Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
Doc Holiday
Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
John McAdams
Doc Holiday <doc_h...@geocities.com> wrote:
: Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
: Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
: the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
: This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
I think your impression that "the head and body do not match" is heavily
subjective. If psychologists know anything, they know that people can
honestly see what they want to see or expect to see in a picture.
Gordon Allport's "Basic Psychology of a Rumour" is the classic paper in
this area.
You might try to find some objectively verifiable feature of the photos
that indicates fakery. I can assure you that conspiracy folks have tried
for thirty years, and and failed to convince anybody with any expertise.
.John
Tracy Riddle
Yes, you can read a lot of pseudo-intellectual BS about the psychology
of rumors, or you can stand outside on a sunny day and see if you can
recreate the shadow discrepancies yourself. John, please explain to us
why the FBI cut the head off the man in their recreation photo; do you
*really* believe it was to protect his identity? Or could it be that
they failed to match the way the shadows fall in the backyard photos?
Tracy
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>From: John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com>
>Date: Tue, Jan 27, 1998 20:57 EST
>Message-id: <6am39d$l...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>
>Doc Holiday <doc_h...@geocities.com> wrote:
>: Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
>: Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
>: the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not
>match.
>: This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
>
>
>I think your impression that "the head and body do not match" is heavily
>subjective. If psychologists know anything, they know that people can
>honestly see what they want to see or expect to see in a picture.
>
>Gordon Allport's "Basic Psychology of a Rumour" is the classic paper in
>this area.
>
>You might try to find some objectively verifiable feature of the photos
>that indicates fakery. I can assure you that conspiracy folks have tried
>for thirty years, and and failed to convince anybody with any expertise.
>
>.John
>
>
>It really isn't fair to simply dismiss any expert who tells you something
>your don't want to hear. If you want to do the homework, and show what is
>wrong with the experts analysis, feel free. Until then, the rational
>thing to do is go with the experts.
>
>.John
Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
From: John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 1998 20:57 EST
Message-id: <6am39d$l...@nntp02.primenet.com>
Doc Holiday <doc_h...@geocities.com> wrote:
: Has anyone seen, up close and personal the issue of Life Magazine with
: Oswald on the cover. If so can you deny that it is a fake. I have looked at
: the cover closely and I have few doubts that the head and body do not match.
: This has probably been hashed over for years but these are my 2 cents.
I think your impression that "the head and body do not match" is heavily
subjective. If psychologists know anything, they know that people can
honestly see what they want to see or expect to see in a picture.
Gordon Allport's "Basic Psychology of a Rumour" is the classic paper in
this area.
You might try to find some objectively verifiable feature of the photos
that indicates fakery. I can assure you that conspiracy folks have tried
for thirty years, and and failed to convince anybody with any expertise.
.John
Hey Perfesser.............
Let's forget the "experts" proclamations for just a minute..... Let's
just you, and I as a couple of amateurs take a look at a couple of the Back
Yard Photos.
Let's use only two pictures and compare them. We'll only use two for now, to
keep the confusion to a minimum. Let's compare CE 133A to 133C. I know you're
familar with the photos, but just so there is no confusion about the pics, well
use them as they appear in the photo section folowing page 180 of High Treason.
I have 8 X 10 photos from the NA which are much better, but the pics in High
Treason will do for now.
To keep this simple enough for you, let's compare the shadow being cast by
"Oswald" in CE 133A and 133C.
"Oswald" is standing in EXACTLY the same spot in both photos .....This is a
fact as can be verified by noticing that various points on "Oswald's" body
aligns with background objects.
For example : a) The pistol butt aligns in exactly the same place on the
picket fence. b) The post behind his head is in exactly the same place in
both photos. c) The knot hole in the fence picket is in exactly the same
place by his left knee. d) The stair steps support beam is 22 / 23 inches to
the right of his right foot of in both photos.
So even a couple of amateurs like us can see that "Oswald" is positioned in
exactly the same place in both photos. The inverted "V" shadows being cast on
the toolshed behind him are in exactly the same place in both photos as are
the shadows being cast by the stair steps onto the stair step stringer. The
shadow on the fence on "Oswald's" right crosses the pickets at exactly the same
angle.
So the sun is in the same position in both photos.....But the shadow of
"Oswald's" head falls on the ground behind him and to his right in CE 133
A...... while in 133C the shadow of his head is on the picket fence.
Though "Oswald" is standing in EXACTLY the same position, and his main body (
excluding his arms ) is posed EXACTLY the same in both pics ( an unlikely
event ) CE 133A looks like it has been taken from a slightly lower angle than
133C, as can be seen by aligning the top of his head with back ground objects.
CE 133A looks like it was snapped by a camera held in front of the photographer
while 133C apears to have been taken by a camera held at eye level.
So if Marina took both CE 133A and 133C them she must have been using a magic
camera which allowed the shadow of the subject to move while all other shadows
remained constant.
So there you are perfesser...... One of these pictures is a fake.....
The exsistance of 133C was not known until 1975. The FBI and DPD withheld it
from the Warren Commission and the general public...... Isn't withholding
evidence in a muder case a felony?? Why do you suppose the authorities
committed a felony by withholding 133C? Could it be that they knew that even a
couple of amateurs like you, and I could spot the fakery, and that compelled
them to keep the fake photo hidden...... Hmmmmm Perfesser ??
