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".

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BY photos were faked and latter planted as the photographic 'experts' claim then how is it possible that Oswald's own mother not only saw one of the set but actually helped destroy it on the very same day Kennedy was assassinated? This is the testimony from Marguerite Oswald, clearly stating that she not only saw one of the photos but also helped Marina in its destruction. It forms part of an article by the highly respected researcher Ian Griggs, hardly someone who could be accused of being a LN'er. Here's just a short piece:"Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, testified before the Warren Commission at Washington D.C. on Monday 10th, Tuesday 11th and Wednesday 12th February 1964. "Now, gentlemen, this is some important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian. 'Mamma', she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, 'Mamma, I show you.' She opened the closet, and in the closet was a load of books and papers. And she came out with a picture - a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, 'To my daughter June'"The rest can be read here scroll down to the heading "Was there a fifth backyard photograph" http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a post at lancer thanks....("Firearms, Photographs, & Lee Harvey Oswald" by

Ian Griggs http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

From John Goldsmith, professor at University of Chicago:

1(B) At least one of the negatives found (or allegedly found) by the police

at the Paines' house showed a pattern of scratches which positively

associated it with the Imperial Reflex camera that

Robert Oswald turned over to the FBI; this result was established by

photographic experts assembled by the HSCA.

2. Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission (although the

inconsistencies in this account could arguably make this testimony into an

argument against the validity of the photos);

3. de Mohrenschildt's testimony;

4. statements from workers at The Militant/The Worker (which?) that they had

received a copy of the photo

end quote

b...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George de Mohrenschildt, I'm a Patsy (1977)

In February of 1967 we finally found a suitable place to settle down, before that we moved from one place to another and visited our children in California and Mexico. the place called conveniently "La Citadellle" was exactly fitting to us and was ample enough to accomodate all the furniture which had been stored in the warehouse since the beginning of 1963... It was about time to settle as four years storage at the Southwestern Warehouses began to axhaust us financially.

I thought of abandoning the whole junk and leave it to the warehouse - it's good sometime to start anew, but there were books...

And so we went to the warehouse with an old, faithful friend, always ready to help and to pick up some old junk for himself, and, before our furniture was taken out, we began looking through the accumulation of various and sundry items that could be eliminated. I was less intrested in this task, so I chatted with my friend, a good guy who had followed us on many of our trips, while Jeanne was finishing the selection of things to take and to discard.

Suddenly, he rushed out of the warehouse with a crazy look on her face, shouting excitedly: "Look, look, what I found!"

She dragged me to the pile of open crates and I saw inside a slightly familiar-looking green box. "What the hell is this?"

"This is the box with the records I gave Marina before our departure," she shouted.

"How did they get there? We left them such a long time ago?"

"I haven't the slightest idea, I considered them lost." Jeanne was short of words, this was so weird. "I had used them myself to learn English when I came to this country. They served me well. Then I loaned them to Marina long before our departure for Haiti."

"Remember how punctiously honest Lee was," I said. "He would not keep any of our belongings. But how the hell did they into this warehouse? Possibly he remembered where we were storing our furniture. Or, maybe he have the package to Glover to whom we had loaned some of our furniture and who finally added it to the rest of stored boxes at the Southwest Warehouse?"

This remains a mystery to this day, because we lost track of Glover, a good guy who got so frightened of his very slight acquaintanceship with the "President's assassin" that he moved out somewhere without leaving an address.

My wife began taking the albums out of the box and as she opened to see if the records were not broken, she shrieded almost hysterically.

"Look, there is a picture of Lee Oswald here!"

This was the same, so controversial picture of Lee, which appeared on the cover the defunct "Life". Many newspapermen and "investigators" had assumed and had written hundreds of pages that this picture was a fabrication, a "fake", a superimposed photograph. Frankly we did not care but now, right there, was a proof that the picture was genuine.

We stood literally frozen stiff, Lee staring at us in his martial pose, the famous rifle in his hands. like in a Marine parade. It was a gift for us from beyond his grave.

"What did he mean by leaving this picture to us?" I wondered aloud. "He was not a vain kind of a person."

Then Jeanne shouted excitedly again: "look there is an inscription here. It read: "To my dear friend George from Lee." and the date follow - April 1963, at the time when we were thousand of miles away in Haiti. I kept looking at the picture and the inscription deeply moved, my thoughts going back when Lee was alive.

