DO WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE?

[Jack White]

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

John, you post lots of research, some of it very good. I have never seen any research posted by Lee.

He appears to be just a kibitzer. Peace to all.

[Len Colby]

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.

On Nov 19 2009 at 01:32 AM (my time) in response to question about your conclusions from Craig you wrote:

So i want to create a real life recreation in the backyard. Let's say to show the suncycle on march 31. To show that the sun at this time in Dallas is too low to create those long shadows under Oswalds nose.

People trust real photos more than anything.

My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.

Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over.

That was just over 3 months ago, I said it had been 4, my apologies. Then at 08:20 PM on Dec 4 2009, in response to one of my questions you wrote:

Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before)

Later on in the same post you asked me to, “Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget.”

So as per your request I “bump[ed] it up from time to time” i.e. every few weeks, but in your previous post you were an asshole an insulted me and so the rules of the game changed. Me a stalker? I think not.

Why don't you tell us why was incumbent on Farid to reply to all your questions and requests in a timely manner but not on you to keep a promise made publicly on this forum over 3 months ago?

You picked the wrong man. You will regret it.

Oh no, I am so afraid of "arous[ing] the wrath of the great and powerful Martin HinrOZ”

Edited February 24, 2010 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Question about LHO's chin and fingers

Fetzer and Jack and others have claimed that someone else's chin was added to LHO's face in the backyard photos. So my simple question is IF they already had a photo with his face and I don't think anyone disputes that the rest of it is his,why add someone else's chin?

Along similar lines why paste in a photo with tipless fingers?

[Jack White]

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.

From what you've posted over the last 4-5 weeks you have low standards in the field of research. You claim I'm egocentric. You are wrong. I invariably operate from a sociocentric mindset. I will accommodate anyone's opinions even if they don't make much sense (I have to you see, it's my job), but your posts recently have gone into the realm of complete fantasy, and I can't mentally cope reading what you have to say or having to read between the lines of your machiavellian cunning.

Here's a peace statement Jack - I won't ever respond to a post that you write ever again. In fact I won't even read them...

Great. I hope you enjoy your fantasy world and leave the rest of us alone. Thanks.

[Jack White]

Question about LHO's chin and fingers

Fetzer and Jack and others have claimed that someone else's chin was added to LHO's face in the backyard photos. So my simple question is IF they already had a photo with his face and I don't think anyone disputes that the rest of it is his,why add someone else's chin?

Along similar lines why paste in a photo with tipless fingers?

Amazing! A reasonable question! The answer is the chin belonged to the man posing in the

backyard. It was MUCH EASIER to make a cut straight across the LHO photo chin and paste

the face on than to cut out around the head. As for the missing fingertips, it is just a case of

sloppy cutting around tiny edges with an exacto knife.

[Kathleen Collins]

Even as a little kid, I could tell something was wrong with the backyard photos. The "guy" has weird legs, he's not standing right. I never saw anyone with a body like that. And the more I saw pictures of LHO when he was arrested, the more I could see it wasn't the same man. I know now Harvey had a double -- Lee. But they didn't use him for these pictures.

Someone here said they could "unmask" (my word) a photo that's been added to; faked. I wish that person would unmask these backyard forgeries.

Kathy C

[Don Jeffries]

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."

Short and sweet - What a load of paranoid uneducated drivel.

Wow- kind of an overload on the nasty adjectives, eh? Uneducated? If you're trying to appear truly educated yourself, next time place a comma between paranoid and educated. You'll sound more intelligent.

Duncan- this is a DISCUSSION forum. We all spout opinions. Your opinions on the topic at hand appear to have changed. Maybe I'm wrong; as I said, I don't remember all that much about your old posts, but I do seem to recall that you were a alterationist, pretty much in the Jack White camp. If I'm incorrect about this, I apologize. If you never believed the backyard photos were fake, and never held more "extreme" beliefs about this case (more akin to mine), then I was wrong to infer you're a neo-con.

I'm obviously intrigued by those researchers and students of the assassination who used to believe that the backyard photos were fake, or that there were a lot of mysterious and unnatural witness deaths, or that the Umbrella Man was a suspicious character (and certainly not Steven Witt), among other things, but now no longer do. I don't understand why it's difficult for those who fall into this category to explain what caused their views to change. Be proud of what enlightened you and share it with the rest of us. Perhaps we've missed some really good research that shattered many CTer "myths."

No one is attacking you or anyone else. I am, however, questioning you. If you, or anyone else, asks me why I spout out a particular opinion, I certainly won't be offended and will try to explain. Why are you offended?

