Jump to content

Oswald?


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's quite possible that this man shaved or bleached that patch in his hair as a way of identification.

Yeah, if there's one thing a paid/hired assassin would want to do, it would be to do something to his appearance to make himself STAND OUT and be MORE NOTICEABLE and MORE EASILY IDENTIFIED in case anyone might see him firing at the President.

:rolleyes:

Of course this is from the acute analyst who recognizes Oswald as the non-paid, crypto crazy lone nut who was lucky enough to kill the president all by his self.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And now, a bit of speculation

Baldpatch1.png

hughescarparkdeshcroppe.gif

Bald spot? Really? And you ruled out a simple highlight how?(color added by T. Graves)

OK, fine, a simple "highlight" then, be it naturally in-and-of his hair, or put there by hydrogen peroxide or something else of a chemical nature. But obviously not because of the way the sun is shining on his head in the film, because it doesn't change as he moves.

--Tommy

P.S. Note how Tan Jacket Man, as he turns around and starts walking, hands something to the blue-coated Cuban-looking man... :ph34r:

augmented and edited

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do Bonnie Ray Williams' or Harold Norman's heads take up that much space in their respective windows on the fifth floor?

Yes, they do.

You are comparing a fully opened window to a half opened "Oswald" window, which is falseley creating an illusion that the "head" is taking up too much room

Also note that The head of Bonny Ray Williams looks much bigger than the head of Harold norman.

It's all an issue of perspective.

PageImagemodegetPagefileNamehmat-wc-34-1.jpg

Excellent point, Duncan.

--Tommy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite possible that this man shaved or bleached that patch in his hair as a way of identification.

Yeah, if there's one thing a paid/hired assassin would want to do, it would be to do something to his appearance to make himself STAND OUT and be MORE NOTICEABLE and MORE EASILY IDENTIFIED in case anyone might see him firing at the President.

:rolleyes:

Personally, I think the light spot is either a bald spot or just the natural color of his hair in that area. But if it was made by some kind of chemical instead, then maybe it was put there, without his knowledge, by someone else.

Hey! I have an idea! Maybe it's dust or drywall powder that fell on his head while he was firing at JFK from the "sniper's nest"!

--Tommy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are comparing a fully opened window to a half opened "Oswald" window, which is falsely creating an illusion that the "head" is taking up too much room.

No, I'm not, because I wasn't talking about the amount of space Norman's and Williams' heads take up from a "top to bottom" perspective of the window frame. I was referring to the "width" perspective of their heads in the window frame (i.e., the "left to right" [west to east] amount of space their heads take up in the window).

And the so-called "head" in your enhancement is certainly far too WIDE to be a real human head (IMO). And this perspective would be true regardless of how wide open (or not) the window is.

Yes, I could be wrong. I'm certainly no photo expert. But that's my own opinion, based on just "eyeballing" these two pictures:

Williams+And+Norman.jpgTSBD-Sixth-Floor-Enhancement.png

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hughes-lostbulletdocumentary.jpg

You did excellent work on the enlargements... thanks.. kind of like the grief I got for this one:

Mexico-Oswald---photo-8.gif

any help trying to find Norman, Williams and Jarman on the 5th floor...

THEY don't seem to be there - do they?

David, those black and white photos you're displaying are of a man who claimed to be Oswald in Mexico. Someone also said he was Ralph Geb. These pictures I've never seen before, except for one. The hair is similar to Tan Jacket Man. He looks amazingly like the tan jacket man, but seems heavier. Maybe they're brothers. Ralph Geb was supposed to have a brother.

These pictures were taken maybe 2 months apart..

In any case, he's not Oswald.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, a bit of speculation

Baldpatch1.png

hughescarparkdeshcroppe.gif

Bald spot? Really? And you ruled out a simple highlight how?(color added by T. Graves)

OK, fine, a simple "highlight" then, be it naturally in-and-of his hair, or put there by hydrogen peroxide or something else of a chemical nature. But obviously not because of the way the sun is shining on his head in the film, because it doesn't change as he moves.