Then I slowly turned the photograph and there was another epitaph, seemingly in Marina's handwriting, in Russian. In translation it reads; "this is the hunter of fascists! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Here Marina was again making fun of her husband, jeering Lee's very serious anti-fascists feelings, which we knew so well and described in several chapters of this book.

It's hard to describe the impact of this discovery on us, especially Lee's dedication and Marian's enscription. This message from beyond the grave was amazing and shocking. From the grave we did not even dare to visit, because FBI considered with suspicion all the visitors at Lee's burial place. The confirmation that Lee considered me his best friend flattered me but Marina's message expressed a chilling scorn for her husband. Anyway, if he were a hunter of fascists, and we agree with such a description, who was the making fun of him?

First of all it makes in doubt her assertion that Lee tried to shoot General Walker, secondly for a Soviet Russian refugee the word "fascist" is not a laughing matter - some fifteen million people lost their lives fighting them. And how many more died of cold and hunger?

We kept this photograph for ourselves and showed it only to a few close friends. Their reactions were interesting: to some the photograph indicated that Lee was a maniac, a killer, it constituted a proof of his aggressiveness, of his guilt. To others, just the opposite - it gave him the aura of a militant idealist. The man of such anti-facist inclinations COULD NOT be the assassin of the most liberal and race conscious president in the history of the United States.

We did not show the photograph to any authorities, to them Lee Harvey Oswald's case was closed and we did not want any further involvements. Neither did we show it to any investigators or reporters in the United States.

But I did write a letter to a friend, one of the editors of Life Magazine, explaining that I had a message from Lee Harvey Oswald and I did ask him to keep the matter confidential. I added to my letter a short resume of the facts - how this picture got into our possession.

Immediately I received a call from my friend saying that Life had a team working on Oswald's case, a team of investigators, because the magazine had doubts of Warren Committee's conclusions.

The next day a reporter assigned to the assassination case called me and we talked for a long time. He was intimately familiar with all the details, psychological and technical, of this unbelievable complex case, having worked on it since November 1963. Like ourselves, he was at Marina's inscription and gave it the same meaning as ourselves.

"We shall use to as a main feature of our special edition if and when we know something definite about Oswald's involvement or of his innocence he said.

Again I asked the man to keep this matter confidential temporarily and he promised to do so.

Obviously either Life's people were talkative or, more probably, our telephone was tapped. This we found at several occasions.

New we know much more about "Watergate" type tactics of our government agencies, especially FBI, but at the time we did not have anything to conceal - except the existence of this picture - and this only for our own sentimental reasons. Whenever we heard a suspicious noise on the telephone, we laughed, spoke in foreign languages or made offensive remarks at whoever was listening in. Some voluminous files must be hidden somewhere contaning "transcripts", translations and obliterations of our conversations.

Again, being faithful taxpayers for years and years, we could but marvel at the unbelievable waste of our money. But what was it compared to 140 billion U.S. dollars spent in Vietnam. But one bad habit leads to another...

Now something should be said as to why we did not contact Marina regarding picture. Naturally she knew of its existence from our mutual friends, the Fords. But as this story clearly indicates, there is not love lost between Marina and us. We had helped her with the baby care, with her own health and finally made a supreme effort trying to solve her unsolvable conflict with Lee. We never received a word of thanks from her. But this is not important, we helped her when she was not poor and desperate.

Unfortunately, after Lee's death she showed herself a real "operator". She created an appearance of a helpless victim, of a woman searching for God, and naturally God-fearing Americans sent her substantial contributions or donations, all tax-free. We heard from some reporters that donations were sent frequently stuck between the pages of Bibles and she would grab the money and flung the Bible furiously on the floor.

We did not treat her very nicely in our testimonies, but we were utterly truthful. Marina should have recognized it, had she taken the trouble of reading our depositions. She might have come then to a true evaluation of herself and of her dead husband.

Well, she is settled now, when we see each other we say "hello" politely. As a matter of fact the last time I even did not recognize her. She looked prosperous and spoke excellent English.