Walt Cakebread
Tracy Riddle
Jerry Organ wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > Yes, you can read a lot of pseudo-intellectual BS about the psychology
> > of rumors, or you can stand outside on a sunny day and see if you can
> > recreate the shadow discrepancies yourself. John, please explain to us
> > why the FBI cut the head off the man in their recreation photo; do you
> > *really* believe it was to protect his identity? Or could it be that
> > they failed to match the way the shadows fall in the backyard photos?
>
> that duplicate the shadows. Now, if it was private conspiracy researchers
> who did the reconstruction, why haven't they publicized the results????
>
> Jerry Organ
I've read Mailer's claim, but he gives no source for this statement, or
tell us where we can see this photo. And that claim is nonsense; no one
can duplicate those shadow discrepancies without trickery of some kind.
Why hasn't some WC defender done it? Why did the FBI cut off the head of
the man in their recreation photo?
Tracy
R2JUDGE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Wed, Jan 28, 1998 14:45 EST
>Message-id: <6ano0b$s...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>
>
>In alt.conspiracy.jfk John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>: Tracy, you really ought to *read* the HSCA authentication of the backyard
>: photos.
>
>Wait, I thought that the HSCA evidence and findings were bebunked?! Oh,
>that was just the ACOUSTICAL evidence, not this HSCA evidence.
>
>.John, you bring on a whole new meaning to the word "select" when dealing
>with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>
>: It's:
>
>: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
>: It really isn't fair to simply dismiss any expert who tells you something
>: your don't want to hear. If you want to do the homework, and show what is
>: wrong with the experts analysis, feel free.
>
>muscular. LHO wasn't that big.
>
>: Until then, the rational thing to do is go with the experts.
>
>An expert is not an expert is not an expert.
>
>Eric
>
>: .John
>
>
Eric, the photo on the cover of life was retouched, which is
obvious when comparing it to the original.
The body is the same person. The person in the backyard
photos is not bigger or more muscular than Oswald.
Marina said she took the photos and has never retracted that
statement even though she says she believes her husband was a patsy.
The original photo is authentic. It is Oswald.
Ron Judge
Tracy Riddle
> theorists. If it had supported the shadow "discrepancies," they would have
> publicized it. Mailer got wind of it by accident.
>
> Jerry Organ
Then tell us more about it. Have you seen the photo? Why can only
conspiracy theorists recreate it? Does the sun cast different shadows
for them than for you? And you didn't answer my question about the FBI
reenactment photo.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
John McAdams wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 06:05:07 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >>
> >> I think your impression that "the head and body do not match" is heavily
> >> subjective. If psychologists know anything, they know that people can
> >> honestly see what they want to see or expect to see in a picture.
> >>
> >> Gordon Allport's "Basic Psychology of a Rumour" is the classic paper in
> >> this area.
> >>
> >> You might try to find some objectively verifiable feature of the photos
> >> that indicates fakery. I can assure you that conspiracy folks have tried
> >> for thirty years, and and failed to convince anybody with any expertise.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >of rumors, or you can stand outside on a sunny day and see if you can
> >recreate the shadow discrepancies yourself. John, please explain to us
> >why the FBI cut the head off the man in their recreation photo; do you
> >*really* believe it was to protect his identity? Or could it be that
> >they failed to match the way the shadows fall in the backyard photos?
> >
>
> 11. Those folks recreated the shadows with a manikin. The point is
> that if you rotate your head, the shadow under the nose moves. If you
> *rotate* your head, it counterbalances the tilt, and moves the shadow
> back.
>
> You can recreate those shadows easily enough. I routinely do it in my
> JFK assassination class.
>
> .John
I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you, .John, but
I'm talking about THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NOSE SHADOW AND THE BODY
SHADOW.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
jerrymac wrote:
>
> Jerry Organ wrote in message <34D16D...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
> >Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> >> I've read Mailer's claim, but he gives no source for this statement, or
> >> tell us where we can see this photo. And that claim is nonsense; no one
> >> can duplicate those shadow discrepancies without trickery of some kind.
> >> Why hasn't some WC defender done it? Why did the FBI cut off the head of
> >> the man in their recreation photo?
> >
> >You haven't seen the photo-recreation because it was done by conspiracy
> >theorists. If it had supported the shadow "discrepancies," they would have
> >publicized it. Mailer got wind of it by accident.
> >
> >Jerry Organ
> >
> >
>
> Jerry,
>
> Here's what Mailer said in "Oswald's Tale":
>
> For years, those famous photographs Marina took on that day were under
> suspicion by Warren Commission critics. They looked to be doctored. His
> head sits at an odd angle to his neck, and the shadow under his nose is
> vertical while the shadow of his body slants away at an angle. These
> anomalies are so evident that in 1964, a good lawyer could have created
> real doubt in a jury's mind whether the body of the man holding the gun
> belonged to Oswald. ***By now, simulated photographs taken at the same
> time of day and year in Dallas have been able to produce the identical
> discrepancies in the shadows.*** Even though only one of the original
> negatives was ever found, microscopic analysis of the grain in this
> negative shows that head and body belong to the same man. Moreover, grain
> analysis of the prints for which no negatives were found indicates that
> they were printed from the same roll that contained the negative that was
> found. The prevailing conclusion is, then, that the photographs are real,
> and Marina took them."
