Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

On 04/05/2017 at 4:08 PM, David Josephs said:

Here's another one...  in the bottom image,,, where's the mic?

590b43d1e11d0_imageswithandwithoutthemicrophone.thumb.jpg.237c75ca9ba6adf801d663544e680cf5.jpg

590b4421e1f20_Oswaldkillingandthemicrophoneornomicrophone.thumb.jpg.c202243246f4da4d1943e4cdb58599ce.jpg

Wouldn't surprise me if the images that don't show the 'mic' come from a newspaper who, for (self-proclaimed) aesthetic purposes decided to 'edit' it out - was (probably still is) quite a common practice. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alistair Briggs...with much due respect...I don't see any logic at all to anyone, any media deciding to taking out the mic in their photos.

For aesthetic purposes?  That explanation makes such a claim even more illogical.

Who in the world looking at those pictures would give a hoot whether a mic is present or not?

Why not also take out the light stands?

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some wider frame photo views of the DPD basement/Oswald shooting which do show Dallas Police Officer William "Blackie" Harrison ( on the far right ) reaching out his arm toward Jack Ruby just after he ( Ruby) shot Oswald.

Harrison is the big, hefty, black haired officer ( plain clothes that day ) who has a cigar hanging out of his mouth as he is reacting to the shooting. He is just to the right of later well known news correspondent Ike Pappas.

Ruby had stationed himself just behind Harrison right before he bolted out to whack Oswald.  No one between him and Harrison.

Harrison claimed in his Warren Commission testimony he never saw Ruby at any time before the shooting and didn't even notice him almost brushing up against him just before Ruby jumps out next to him to do the Oswald hit.  Some top notch Oswald security work there Officer Harrison!

Harrison also gave the Warren Commission a time line for when he observed DPD officer Sam Pierce drive a patrol car up to the top of the Main Street exit ramp before Oswald is brought down to the basement.

Ruby in his WC testimony also said he saw this same Officer Pierce ( whom Ruby knew well enough to refer to him by his first name "Sam" ) come out the ramp in the police car Harrison mentioned, to the Main Street opening and Pierce's immediate conversing with another ramp guarding officer there.

Harrison also stated he too observed this same Pierce conversing scene Ruby described.  

And Ruby stated it was while officer Pierce and this other ramp guarding officer were distracted in their conversation that he scampered past them and went down the ramp.

Officer Harrison also described observing several other scenes of officers standing and meeting in the Main Street ramp entrance and was able to positively identify them ( even the color of their badges - very good vision from that distance ) from his position all the way down at the bottom of the ramp and a little farther in the basement. Yet, with all these long distance positive ID observations officer Harrison claimed he never saw Ruby during this same period.

If Harrison observed officer Pierce conversing out his car window with another ramp security officer right in the ramp opening area while it was happening, isn't it very likely that would also see Ruby scamper by them at the same time which Ruby claims he did?  

Harrison and Ruby both describe witnessing the Pierce Ramp opening conversation scene at the same time.

Harrison stated that the driving up the ramp by officer Pierce and conversation with another officer there occurred "5 minutes" or more before the Oswald shooting.

If that was the case and Ruby scampered down the ramp into the basement ( which must have taken maybe 5 to 10 seconds?) during this conversation, then that means Ruby was in the basement all that time also. And in all those 5 minutes, not one of all the highest alert, unprecedented number Oswald security team ( including Harrison ) notices him?  Even as he is right behind Harrison during Oswald's walk from the entrance door to his being just feet away?

Isn't it security's job to observe the press crowd instead of straight at the person they are supposedly protecting?

If you read Harrison's WC testimony you will see Harrison's statement of knowing Jack Ruby for 12 years ( Harrison was a patrol officer all this time )  and down playing his relationship with Jack Ruby during this long period with a statement of his only "occasionally"  dropping into his establishments for drinks ( water and soda pops inferred) and to look for underage patrons. 

High priority work ... and you get to gander at a little female flesh at the same time.

I see so much more in Harrison's WC testimony about his DPD work relationship and personal friendship with Ruby that indicates he was so clearly down playing this.

IMO Harrison was much closer to Ruby.

 And what a coincidence that officer Harrison ( right at the front of the press crowd line ) was the one person Ruby chose to hide behind just before he leaped out to whack Lee Harvey Oswald.

I am sure if any of you read DPD officer Harrison's WC testimony you will see what I am talking about regards his prevarications when asked about his never seeing Ruby at any time on the ramp or in the basement and his true relationship with Ruby.

And the guy even had to have an attorney with him during his testimony which most other witnesses felt they didn't need. Just another red flag in my belief that Ruby was allowed into the basement to do Oswald...with some help from his "friends."

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Alistair Briggs...with much due respect...I don't see any logic at all to anyone, any media deciding to taking out the mic in their photos.

For aesthetic purposes?  That explanation makes such a claim even more illogical.

Who in the world looking at those pictures would give a hoot whether a mic is present or not?

Why not also take out the light stands?

 

whether you (or I) see any 'logic' in it, the fact remains that newspapers and the media in general did and still do 'alter' photos in ways that they think (and that's the important bit) may make it look more 'aesthetically pleasing'... as I said, wouldn't surprise me if it came from a newspaper that did such a thing...

... also wouldn't surprise me if it had been 'edited' by someone else also... ;)

P.S. a 'famous' example - why did a technician remove a fencepost from the 1971 Pulitzer winning photo taken by John Paul Filo. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image showing the mic was taken from an elevated view looking down on the subjects. ( that is why the mic is visible )

the other image was taken at ground level looking at the subjects and did not capture the mic.

 

Beers+and+Jackson+Positions-vert.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread should have never gone on this far.  As DVP said, it's embarrassing for even modest researchers to even think to post here to support "it wasn't Ruby." As for the mic appearing and disappearing from different angles in different photos (as Unger points out) why would that even be considered strange?  Yet again, as one researcher said elsewhere "something sinister could be done...because they can."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only quoting what you called this thread, Kathy - "It wasn't Ruby."  How is anyone suppose to interpret that? Why does it always seem that "researchers" here call a thread something misleading, then back track on it.

I'm not most researchers, Kathy.  The Oswald and his Mom clone story is nothing but a silly fairy tale concocted by a guy and his minions to sell a slick bill of goods - at $60 a pop - to an unsuspecting public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kathleen Collins said:

A fake Ruby is not my theory.  There are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marguretes (sp).  Most researchers believe that.


 

Kathy C

On related threads on this forum, only a handful of people have actively supported the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, and none of them has yet come up with a realistic explanation for any of the theory's main weaknesses.

I'd be very surprised if more than a tiny proportion of 'researchers' (i.e. people with a detailed knowledge of the case) take that piece of obvious nonsense seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The Oswald and his Mom clone story is nothing but a silly fairy tale concocted by a guy and his minions to sell a slick bill of goods - at $60 a pop - to an unsuspecting public. 

Amen!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

No one in videos or photos of the LHO murder looks like JR.

You don't think this looks like Jack Ruby? ....

Jack-Ruby-On-Right-Via-NBC-TV-Raw-Footag

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

You don't think this looks like Jack Ruby? ....

Jack-Ruby-On-Right-Via-NBC-TV-Raw-Footag

 

It looks more like JR than it doesn't. Thats just. 49% vs. 51% comparison. If you were to ask me if I would identify that person as JR, I would say no.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, his eyes are blacked-out. I though he was wearing sunglasses.

I definitely did not want to slip into a photo-alteration scheme. I try to avoid that stuff. Ha ha!

Calling Bill Miller!

Edited by Michael Clark

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

×