Another reason we did not contact Marina and haven't had a serious conversation with her, was her attitude towards Mrs. Ruth Paine. Ruth was a perfectly charming, charitable Quaker, a Christian in the true sense of this word, who, like us, helped the Oswalds out of pure humanitarian impulses. Actually she did more for them than anyone else. Marina lived with her for and off, took advantage of her hospitality. Ruth drove her to New Orleans and back. She showed utter kindness to her occasionally Lee, and especially to baby June. She and her husband were simply admirable people. Yet Ruth had her own family to take care of as well as her teaching profession. Her only reward consisted of lessons in conversational Russian.

Lee, on the other hand, seldom accepted hospitality and certainly did not ask for it. And yet, Ruth's and Marine's great friendship ended abruptly after the assassination.

As Ruth told us later, upon our return from Haiti, Marina said that she did not want to see her ever again. And Mrs. Paine was too proud a person to insist.

It is possible that Marina was advised by the authorities to shy away from her former independent-minded friends and she must have been scared stiff of authorities. Time will tell. But still many years went by and she still does not see mrs. Ruth Paine.

Short sketches of various incidents involving Marina will prove to the reader these peculiarities of her character, which may incidentally appear admirable to many readers. Her dreams of America bristling with high buildings, criss-crossed with high-speed roads, blessed with luxury for everyone and especially with fast automobiles for all teenagers and adults. And she was right, some economist calculated fifteen years ago that if the automobiles dept on proliferating at the same rate, each family in America would possess five hundred automobiles at the end of this century. A paradise of earth!

Yet we never disliked Marina, there was really nothing to dislike, there was no substance in her. She was amusing sometimes, witty, naive mostly, like some Russian peasants, yet with great deal of shrewdness underneath. My wife used to call her affectionately - "that rascal Marina" - and that description fitted her perfectly. Unusual visitors.

The photograph we found in the record album is identical to the one Life magazine published shortly after the assassination. I think Marina took it, at least she so testified. Only the dedication to me and the inscription by Marina constitute new elements. This picture, unquestionably did a lot of damage to Lee. It shows him in a militaristic pause, holding a rifle, a pistol on his side.

But let's not forget that Lee was trained by the Marine Corps to hold, show and respect weapons. The Beretta we saw in his apartment was well oiled and immaculately clean. Another bow to the United States Marine Corps. But whatever later testimony tried to prove, I knew that he was not a particulary good shot. He did not have that cold stare in his eyes - incidentally he had rather attractive gray eyes - he did not have a very steady hand and a stiff stance which indicate to anyone familiar with things military a good marksman. To Jeanne and I he did to have an ugly expression of a killer, and we knew professional killers, Jeanne in China during the Japanese occupation, I in other parts of the world. He owned a pistol but we never discussed why, I assumed for self defence, he lived in a very disreputable part of Dallas. Maybe Lee liked to shoot at the leaves, but he did not have a decisive, self-assured, automatic attitude of a sharpshooter. On the contrary, he was nervous, jittery, poorly coordinated type, and, as I said before completely unathletic. Also devoid of any mechanical ability. I had observed boys and men of that type in my own regiment and the were totally unfit for military performance - and usually very poor shots.

We had tried to keep the existence of Lee's photograph as secret as possible, just a few friends saw it and Life's reporter knew of it. Something, however, leaked out and about two weeks after my conversations with Life's writers, I received a strange telephone call. A slightly accented voice said, and I quote: "we are from Life Magazine,' and he mentioned the name of the reporter I had spoken to, "we are here in Dallas and would like to see you?"

"Certainly," I agreed immediately. "Come over."

They knew the address and an hour later two men appeared in our house. A strange pair; one slight, Latin-American type fellow, the other a big bruizer, beefy, powerful, Anglo type. They sat down, announced that they represented Life Magazine, the Latin mentioned his repetorial qualifications, the beefy character said he was a photographer. Indeed he was loaded with cameral of all types. The names were respectively - Smith and Fernandez. Smith mentioned also that he was a staff photographer for Fortune Magazine, which put me completely at ease.

"We would like to ask you a few questions the other Life reporter failed to discuss with you," said Fernandez.

I obliged him. These questions were unimportant, mostly about Lee's habits and his character. Then they became more specific. "Was he sociable? Whom did he know well? What were his relations with fellow workers in this country and in USSR? Did he have many friends in addition to us? What did he do in Mexico? Whom did he meet there? Could he speak Spanish? Why did he go to New Orleans? Could he drive a car? And many other questions, which I do not recall now.

