Jump to content
The Education Forum

DO WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE?


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This really ought to be a simple issue. When I first saw the backyard photos, they instantly and obviously seemed fraudulent to me. I think that most critics felt the same way. There isn't anything complex about them; they are as transparently phony as the magic bullet. As Jim points out, all you need to know is that Oswald's face is the same in each photo.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything nefarious, but it appears obvious that Duncan McRae is becoming (or already has become) what I've termed a "neo-con." I don't remember that much about his posts in the past, but it seems that he was a much firmer believer in conspiracy than he is now. I am not trying to start a fight, or insinuate anything, but again, as I've asked so many others whose beliefs have changed in a like manner in recent years, why? What has caused you to suddenly accept the backyard photos as legitimate? Certainly, the latest predictable "study" can't have been that persuasive. More importantly, what has caused so many CTers to temper their views about conspiracy?

I am truly curious here. Perhaps I've missed the boat, and there is something to this "neo-con" business. Maybe they're all right, and I'm wrong to cling to my extreme views. I only want to know what caused this significant change in critical thought. Was it Posner? Bugliosi? ABC's "Beyond Conspiracy?" I thought all those rehashes of the Warren Report had been adequately discredited, but perhaps I'm wrong. There must be something that has been written, or researched, by someone in the past 20 years or so to cause this "neo-con" phenomenon. If you've been enlightened, please share the reasons with us. This is a discussion forum- there's nothing wrong with changing your opinion about anything, but it's only natural to acknowledge it, and explain the reasons for it. No one owes anyone an explanation, but it's certainly curious that "neo-cons" don't seem willing or able to do so.

Jack White's work on the backyard photos was crucial, and is beyond dispute, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost the same.

You just insinuated. Just about your entire post is an insinuation.

AFA the backyard photods are concerned, theyr'e not fakes, but they're important in indicating a conspiracy. People have been pointing out the reasons for their authenticity for some time and some have studied these claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''Why would anyone want to frame themselves?'' - that is (imo) the very question that may answer many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson fumfers.

Did you somehow forget how light interacts with a solid object Jack? Or is the problem that you never really understood it in the first instance?

You do understand, don't you, that the drawing you have supplied has no resemblence to the reality of the backyard photos, not the head/body position in realtion to the sun.

You do understand, don't you. that a VPA shows that there is only one lightsource casting all the shadfws in the backyard phots and as such your claim the shadow anlges are wrong, fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White's work on the backyard photos was crucial, and is beyond dispute, imho.

Well Don. considering White based his works on a number of very faulty ideas, all the work created by these faulty ideas fail. How do you deal with that simple fact? Did you even try and confirm his work yourself or is it yet another case of belief on your part?

Here is one major principle where White fails. Anything based on resizing and then comparison gets tossed into the dustbin of ignorance. So whats left that has any value as a "proof'?

Why resizing fails

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee asked Marina to take the pictures. Marina took the pictures at Lee's request. What's the big mystery?

Duncan, come on. Let's get real.

What for? Why would he want them? What purpose did they serve for Lee? Why doesn't she know how she took them? Why does she say she took "one, two...maybe more"? She's changed her story so many times on so many things.

You're isolating this one aspect of the case away from all the others - if we were to list all the things Marina was disingenuous about it surely alters our ability to take anything she says seriously?

I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sun rose and set each day...

...sorry mate but regardless of whether the images in the photos are genuine or not (I personally think not) there is something decidedly sinister about the story of the backyard photos and Marina KNOWS more than she lets on.

Any news on whether she has changed her mind about releasing Lee's Tax Records yet?

People do funny things for all sorts of reasons. It's a big (and often mistaken) leap to try an apply your own expectations to the actions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Ah, this old chestnut. I believe the photos to be genuine. But why they were taken, and then left lying around as incriminating evidence is anyones guess. just another part of this whole shebang that doesn't add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee, I understand that many believe the photos to be genuine, but I don't think they show what people generally think they show. While the SWP and the CPUSA had differing viewpoint, one was being destalinised and they were moving towards a partial reconciliation and were sharing opinion on some matters. One thing that strikes me is how pristine the paper copies are.

He missed the fascist and did a near perfect job on the non-fascist. ??? I think it ties in with his after CCCP writings where he expresses admiration for the Minutemen but proposes a new way. I suspect then he was swallowed up into something bigger than himself, the true nature of only dawning on him too late.