>
> ___
>
> Can you cite your source for "Mailer got wind of it by accident"??? And
> just who are the conspiracy theorists who did this photo-recreation???
> And why hasn't a Warren loyalist duplicated this feat, since it is
> possible?
>
> The bottom line is that I see Mr. Mailer making an undocumented claim, and
> Mr. Organ verifying it with yet another undocumented claim.
>
> jerrymac
Absolutely; it pissed me off when I read Mailer's claim and he backed it
up with NOTHING. After decades of being a rebel, Mailer has now decided
to take the easy way out and play along with the powers that be.
Tracy
John McAdams
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Fri, Jan 30, 1998 10:19 EST
>Message-id: <34d1e697...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
explanation of "Oswald's" shadow being cast in different directions in CE 133A
and 133 C. ?? All the other shadows are being cast exactly the same....but
"Oswald's" shadow falls on the ground behind him in CE 133A but it falls on
the fence behind him in 133 C......
Do you point this out in your assassination class ?? Do you tell your students
that the authorities withheld 133C from the W.C. and the public ??
Walt Cakebread
You might try to find some objectively verifiable feature of the photos
that indicates fakery. I can assure you that conspiracy folks have tried
for thirty years, and and failed to convince anybody with any expertise.
.John
jerrymac
Tracy Riddle
Pearl Gladstone wrote:
>
> The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure that
> the whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the
> photo). Everyone who saw it was laughing.
>
> It was not only unmatched to the eye, but the guy would have fallen
> over, he was so off balance.
>
> This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
> being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality
> is always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own
> instincts.
What's interesting is that no one knew until the WR was published that
Oswald had also claimed the photos were composites. So it's not as
though critics were simply parroting what Oswald said.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >From: Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com>
> >Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 00:05 EST
> >Message-id: <34D402...@erols.com>
>
> >Strictly from the echoes of a distant, but resonating memory:
> >
> >The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure that the
> whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the photo).
> Everyone who saw it was laughing.
> >
> >It was not only unmatched to the eye, but the guy would have fallen over, he
> was so off balance.
> >
> >This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
> >being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality is
> always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own instincts.
> >
> I don't recall anyone laughing, or pointing out aspects of the picture that
> make it seem fake.
>
> If the multitudes who saw it recognized it as a fake, and were laughing
> ......Why didn't they demand an answer for this fakery ??
> As I remember it ...... People who saw that issue of life assumed it was a real
> photo, and thought it was highly incriminating of Oswald.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Walt, there weren't multitudes of people, but Mark Lane claimed the
photo was a composite in his WC testimony 3/4/1964.
Tracy
Pearl Gladstone
Strictly from the echoes of a distant, but resonating memory:
John McAdams
On 30 Jan 1998 17:39:18 -0600, "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
wrote:
>
>Jerry,
>
>Here's what Mailer said in "Oswald's Tale":
>
>For years, those famous photographs Marina took on that day were under
>suspicion by Warren Commission critics. They looked to be doctored. His
>head sits at an odd angle to his neck, and the shadow under his nose is
>vertical while the shadow of his body slants away at an angle. These
>anomalies are so evident that in 1964, a good lawyer could have created
>real doubt in a jury's mind whether the body of the man holding the gun
>belonged to Oswald. ***By now, simulated photographs taken at the same
>time of day and year in Dallas have been able to produce the identical
>discrepancies in the shadows.*** Even though only one of the original
>negatives was ever found, microscopic analysis of the grain in this
>negative shows that head and body belong to the same man. Moreover, grain
>analysis of the prints for which no negatives were found indicates that
>they were printed from the same roll that contained the negative that was
>found. The prevailing conclusion is, then, that the photographs are real,
>and Marina took them."
>
>___
>
>Can you cite your source for "Mailer got wind of it by accident"??? And
>just who are the conspiracy theorists who did this photo-recreation???
I don't know about the "recreation" stuff, but the "grain analysis"
stuff sounds like the HSCA. It's a bit mangled, however.
.John
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>From: Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 00:05 EST
>Message-id: <34D402...@erols.com>
>Strictly from the echoes of a distant, but resonating memory:
>
>The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure that the
whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the photo).
Everyone who saw it was laughing.
>
>It was not only unmatched to the eye, but the guy would have fallen over, he
was so off balance.
>
>This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
>being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality is
always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own instincts.
>
Tony Pitman
jerrymac wrote:
> Jerry Organ wrote in message <34D16D...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
> >Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> >> I've read Mailer's claim, but he gives no source for this
> statement, or
> >> tell us where we can see this photo. And that claim is nonsense; no
> one
> >> can duplicate those shadow discrepancies without trickery of some
> kind.
> >> Why hasn't some WC defender done it? Why did the FBI cut off the
> head of
> >> the man in their recreation photo?
> >
> >You haven't seen the photo-recreation because it was done by
> conspiracy
> >theorists. If it had supported the shadow "discrepancies," they would
> have
> >publicized it. Mailer got wind of it by accident.
> >
> >Jerry Organ
> >
> >http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
> >
>
> And why hasn't a Warren loyalist duplicated this feat, since it is
> possible?
>
> The bottom line is that I see Mr. Mailer making an undocumented claim,
> and
> Mr. Organ verifying it with yet another undocumented claim.
>
> jerrymac
That is right. And Marina is now saying that she was pressured into
saying that she took such pictures and that indeed she did but those are
not the ones.
