Charles Blackmon

David does that evidence explain how Oswald could be in one location shooting Tippit while at the same time he was seen in the Texas Theater? I have yet to see a timeline explaining this discrepancy.

I am having a hard time with "the camera barely moved" and another issue. Here is what I posted last night on the "Marina Oswald" thread: So Marina takes the first picture, hands the Reflex camera to Lee to advance the film, takes it back from Lee and shoots another picture. This would be 133a and 133b. When you compare these pics the backgrounds look pretty much the same. Kind of interesting that on a late March day that the records show a 12 mph wind, the vegetation looks identical.

Woo hoo! We can piggyback and have ANOTHER BYP discussion right here (why not?) So Marina takes the first picture, hands the Reflex camera to Lee to advance the film, takes it back from Lee and shoots another picture. This would be 133a and 133b. When you compare these pics the backgrounds look pretty much the same. Kind of interesting that on a late March day that the records show a 12 mph wind, the vegetation looks identical. Very interesting indeed!

I am admittedly going on memory but didn't you earlier say that you were unable to create a stereoscopic view of the background which would indicate that the backgrounds are basically the same? Wouldn't that indicate fakery?

A negative cannot be proven. Everybody knows this except apparently B.B.

@Chris Bristow133-a: his head going off in a different direction than the rest of the body. Have you studied this and found an explanation? What about Black Dog Nose in 133-b?

Here are a couple more BYP inconsistencies since the last one got no explanation. Oswald looks to be about the same size as the post holding the stairs, which has been described as 5'. Oswald is 5'-9". Did Oswald shrink while his head appeared to grow? What about the 'black dog nose' sticking out of the fence on 133b? Is this not the result of some kind of photo compositing process?

I appreciate Mr. Unger linking this video of the Zapruder head shot sequence. It has been awhile since I looked at it. I am wondering why, if the kill shot came from the rear, we don't see any "action" at the rear of JFK's head, only at the front/side of his head?

Has anybody seen any studies of 133-a that show that the head is outsized for the body? No question it looks too big, in addition to looking planted on top of the torso.

Not really understanding this statement. Is the "second plot" a fake assassination attempt?

What would you be basing this conclusion on?

Crafard had a weak alibi for his whereabouts during the assassination: JFK: Did Larry Crafard kill J.D. Tippit? (jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com)

Bump. The original post in this thread is now over 17 years old, but why start a new thread on such an important topic. Is there any new research in the last 17 years that would add weight to the possibility that (a.) there was a fake assassination attempt that was hi-jacked into a real assassination attempt, or (b.) the plan all along was for a real assassination attempt, with Oswald pulled in as the "patsy" by his believing (incredibly) that it was going to be a fake attempt.

How would Oswald have behaved in former U.S.S.R. (not Russia) if he had not been young, idealistic and in "way over his head"? I don't think this argument in any way shows it to be unlikely that he was being used by intelligence.

The entire body has a lean to it from his feet all the way up to the collar, then all of a sudden the head is perfectly vertical. Totally ridiculous, but the so-called experts (PEP?) think this photo is authentic.

Wouldn't Oswald need to have a security clearance to do work at JCS, considering the company's military contracts? How could someone who was publicly portrayed as a traitor be gifted with a security clearance?

Donald Sutherland, award winner, one of the great film actors of our time. "Ordinary People", "Eye of the Needle" , "M*A*S*H" and so many more. Still working too!

Isn't this political stuff supposed to be in the Water Cooler?

Why, because LN author >fill in the blank< said so of course.

It was extremely rare in 1962 for a Soviet woman to be allowed to leave the USSR with their American husband. Yet Marina Oswald was allowed to do just that with no real impediment. Was this just "luck", as she told the HSCA in 1978, or could it have more to do with the hidden intelligence mission of Oswald, who was publicly portrayed as a defector and possible traitor to the U.S.? Theres a lot of really suspicious testimony from Marina during the HSCA. She even claimed Oswald wound the film on the Imperial Reflex camera between taking the backyard pictures, and yet we get two photos 133-a and 133-b that the backgrounds are carbon copies of each other, and Lee's head is pretty much the same between the two. Totally laughable.

The "unimpeachable" witness who claimed to have heard on a radio something about a cop killing in Oak Cliff at least half an hour before anything about it was actually announced on local radio.

Because it likely wasn't Oswald spotted outside the shoe store, it was the guy who was tasked with killing Oswald in the theatre. Read again what Greg Doudna wrote earlier in this post.

A stereoscopic camera? Wouldn't you think something like that would be kind of expensive and out of reach for a guy like Oswald who had trouble keeping a job? I agree that the backgrounds in 133-a and 133-b look like carbon copies of each other. Which proves forgery right there. It's just a question of who created the photos and for what purpose. A former poster on EF seemed to think Oswald did it himself, with an associate providing the "body". Not sure if that makes any sense or not.

Here is a link to the HSCA "photograph authentication" that supposedly details all of the findings regarding authenticity of the BYP. HSCA Volume VI: IV. Conspiracy Questions - B. Photograph Authentication - 1. The Oswald Backyard Photographs (aarclibrary.org)