Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

oswald-comment-by-detective-rose.jpg

Oswald was right when he said "that is not even my face".  Can you see the differences?

oswald-byp-hair-comparison-dallas-mug-sh

I see several things right off.  

1.  The hair pattern is different.  BYP Oswald has less hair and of a different color.

2.  The eyes and eyebrows are not the same

3.  The ears are not the same.  BYP Oswald has bigger ears.  Measure them in relation to the eyes and mouth.  BYP Oswald lacks the distinctive pattern of the left ear of Dallas DPD Oswald.

4.  The chin is not the same.  BYP Oswald's chin is broader.  You can talk all you want about camera angles.  It is just so much background noise to me.

Oswald says "that just a fake".  He talks about someone superimposing his face on the photo.  And, that is just standard photo altering technique.  A lot of photos of Oswald are done that way.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 777
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The two points we brought up in the film are valid issues. 

And they counter the HSCA and Farid.  Greg Parker has even more coming out on this later.

But as for the rifle itself, we actually held back some of our best evidence on that.

Its amazing to me how many first and second generation critics refused to touch that topic.

And I'm glad Oliver included that clip of Marina standing up to Brokaw.  We go even more into the media issue in the long version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this today on Twitter:

I hope the documentary has a good PR person/firm promoting it. There’s almost too much here for great story angles/pitches.

As a PR guy, I always thought the JFK research community suffered from the lack of a cohesive PR strategy and implementation.  JFK Revisited deserves its due in the media.

 

 

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously Mr Litwin is this go-round’s designated Posner / Bugliosi. It’s amusing that the effort stumbled out of the gate producing/sponsoring books on the assumption the new Stone film would be focussed largely on Garrison/Shaw/New Orleans… whoops.

Just to note, his claim the backyard photos were “conclusively” proven legitimate is completely incorrect. The HSCA, like the FBI before it, acknowledged that the technical possibility of a facial replacement at the chin line could not be proved or disproved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Saw this today on Twitter:

I hope the documentary has a good PR person/firm promoting it. There’s almost too much here for great story angles/pitches.

As a PR guy, I always thought the JFK research community suffered from the lack of a cohesive PR strategy and implementation.  JFK Revisited deserves its due in the media.

 

 

Michaleen--

You are so right.

There are a few simple, indisputable story lines regarding the JFKA, such as the timing of shots hitting JFK, JBC, and then JFK, and that LHO was said to have a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

Here is JBC before the HSCA:

"Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)"

---30---

OK, sure, witness testimony can be garbled, biased, inconsistent. But I think we can trust JBC on his reaction to getting shot, especially when it is consistent with the Z film.  

Obviously JBC was not shot with the same bullet that caused JFK to hold his hands to his throat. 

That said, Stone and DuEugenio's latest film is a triumph, towering above my quibbles. 

I do wish the duo had led the film with the least controversial aspects of the JFKA---the timing of shots---and built a platform from that. 

But it is always this way---when one or searching for or advocating the truth, the complicated details get messy, and even worse, some biased figures will introduce false details, or ad hominem attacks. 

You get into the weeds at great peril, whether the topic is the JFKA, the Bay of Pigs, the Afghanistan war, or 1/6.

Most people want comforting narratives. 

It takes some double-skillful PR to tell detailed truths, and not get derailed! 

 

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...