She says that, when she did take photos, she was standing by the steps
so they could not have appeared in the photos.
Tony
Jean Davison
Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
<34D69D3C...@southern.co.nz>...
<snipping for space>
>
> That is right. And Marina is now saying that she was pressured into
> saying that she took such pictures and that indeed she did but those are
> not the ones.
>
> She says that, when she did take photos, she was standing by the steps
> so they could not have appeared in the photos.
If she was standing by the steps, then she would've been facing
-into- the sun, wouldn't she? Most people know that makes for a
very bad photo. It may be that she remembers it that way, but she
ID-ed the photos as the ones she took to both the WC and the HSCA,
if I'm not mistaken. Jean
Tracy Riddle
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >Date: Sat, Jan 31, 1998 15:19 EST
> >Message-id: <34D387...@tfb.com>
> >photo was a composite in his WC testimony 3/4/1964.
> >
> >Tracy
> >
> ?? Did He say CE 133A or CE 133B ??
>
> Walt Cakebread
He was talking about the famous Life magazine photo. What's interesting
is that at this point, the public didn't know that Oswald had also
claimed the photo was a composite.
Tracy
Pearl Gladstone
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >From: Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com>
> >Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 00:05 EST
> >Message-id: <34D402...@erols.com>
>
> >
> >The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure that the
> whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the photo).
> Everyone who saw it was laughing.
> >
> >It was not only unmatched to the eye, but the guy would have fallen over, he
> was so off balance.
> >
> >This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
> >being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality is
> always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own instincts.
> >
> I don't recall anyone laughing, or pointing out aspects of the picture that
> make it seem fake.
>
> If the multitudes who saw it recognized it as a fake, and were laughing
> ......Why didn't they demand an answer for this fakery ??
> As I remember it ...... People who saw that issue of life assumed it was a real
> photo, and thought it was highly incriminating of Oswald.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Walt Honestly, I can only speak for those I had acquaintance with.
We all saw how askew his body was...off line with the head....but none
of us spoke up in any official way...We just stored it up in our
internal files under the heading "more lies from Johnson and Hoover and
Earl Warren and Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford et al, you know, the
entity of power....Then we went about our lives...getting and spending,
all that humdrum, everyday stuff that fills the days of our lives...
I stopped watching the news, and turned off, especially after the
assassination of RFK.
For me, it took the dazzling light of the film "JFK" to open that huge
file of frustration and anger at the lies and corruption and stupid
policies. That was the trigger.
I expect most people may be like that, filing away the hurts, the
insults, the knowledge of lies....until....
I'll close this by the distant memory of many trying to imitate how
Oswald stoood in that picture, and all of us losing our balance. I
believe that the cover-up noted that, and tried to correct his posture
in later- made copies..
Pearl Gladstone
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> WCAKE wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> > >From: Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com>
> > >Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 00:05 EST
> > >Message-id: <34D402...@erols.com>
> >
> > >
> > >The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure that the
> > whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the photo).
> > Everyone who saw it was laughing.
> > >
> > >It was not only unmatched to the eye, but the guy would have fallen over, he
> > was so off balance.
> > >
> > >This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
> > >being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality is
> > always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own instincts.
> > >
> > I don't recall anyone laughing, or pointing out aspects of the picture that
> > make it seem fake.
> >
> > If the multitudes who saw it recognized it as a fake, and were laughing
> > ......Why didn't they demand an answer for this fakery ??
> > As I remember it ...... People who saw that issue of life assumed it was a real
> > photo, and thought it was highly incriminating of Oswald.
> >
> > Walt Cakebread
>
> photo was a composite in his WC testimony 3/4/1964.
>
> Tracy
And he was right. Period. Easy to see.
Fathom
> > > >The day that Life magazine photo came was the day I knew for sure
that the
> > > whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the photo).
> > > Everyone who saw it was laughing.
FWIW, a relative of mine who teaches medicine at Harvard (yes, he's rather
brainy *and* observant) recently showed me his original Life magazine with
the Oswald cover. He's not a "buff", just interested in unusual historical
oddities, and *he* was laughing about how obvious the fakery was.
Perhaps to a nation in shock and mourning, laughter didn't come so
easily--in fact, discernment doesn't come easily in such a frame of mind.
_Life_ got away with the fraud (for a time) because the audience was
prepared to see trauma, not tricks.
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
Disagree at your peril.
Tracy Riddle
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >Date: Wed, Feb 4, 1998 02:33 EST
> >Message-id: <34D819...@tfb.com>
> >
> >WCAKE wrote:
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >> >Date: Sat, Jan 31, 1998 15:19 EST
> >> >Message-id: <34D387...@tfb.com>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >> >> >From: Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com>
> >> >> >Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 00:05 EST
> >> >> >Message-id: <34D402...@erols.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Strictly from the echoes of a distant, but resonating memory:
> >> >> >
> >the
> >> >> whole Oswald story put out by the government was a fake (like the
> >photo).
> >> >> Everyone who saw it was laughing.
> >> >> >
> >over,
> >> >he
> >> >> was so off balance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This was a milestone in official photo fakery, a device that is still
> >> >> >being resorted to, but now by computer...Beware, the nature of reality
> >is
> >> >> always under assault. Trust your own observations and your own
> >instincts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Pearl you must have a better eye for detail than most.....
