younger then me in your avatar but yet say you were married in 1972

Have you just countinued to look like your 16 years old your whole life?

If so then congrats on that as well, you must not drink, smoke or eat meat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad to hear that Craig, my opinion of you just went up a notch (not thats its huge to begin with but hey you gota start somewhere)

So I guess my next question is why do you look younger then me in your avatar but yet say you were married in 1972

Have you just countinued to look like your 16 years old your whole life?

If so then congrats on that as well, you must not drink, smoke or eat meat

Hey that photo is a composite of the first shift Craig, the second shift Craig and th3 third shift Craig. These guys in the photo department at Langley are top notch and do really good work. [/sacrasm]

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad to hear that Craig, my opinion of you just went up a notch (not thats its huge to begin with but hey you gota start somewhere)

So I guess my next question is why do you look younger then me in your avatar but yet say you were married in 1972

Have you just countinued to look like your 16 years old your whole life?

If so then congrats on that as well, you must not drink, smoke or eat meat

Hey that photo is a composite of the first shift Craig, the second shift Craig and th3 third shift Craig. These guys in the photo department at Langley are top notch and do really good work. [/sacrasm]

I have heard Langley does good work :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was waiting for someone to post Frog's latest...guess I'll toss this into the ring. It's interesting anyway...quite a few areas of interest - shoes, fingers, slope to the shoulders, shadows, etc - stuff missing though - like the gunnysack under the porch or whatever that is supposed to be - plus the Oswald photo has this area that doesn't seem to jive with this other one.

- lee

good find, Lee!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...