The Five Top Reasons All The Backyard Photos Are Fakes!
robcap...@netscape.com
with Lee H. Oswald showing his alleged Carcano and .38 revolveris is
authentic. He wants to argue over the issue of whether LHO is wearing
a watch or not to hide the real reasons it is a fake. His lounge
buddy wants to do the same thing.
Why are they doing this IF they are for the truth – a conspiracy – as
they claim? Can either one overcome these issues instead of debating
about a watch?
1) Shadows
It has been noted for many years by many experts that the shadow for
the body and neck, and the shadow for the nose do NOT match up. The
body shadow reflects the time of 10:00 AM, and the nose shadow
reflects the time of 12:00 PM. How can this be if it is an authentic
photo as Walt claims? The neck leaves odd shadows as well that can't
be explained if this is an authentic photo, and there is an issue with
a "bulge" (discussed below) in the neck area in the A photo.
In CE-133B LHO’s head is slightly tilted to the right (for viewer,
left for the person posing) yet the nose shadow has not changed in the
slightest, it is still straigth up and down. How can this be if this
is an authentic photo?
Dectective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson (25 years as the head of
the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau at
Scotland Yard) said the following about the shadows:
“The body shadows DON’T relate to the other shadows in the picture and
one can only come to the conclusion that this body has been placed in
the background and photographed but all all the shadows here are
swinging to the left where as this shadow is slightly to the left but
also behind the body is common to both pictures (A and B), but when
one examines the shadow content, one sees the sun at an angle to the
body, which does NOT relate to the angle of the shadow. The gun is
reaching far more out to the right, more in a horizontal position here
in relation to the body shadow than the gun is ACTUALLY being held by
the person.
When one measures the pictures, photograph A is ENLARGED slightly
greater than photograph B but even allowing for that, the shadow
details in the static areas of the picture, that is in particular on
the staircase here, the shadows are so EXACT that there is NO doubt in
my mind, it is either a COMMON NEGATIVE used to produce the two prints
or two successive negative with the camera on a tripod and with
neither camera or tripod moved in any way between the two
exposures.” (Emphasis mine)
Thus we see from a true expert that CE-133 A & B are tied so closely
together (perhaps from the same negative) that is impossible to say
that A is authentic and B is a fake. They are in all liklihood from
the SAME source! IF not, then were is the tripod as is unlikely there
is NO movement by a human holding the camera?
2) Chin
LHO had a cleft chin, yet all the BY photos portray a man with a
square chin, how can this happen if it is authentic? Walt claims LHO
altered his OWN chin, but to date has FAILED to provide any proof to
show this is the case.
What is more disturbing is the fact there is a very clear line that
runs across the top of the chin, like a knife cut, that indicates
LHO’s claim that someone put his head on the body of someone else is
most likely true. There has NEVER been an explanation for this, all we
got initially was denial, and then the lame excuse of it just being a
“water spot” was used.
3) Disproportion
Jim Garrison was the first to notice the neck and body did NOT match
the head in terms of proportion. In fact, when the two photos are
overlayed NOTHING matches up except for the head, which is NOT
suppose to happen. If one uses the face as a standard for
measurement, LHO appears taller in one of the photos. IF Walt's claim
of A being authentic (which I doubt) is correct, who posed for B, the
deM photo and the Dees photo then?
4) Changing Posture & Distances
Again Garrison noted that the facial “portrait” was the same in BOTH
photos, but the distances and posture was different from one photo to
the next. If Marina is correct, and she did snap the two photos
extremely close together, how could the person’s posture and distance
from the camera change so dramatically in a matter of seconds (or
less)?
5) Unnatural Bulges
In both A and B there appear “unnatural bulges” that do not fit the
photos. In A it occurs in the neck area, and in B it appears on the
post to the right of the person’s head. They appear to be parallel to
each other as well. The HSCA photographic panel said the post “bulge”
was an optical illusion caused by a twig, but White and others have
said it is an example of composite retouching.
Mr. Brian Mee discussed this issue (Professional photographer and
photo lab technician for 18 years and for the last 10 years (or more
depending on the time of the article) he has worked for a US
government lab. He has worked in the areas of negative retouching,
print development, shadows and negative analysis.).
