Jack White Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 In one of my other historical studies I just produced this page from a photo submitted to our webpage. Am I the only one who thinks it looks familiar somehow? Deja vu. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) My recollection is that the "backyard photo" was an American convention for at least a decade after 1963. It allowed the house-proud to get the house in the shot, without taking the photo in front of the house and seeming pretentious - or causing the nosy neighbors to come over. Perhaps Jack has some shadow effects to compare, however. Edited December 22, 2009 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 Only the completely uninformed (see above, "So?) could fail to see my obvious point! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 same house, taken in same backyard Jack.?? b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 No, Bernice. The house is in Fort Worth. The photo was taken in 1944 of a sailor who died on the carrier Franklin in the Pacific in WWII. It is a genuine photo. The other photo from 1963 was used to frame a patsy for crimes he did not commit. The photo is faked. Glad you noticed the similarity of the backyards. Notice the shadows too. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 thanks Jack yes i knew well i used to grey cells... the house was not in fort worth groan the shadows are similar yet differences...b.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 quote Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? end of Quote... well said peter..thank you..hear hear...b.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? Great post Peter I was at the pain of having your fingertips cut off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? What kind of insanity are you spewing now Lumpkin? Short fingers? Not hardly. Wrong shadows...wrong again. Body proportions that dont match WHAT? Oh that stupid and very wrong newspaper study...why it's wrong flies completely over your head. Identical photo positonis...not even close. In other words Lumpkin is just full of caca today as usual. Maybe you should stay away from the JFK photography...its simply beyond your ken.... Edited December 23, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? Great post Peter I was at the pain of having your fingertips cut off Hey deano, why not give us your expert analysis of why you know the fingers are too short. That should be good for some grins tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? Great post Peter I was at the pain of having your fingertips cut off Hey deano, why not give us your expert analysis of why you know the fingers are too short. That should be good for some grins tonight. Peter is a Hall of Famer Your still in Little League Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? Great post Peter I was at the pain of having your fingertips cut off Hey deano, why not give us your expert analysis of why you know the fingers are too short. That should be good for some grins tonight. Peter is a Hall of Famer Your still in Little League Craig Yea, Lumpkin is in the A-holes hall of fame to be sure. He loves calling folks Nazi's. Really nice guy that Lumpkin. And he's just like you deano...along with your master Jack. None of you can fight your eway out of a paper bag when it comes to photography. Now about those stubby fingers deano... Little league, eh,? Heck you don't even understand the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Among all the MANY anomalies in the BYPs [multiple!], I dare anyone to stand at the angle 'Oswald' is standing and not fall over....or cry in pain having your finger tips cut-off....or complain not having your own chin on.....or be carrying two papers that represented opposing viewpoints...or having body proportions that don't match to the paper's known size, problems with the rifle, or the shadows being all wrong or the impossibility of hand held identical photo positions et al.....most of these first pointed out by Jack White. Doubt creators for doubt's sake are only here to create confusion and doubt and discredit good researchers [iMO] - while only really discrediting themselves and gives aid and comfort those in our society who were behind [or later covering up] these conspiratorial [not coincidental] crimes, and the CLEAR evidence of them before us. Cui bono from all this 'doubt' and rancid smoke and mirrors for doubt, smoke, and mirror's sake? Great post Peter I was at the pain of having your fingertips cut off Hey deano, why not give us your expert analysis of why you know the fingers are too short. That should be good for some grins tonight. Peter is a Hall of Famer Your still in Little League Craig Yea, Lumpkin is in the A-holes hall of fame to be sure. He loves calling folks Nazi's. Really nice guy that Lumpkin. And he's just like you deano...along with your master Jack. None of you can fight your eway out of a paper bag when it comes to photography. Now about those stubby fingers deano... Little league, eh,? Heck you don't even understand the game... Do you need a link to Jacks study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Do you need a link to Jacks study? I'd like to see it, I'm up for a good laugh. Jack gets confused about which way the sun shines 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