> >> >> I don't recall anyone laughing, or pointing out aspects of the picture
> >that
> >> >> make it seem fake.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the multitudes who saw it recognized it as a fake, and were laughing
> >> >> ......Why didn't they demand an answer for this fakery ??
> >> >> As I remember it ...... People who saw that issue of life assumed it was
> >a
> >> >real
> >> >> photo, and thought it was highly incriminating of Oswald.
> >> >>
> >> >> Walt Cakebread
> >> >
> >> >Walt, there weren't multitudes of people, but Mark Lane claimed the
> >> >photo was a composite in his WC testimony 3/4/1964.
> >> >
> >> >Tracy
> >> >
> >to
> >> ?? Did He say CE 133A or CE 133B ??
> >>
> >> Walt Cakebread
> >
> >He was talking about the famous Life magazine photo. What's interesting
> >is that at this point, the public didn't know that Oswald had also
> >
> >Tracy
> >
> >
> Tracy.......We simply don't know WHICH Photo Oswald saw and said was a
> fake.......... He could have been referring to CE 133A , CE 133B, or
> 133C....... I suspect that they showed him 133C and of course he would
> recognize it instantly as a fake.....because he knew he hadn't posed for that
> pic. That's the reason the cops kept it hidden for 22 years.
>
> Walt Cakebread
But all three photos have the same problems with them (ridiculous chin,
shadow discrepancies, etc.); why would they fake 133C if they had two
genuine photos of him?
Tracy
WCAKE
WCAKE
>Message-id: <34D814...@erols.com>
>
"fact"............ Many people TODAY, do believe that the picture ( CE 133A
) that appeared on the cover of LIFE is a fake...BUT in February of 1964
......when it appeared on news stands across the country .....it looked like a
" wanted" poster and most people saw it as highly incriminating.
You said Everybody who saw it recognized that it was a fake and everybody was
laughing.......
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Mon, May 4, 1998 07:59 EDT
>Message-id: <no-spam-0402...@d193.pm6.sonic.net>
>
>
>FWIW, a relative of mine who teaches medicine at Harvard (yes, he's rather
brainy *and* observant) recently showed me his original Life magazine with the
Oswald cover. He's not a "buff", just interested in unusual historical
oddities, and *he* was laughing about how obvious the fakery was.
>
>
Hey Fathom....... Many, Many People TODAY buy into the idea that the BY pic is
a fake...... But would your relative have seen the pic as a fake in
1964??....Before that idea became a popular way to discredit the W.C. decree.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Wed, Feb 4, 1998 02:33 EST
>Message-id: <34D819...@tfb.com>
>
>WCAKE wrote:
>>
>> >Date: Sat, Jan 31, 1998 15:19 EST
>> >Message-id: <34D387...@tfb.com>
>> >
>> >WCAKE wrote:
>> >>
>to
>> ?? Did He say CE 133A or CE 133B ??
>>
>> Walt Cakebread
>
Fathom
In article <19980206153...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
> Tracy.......We simply don't know WHICH Photo Oswald saw and said was a
> fake.......... He could have been referring to CE 133A , CE 133B, or
> 133C....... I suspect that they showed him 133C and of course he would
> recognize it instantly as a fake.....because he knew he hadn't posed for that
> pic. That's the reason the cops kept it hidden for 22 years.
Huh? Walt, are you implying that he *did* pose for the other two? If not,
what difference does it make which they showed him?
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Fri, Feb 6, 1998 19:05 EST
>Message-id: <no-spam-0602...@d209.nas18.sonic.net>
>Huh? Walt, are you implying that he *did* pose for the other two? If not,
>what difference does it make which they showed him?
>--
HelloFathom, ...... I'm NOT implying .....I've stated many times that CE 133A
is the ONE AND ONLY picture that Marina took of Lee holding a rifle while thet
lived at 214 Neeley street.
BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
showed him 133C.
Walt Cakebread
jack white
WALT...SORRY TO DISPUTE YOU. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT MY VIDEO **FAKE**. ALL THE BACKYARD
PHOTOS ARE FAKES. MARINA TOOK NONE OF THEM.
JACK
Fathom
In article <19980207190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
> CE 133A is the ONE AND ONLY picture that Marina took of Lee holding a
rifle while thet
> lived at 214 Neeley street.
>
> BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
> showed him 133C.
Sorry--this is a new idea for me, Walt. And I must say it sounds
farfetched, on the surface.
If cops had a genuine photo, what was the purpose of the forgeries? Is it
a different rifle?
Fathom
In article <19980208002...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
> Marina testified that she took a single BY photo. When they
showed
> her CE 133B she was confused because she only remembered taking ONE....... But
> she was in no position to argue with them so agreed that she MIGHT have taken
> two.
You're quite right, she was not in a position to argue! So her original
admission of taking ONE photo might have been a lie, as well.
> ( As it turns out there were THREE Back Yard Photos in the hands of the
> authorities ON SATURDAY MORNING before they were officially discovered at the
> Paine residence on Saturday afternoon )
How did they get there?
> Let's look at this logically........
> 1) Marina said she took a BY pic
> 2) DeM had one in his possession
> 3) Marina said she remembered that she was embarrassed by Lee showing that pic
> to De M..... She was probably embarrassed by the inscription she helped Lee
> put on the back of the pic.