“Well, the problem I have with that, keeping in mind the angle of the
body shadows and others, is that a branch or a leaf here would have
been struck by sun coming from around a four o'clock position.
Therefore, a branch or leaf shadow here would fall in about a ten or
eleven o'clock position, and so I don't think the bulge here could
have resulted from a natural shadow. With the sun coming in from a
four o'clock angle, I don't see how that bulge could have been caused
by the shadow from a branch or a leaf. The angle's not right.”
He viewed the video again to be sure, and then said this.
“No, I don't see how that bulge could have been caused by a shadow
from a branch or a leaf. I don't see it. The shadow angle would be
wrong. The sun's in the wrong position to do that. I'd like to see the
originals, though. For a small detail like this, you want to look at
the original photos. But from what I can see here, I really don't
think this bulge was caused by any kind of a branch or a leaf shadow--
not with the sun shining the way it is in these pictures.”
How about the neck bulge in A? The interviewer points out the HSCA
photographic panel did NOT deal with this issue at all.
“Well, that neck bulge needs to be explained. It doesn't look natural,
and it's parallel to the bulge in the post. It disappears in 133-B,
but then you have an indentation in the post [in B].”
curtjester1
wrote:
Very good, Rob. Even the WC Shillery who are 'adept' in photography
and cinema will dare not attack this. They will attack you, of
course..:)
It is of interst too for me at least that Marina's first account said
the photos were taken at the end of February. The WC was on the
defensive then, and knew it would contradict the March 20, shipping of
the 'Klein's Rifle'. So, they got her to 'think' and get that time
period down closer to the Walker shooting.
CJ
Walt
wrote:
> Walt wants everyone to believe that the “Backyard Photo” (CE-133A)
> with Lee H. Oswald showing his alleged Carcano and .38 revolveris is
> authentic. He wants to argue over the issue of whether LHO is wearing
> a watch or not to hide the real reasons it is a fake. His lounge
> buddy wants to do the same thing.
>
> Why are they doing this IF they are for the truth
I didn't start this thread to start a discussion about the Back Yard
photos. I started it because Rob made an inaccurate statement, and
it's very easy to prove he was wrong, as you demonstrated when you
posted that you could not see a watch in CE 133A. Nobody else can
either, but Rob insisted that there is a watch on Oswald's arm in CE
133A. He's flat wrong and perpetrating false information.
I thought that this would be a golden opportunity for Rob to act like
a man for a change and admit his error and apologize.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 5 Nov, 14:23, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Walt wants everyone to believe that the “Backyard Photo” (CE-133A)
> > with Lee H. Oswald showing his alleged Carcano and .38 revolveris is
> > authentic. He wants to argue over the issue of whether LHO is wearing
> > a watch or not to hide the real reasons it is a fake. His lounge
> > buddy wants to do the same thing.
>
> > Why are they doing this IF they are for the truth
>
> I didn't start this thread to start a discussion about the Back Yard
> photos. I started it because Rob made an inaccurate statement, and
> it's very easy to prove he was wrong, as you demonstrated when you
> posted that you could not see a watch in CE 133A. Nobody else can
> either, but Rob insisted that there is a watch on Oswald's arm in CE
> 133A. He's flat wrong and perpetrating false information.
>
> I thought that this would be a golden opportunity for Rob to act like
> a man for a change and admit his error and apologize.
You mean like you do with these?
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40”).
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from
a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40” Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt should consider the 2012 Summer games as he runs FASTER than any
athlete we currently have.
> > but then you have an indentation in the post [in B].”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
They totally "guesstimated" based on when they were told the rifle was
shipped to LHO and she had said it was like 10 days after that. It is
all a joke.
Walt
Gary....You're as hopeless as Rob..... That stupid bastard said that
he could see a wrist watch on Oswald's left wrist in CE 133A.
Apparently he's so stupid that he doesn't know which photo is CE
133A.....Which is CE 133B and which is 133c.....
He's now posting a bunch of BS about the BY photos of which he doesn't
have a clue.
Apparently you're as stupid as Rob...But before I classify you in the
moron catagory, let me ask you ...Can you see a wrist watch on
Oswald's left arm in CE 133A???
