A new Look at the BYP by Jeff Carter

[F. Carlier]

Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period. They were not altered. Marina took them. It's Oswald's body and Oswald's face (nothing superimposed on anything), since it is Lee Oswald, and him alone, in the picture.
James DiEugenio and Jeff Carter can try to dissolve the facts all they want, they can only bamboozle those who agree to be bamboozled because they WANT to believe in a conspiracy at all cost.
The key is to know how to weigh evidence and separate facts from fiction. Logic itself precludes the altering of the backyard photos. There was certainly no need for would-be plotters to risk being detected. One picture would have been enough and besides, those photos can in no way prove the involvement of Oswald in the November 22, 1963, Dealey Plaza shooting. In other words, they were not necessary for would-be plotters.
Anyway, besides the experts (I mean, the real experts), the available evidence has shown without any doubt that those pictures are genuine, and that's all there is to it.
I have explained all of that at length in my book, but I am not the only one at all. Numerous reasonable authors have shown that the backyard photos are authentic. Writing long articles in the hope of claiming otherwise is just a waste of time.
When I was young, I used to read books on science and critical thinking. I learned about "self-delusion" but could not really understand how it worked. Thanks to James DiEugenio for providing me with a perfect example…
/F.C./

[David Josephs]

F. Carlier
Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period.

Did someone forget to lock the doggie door?

We really need to hear all this junk science again?

Or do we get to review some REAL science?

Wonder why the HSCA has to qualify the REASONS they found lines in the chin area? isn't using higher resolution and enhancement techniques encouraged to determine if this was expertly done or not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.
Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative

Now who in the world would have access to expert photographic retouching facilities in 1963-64?

NPIC, or Hawkeyeworks?

;;okay::

[size=12](398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This
process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did
exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations)
[/SIZE]

[F. Carlier]

F. Carlier
Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period.

Did someone forget to lock the doggie door?

We really need to hear all this junk science again?

Good old conspiracy guy.
Well, I understand : you don't like the truth, so you'd rather cover your ears and eyes.
Do as you please...

[David Josephs]

F. Carlier
Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period.

Did someone forget to lock the doggie door?

We really need to hear all this junk science again?

Good old conspiracy guy.
Well, I understand : you don't like the truth, so you'd rather cover your ears and eyes.
Do as you please...

"So, even I, François Carlier, who believes and defends the Warren report's conclusions, will never dare blame Garrison. He was wrong, all right. But he was seeking the truth. He reached the wrong conclusion, all right. But that's because it was hard to reach the right one at the time, considering what he heard, what he saw, what he was told by others, and what he witnessed"

:hock:: ::face.palm::

You really want us to go see what you have to say over at F.A.C.T.S. ??
your self proclaimed "Frenchman Againast Conspiracy TheorieS" blog


We can just read the WCR - why should we bother with you telling us what it already says?

Let's see the chops then buddy.... prove conclusion 4a thru g using whatever you like...
should be easy for a WCR expert like you.



Conclusion 4.
The shots which killed PresidentKennedy and wounded Governor Connally werefired by Lee Harvey Oswald
(a)The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots werefired was owned by and in the possessionof Oswald.
(b)Oswald carried this rifle into theDepository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963.
© Oswald,at the time of the assassination was present at the window from which the shotswere fired.
(d)Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcnno rifle belonging to Oswald was found partiallyhidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to theDepository was found close by the windowfrom which the shots were fired.
(e)Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of theassassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald's capabilities could have fired theshots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time ofthe shooting. The Commission hasconcluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle whichenabled him to commit the assassination.19
(f)Oswald lied to the police after hisarrest concerning important substantive matters.
(g)Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen.Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, therebydemonstrating his disposition to take human life

[Jim DiEugenio]

How did Carlier get on?

He is a Mr. Warren Commission all the way.

[David Healy]

Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period. They were not altered. Marina took them. It's Oswald's body and Oswald's face (nothing superimposed on anything), since it is Lee Oswald, and him alone, in the picture.
James DiEugenio and Jeff Carter can try to dissolve the facts all they want, they can only bamboozle those who agree to be bamboozled because they WANT to believe in a conspiracy at all cost.
The key is to know how to weigh evidence and separate facts from fiction. Logic itself precludes the altering of the backyard photos. There was certainly no need for would-be plotters to risk being detected. One picture would have been enough and besides, those photos can in no way prove the involvement of Oswald in the November 22, 1963, Dealey Plaza shooting. In other words, they were not necessary for would-be plotters.
Anyway, besides the experts (I mean, the real experts), the available evidence has shown without any doubt that those pictures are genuine, and that's all there is to it.
I have explained all of that at length in my book, but I am not the only one at all. Numerous reasonable authors have shown that the backyard photos are authentic. Writing long articles in the hope of claiming otherwise is just a waste of time.
When I was young, I used to read books on science and critical thinking. I learned about "self-delusion" but could not really understand how it worked. Thanks to James DiEugenio for providing me with a perfect example…
/F.C./

there is nothing you can say, hon that will "cause passionate debate," here or ANYWHERE else. Those that lapp milk from .john mcadams lone neuter plate deserve diahrrea, so, carry on... And you do drone on and on and on AND on! I didn't know Mel Ayton had a glee club here.... lmfao!

[Magda Hassan]

How did Carlier get on?

He is a Mr. Warren Commission all the way.

F. Carlier
Of course, the backyard photos are genuine, period.

Did someone forget to lock the doggie door?

We really need to hear all this junk science again?
[size=12]
[/SIZE]

there is nothing you can say, hon that will "cause passionate debate," here or ANYWHERE else. Those that lapp milk from .john mcadams lone neuter plate deserve diahrrea, so, carry on... And you do drone on and on and on AND on! I didn't know Mel Ayton had a glee club here.... lmfao!

I sensed a disturbance in the force....this has been rectified now.
I do wish some people who want to sign up here could actually read simple English. But I suppose some people think themselves 'special'. There is a 'special' place for them elsewhere.

[Tracy Riddle]

What an imbecile. Why do all LNers sound like they are copying and pasting from the same talking points? I know they aren't all the same person; they just sound like they're reading from the same script.

[Magda Hassan]

Yeah, they have the script. ::puppet:: Not the brightest sparks are they? They think we haven't heard it all before.

Illiterate liar had been lurking since mid 2014. Wonder why he decided to post his tired old spiel now?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Man, what this tells me is that they monitor these forums.

When they see a breakout of a really new interpretation of evidence, they hop on it immediately.

Carlier is one of the very worst though. He will now report back to Duncan M and Reitzes and DVP as to what happened.