An Analysis Into the Mind of a Suspected Killer

reply to post by roughycannon


Well, everyones entitled to their own opinion of course.

This being so, do still I think you would enjoy watching this video. It goes into the photos in a bit more detail and I think you'll find it particularly enlightening:

FAKE: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey oswald - Part 1

______________

FAKE: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey oswald - Part 2

______________

FAKE: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald - Part 3

______________

FAKE: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey oswald - Part 4

______________

FAKE: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey oswald - Part 5

______________

Here is a snippet from my OP on the photos also:

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes 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 were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

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.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

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 to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 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 which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

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

(Source)

God, I'm only half way through.

This is a bloody FANTASTIC thread. There's a lot of effort and hard work put into this...and wow, some amazing insight.

I'm drooling here with this information.

Amazing work, Goat

reply to post by BlackPoison94


lol, I hope you manage to make it all the way through then. Evey piece of information in the OP was added in the first place as I thought it was important and should be seen.

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by jude11

 

Thanks for the kind words.

Out of curiosity though, what are your thoughts on Oswald? Replies have been pretty slow to this thread thus far and I'd really love to really hear some thoughts on some of the material I brought up.

Well, as I grew up in that after era, there were all sorts of rumors, suspicions, accusations etc. Of course, we had little to go on in those days and even less technology to prove anything.

Having said that, I have always believed something was not quite right with the timing. That after all, was the first inkling of suspicion for many. Why at that specific time in history?

A civil rights hero and the one to end the war in Vietnam. Both of these issues were not popular at the time. Heated yes.

Eliminate the CIA, print money so as to get away from the bondage of the reserve and stop supporting Israel in their Nuclear ambitions.

Can't go into more than that as you seem to have covered everything else.

But IMO...definitely an inside job.

reply to post by jude11

But IMO...definitely an inside job.

Simply put... I couldn't agree with this more. There really is so much to take into account here, all of what you said for example.

I think I'm yet to find a single person who doesn't believe an inside job had taken place here in fact.

One of the main points of doing a thread such as this is to gain an understanding of whether what is suspected is true and/or actually plausible in anyway. One way of figuring this out is by analyzing the timelines of said events which are claimed to have occurred - something I tried my best to do. This being so, I've literally just come across this very interesting link that anyone interested in this case, particularly the life of Oswald himself, should get a chance to see.

Here is this link:

- Timeline of the Life of Lee Harvey Oswald

I, for one, did find it interesting, as I'm sure others will, and I'm sure I'll find it interesting in future research.

reply to post by Rising Against


I've just reached the halfway point

Man, this thread is long....oh but incredible !!!

The research is impeccable as ever RA, in fact the amount of time you must dedicate to what is obviously a passionate cause, is frankly beyond me, I just couldn't do it !!
You are amazing baby, just freakin amazing...

reply to post by uk today

to what is obviously a passionate cause

That it is..

Then again, how can it not be when the truth is almost right in front of you?

Giving this a helpful bump, so sue me.

Originally posted by Rising Against
Giving this a helpful bump, so sue me.

Okaaay....that will be a million squid baby

I'll let you off though as your threads are so damn incredible !!

reply to post by uk today


Okaaaaayy, I take it back...

Anyway, stay out of my thread, we always end up going off-topic like this.

reply to post by Rising Against


S&F i just needed to stop quickly and say thank you for this thread. i have always been deeply interested in this subject, i have close relations to the kennedy family, but have purposefully always been kept in the dark as to what those truly are, and what it means, or what it would mean for me to know...
anyways, before i get completely lost in all of the documentation related to this subject, i needed to say thanks for bringing it back to my attention, i guess due to my past, i have also blacked out a lot of this stuff... i have made it to 'the true motive behind the silencing of oswald', and i've been looking at this for 3 days, of course, i am also deeply lost in the wiki (mostly biased lies though) such as en.wikipedia.org... and testimonies recorded, most recently i am looking into demorhenschildt mcadams.posc.mu.edu... and the information surrounding him, his wife, and their family history... very interesting stuff...
anyways, i must return to the sea of lost information, but thank you

reply to post by schitzoandro


Hey there, schitzoandro...

i am looking into demorhenschildt

George de Mohrenschildt was a very interesting charchter indeed. It seems he was the one who had originally introduced Lee and Marina Oswald, upon there return to America from the Soviet Union (De Mohrenschildt was Russian thus why he was close to the family upon there return), to the possibility of moving to Dallas in the first place - which Marina did while Oswald stayed behind for a short while.

He was also the one who had originally Introduced Oswald to Ruth Paine, the women responsible for getting Oswald a job in the Texas School Book Depository building where he is said to have shot Kennedy in the first place and the women who let Marina and her daughter live with her for a short period.

