The empty backyard photo

[Peter Lemkin]

Close, but no cigar....my there were a lot of Oswald look alikes!

[Peter Lemkin]

My, my, I'm getting emails from Mr. Dunkel about every 12 hours on this thread. Sorry Larry, haven't looked at them...and might not ever. I really don't care what you have to say. I was going to do a presentation on the Backyard Photos in Dallas this year, but sadly, don't have the funds to attend. I think I know the true story, and what new I know I'd not want to tip my hat to those shadowy folks behind you prematurely [always use surprise on the adversary!] - nor hear the disinformation they feel keeps the myth that those were taken by Marina [they were not] and are real [they are fakes and composites to set Oswald up as the patsy].:captain:Oswald explained it perfectly [his head placed on another body to frame him]; but he was silenced so that the truth of what really happened on 11/22/63 [and had been in the planning for about a year] didn't come out. Very interesting history of the discovery of the different versions, and who had them.....no?! Yes!...Paines, White, DeM.....and a few others I don't care to mention just now.

We're closing in on the KEEPERS OF THE BIG LIE...and can't be fooled any more - except the newbees. A HELL of a lot new is known about the BYPs, their illicit provenance, where actually developed and by whom [and then that place burned down - later that person died], who was behind the camera - who in really in front of it..and other such interesting details. Oswald was never there holding a rifle [which he did not own] nor did he have chopped off fingers holding two newspapers (that no one would have both of - as they vehemently disagreed with one another). It was all a stage set and aa magicians trick - like the rest of DP and 11/22/63. We are not fooled or even confused anymore. The evil spell is lifted. It was all done by real pros...gotta hand it to them on that!...but considering that the MOST powerful people in the USA and the World ordered it done, it should surprise no one. That it has been fairly successfully covered up for so long [and the Six Floor Anti-Museum is part of that cover-up] is sickening and informs us why America is what America is TODAY. It would NOT be like it is today [nor would the World] had the JFK public murder not been 'executed' and covered-up!

Sadly Larry, your Mausoleum is a tribute to the false version of what happened that day - and the lack of transparency since...and I know you know that; so shame on you for ACTIVELY misleading the American Public on the most significant covert op/false-flag op/coup d'etat in US history.

[Phil Dragoo]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38733842/Farid...oto-Fiasco

Patience advised for the thirty-one (31) pages to load into the viewer.

Well worth the wait.

A very nice comparison of chins from the Charles Atlas Before and After ads at the back of DC comics of the day.

POW! SOCK! Take that, coup-onitstas!

Confusatory: Farid & Balanced, eh what.

[Tracy Riddle]

Does anyone know what kind of bush is growing against the fence in the background? We might be able to date the original photos by comparing them to the foliage in the police photos.

[Nick Rose]

I have to say, Roscoe White arguments aside, this empty backyard photo ... it wasn't "taken at the same time" ... it IS the photo.
The ENTIRE human subject was added in to that photo. The small spot between the fence where the arrow points in Mr. Joseph's post #5 ... whomever composed that GIF overlay has a keen eye. That small spot is the proof of manipulation on the known BYP.

The reason I say it IS the base of the BYP and not simply "taken at the same time" is this: there is not *one single leaf, twig, branch, of blade of grass out of place, nor a single discrepancy in shadow angle*. The ONLY thing different, besides the overlay of "oswald" or the glitch noted on the animation is the amount of "burning in" or (over)exposure applied to the development on the known BYP. *Everything* is darker. I'm assuming this was done because the contrast on the the human subject, dressed in all black, would have looked mighty suspicious if the frame-up artist had not first over-exposed the background, then placed in the much darker subject.

Tri-pod or no tri-pod you will never see two photos where every leaf, twig, branch, and subsequently, every shadow of a leaf twig and branch is in exactly the same place, unless the photos you are looking at are manipulations of the SAME original.

Look to right side of the knee on the right (his left leg). Right in that little nook at the bottom left board of the tall fence which is right at the left side of that bush, you see a shadow "jump forward" a not-insignificant amount. That is evidence of deliberate manual over-exposure. It is not a natural shadow. It is an over exposed area that is now too dark to see. This is a clear indication that the background photo was already extant, then over exposed to match it's contrast to the foreground subject, which was then placed over the now over-exposed background photo.

[Dawn Meredith]

Tell Dunkel to come on a Forum and debate like a human...not hide in the shadows and send me [and others] crypto-hate e-mails....(which I'll soon put up some of, for all to deride and get their belly laugh for the day).

He long ago applied to be a member but we don't accept Lone Nutters so he doesn't fit our criteria. A majority decision.