So, of course I don't think you're tripping but make some interesting suggestions. Gotta mull this one over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin it`s the height of irony that you would complain that Farid did not reply to some of you incessant questions in a private e-mail exchange after a few weeks. On this very forum you were not asked but promised of your own iniative at least twice to post a video demostration your sun angle calculations for the day the BYP's were taken. That was about 4 months ago and you have yet to deliever.

I'm still convinced you made an error you don't want to own upto and suspect you will suddenly claim to be too busy to make the clip. If I'm wrong about the former but right about the latter all you have do is explain how you calculated the angle without knowing the time of day " it would take not more than 5 minutes"!

You know so little about it and have such a big mouth Len.

Your thoughts are up to you but i can ensure you....you are wrong.

I have meanwhile evidence at hand that it would can fill a book. I consider to do something like that.

Time will tell.

The problem that you don't understand sun angles is not mine. My goal is to show my research to the public.

Not just to you. Live with it.

Where did I ever ask you “to show [your] research…just to [me]”? To the contrary YOU promised to post it here and all I’ve asked you to do was keep your promise. You on the other hand expect Farid to spend his time engaging in a private exchange with you. You complained it took him weeks to get back to you but its been 4 months since you promised to post your video.

Why should i waste again time with you to show something you don't understand?

The one it seems who doesn’t understand sun angles is you. Your posts gave no indication as to what you though the time of day was yet you claimed to have calculated what the angle was to 0.1 degrees, however it would only take about 36 seconds for the angle to change that much. If you took the time of day into account you should have made that clear.

Len, be sure i publish my results in any form at any time.

It will make you look like a fool.

I’m sure that if you show that you were right and make me “look like a fool” you would have done so a long time ago. Yet for four months you’ve procrastinated and made excuses and now you stoop making insults. This is NOT “rocket science” the data is widely available on the Internet and it only requires a junior high school understanding of geometry.

Once this post is no longer on the last page of this thread I will start a new thread to ask you about this. I will keep bumping it to keep it on the front page. Do really think anyone will believe your excuses after you repeatedly fail to respond? You can either admit to being a fool and get it over with or continue to look like one for the indefinate future. The choice is yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin it`s the height of irony that you would complain that Farid did not reply to some of you incessant questions in a private e-mail exchange after a few weeks. On this very forum you were not asked but promised of your own iniative at least twice to post a video demostration your sun angle calculations for the day the BYP's were taken. That was about 4 months ago and you have yet to deliever.

I'm still convinced you made an error you don't want to own upto and suspect you will suddenly claim to be too busy to make the clip. If I'm wrong about the former but right about the latter all you have do is explain how you calculated the angle without knowing the time of day " it would take not more than 5 minutes"!

You know so little about it and have such a big mouth Len.

Your thoughts are up to you but i can ensure you....you are wrong.

I have meanwhile evidence at hand that it would can fill a book. I consider to do something like that.

Time will tell.

The problem that you don't understand sun angles is not mine. My goal is to show my research to the public.

Not just to you. Live with it.

Where did I ever ask you “to show [your] research…just to [me]”? To the contrary YOU promised to post it here and all I’ve asked you to do was keep your promise. You on the other hand expect Farid to spend his time engaging in a private exchange with you. You complained it took him weeks to get back to you but its been 4 months since you promised to post your video.

Why should i waste again time with you to show something you don't understand?

The one it seems who doesn’t understand sun angles is you. Your posts gave no indication as to what you though the time of day was yet you claimed to have calculated what the angle was to 0.1 degrees, however it would only take about 36 seconds for the angle to change that much. If you took the time of day into account you should have made that clear.

Len, be sure i publish my results in any form at any time.

It will make you look like a fool.

I’m sure that if you show that you were right and make me “look like a fool” you would have done so a long time ago. Yet for four months you’ve procrastinated and made excuses and now you stoop making insults. This is NOT “rocket science” the data is widely available on the Internet and it only requires a junior high school understanding of geometry.

Once this post is no longer on the last page of this thread I will start a new thread to ask you about this. I will keep bumping it to keep it on the front page. Do really think anyone will believe your excuses after you repeatedly fail to respond? You can either admit to being a fool and get it over with or continue to look like one for the indefinate future. The choice is yours.

Do what ever you will Stalker Colby.

You picked the wrong man. You will regret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, of course I don't think you're tripping...

Are you sure John? I keep reading some of Jack's posts and feel like my mind is bending...

...and that I'm gonna freak-out soon man!!

Peace...

Peace suggestion for Lee. Post research, not attacks on those who do.

Don't attack them, they won't respond. Peace be unto you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the feeling Lee. It passes. (there might be flashbacks, but they're easy to recognise). Peace to you too.

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...