--Tommy

Highlight may refer to:

In photography, any of the brightest parts of a subject, in contraposition to "shadow"

Again please try and keep up, it DOES change when he moves ....

May the farce continue to be with you.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

OK, fine, a simple "highlight" then, be it naturally in-and-of his hair, or put there by hydrogen peroxide or something else of a chemical nature. But obviously not because of the way the sun is shining on his head in the film, because it doesn't change as he moves.

--Tommy

Highlight may refer to:

In photography, any of the brightest parts of a subject, in contraposition to "shadow"

Again please try and keep up, it DOES change when he moves ....

May the farce continue to be with you. [emphasis added by T. Graves]

Craig,

Really?? That's uhhh... "interesting".

--Tommy

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

OK, fine, a simple "highlight" then, be it naturally in-and-of his hair, or put there by hydrogen peroxide or something else of a chemical nature. But obviously not because of the way the sun is shining on his head in the film, because it doesn't change as he moves.

--Tommy

Highlight may refer to:

In photography, any of the brightest parts of a subject, in contraposition to "shadow"

Again please try and keep up, it DOES change when he moves ....

May the farce continue to be with you. [emphasis added by T. Graves]

Craig,

Really?? That's uhhh... "interesting".

--Tommy

Really, wazza matta, your eyes "broken"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good Lord. Utter silliness. The person in the Sniper's Nest window (as seen in Robert Hughes' film) can no more be positively identified than "Badge Man" in Mary Moorman's Polaroid (if Badge Man was really a "person", that is; which it probably isn't).
I merely posted the enhancement for the benefit of those who participate and believe the speculation that Tan Man may be the shooter.

OK. Ten-four. Gotcha. Hope no offense was taken earlier.

But let me get this straight.....

There are actually conspiracy theorists out there who think that "Tan Jacket Man" was the sixth-floor sniper? And then, after the shooting, this assassin in the tan jacket just hung around the Depository area in order to get himself photographed and filmed, instead of doing the wise and logical thing of high-tailing it out of Dodge asap?

Yeah, right. I'm pretty sure that happened. ....

2009 Documentary -- "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America"

I'm certainly not going to endorse the view that there even could be a similarity between the guy in Hughes' film and any "enhanced" blur in a window, BUT ...!

What I do find entertaining is that, based on the mere five seconds this guy appeared, that so many "conclusions" can be drawn: first, that he "hung around" the TSBD; second, that he did so "in order to get himself photographed and filmed;" third, that he wasn't "high-tailing it out of dodge asap;" and that, again based on five seconds of his "behavior," he can be either ruled in or out of anything.

Precisely how long after the shooting did this segment take place? Since Oswald's presumed departure from the TSBD was inferred, not witnessed (and the inference based on his estimated and presumed arrivals at other locations), was not until approximately three minutes after the shooting, who is to say that, if someone else was involved, they didn't leave any sooner or later?

Even if we know the precise time of this segment, we don't know how long the guy was standing there, nor do we know what he did after Hughes stopped shooting. Can we preclude that he hadn't just arrived there, stood around just long enough to "blend in," and then worked his way through the crowd (at any speed) and thence to points unknown (which is precisely where he did go unless he's in other footage or photos)?

I think that, absent knowing all of the above (and more), anyone would be foolish to assert that "TJM" had anything at all to do with the shooting, but I think it's equally foolish to claim to be able to so cocksurely eliminate the possibility based on such flimsy "evidence" and speculation.

After all, if anyone else was involved, we really don't know what he (or any of them) did afterward, do we.

And then, too, we must wonder about Joe Marshall Smith's "Secret Service agent" while we're "eliminating" other participants, mustn't we? Or can all things unexplored and unexplained be cast off as "mistakes" ... not because those who saw these things were necessarily wrong, but merely because we have no further data?

I'm all for separating the wheat from the chaff, but the chaff is generally so much more easily identified than the wheat. But if we can't identify something as either chaff or wheat, must it of necessity be chaff? A variation on cogito ergo sum? "I don't know what it means, so it means nothing?"

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...