Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Michael Walton

What's Wrong with These Photos?

10 posts in this topic

I went to the library to see if there were any Kennedy assassination books and the pickings were slim.


post-7252-0-44360400-1457734712_thumb.jpg


I guess it just goes to show you that where I live they want to affirm the status quo. The one called A Cruel and Shocking Act did pique my interest. But then when I was looking at the photos, I found a pretty blatant error:


post-7252-0-08682900-1457734709_thumb.jpg


The doctored "Oswald with guns" photo taken...in New Orleans? That book went right back on the shelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be too critical of an error in a caption within a photo section of a JFK book.

I can certainly relate to a similar captioning error that occurred in the book I helped Mel Ayton write ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt"). One of the pictures in the photo section is incorrectly captioned, and it drives me crazy, because I had no control over that caption; it was put there by somebody other than the book's two authors.

Ironically, however, that particular caption was written by me, but the person who was in charge of arranging the photo section attached the wrong words to the photo. ....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html#Captioning-Error

So perhaps Philip Shenon had the same difficulty in his book---i.e., the accuracy of the captions written for the pictures might have been beyond his total control. ~shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shenon's book is a very clever, well disguised piece of extended propaganda. As Pat Speer has pointed out, he was put up to it by the late Arlen Specter. And in his acknowledgements, he mentions a Specter staffer.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/shenon.html

What Shenon does with Mexico City is really kind of outrageous. Its clear he read the Lopez Report, and he talked to both Danny and Eddie. But he clearly censored all of that wonderful info to turn it into a Castro plot. Which today is just nuts. And the thing he relies upon, the Childs report, was exposed to me by John Newman over 15 years ago as being ersatz.

So, ipso facto, Specter is literally continuing his cover up from the grave.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I wouldn't be too critical of an error in a caption within a photo section of a JFK book."


David, thanks for your reply. I know there is always going to be errors made in publishing. For what it's worth, I've been working in multimedia design and publishing for my entire career. I'm supposed to be the designer, not the content guy, but there have been numerous times where I've received "content" that leaves a lot to be desired in the way of accuracy.


To give you a recent example, I was designing a publication and the content person told me to keep "f" in lower case for "fisheries" vs. "Fisheries." I knew it should be "F" because the caption was clearly talking about an organization. I told this person I didn't agree with her and she said it was a "branding" issue (whatever that meant).


Then, a few days later, another person submitted an article and had "F" for "Fisheries" like it was supposed to be. I pointed this out to the content person but she still refused to change the "F" to "f" in her caption.


So the point of all of this is, yes, there's going to be incorrect spellings here and there, or incorrect things because of the way people perceive things (like the example above). At the same time, Shendon's book is an historical writing of a major event. If the caption error was "Maple Cliff" vs. "Oak Cliff" that's one thing. But to say the fake photo was taken in New Orleans seems, at least to me, a little much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to say the fake photo was taken in New Orleans seems, at least to me, a little much.

But such a minor error pales by comparison to the gaffe you just made -- because it's certainly "a little much" to call the Neely Street backyard photograph a "fake photo" when that picture has been determined to be totally legitimate by numerous photographic experts (20 on the HSCA's Photo Panel alone).

When will the everlasting conspiracy myths cease being propagated? (Should I hold my breath until the year 2525?)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, you can believe what you want to believe, just like I believe what I want to believe. It's interesting that you mention the HSCA photo experts because I've seen elsewhere that lone nut believers tend to not accept the conclusions of that committee due to the fact that their conclusions said that a probable shot from the knoll occurred, thus a probable conspiracy.


So I think it's interesting that you're mixing and matching things to support the lone nut belief. In other words, you and others don't want to accept HSCA's conclusions but are willing to accept their 20 photographic "experts" about the backyard photos.


Meanwhile, I happen to believe this - Oswald himself said that the backyard photos were faked. He even was smart enough to understand about the concept of pasting his face over someone else's body. I'm sure that because he worked at JCS, he probably had a good understanding of how photography works.


I put a great deal of stock into his claim because he also said, and was captured on film saying it, that he was nothing but a patsy. As a teen back in 1975 when I first became interested in this case, I had to look that word up and I bet a lot of other people had to do the same. Can you imagine a Timothy McVeigh or some other genuine kook even knowing what that word means? I think that simple statement he said (patsy) spoke volumes about who he really was. He knew the jig was up and was getting pi**ed about the situation he was in.


You'll probably say that Jack White was no expert, but I think White's work on the photos in question point out a lot of glaring problems with them. If you say White is no expert like the "esteemed" experts that the HCSA brought in, then let me ask you this - what exactly makes one an expert in something? You can have 50 degrees hanging on your office wall but not have the ability to figure things out in a creative way; on the other side of the coin, you can have a high school degree and nothing more but have a real knack for coming up with solid conclusions based on accurate and creative analysis.


Although we have to give credit to the HSCA for at least trying to come to a more accurate conclusion about a conspiracy, we all know that that committee was rigged from the start, just like the WC was. The Katzenbach memo pretty much proves the walking papers of the WC and Oswald was barely cold in his grave when it was time for the government to cut off all vigorous effort to seek the truth.


One final thought - I think the folks who made the backyard photos got greedy. I mean it wasn't enough for them to just have a fake Oswald standing there with a rifle in his hands. They just had to have him holding a Communist paper, a rifle, and even, to boot, a pistol on his hip. When you really think about it, it's almost hysterical how much they went over the top on what they included in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW: Although we have to give credit to the HSCA for at least trying to come to a more accurate conclusion about a conspiracy, we all know that that committee was rigged from the start, just like the WC was.

​This is the case with the WC of course, due to LBJ's intimidating the wits out of Warren with that image of 60 million incinerated.

But its not the case with the HSCA.

​The first chair of the HSCA was Richard Sprague, a very distinguished prosecutor from Philadelphia who happened to work under Arlen Specter. His Deputy Counsel for the JFK case was Bob Tanenbaum, another distinguished prosecutor from New York City. They had a combined record of something like over 100 convictions versus one acquittal in cases they personally tried. And, unlike most of the WC lawyers, they strictly did criminal cases at that time so they understood how to investigate major felonies. After interviewing and reading interviews with Sprague, Tanenbaum, and Al Lewis, the third in command, its pretty clear to me that, unlike Blakey, they were not going to fall back on the WC balderdash and do some "good for the country" dive.

Once that became evident, the MSM got into it and made sure that they were not going to be humiliated, and so Sprague left, with Tanenbaum following.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim,


Thanks for the correction. I was getting my committees and investigations mixed up. I do recall reading that the HCSA started off with high-minded goals to find out the truth of the assassination until the major people left as you point out. So "rigged" was not the correct word to use.


The Garrison investigation was also intended to reveal the truth through the Shaw trial, but that's the one where "rig" could be applied. And by that I mean it became rigged when the media and intelligence sources were embedded into it to eventually undermine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I think you'll find (if you look hard enough) that all of these investigations were infiltrated and undermined by intelligence "stories". In each case - Warren, Garrison, HSCA (not sure about AARB) - persons were actively inserted to direct the flow of good information away from the public, and intentionally complicated with "bad" or bogus information. Reputations were smeared and ad hominem attacks utilized. It comes across as almost a war against the truth (imho). There are terms commonly used to describe these tactics (e.g. disinformation, limited hangouts, false flag operations, cognitive dissonance, rabbit holes, etc.) but the patterns are quite clear.

For me, the presence of these patterns is one of the over-arching clues that intelligence agencies had a role in the murder of JFK.

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0