[Don Jeffries]

Wow- kind of an overload on the nasty adjectives, eh? Uneducated? If you're trying to appear truly educated yourself, next time place a comma between paranoid and educated. You'll sound more intelligent.

You mean that I should do it the same educated same way that you placed a - instead of a comma after the word Wow, and placed a period instead of a comma between the words educated and You'll, you'll with a capital Y in the above qoute?

I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further with ridiculous nit picking. Both of the examples from my post that you cited are grammatically sound. You put a period between two seperate sentences. I shouldn't have taken that cheap swipe at you, but I only did so because you labeled my previous post "uneducated." Kind of a natural response, but it was immature of me to do that.

I truly do not mean to offend you or any other person on this forum, but am baffled by anyone's reluctance to state their beliefs. This is especially curious since you are not shy about expressing your views on this subject, and do not hesitate to take issue with others. As such, you shouldn't be reluctant to state your beliefs when someone asks you. I certainly wouldn't be reluctant to answer such a query from a fellow forum member.

Again, if you never felt differently about the backyard photos or any of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned (or have mentioned elsewhere), then I withdraw the question. I also apologize for wasting your time and cluttering up space with this on the forum.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Don Jeffries

[Craig Lamson]

Lee,

As I mentioned I don't think trying to project my expectations of an action by another person to be productive, and thats why I focus on things that can be proven, via empirical evidence.

If you want to follow that course, that is your choice. I simply see it as a undertaking with no real value. All it does is pile even more speculation and questions into the mess.

[Stephen Roy]

Jim Fetzer wrote:

"When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match."

Jim, I was wondering if you could cite some third-party source on why this is.

[Stephen Roy]

There is a simple question that I use to try and make sense of the photos issue: Why would Lee take these? He was as secretive as they come. He was tight lipped. There's no reason that anyone in their right mind would want to take these photos of themselves with two ideological opposing political newspapers and the firearms that they will later use in the crime of the century.

Why would anyone want to frame themselves?

Lemme play Devil's Advocate here:

In order to postulate that there is no reason why something would be done, you have to eliminate all possibilities. But aren't there possibilities here? Like selling himself as an urban guerrilla, armed revolutionary type? I think we see signs that he was trying to do that in other ways. And didn't he send one of these photos to one of the left wing organizations he corresponded with (my memory escapes me -was it the Militant?) Can we rule out this sort of possibility?

[Stephen Roy]

 I must beg forgiveness. I hit edit rather than reply...and mistakenly erased your post Stephen. Please excuse the mistake...Here it is Sorry again! Very sorry....

As you said, there are other possibilities. I don't know if we can be sure that he didn't use the photos to sell himself. As I noted, he appears to have done that at least once (although, I believe the photo no longer exists.) And he seemed to have been selling himself in New Orleans later in the year.

I don't think there's a consensus that we can stop looking at pieces of evidence and look only at the big picture.

Mexico City? I can accept that he might have been impersonated, but there is other evidence which, if genuine, suggests that it was the real Oswald.

 

Edited February 25, 2010 by Peter Lemkin

[Jack White]

Lee,

As I mentioned I don't think trying to project my expectations of an action by another person to be productive, and thats why I focus on things that can be proven, via empirical evidence.

If you want to follow that course, that is your choice. I simply see it as a undertaking with no real value. All it does is pile even more speculation and questions into the mess.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. One sun shines on the neck and a different sun shines on the nose.

[Craig Lamson]

Lee,

As I mentioned I don't think trying to project my expectations of an action by another person to be productive, and thats why I focus on things that can be proven, via empirical evidence.

If you want to follow that course, that is your choice. I simply see it as a undertaking with no real value. All it does is pile even more speculation and questions into the mess.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. One sun shines on the neck and a different sun shines on the nose.

No, htats more like a very wrong opinion...

But just to verify. You are claiming that the lihgt striking the nose is coming from a different direction than the light striking the body?

[Jack White]

Lee,

As I mentioned I don't think trying to project my expectations of an action by another person to be productive, and thats why I focus on things that can be proven, via empirical evidence.

If you want to follow that course, that is your choice. I simply see it as a undertaking with no real value. All it does is pile even more speculation and questions into the mess.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. One sun shines on the neck and a different sun shines on the nose.

No, htats more like a very wrong opinion...

But just to verify. You are claiming that the lihgt striking the nose is coming from a different direction than the light striking the body?

My claim is VERY CLEAR.