They will attack you, of
> course..:)
>
> It is of interst too for me at least that Marina's first account said
> the photos were taken at the end of February. The WC was on the
> defensive then, and knew it would contradict the March 20, shipping of
> the 'Klein's Rifle'. So, they got her to 'think' and get that time
> period down closer to the Walker shooting.
>
robcap...@netscape.com
Oh, you mean the FIVE points you CAN'T dispute you lying WC shill?
> Apparently you're as stupid as Rob...But before I classify you in the
> moron catagory, let me ask you ...Can you see a wrist watch on
> Oswald's left arm in CE 133A???
Oh, you mean the "man's LeCoultre wristwatch w/clear stones on face"
that is on JACK RUBY'S ARREST INVENTORY SHEET that your lying lounge
pal tried to say belonged to LHO? Is that the watch you are asking
about?
curtjester1
Why do you purposely lie and annoy people with a made up name? Is
there any Gary in this house? Why are you obsessed with portraying a
criminal mind? Is it because people challenge your specualtions?
> he could see a wrist watch on Oswald's left wrist in CE 133A.
> Apparently he's so stupid that he doesn't know which photo is CE
> 133A.....Which is CE 133B and which is 133c.....
>
Awww. Why don't you cry to your tear remover?
> He's now posting a bunch of BS about the BY photos of which he doesn't
> have a clue.
>
Obviously you don't as you don't have a cohesive thought on the
matter.
> Apparently you're as stupid as Rob...But before I classify you in the
> moron catagory, let me ask you ...Can you see a wrist watch on
> Oswald's left arm in CE 133A???
>
Why would you assume I have a picture to look at or am interested? I
think I would like to ask what a watch having on or off has anything
to prove that any photo of a BY on Neely street has any
authenticity?
CJ
> They will attack you, of
>
>
>
> > course..:)
>
> > It is of interst too for me at least that Marina's first account said
> > the photos were taken at the end of February. The WC was on the
> > defensive then, and knew it would contradict the March 20, shipping of
> > the 'Klein's Rifle'. So, they got her to 'think' and get that time
> > period down closer to the Walker shooting.
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "The Five Top Reasons All The Backyard Photos Are Fakes!" <<<
The conspiracy kooks just never let anything go, do they? No matter
how many times the various stupid things they believe in have been
debunked, the kooks just keep forging ahead with these same theories
as if they still have a breath of life left in them --- e.g., from
Badge Man, to Umbrella Man, to "Hickey did it", to "Greer did it", to
Doorway Man, to "Every picture is fake" (just to name a few examples).
In other words (per the kook rules of law): A BRAND-NEW DAY = ALL
THEORIES ARE VALID ONCE MORE.
The "Backyard Photos Are Fakes" crowd will ignore ALL of this HSCA
stuff:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
Street backyard in early '63.
And the kooks will also ignore the fact that the Imperial-Reflex
camera owned by Lee Oswald was determined to be the ONLY CAMERA IN THE
WORLD that could have taken one of those pictures (the only one where
the negative still exists).*
* = And if one picture is "real", then the rest of the photos that
show the exact same thing are certainly real and genuine as well.
Because only the looniest of all kooks could possibly believe that any
plotters who were framing Oswald would have had a desire to start
producing FAKE versions of something that already exists in a REAL and
GENUINE format.
And the kooks will also ignore this quote from Marina Oswald (to
Gerald Posner, circa early 1990s):
"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina
told Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took
them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I
never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of "Case
Closed" by Gerald Posner (c.1993)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
Walt
wrote:
No, You little shit eating maggot.... I'm not asking about a watch....
I said there is NO watch VISIBLE on Oswald's left wrist in CE 133A.
You said you could see one..... which proves you so damned stupid that
you don't even know which photo is CE 133A.
Walt
> >>> "The Five Top Reasons All The Backyard Photos Are Fakes!" <<<
>
> The conspiracy kooks just never let anything go, do they? No matter
> how many times the various stupid things they believe in have been
> debunked, the kooks just keep forging ahead with these same theories
> as if they still have a breath of life left in them --- e.g., from
> Badge Man, to Umbrella Man, to "Hickey did it", to "Greer did it", to
> Doorway Man, to "Every picture is fake" (just to name a few examples).
