Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Farid's Folly and the Lee Harvey Oswald Backyard Photo Fiasco

Farid's Folly and the Lee Harvey Oswald Backyard Photo Fiasco

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,213 |Likes:
Published by Judyth Vary Baker
Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Every November, efforts are made to convince the people that Oswald killed the President. This essay by Judyth Vary Baker presents information about the controversial "backyard photos" and why they cannot be trusted as evidence to be used against Oswald, despite a Dartmouth professor's study using only selected portions of one photo to "prove" otherwise. This article has been removed twice without permission or notification. The article offers information that readers need to know to make a truly informed decision concerning the "backyard photo not faked" declaration by a photo expert now known to have funding from US government agencies interested in blaming Oswald for the November, 1963 assassination of Kennedy. Judyth Vary Baker's new book, Me & Lee - How I Came to now, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald, was released this month by Trine Day Publishers, with an introduction by Edward T. Haslam (Dr. Mary's Monkey) and an afterword by Jim Marrs (Crossfire--the Plot that Killed Kennedy). This essay is supported by articles by Dr. James Fetzer and Jim Marrs in Op Ed News and elsewhere on the Internet.
Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Every November, efforts are made to convince the people that Oswald killed the President. This essay by Judyth Vary Baker presents information about the controversial "backyard photos" and why they cannot be trusted as evidence to be used against Oswald, despite a Dartmouth professor's study using only selected portions of one photo to "prove" otherwise. This article has been removed twice without permission or notification. The article offers information that readers need to know to make a truly informed decision concerning the "backyard photo not faked" declaration by a photo expert now known to have funding from US government agencies interested in blaming Oswald for the November, 1963 assassination of Kennedy. Judyth Vary Baker's new book, Me & Lee - How I Came to now, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald, was released this month by Trine Day Publishers, with an introduction by Edward T. Haslam (Dr. Mary's Monkey) and an afterword by Jim Marrs (Crossfire--the Plot that Killed Kennedy). This essay is supported by articles by Dr. James Fetzer and Jim Marrs in Op Ed News and elsewhere on the Internet.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Judyth Vary Baker on Oct 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Farid’s Folly: a Flawed Study of the Famed “Oswald” BackyardPhotos
Investigations (see OpEd News articles by Dr. James Fetzer/Fetzer and Jim Marrs)indicate that Hany Farid’s analysis of a single example of one of the “backyard  photos” was not only seriously flawed, but also reveal that Farid’s laboratory is partially financed by a familiar US government secret agency. Efforts by thegovernment to prove Oswald guilty have been made for decades, with top mediasupport. Why?
3 backyard photos, and Oswald’s chin (top, right):Oswald’s chin was cleft, more pointed
It’s only “Oswald” from the lips up! Lee Oswald himself said so!Above is one of several "backyard photos" --this is a high resolution rendition (inpixels, because it's digitally created from a scan, then conducted over the Internet) of one of the “backyard photos” that shows “Oswald” holding the "killer rifle" andcopies of "The Worker" and "The Militant" --newspapers of opposing Marxistpersuasions. The original photo is an emulsion printed on photo paper, of course, with no pixels.Nevertheless, it's surprisingly fuzzy, because the lens and camera taking the photoswere both sub-standard. There are some surprises in the photos, however, and theyare unsettling to those with open minds.For example, the fingers holding the newspapers are too fat and stubby to beOswald's. The index finger appears, too, to be the same length as other fingers. Thechin, despite recent protests that Oswald's chin could 'look' squarish under certainshadow conditions, is too 'square' to be seriously considered as Oswald's. And LeeOswald himself said his head had been pasted onto the body of whoever posed for
 
the photos, two of which he was shown by Dallas police.He also wears a wristwatch in the photos, though Oswald wore an ID bracelet, not awristwatch, in all extant photos in the same time period. Researchers independent of the government have concluded almost unanimously that the backyard photos werefaked, for numerous additional reasons, most of which are listed in this article. Thenewspapers (size known) are too big for the supposed height of Oswald (heightknown); see the correct sizes superimposed on the backyard photo here:
note cut-off, stubby fingers, wrong paper size
Observe that the index finger and ring finger are stub-cut to the same length:somebody was a little careless with an Exacto blade, it seems. Oswald had normalfingers. Difficulties in the photos, such as this, are not addressed by Hany Farid, theDartmouth photo expert whose findings are the subject of this essay. Therefore, hisstatement that the photo he examined was not faked, because his computer programfound no 'alterations' in the photo itself, is subject to criticism.Other problems also exist: the rifle in the photos has a different kind of sling mountthan the rifle in the National Archives (on exhibit as the original killer rifle). You canfind information on the two different kinds of slings on YouTube athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_9pOsRL0o.Researcher Gil Jesus made the YouTube video and makes the point: "..the bottomsling mount, so clearly visible in the backyard photos, does not exist on the rifleremoved from the Texas School Book Depository...it is not the same rifle that iscurrently in the National Archives." There's more. Fingernails are missing from the strangely stubby fingers, too, as if the
 
newspapers were slipped in under a cutout set of fingers--cut out with a sharp littleExacto knife, as all photographers used to use back then to 'insert' extra things intophotos, before computers came along.Significant, too, is Marina Oswald's testimony regarding the backyard photos. Shesaid she looked "into" the camera's viewfinder to take the photos, but in fact, thecamera -- an old-fashioned model --had to be held at the waist, as it did not have aviewfinder. She later also stated that she took photos from a different direction.Concerning Marina’s testimony. we must remember that she was a Russian citizenwho could be deported at any time, with a six week old infant and a toddler. Herhusband was dead, murdered while in police custody. Her small infant was born inthe USA and her toddler was born in the USSR. Marina had been sequestered fromthe public. It’s no wonder that her safety and that of her babies had to come first: LeeOswald had been accused of killing the country's President! Anything could havehappened to her, too, if she became a source of ‘inconvenient truths.’Researcher John Armstrong, in his book
Harvey and Lee,
wrote about MarinaOswald’s testimony and how a small, unknown “film company” suddenly came upwith plenty of money (multiply times 9 to = today’s funds) for film rights. Then, the"company" vanished. Wrote Armstrong;“Following the murder of her husband Marina was taken by the Secret Service to theInn of the Six Flags in Arlington, Texas. The manager of the Inn, James HerbertMartin, became friendly with Marina and invited her to move into his home (with hiswife and children) on November 29.A week later Marina authorized Martin to handle her personal and business affairsand in February, 1964 he accompanied Marina to Washington, DC. Marina told theFBI that she had a brief sexual encounter with Martin, but the affair soon ended.When Martin told the Commission about his affair with Marina, Chief Justice EarlWarren ordered that portion of his testimony be stricken from the record.”
Much information has been stricken from the official record…
“While Marina was in Washington, DC, an unknown entity named Onajet Productionsrented a small office in the Samuel Goldwyn Studios in Hollywood, CA on February 8. The company, also known as Tex-Italia Films and Cinema International Productions,was headed by Charles Lasater, George V. Douglas, and Wesley B. Blankenship, butnever made a single film.On February 10, Marina moved out of Martin's house and into Robert Oswald's housein Denton, Texas. The following day she moved to the Declan Ford residence at14057 Brookcrest in Dallas and signed a contract with Tex-Italia films. The unknowncompany agreed to pay Marina $75,000 for worldwide movie and TV rights, $7500 foreach film appearance, and $1500 for each personal appearance. Within a few monthsMarina had received $132, 350 from the unknown company, and her willingness to

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Shannon Skidge liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->