> 4) Jean De M saw the pic
> 5) Ruth Koepfler's daughter said she saw the picture when she visited The
> Oswald's at their new Orleans apt, with her mother.
> 6) Mike Paine testified that he saw a B Y photo.
> 7) Lee sent a copy of the B Y photo to the editor of The Militant.
>
> All of these people people said they saw a B Y photo BEFORE the
> assassination
I wasn't aware of this. The Militant, too? They would have some kind of
documentation, e.g. the envelope it arrived in, if they were keeping it in
their file. Has any solid evidence like this ever surfaced?
I still want to know why on earth, if there really was a *genuine* photo
of LHO with the rifle, anyone would create the two phoneys. Can anyone
speak to this? A different rifle, perhaps?
Martin Shackelford
Fathom:
California researcher Hal Verb interviewed several staff members of
the Militant. They recalled receiving the photo, but no real details.
Martin
jack white
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >Date: Sat, Feb 7, 1998 14:13 EST
> >Message-id: <34DCB2...@flash.net>
> >
> >WCAKE wrote:
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >> >From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
> >> >Date: Fri, Feb 6, 1998 19:05 EST
> >> >Message-id: <no-spam-0602...@d209.nas18.sonic.net>
> >>
> >> >Huh? Walt, are you implying that he *did* pose for the other two? If not,
> >> >what difference does it make which they showed him?
> >> >--
> >>
> >133A
> >> is the ONE AND ONLY picture that Marina took of Lee holding a rifle while
> >thet
> >> lived at 214 Neeley street.
> >>
> >> BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
> >> showed him 133C.
> >>
> >
> >
> >WALT...SORRY TO DISPUTE YOU. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT MY VIDEO **FAKE**. ALL THE
> >BACKYARD
> >PHOTOS ARE FAKES. MARINA TOOK NONE OF THEM.
> >
> >JACK
> >
> >
> Marina testified that she took a single BY photo. When they showed
> her CE 133B she was confused because she only remembered taking ONE....... But
> she was in no position to argue with them so agreed that she MIGHT have taken
> two.
> authorities ON SATURDAY MORNING before they were officially discovered at the
> Paine residence on Saturday afternoon )
>
> 1) Marina said she took a BY pic
> 2) DeM had one in his possession
> 3) Marina said she remembered that she was embarrassed by Lee showing that pic
> to De M..... She was probably embarrassed by the inscription she helped Lee
> put on the back of the pic.
> 4) Jean De M saw the pic
> 5) Ruth Koepfler's daughter said she saw the picture when she visited The
> Oswald's at their new Orleans apt, with her mother.
> 6) Mike Paine testified that he saw a B Y photo.
> 7) Lee sent a copy of the B Y photo to the editor of The Militant.
>
> All of these people people said they saw a B Y photo BEFORE the
> truthfulness ...but there are just too many people who saw it ( most saw it in
> Oswald's possession) to say that CE 133A is a fake.....
>
> It's entirely possible that Oswald himself did a little retouching on CE 133A
> before he sent it to the Militant. That retouching can raise suspicions of
> fakery but I just don't believe that particular photo is a fake.
WALT...I WON*T ARGUE WITH YOU. BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD LOOK AT MY VIDEO FAKE. THERE ARE
MORE THAN 20 POINTS WHICH PROVE FAKERY OF ALL THE PHOTOS. MICHAEL PAINE AND MARINA ARE
NOT TO BE BELIEVED. THE MILITANT IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED. THE DEMOHRENSHILDTS ARE NOT TO
BE BELIEVED. NEITHER MARINA NOR LEE WROTE ON THE DEM PRINT, AND ON AND ON AND ON.
CORDIALLY,
JACK
>
> Walt Cakebread
>
> Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Message-id: <no-spam-0702...@d162.pm5.sonic.net>
>rifle while thet
>> lived at 214 Neeley street.
>>
>> BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
>> showed him 133C.
>
>farfetched, on the surface.
>If cops had a genuine photo, what was the purpose of the forgeries? Is it
>a different rifle?
>--
stages of the coup d'etat..... They were aware that one existed........ but
they couldn't get their hands on it because De M had it, and there was no
negative for it, so it would not have been admissible as evidence to use
against Oswald in court.
So they created their own version of the backyard photo
Oswald told them the photo ( 133C ? ) that they showed him was a fake.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Sat, Feb 7, 1998 14:13 EST
>Message-id: <34DCB2...@flash.net>
>
>WCAKE wrote:
>>
>> >Message-id: <no-spam-0602...@d209.nas18.sonic.net>
>>
>> >Huh? Walt, are you implying that he *did* pose for the other two? If not,
>> >what difference does it make which they showed him?
>> >--
>>
>133A
>> is the ONE AND ONLY picture that Marina took of Lee holding a rifle while
>thet
>> lived at 214 Neeley street.
>>
>> BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
>> showed him 133C.
>>
Walt Cakebread
Walt Cakebread
Pearl Gladstone
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
> >Message-id: <no-spam-0402...@d193.pm6.sonic.net>
> >
> >
>
> >FWIW, a relative of mine who teaches medicine at Harvard (yes, he's rather
> brainy *and* observant) recently showed me his original Life magazine with the
> Oswald cover. He's not a "buff", just interested in unusual historical
> oddities, and *he* was laughing about how obvious the fakery was.