I answered these questions to the best of my ability, but naturally many had to remain unanswered, since I was out of the country and did not have any contacts with Lee during that time.

The question may arise; why was I so frank with Life Magazine people and let myself pumped out so naively. The answer is that one of my most admired friends used to be a staff writer for Life and he had performed an extremely kind and difficult intervention of behalf of my father stranded in Europe during the war. Incidentally, I felt very much at ease with these two character because I had a visitor at the time, an economist from the East, a very athletic fellow and a good friend and he was there all the time.

Later in the afternoon Jeanne arrived, very surprised to see the unusual guests. I explained who they were. "But you have a very strong Spanish accent?" she asked Fernandez.

"Yes, of course, I am of Spanish origin and I had worked as a reporter for life mostly in Latin America. So, excuse my poor English."

This sounded reasonable enough.

Then Smith, "the photographer", producer a series of excellent, very clear photos of some twenty men, mostly of Latin appearance and asked pointedly if we had ever met any of them.

We both looked carefully at these strange, sometimes brutal, faces.

"I am not sorry not to have met any of them," I quipped. "They look rather disreputable. Who are they ?"

Somehow this question remained unanswered.

"I have an excellent memory for faces and I am positive not to have ever seen any of them," I added.

Jeanne, in a more cheerful and confident mood pointed out three better-looking ones: "This one has a cute moustache! That one has an interesting look about him. And this one is so handsome! Oh, I would like to meet these three men," he concluded laughingly.

This cheerfulness was met by a stony silence, a kind of hostile attitude. Fernandez did not say a word. He seemed disappointed. Smith broke the awkard silence and asked: "May I take a few pictures of you and the dogs?"

The mentioning of the dogs conquered Jeanne and we obliged again. Many photographs were taken.

The conversation lingered for a while longer. Fernandez became more amiable and called our dog Nero in the Spanish manner "Senor Neron" which pleased Jeanne to no end. Finally the two strangers left, promising to contact us again from new York, to gove our regards to my friend there and to send us copies of the pictures.

A few days went by. We both were busy and didn't have time or occasion to discuss this visit. One evening, lying in bed, I asked Jeanne: "What did you think of those two characters who came to visit us the other day?"

"Rather suspicious," she said. "I was thinking of them at this very moment. This is ESP. How did you know they were from Life?" She asked. "Did they have any identifications?"

"None," I mused. "And I did not ask for any. But they knew exactly what I was talking about with the Life reporter in new York. Fernandez remembered all the questions and all my answers."

"You were very careless," said Jeanne convincingly. "Don't you know that the house has been bugged on and off. More on than off."

She was absolutely right. These men were imposters. Next day I checked with the Life office in New York. Smith and Fernandez did not exist as far as Life was concerned.

"But let's not forget that Lee was trained by the Marine Corps to hold, show and respect weapons. The Beretta we saw in his apartment was well oiled and immaculately clean"

The Beretta!? huh?

-Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from lancer thanks...b

Were the photos, as some have written, using the conflicting publications to

send a message that Lee Oswald was working for both sides? Was this why the

photo Marina had in the closet was being saved for June, his daughter?

Goldsmith also noted this dilemma:

The background is virtually identical in the photos, to an extent that is

highly improbable if the photos were simply snapped by Marina Oswald, with

the requisite rewinding motions made inbetween shots; the perfect, or nearly

perfect, match between the backgrounds indicates either that a single

background shot was used to create the photos, or that a tripod was used to

take the shots (or both).

(Note from Debra, the HSCA panel went over this opinion here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/rifle_hsca.html . Scroll down to "(e) The identical

backgrounds.")

and

The Militant and The Worker were the publications of Marxist organizations

that were enemies; it makes no sense, from a Marxist's point of view, to put

them together as Oswald did.

(Course on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, John Goldsmith,

Spring 1994, Spring 1995

http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/11_HCSA.pdf )

--

What makes me wonder somewhat about the HSCA's findings is this document --

found by John Armstrong -- written about by Tomlin on his website.

