Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he.
#4
Jack,

Had I known more about the history of this research, I would certainly have credited Fred Newcomb as well. We included a major section about your testimony to the HSCA, of course. Thanks for an informative recap of all this research. It is simply stunning that frauds like Lamson and Colby--does Duncan McRae now belong on this list?--are still trying to defend the indefensible. If McRae said that the photos are obviously faked and enumerated the indications, while trying to qualify the block chin--which is the most conspicuous difference from the real Oswald--that would have been one matter. But for him to offer this rather pathetic attempt to salvage it--without even acknowledging the insert line!--is beyond belief. At one point, I thought he was doing good work. But this is atrocious. The same face with the same shadows and the same expression cannot occur across different poses at different times. In my opinion, it functions as a litmus test to discriminate between those who are seeking truth and those who are obfuscating it. I can hardly wait to learn where others on this forum stand.

P.S. The original announcement came from Dartmouth: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html

Jim

Ignoring Expert Testimony

The day following the assassination two photographs and the negative to one of these were found by Dallas police in the garage of the Irving home where Oswald's wife was staying. These two were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 133-A and B.

In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered yet another backyard photo in the hands of the widow of a Dallas policeman. Mrs. Roscoe White said her husband once told her the picture would be very valuable some day. In this heretofore unknown version of the backyard photo, Oswald is depicted holding the rifle in his left hand and newspapers in his right.

This is the same pose used by Dallas police in reenacting the photo for the Warren Commission — clear evidence that authorities were aware of the suppressed picture long before it became known to the public. This photo has been identified as CE 133-C by researchers.

In the same study, Thomas himself provides a summary of far more detailed testimony from Jack White, a longtime analyst of JFK photos and films, who presented his findings of fakery to the HSCA but which the HSCA chose to disregard. Here are his observations:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concluded that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm where Oswald is holding the rifle. Attempts to duplicate this pose have been unsuccessful.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: In the photographs, the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand appears too stubby to be normal.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be, raising the prospect that the photo was retouched before being found by the Dallas police.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a broad flat chin but Oswald's Dallas Police mug shots depicted him with a pointed and cleft chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where a cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph. This strongly supports Oswald's complaint to police that someone had pasted his face onto another's body.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B, adjusted and overlaid them, nothing in the background or figure matched up as expected in two separate photos made moments apart with a handheld camera, as stated in the official testimony. However, the face of Oswald was a complete match on both photographs. This could only be explained if someone made a composite photo by pasting the same Oswald face on both pictures.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V-shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow in the opposite angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The figure's collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula, which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a size 14-1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15-inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off making it appear as if they were two separate pictures. However, except for small differences, the backgrounds matched on both photographs, meaning the camera never changed position which contradicts the official story of Oswald's wife reluctantly walking into the backyard to take the photo.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds as they were not off by much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appeared to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

An elementary “literature search” would not only have revealed to Farid that much more than the shadows he claims to have studied themselves afford multiple indications of fakery, as White notes in points (3), (11) and (12)! If he had been determined to conduct a serious and objective study, it's difficult to imagine how he could have missed them.

Thanks, Jim, for bringing up this subject. As every JFK researcher should be aware,
I was the first researcher to extensively study the backyard photos. In 1975 I had
the good fortune to visit researcher Fred Newcomb in San Diego. Fred was a graphic
artist like me. He had done much research on the Zapruder film and the backyard
photos. Along with Perry Adams he had written the unpublished manuscript "Murder
From Within", showing that the Secret Service played a major role in the assassination.
Fred had proved that the Z film was faked and the backyard photos were faked.

It was Fred who discovered the square chin and identical faces pasted above it
using red and blue color key transpaencies (which you incorrectly attribute to Jim
Marrs, who got them from me). Fred gave me a set of 12 slides he had done on
on his work on the backyard photos. When I returned home I ordered from the
National Archives 8x10 copies of 133A and 133B, and began intensive research
on the photos for the next year, and had assembled dozens of proofs of fakery.
By 1976 I had become locally known as the leading expert on backyard photos by
showing a slide show on the subject to dozens of audiences, showing research
that far exceeded Fred's early efforts.

In 1976 my studies came to the attention of the late Mary Ferrell, and she became
the leading promoter of my work. I did many showings of my slides to groups
assembled by Mary. When the HSCA was formed, Mary used her influence to get
me named a photo consultant to the committee. I showed the committee my
slides and testified before the committee in session. My testimony and some of
my studies are shown in Vol. 6.

I can daresay that ALL information in your joint article with Jim, as well as all
published information in any books or literature came from studies of Fred Newcomb
and Jack White. I have never seen ANY information on the fakery of the photos
which was not originated by Fred or me. Fred's discoveries received limited
circulation and publication. On the other hand my studies and discoveries became
widely known through my lectures, my HSCA testimony, my sharing of information
with Robert Groden who used my slides in several of his books, my articles in
Jerry Rose's Third Decade and Fourth Decade...but mostly through my production
of two videos on the subject...FAKE and THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVY OSWALD.
Several hundred of these videos were ordered by researchers worldwide in the
1980s. The videos are now available free on the internet, since production costs
were recovered.

I am not seeking any undue credit. I just think that an accurate history of the study
indicates that Fred Newcomb and Jack White are the sole originators of all extant
studies of the backyard photos, no others having ever been seen by me. The ones
attributed to Marrs are because I gave lectures to his UTA classes for about ten
years, and when I no longer did so, I gave him a set of slides which he continued
to use, which was fine with me. My sole purpose has been, since 1975, to show the
fakery involved in this single piece of evidence used to frame Oswald for a crime
he did not commit.

The Farid "study" you and Jim expose in this article is a despicable JOKE. This
"professor" perhaps spent an hour on one tiny aspect of one photo, and gets
lots of publicity. His client was the FBI. I spent thousands of hours over five years.
My client was TRUTH. My expertise on the backyard photos exceeds the "expert's"
expertise by a magnitude of thousands. If he is a real expert, let him debunk ALL
of my studies. He won't because he can't.

Thanks, Jim for the Fetzer/Marrs article. Another TRUTH pin prick in the balloon
of coverup lies. Anyone who studies the matter fully and says the photos are
genuine is on the side of evil.

Jack
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he. - by James H. Fetzer - 24-02-2010, 05:53 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The REAL reason Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63 Gil Jesus 1 767 15-06-2023, 03:46 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Photo Analysis Skill Test Brian Doyle 7 1,228 26-05-2023, 03:37 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Trump and Kennedy: Is Politico For Real? Jim DiEugenio 4 6,174 12-11-2020, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  Real name of "Alek Hiddel" "South Knoll Gunman" Facebook pageowner Thomas Neal 7 13,380 14-01-2019, 06:54 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  A simply proof the BYP are not real David Josephs 28 17,289 16-02-2018, 04:51 PM
Last Post: Ray Mitcham
  "Fake news": isn't this what we've been saying for 50+ years? Martin White 1 3,653 23-02-2017, 07:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Is this real or some sort of perspective trick? David Josephs 19 15,732 11-01-2017, 05:11 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Fake news (or history) from the Smithsonian Joseph McBride 9 7,712 05-01-2017, 02:54 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  The Selectice Service card photo Drew Phipps 26 22,801 08-08-2016, 05:37 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Dartmouth Study of Backyard Photo supposedly confirms authenticity Tom Bowden 38 17,969 08-07-2016, 02:11 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)