> >
> >
> Hey Fathom....... Many, Many People TODAY buy into the idea that the BY pic is
> a fake...... But would your relative have seen the pic as a fake in
> 1964??....Before that idea became a popular way to discredit the W.C. decree.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Walt, Fathom, et al
I was deeply traumatized by the Kennedy assassination, so much so that
I wrote an entire book to ease my feelings.
By the time the Life magazine arrived, that initial overpowering grief
had passed. But never did I throw aside a discriminating power of
observeation.
I remember forever seeing (on TV) film of LBJ winking at somebody on
the plane going back to Wash. D. C.after he was sworn in. That told me
at lot.
The Life photo was an hysterically impossible stance, and anybody who
failed to note that is mere clay in the hand of evil potters (no, not
plotters, but them too, of course). Not grief, nor storm, nor all the
fury of disinformation can make that photo clean.
Pearl Gladstone
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >Date: Wed, Feb 4, 1998 02:12 EST
> >Message-id: <34D814...@erols.com>
> >
> >Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
> >
> Pearl it's easy for you TODAY to make a claim about a commonly accepted
> "fact"............ Many people TODAY, do believe that the picture ( CE 133A
> ) that appeared on the cover of LIFE is a fake...BUT in February of 1964
> ......when it appeared on news stands across the country .....it looked like a
> " wanted" poster and most people saw it as highly incriminating.
>
> You said Everybody who saw it recognized that it was a fake and everybody was
> laughing.......
>
> .....Why didn't they demand an answer for this fakery ??
> As I remember it ...... People who saw that issue of life assumed it was a real
> photo, and thought it was highly incriminating of Oswald.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Here's my answer Walt, for myself alone. I saw it as a fake. What was I
going to do?
I was busy getting my career started, and I relegated my anger and my
distrust to some back burner for many years. For long periods of time, I
just turned off and walked the wildernesses of our country, and
concentrated on family. I couldn't even watch TV, for then I would have
to watch LBJ, and Nixon, and Reagan, and Carter in his last days of
impotence, and ....so on..
I got involved in many campaigns, but I just kept my anger about the
Kennedy assassination and the King assassination and the others as part
of private conversations.
It was ignorance Walt. I swear to you, as unbelievable as it sounds,
that I never knew there were books written on the subject. I heard about
the HSCA conclusions, and said to myself, the same old lies and
cover-ups, with a small apology of no consequence.
I was simply ignorant and very busy elsewhere. This is true, I guess, of
many of the masses out these. They are sort of on the fenceposts, out
there waiting for a revelation, some sign that there is something out
there in which they can believe, some truth to which they can cling,
some hope on which they can bend their efforts.
It's innocent ignorance, Walt. You perhaps cannot understand that, but
it is a tremendous force.
JFK was the trigger for me. All that had been dammed up for all those
years was freed. I am still playing catch-up on all the information. I,
who used to read huge amounts of fiction, now read only what might be
classified as non-fiction, but we all know that that includes lots of
fiction too.
I hope this sort of answers your question of how I could laugh at the
Life photo, yet never act on it at the time. You may not like my answer,
but it is absolutely honest.
Terrell Miller
Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com> wrote:
> I remember forever seeing (on TV) film of LBJ winking at somebody on
>the plane going back to Wash. D. C.after he was sworn in. That told me
>at lot.
The still photo is on p.71 of Groden's TKOAP, and shows Texas Rep.
Albert Thomas winking at LBJ, not vice versa. At best LBJ has a grim
smile on his face.
My read on this picture is that Thomas was either trying to give a
friend a little encouragement in a very traumatic moment, or he was
just sucking up to the new POTUS. And LBJ was just expressing "yeah,
I'll be okay, thanks."
terrel...@mindspring.com Ordo Pantheris, Prodigy survivor
"Before there is Lap, there must be Sit."
-me, trying to explain continuity to my kitten :)
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Sat, Feb 7, 1998 14:35 EST
>Message-id: <no-spam-0702...@d162.pm5.sonic.net>
>
>In article <19980207190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
>(WCAKE) wrote:
>
>rifle while thet
>> lived at 214 Neeley street.
>>
>> BOTH CE 133B and 133C ARE FAKES.....And Lee spotted it instantly when they
>> showed him 133C.
>
>farfetched, on the surface.
>If cops had a genuine photo, what was the purpose of the forgeries? Is it
>a different rifle?
>--
>
> 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
>These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
> Disagree at your peril.
>
Fathom I overlooked this important question the first time I read your
post.....
The rifle in CE 133B does look like a different rifle ... The "sling appears to
be piece of rope in CE 133B. The rope sling appears to be attached to the side
of the rifle....which means this rifle has a side mounted sling
swivel.......The Rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A has BOTTOM a mounted sling
swivel . There is no doubt that either CE 133A or CE 133B is a fake......
Because the rifles are different, and CE 133A Oswald has his wedding ring on
his right hand ring finger and the Marine Corps Ring on his left hand...... In
CE 133B "Oswald " has the a large ring ( Marine Corps ?) on his right hand.
Walt Cakebread
Howard J. Rogers
Ah, but Terrell, this explanation falls seriously short. After all, it's
merely common sense and a normal outlook on life that generates the sort of
understanding of people's actions as you display here. Why offer innocent
explanations for sinister "winks" and "nods" when you could offer a totally
paranoid and evidently sinister version of events? It also doesn't help
when you actually point the *real* facts out (like the fact that it's not
LBJ who's winking). Much better to work with half-remembered distortions:
that way, the sinister stuff will readilly brush up even more sinister!