>
> In other words (per the kook rules of law): A BRAND-NEW DAY = ALL
> THEORIES ARE VALID ONCE MORE.
>
> The "Backyard Photos Are Fakes" crowd will ignore ALL of this HSCA
> stuff:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
> And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
> wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
> Street backyard in early '63.
And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
Street backyard in early '63.
Hey Von Pea Brain ..... When a rational person reads that portion of
Marina's testimony, it's pretty obvious that she was tricked into
saying that she had taken two photos. She knew that she had only
snapped one back yard photo (CE 133A) but the slimey lawyer was
handing her another which at first she thought was the same as CE 133A
but after closer examination she could see that it was different than
CE 133A. In an effort to explain how there could be two similar
photos she said that perhaps she had snapper the shutter twice. An
HONEST investigator would have pointed out that Oswald is posed
entirely differently so her explanation wouldn't fly, An HONEST
investigator would also have pointed out that pushing the shutter
twice would have created a double exposure. Everyone of those
bastards KNEW that Marina's explanation was NONSENSE and yet they
accepted it with a straight face.
One has to wonder if they would also accepted her explanation of
accidently clicking the shutter TWO more times after taking CE
133A. We now know that the Dallas Police had 133C at the time but
withheld it from the Warren Commission .... They committed a felony
of with holding vital evidence in a capital murder case.
The fact that you believe LBJ's Blue Ribbon Committee was an honest
investigation means that you are just as stupid as Rob...
David Von Pein
>>> "When a rational person reads that portion of Marina's testimony, it's pretty obvious that she was tricked into saying that she had taken two photos. She knew that she had only snapped one back yard photo..." <<<
And the goofy plotters framing Oswald decided it was wise to create
FAKES of something that already existed, huh?
Can even a mega-kook like Walt believe such stupid shit?
=======================================================
REPRISE (for the kooks to ignore):
"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina
told Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took
them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I
never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of "Case
Closed" by Gerald Posner (c.1993)
=======================================================
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:ad968820-db81-4d4a...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Marina would say whatever they wanted her to say because she was Threatened
with "Deportation" ! ! ! !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it was a little more than the threat of deportation as she
received over a $100 K in monies by smoke and mirror means not long
after her meeting with the Feds and moving in with the manager at the
hotel, and her ending up being her manager. Anyway, her testimony is
the strongest evidence that she didn't take the pictures that would be
known as the Neely backyard photos.
CJ
Walt
Gary Bergman wrote:......Anyway, her testimony is the strongest
evidence that she didn't take the pictures that would be known as the
Neely backyard photos.
This statement has to come from the "mind" of a complete idiot. What
kind of warped mind would think that Marina's testimony is evidence
that she didn't take a picure of Lee In the back yard of their Neely
street residence???
She was being shown the photo and she admited that she took it.
Three years later a copy of that very photo turned up in the hands of
Lee Oswald's buddy George de Morhenschildt and that copy of the BY
photo has Oswald's autograph on it.......
Only a simpleton like Gary would deny that Marina took that
photo .......
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "When a rational person reads that portion of Marina's testimony, it's pretty obvious that she was tricked into saying that she had taken two photos. She knew that she had only snapped one back yard photo..." <<<
>
> And the goofy plotters framing Oswald decided it was wise to create
> FAKES of something that already existed, huh?
Rob's idiot twin brother wrote:
And the goofy plotters framing Oswald decided it was wise to create
FAKES of something that already existed, huh?
Hey Von Pea Brain..... If you'll pull yer head outta Da Bug's ass
for
just a moment you May be able to see That the shadow cast by the
rifle
in CE 133B is pointing to the 9:00 Oclock position relative to the
torso of the figure in the photo......BUT the rifle is actually
pointing to the 11:00 Oclock position relative to the torso of the
figure in the photograph. Shadows are only cast in this manner in
the minds of liars.
Since Von Pea Brain is too damned dumb to understand the need for fake
photos he assumes that they are all legitimate photos that were taken
by Marina. What did she do Pea Brain, inadvertantly snap the shutter
three times?