"John Armstrong sent me a newly released HSCA document regarding the

backyard photos which is extremely interesting. Apparently HSCA staff

drafted reports based on evidence and sent the reports to each member of the

photo panel for comments and suggestions. The document I am looking at is a

transmittal letter returning a report on the backyard photos, from one

member of the photo panel, David B. Eisendrath of Brooklyn, to Mickey

Goldsmith, HSCA senior staff counsel. One of Eisendrath*s comments is very

intriguing":

QUOTE

**I have already written to you about the photogrammetry of the backyard

pictures and after several rereadings STILL feel that this should be

re-edited, re-calculated, or destroyed. It*s a bomb-shell and should not be

published in its present form.**

UNQUOTE

(from http://www.whokilledjfk.net/not%20investigate.htm )

---

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.

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

Edited by Dean Hagerman
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....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie
Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word B)

Touche!

It is a non-issue, after all. He was the sole Fair Play For Cuba guy in New Orleans, allegedly shot at General Walker and expoused Marxist-Leninist views on the air. Oh, he lived in Russia, too. The photo was useful to Life Magazine and served its purpose in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but as time passed - and especially after the Warren Report was released in all its glory - it became just another construct of the Oswald legend, whether real or faked. As Robert Walker asked, who is pushing this and why? That is the compelling and real issue. It usually is.

JG

First off, the case for conspiracy does NOT rest on proof of photo or film alteration.

And even if Oswald posed for the photo(s) and Marina took them all, and they are real and were not tampered with, how does that prove that Oswald is the lone assassin, as the story implies?

And even if Oswald was the lone assassin and posed for the incriminating photos, what was his motive, professional, political or psychological, because if he wasn't psycho, then he had criminal assistance, even if he did act alone.

More likely he was none of the above, and the photo was an integral aspect of Oswald being framed for the crimes, just as he claimed. Along with the rifle, the pristine bullet, the pistol, the shells and bullets and fingerprint on the rifle and sniper's nest cartons, the photos and the impersonators, all the basic evidence that implicates Oswald is too pat, and appears to have been staged and planted.

But the backyard photos certainly do provide clues, linking the principle, but not first suspect, with the alleged murder weapons, and the communist publications The Worker and the Militant.

Has anyone bothered to actually read the specific issues of the Militant or Worker that are in the photo?

Do they contain any articles about Castro or Cuba, about the CIA raider ships?

And why aren't these questions part of the story about the photos, and why is the story slanted to PROVE they are legitimate pictures and promoting the false illogical ergo that since they are real Oswald was the lone assassin?

So many questions, so little time,

Bill Kelly

________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Great postings on this by the usual suspects. Thanks, guys, I'm havin' a ball reading the results of some genuine critical thinking and terrific research. Hope all are well.

Yours Truly,

JG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...e%20Oswald.html

According to Mae Brussel, during his interrogation Lee Oswald said:

I will not discuss this photograph without advice of an attorney. .

Can anyone cite the actual source for this statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...e%20Oswald.html

According to Mae Brussel, during his interrogation Lee Oswald said:

I will not discuss this photograph without advice of an attorney. .

Can anyone cite the actual source for this statement?

HI RAYMOND IT'S FROM ONE OF FRITZ'S NOTES,NUMBER 5 BUT THE WORDING IS NOT EXACTLY AS SCRIBED AT MAE'S SITE..

B..OR COULD BE PERHAPS WITHIN FRIT'ZS TESTIMONY... B)

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here it is raymond from this trivia library .com part 7 site..

6:00-6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office

"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . . .

© 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace

Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books.

All rights reserved.

You Are Here: Trivia » Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald » JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 7

« JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 6 JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 8 »

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI RAYMOND IT'S FROM ONE OF FRITZ'S NOTES,NUMBER 5 BUT THE WORDING IS NOT EXACTLY AS SCRIBED AT MAE'S SITE..

B..OR COULD BE PERHAPS WITHIN FRIT'ZS TESTIMONY... B)

Thank you Bernice. I also found this in Bookhout's testimony:

Mr. STERN - Did he have any comment at this interview about counsel?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - None other than at the outset of being first asked if that was his photograph, he first made the statement that he wouldn't make any comment about it without the advice of counsel, but then subsequently is when he went into the story about his face had been superimposed over somebody else's body.

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

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...