You'll have to try harder -MUCH harder- if you ever want to join the ranks
of the *serious* buffs, like Pearl.
Regards
HJR
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Sun, Feb 8, 1998 17:42 EST
>Message-id: <6blc9k$dvm$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>
It may help you to understand the kind of people LBJ and company
were, if you heard what Congressman Brooks said about the Branch Davidians at
Waco.........
Congressman Jack Brooks was at LBJ's side at Parkland and for weeks after the
coup d e'tat.
At a meeting in Washington ........He thought the Microphones were turned off
when he said....." I'd have gave them ( David Koresh and the Branch Davidians )
15 minutes to surrender..... and then I would have loaded them in vans, and
took them out and shot all of them." ......... Nice Guy ...Huh ??
That's the kind of men that LBJ associated with.
Walt Cakebread
Fred Glazier
Walt,
I thought I'd throw something in here. When I lived in Germany years ago
I noticed something different about many Germans. They wore their
wedding ring on their right hand.
Perhaps some scouring of pictures of LHO would reveal which hand he wore
his on?
Thanks,
Frederick
WCAKE wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
Debra Conway
I've personnally asked this question of Marina and she stated that Lee wore
his ring on the right hand frequently.
Debra
--
JFK Lancer Productions & Publications
"Serving the research community, educating a new generation."
http://www.jfklancer.com
Updated regularly
1998 November In Dallas Conference, November 19-22
35 years later. JFK: His Death and Legacy
This is your conference. Please plan to be in Dallas
-Whatever it takes.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Sun, Feb 8, 1998 12:08 EST
>Message-id: <34DDE6...@erols.com>
>
>WCAKE wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>> >Date: Wed, Feb 4, 1998 02:12 EST
>> >Message-id: <34D814...@erols.com>
>> >
>> >Tracy Riddle wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
You offered your opinion that you think CE 133A is a fake and that's OK.......
My opinion conflicts with yours, but there have been many, many people over
the years who have had conflicting opinions about CE 133A.... Some of them
have been recognized photograph analysists, ....But even the "experts" are
divided in their opinions.
I would like to point out that you said that the thing that reveals fakery is
Oswald's off balance, unnatural pose. His pose is not unnatural..... It looks
a little funny because of the fence behind him..... It looks like a gate in
the picket fence which has sagged a bit .....you'll notice that the stairstep
support pillar on Oswald's right, is vertical, and the pickets do not align
with it. Oswald has his weight on his rear foot and right hip..... so I don't
think the argument is valid.
There has been some altering ( retouching ) of the photo as it appears on the
cover of the Feb 21 1963 issue of LIFE, but I'm not convinced that the
retouching has sinister implications.
I'am sure that at least one and possibly two of the three backyard photos is a
fake, but I believe CE 133A is the ONE and ONLY photo that Marina took of LHO.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
>Date: Mon, Feb 9, 1998 15:49 EST
>Message-id: <34DF6BBE...@Network-1.com>
>
>Walt,
>I thought I'd throw something in here. When I lived in Germany years ago
>I noticed something different about many Germans. They wore their
>wedding ring on their right hand.
>Perhaps some scouring of pictures of LHO would reveal which hand he wore
>his on?
>Thanks,
>Frederick
>
>
>
>
>> >Subject: Re: Silly Life photo of Oswald is an obvious fake
Unless you have good clear copies of CE 133A and CE 133B , it's nearly
impossible to discern the rings. I have 8X 10 copies from the NA and it's
clear that Oswald has his wedding ring on his right hand in CE 133A but in CE
133B a large ( Marine Corps ?) ring is on his right hand ring finger.
It's simply unbelievable that Oswald would have shifted his rings from one
hand to the other in the few second interval between shots. So the rings plus
the difference in the sling swivels verifies the fakery in the photo.
While I'm on the subject of the BY photos .....Priscilla Mc Millan on page 362
of her book Marina and Lee writes about the inscription on the back of the De M
print. She wrote......" The back of the photograph bore two inscriptions.
Across the top, in Russian, were the words: Hunter of Fascists - ha-ha-ha
!!!....... under the inscription , which was bold and clear was a small
sketch of a terrier, of the kind the De Mohrenschieldts owned."
De Mohrenschildt was a sketch artist......I believe he sketched that terrier as
a way of proving his copyright without actually signing the print. He wanted
copy rights when he thought Oswald was going to flee to Cuba after taking a
shot at Gen walker. He would have released the photo showing the well armed
Oswald who had "attempted to murder" General Walker....but he would have had
the copyright to that pic.
Walt Cakebread
Fred Glazier
Walt,
There is no way anyone would convince me that LHO swaped his rings while
posing for these pictures.
Good work!
Interesting idea on DeM.
I had another thought on the BY photos. I've asked a couple people about
this.
If your gonna fake some pictures why bother with jacking with the
photos. Why not alter the negatives. Boom You have a real picture.
Fred Glazier
Debra,
Thank you.
Frederick
Debra Conway wrote:
> I've personnally asked this question of Marina and she stated that Lee
> wore
> his ring on the right hand frequently.
>
> Debra
>
> Fred Glazier wrote:
> >