Kenneth Drew Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 No need for me to put on a show, Kenny. Your current "Pretend All The Evidence Is Fake" act is the headliner around here. That show can't be topped---for laughs. I don't have to pretend as long as you nor anyone else can prove it's real. We're all waiting. Okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 If we look at the enlarged version, which DVP has been so gracious to provide us with, there is something very unnatural about the left hand, holding the rifle. Comparing the left hand with the right hand, we can see the entire length of the four fingers of the left hand. Looking at your own hand, you can see the thumb begins quite far back on the hand, and even when laid along the fore finger, does not even extend to the second knuckle of the fore finger. In the photograph, you can see the thumb of the left hand in an impossible position on the opposite side of the rifle from where the thumb joins to the hand. The left thumb in this photo would have to be about 8 inches long to do what we are seeing. Was LHO a circus freak, as well? P.S. Perhaps DVP would be so good as to take a "selfie" of himself, holding a rifle, and recreate this impossible positioning of fingers and thumb. Now wait a second, Bob. Isn't the most popular theory for the "fake backyard photos" the one that has a REAL PERSON standing in the Neely backyard holding a rifle and that only the HEAD of Oswald was pasted onto this "other person's" body? So, if that's the theory, the Oswald stand-in would still have a THUMB on his left hand too. So the "stand-in" would be the "freak" with the weird thumb. Just HOW MANY things can you guys come up with that "don't quite look right" in the BY pictures? Is there any limit? So, Bob, I guess you think that NOBODY was really standing in the Neely backyard at all, is that right? And pretty much everything except the background was added into the picture artificially? Including the freakish left thumb that apparently belonged to NO flesh-and-blood person? Is that correct? And don't forget the alleged "impossible" leaning posture being exhibited by the "person" (or the drawn-in person) in the picture too. And the stubby fingers on the "person's" right hand too. Don't forget that. (Plus the "impossible" shadows.) And the cropped chin. Did I leave anything out? Keep looking at the pic below. I'm sure before the end of the day, you can add a dozen more things that you see in the photo that are "impossible". And keep ignoring Marina whatever you do. She has always said she took the backyard pictures. But she was probably just dreaming the whole thing. Right, Bob? Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg Smoke and mirrors, Dave, and then distraction. You have been well trained for your job. If you believe the freakish left hand holding the rifle with the impossibly long thumb is real, put your money where your big mouth is and re-create this photo. We all know it can't be done. Know why they did such a sloppy job faking this photo? Simple, no one in 1963 ever thought every home would have a computer capable of analyzing things such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) When was the cheque (US, "check") for payment of the rifle allegedly ordered by Hidell/Oswald supposedly cashed, according to the WC? Edited June 4, 2015 by Ian Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Bob, I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit. I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is. But let me add this..... If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph. This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery". And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.) And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet).... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book.... "[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" And let me also ask you this, Bob Prudhomme.... Do you think that a REAL PERSON is standing there in the Neely Street backyard and was posing for a series of phony backyard pictures? As I speculated earlier, it's my guess now that you DON'T think the "person" with the weird (alleged) thumb is a real flesh-and-bone human being. Is that correct? Edited June 4, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) DVP, are you saying that Marina used magic when taking the photo? Oh, you quoted the Bug, so you must know what he's talking about. Thanks for the morning laugh. Laugh of the day, we'll call it. Is that a US patent on that 'shrug'? If so, what is the patent number? Edited June 4, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Bob, I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit. It is his thumb or he has a hole in his side. I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is. "Shrug": Is that the best you can do? But let me add this..... If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph. No "must be" at all. only in your world "must it be' This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery". I would love anybody to explain such a long thumb And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.) And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet).... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 Absence of evidence does not mean absence of evidence" And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book.... "[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" Anything written by the Bug needs to be taken with a double dose of salt. And let me also ask you this, Bob Prudhomme.... Do you think that a REAL PERSON is standing there in the Neely Street backyard and was posing for a series of phony backyard pictures? As I speculated earlier, it's my guess now that you DON'T think the "person" with the weird (alleged) thumb is a real flesh-and-bone human being. Is that correct? I asked if you believe in Santa Claus because it seems as though you believe the fairy tale written by the Grim Brothers, Specter and Dulles. Edited June 4, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) What about this re-creation photo? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963.... Edited June 4, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Nice try, David. The thumb in the Oswald photo almost touch his fingertips. Not so in the reconstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Ray,If the man in the re-creation photo were to slide his thumb down just a little more, the thumb would almost touch his fingertips too. (The thumb IS a movable object, you know.)And what about those so-called "fake" shadows that CTers love so much? Any comment on those? Edited June 4, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Ray, If the man in the re-creation photo were to slide his thumb down just a little more, the thumb would almost touch his fingertips too. (The thumb IS a movable object, you know.) And what about those so-called "fake" shadows that CTers love so much? Any comment on those? If the man were to slide his thumb down a little more he still wouldn't get anywhere near touching his fingers as does Oswald in the photo. Compare the shadows in CE133A and CE133B. Edited June 4, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What about this re-creation photo? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963.... Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg DVP Give me a second here to get my laughter under control. Really!!!???? Is that your recreation photo? That is the most pathetic attempt I have ever seen! Didn't you receive better training than that? Okay, let's make a comparison between the two men. In LHO's photo, all four fingers are not only completely visible, they are almost straight as well. We can clearly see the third knuckle of each finger. His four fingers are straight but bent at the third knuckle; otherwise, we would see the back of his hand in this photo. This is a very difficult position to hold the hand in, and I suggest everyone attempt holding their fingers straight, and bending the base joint of their fingers at 90°. However, it is the index finger we are most interested in. With your straight fingers bent at a 90° angle with the rest of your hand, look at where your thumb is. On my hand, the index finger is protruding almost an inch further than my thumb, and that is with nothing in my hand! If I were holding a rifle, it would put the end of my thumb even further back. In your "recreation photo", the man's fingers are bent in a much more natural fashion, with both second and third knuckles bent, and this places the join between thumb and hand much further around the rifle. Also, we can only see the tip of his thumb in this photo, unlike the BYP where we can see way beyond the first knuckle of the thumb. In the BYP, the thumb and middle finger are almost touching; in your photo, there is a large gap between them, indicating the thumb is well behind the rifle. However, a careful look at your photo indicates that even the thumb in this photo is unnaturally long and, try as I might, I cannot reproduce this pose myself. Where did you find this photo, Dave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 While we are at it, Dave, let's compare a couple of other things. Your recreation photo has made something else glaringly apparent. I see the man in your photo has attempted to imitate LHO's severe lean to the right, with no success. LHO's entire body leans to the right, as if his feet were cemented to the earth and an 80 mph wind was blowing on his left side. Your man, on the other hand, is keeping his legs vertical, and is doing a bizarre kind of hunch/lean to the right, bending at the hips. As I said, if I couldn't do any better than this, I think I would stay at home, Dave. Now, just as I was comprehending this oddity, I noticed something else. Look at the fence behind your man, Dave, then look at the fence behind LHO. The fence in your photo is almost level, yet the fence behind LHO is higher on our left than on the right, meaning the camera was tilted slightly in the BYP. If the fence was level in the BYP, LHO would be leaning so far to his right he would fall over. Anyone want a good laugh, try this at home. Print a large copy of LHO in the BYP, and turn it so the fence is level, Using the fence as square, re-trim the tops and side of your page, and you'll have a reproduction of what the BYP originally looked like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) However, a careful look at your photo indicates that even the thumb in this photo is unnaturally long and, try as I might, I cannot reproduce this pose myself. Well, Bob, shouldn't that tell you something right there? Or do you now want to say that the CBS/Schiller re-creation photo is a fake too? Where did you find this photo, Dave? Via just a regular ol' "Google Image" search. Here are the search results.... https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+backyard+photo+re-creation&biw=1280&bih=590&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fHxwVdjTFILJsAXcrYPABg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ BTW, the man in the re-creation picture can also be seen in the 1967 CBS video linked below (in Part 1 of the 4-part series). However, it appears that the picture used in the CBS video is slightly different than the photo I posted in my earlier post.... dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html Edited June 4, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 When was the cheque (US, "check") for payment of the rifle allegedly ordered by Hidell/Oswald supposedly cashed, according to the WC? Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) While we are at it, Dave, let's compare a couple of other things. Your recreation photo has made something else glaringly apparent.... What did I tell you, Bob? If you look long and hard enough, you're going to "find" 50 more weird things that don't look quite right to you. Why I am not the least bit surprised? Edited June 4, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now