It's obvious to anybody with any reasoning ability that the rifle is
different between CE 133A and CE 133B and 133c
If they authorities had tried to frame Oswald using only CE 133A they
would have run into the problem that the rifle in CE 133A has BOTTOM
sling swivels and therefore is NOT the rifle that was found BURIED
BENEATH heavy boxes of books in the TSBD. ....Because THAT rifle has
the sling swivels on the SIDE of the rifle.
Therefore it was imperative to create a couple of FAKE photos using a
rifle with the sling swivels on the side.
>
> Can even a mega-kook like Walt believe such stupid shit?
>
> =======================================================
>
> REPRISE (for the kooks to ignore):
>
> "I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina
> told Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took
> them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I
> never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of "Case
> Closed" by Gerald Posner (c.1993)
>
> =======================================================
"I can't remember how many I took, .... She took CE 133A ...and the
De Morhenschildt print....
She knows that Lee made several copies of CE 133A and THAT'S what she
means when she said she took "them"
robcap...@netscape.com
Hey, Dave, thanks for proving the FIV# points to be false, NOT!!!! All
this guy does is "Ramble On", but he forgets to disprove anything
mentioned. I wonder why?
robcap...@netscape.com
Shut up moron, you wouldn't know evidence if it fell on you. You are
laying WC shill and here is the PROOF IN YOUR OWN WORDS:
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 5 Nov, 17:30, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> "The Five Top Reasons All The Backyard Photos Are Fakes!" <<<
>
> > The conspiracy kooks just never let anything go, do they? No matter
> > how many times the various stupid things they believe in have been
> > debunked, the kooks just keep forging ahead with these same theories
> > as if they still have a breath of life left in them --- e.g., from
> > Badge Man, to Umbrella Man, to "Hickey did it", to "Greer did it", to
> > Doorway Man, to "Every picture is fake" (just to name a few examples).
>
> > In other words (per the kook rules of law): A BRAND-NEW DAY = ALL
> > THEORIES ARE VALID ONCE MORE.
>
> > The "Backyard Photos Are Fakes" crowd will ignore ALL of this HSCA
> > stuff:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
> > And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
> > wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
> > Street backyard in early '63.
>
> And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
> wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
> Street backyard in early '63.
>
> Hey Von Pea Brain ..... When a rational person reads that portion of
> Marina's testimony, it's pretty obvious that she was tricked into
> saying that she had taken two photos.
A PERFECT example of this guy's lack of reasoning capabilities. Read
the above, I'll wait. Do you see it? This moron says she was
"tricked into saying she had taken two photos" when she only really
took one. See it now? Why could she have been "tricked into saying
she took even one" when she really took none? How does this moron
know exactly what she was tricked into?
It seems to me if she can't even get the number of photos she took (I
mean we are talking about the number 2 here, not a number in the
hundreds or thousands) right, she probably took NONE. But moron sees
it differently. Where did he get his "inside" info?
> She knew that she had only
> snapped one back yard photo (CE 133A) but the slimey lawyer was
> handing her another which at first she thought was the same as CE 133A
> but after closer examination she could see that it was different than
> CE 133A.
Do you have any proof for this claim? Of course not and it gets added
to the list. I should have added it earlier but you have soooooo many
lies to keep up with I forgot it.
Skip this SPECULATION by Walt and go to his LIES listed below to see
this man's character:
In an effort to explain how there could be two similar
> photos she said that perhaps she had snapper the shutter twice. An
> HONEST investigator would have pointed out that Oswald is posed
> entirely differently so her explanation wouldn't fly, An HONEST
> investigator would also have pointed out that pushing the shutter
> twice would have created a double exposure. Everyone of those
> bastards KNEW that Marina's explanation was NONSENSE and yet they
> accepted it with a straight face.>
> One has to wonder if they would also accepted her explanation of
> accidently clicking the shutter TWO more times after taking CE
> 133A. We now know that the Dallas Police had 133C at the time but
> withheld it from the Warren Commission .... They committed a felony
> of with holding vital evidence in a capital murder case.
> > The fact that you believe LBJ's Blue Ribbon Committee was an honest
> investigation means that you are just as stupid as Rob...
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".