I cannot imagine why he would apply. He never posts on JFK forums. Just sends an email and has someone post for him. At least that is what he used to do at the Ed Forum.
And btw Dunkel, I was in Dallas on 11/22 and observed JFK's moment of silence. I incited no riots, I did not attempt to cross any barricade. I was in fact with three other attorneys and none of us attempted what you accused me of.

Dawn

[Nick Rose]

so, i think this was already asked earlier with no definite reply,
but is there not anyone here who may know from whence the empty backyard photo derived,
or where it first appeared?

It is some of the strongest real evidence we have of a conspiracy, and as such it would be nice to source it.
It is, IMHO, unkfakeable (probably still in 2014, atleast without some obvious digital artifacting somewhere), so the source is mildly irrelevant, but I would still like to be aware of where it came from.
A book possibly? But still, any CT publisher must have first received it themselves in a pretty damn serious leak from somewhere.
Truly surprised the photo ever saw the light of day.

[David Josephs]

so, i think this was already asked earlier with no definite reply,
but is there not anyone here who may know from whence the empty backyard photo derived,
or where it first appeared?

It is some of the strongest real evidence we have of a conspiracy, and as such it would be nice to source it.
It is, IMHO, unkfakeable (probably still in 2014, atleast without some obvious digital artifacting somewhere), so the source is mildly irrelevant, but I would still like to be aware of where it came from.
A book possibly? But still, any CT publisher must have first received it themselves in a pretty damn serious leak from somewhere.
Truly surprised the photo ever saw the light of day.

Here you go Nick... I was looking thru this archive and found 10 VERSIONS OF THE EMPTY BACKYAD PHOTO
I was not aware that so many had been taken... and none of them give a date in 1963.

Back Yard of 214 Neeley Street #6

Date: 1963~
Creator: Dallas (Tex.). Police Dept.
Description: Photograph of the back yard at 214 Neeley Street in Dallas, Texas. There is a fence in the background and a staircase on the left. The backyard is surrounded with foliage.
Contributing Partner: Dallas Municipal Archives

http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/coll...splay=grid

[Ray Mitcham]

so, i think this was already asked earlier with no definite reply,
but is there not anyone here who may know from whence the empty backyard photo derived,
or where it first appeared?

It is some of the strongest real evidence we have of a conspiracy, and as such it would be nice to source it.
It is, IMHO, unkfakeable (probably still in 2014, atleast without some obvious digital artifacting somewhere), so the source is mildly irrelevant, but I would still like to be aware of where it came from.
A book possibly? But still, any CT publisher must have first received it themselves in a pretty damn serious leak from somewhere.
Truly surprised the photo ever saw the light of day.

Nick I said on the opening page, one way of finding out the truth would be to contact Oliver Stone and ask him if he had the photograph manufactured for his film. Seems an obvious thing to do if there is no other way of proving where it came from. If Stone says he didn't then it is obviously a fraud.

Anybody know Olly's email as I can't reach him on twitter.?

[Nick Rose]

so, i think this was already asked earlier with no definite reply,
but is there not anyone here who may know from whence the empty backyard photo derived,
or where it first appeared?

It is some of the strongest real evidence we have of a conspiracy, and as such it would be nice to source it.
It is, IMHO, unkfakeable (probably still in 2014, atleast without some obvious digital artifacting somewhere), so the source is mildly irrelevant, but I would still like to be aware of where it came from.
A book possibly? But still, any CT publisher must have first received it themselves in a pretty damn serious leak from somewhere.
Truly surprised the photo ever saw the light of day.

Nick I said on the opening page, one way of finding out the truth would be to contact Oliver Stone and ask him if he had the photograph manufactured for his film. Seems an obvious thing to do if there is no other way of proving where it came from. If Stone says he didn't then it is obviously a fraud.

Anybody know Olly's email as I can't reach him on twitter.?

Thanks guys.

RAY - I'm not sure it is even worth contacting old Mr. Stone.
With what insane computer technology do you fathom he possibly had Oswald removed and then had nonexistent background imagery seamlessly added back in to the photo? I'm talking not a leaf on a tree or a shadow out of place when he had it done?

I think it is much more probable that all of these photos -- the ones Mr. Josephs so kindly posted a link to above -- were either created just before Oswald's arrest ... or quite possibly even *at the time of his arrest* and then some poor sap stayed up overnight forging them.

I don't think it is pushing the bounds to suggest they were created at the time of his arrest.
1. It would have been perfect cover for taking the empty photos to start with.
2. They couldn't possibly have had the BYP "finished" before his arrest in the first place, since the face image of Oswald that they used WAS his ARREST photo!