He also previously knew Jackie Kennedy relatively well also as he was originally living in Dallas and worked for the oil millionaire, Clint Murchison.

So he does seem to have some very strong connection to the case in all honesty. Particularly as he was an instigator in a lot of areas of huge importance.

His death, and the circumstances which led to his death are of extreme suspicion also. Please read this if you haven't see it already:

In 1963 De Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy De Mohrenschildt was recalled to America to testify before the Warren Commission. He was asked about the claim of Marina Oswald that he knew about Oswald's attempt to kill General Edwin Walker. After giving evidence he returned to Haiti.

De Mohrenschildt returned to the United States in 1977. He approached Edward Jay Epstein complaining that he was short of money. Epstein offered him $4,000 for an interview. During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.

On 29th March, 1977, Epstein and De Mohrenschildt, broke for lunch and decided to meet again at 3 p.m. George De Mohrenschildt returned to his room where he found a card from Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator working for the Select House Committee on Assassinations. George De Mohrenschildt's body was found later that day. He had apparently committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth.

(Source)

This certainly was one interesting character indeed.

I'd love to hear more about your close relations to this case and the Kennedy family it at all possible, also.

i thought this mighty interesting as well
www.ratical.org...

4:45 - 6:30 P.M. Second Interrogation of Oswald, Captain Fritz's Office
...(Sheriff Roger Craig saw Oswald enter a white station wagon 15 minutes after the assassination. Oswald confirmed this in Captain Fritz's office. A man impersonating Oswald in Dallas just prior to the assassination could have been on the bus and in the taxicab.) "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Ruth Paine. Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it. I told you people I did. . . . Everybody will know who I am now."

??? why the inconsistency, in pretty much everyone connected to this???

and thank you for the prompt reply regarding demohrenschildt...
...i am more than reluctant to get into my past with their family, i apologize, besides again, i have been kept greatly in the dark to most of it, and the little i do know i am always hushed when bringing it up to my mother, my now deceased father and great grandfather... but i will try to pull some more teeth and find out why my father's side of the family has pretty much disappeared and/or been hidden to me, other than my great grandfather... again, i am sorry, i would really like to know more myself, but it's always been something of a secret, and i think i've found out more as to why in the past year than i have in the 32 years of my life previously...

reply to post by Rising Against


A well thought out spread of information and analysis.

There never has been a single ounce of evidence making Oswald the "lone gunman".

If nothing else everything ever brought forward only makes this more of a conspiracy of a group.

The Warren Commission was nothing more than a means of distancing certain people.

Creating a buffer to make investigation of this assassination impossible is what it did.

I do believe I have referenced the movie Executive Action to you before.

The in depth investigation I've done shows evidence of complicit behavior.

Personally, I believe Oswald, was what we currently call a conspiracy theorist.

And he got caught up in the middle of a disturbing action set forth by other men.

In essence he was a useful catalyst to stage a coup and became the fall guy or patsy.

Odd is it not that 19 eyewitnesses died mysteriously after the J.F.K. assassination?

There is no evidence supporting the official story whatsoever.

And there never will be.

reply to post by schitzoandro

and thank you for the prompt reply regarding demohrenschildt...

No problem.

He's a very interesting and "suspicious" character after all. Whether It be through the actions he took through his life or whether it be the circumstances which led to his death.

...i am more than reluctant to get into my past with their family

And don't worry, I understand about you not wishing to reveal anything also. I couldn't help but ask though just in case.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Hey again SKL, thanks for your post..

The Warren Commission was nothing more than a means of distancing certain people.

Agreed. In fact here's a previous post in which I highlighted my suspicions of the founding of the warren commission itself and how one man - Jack Ruby - seemingly died as a direct result of merely revealing how he wished to later reveal what he knew and how it went against the warren Commissions findings.

Here is an interview of interest in which he heavily hints at who is involved and how a conspiracy has taken place here:



He later requested to be moved to a Washington jail as opposed to his Texan one for "safety reasons", in doing so he would reveal all. This move was blocked by Earl Warren it's claimed, the man said to be heavily bribed into spearheading the warren commission by Johnson and Hoover and Johnson himself being the man Ruby heavily hints at in the above video.

The Warren Commission's claims should be taken with a huge pinch of salt to say the least.

Odd is it not that 19 eyewitnesses died mysteriously after the J.F.K. assassination?

If only we could say that would be the total sum. Currently, there is suspected to be well over 100 individuals whom have died under "suspicious" circumstances after and as a direct result of having first hand knowledge or any knowledge deemed "dangerous" and "unnecessary" relating to the assassination and or investigations of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

These people, being just the ones we know of, discussed here: The Forgotten Victims to a Genuine Conspiracy.

There is no evidence supporting the official story whatsoever.

Agreed, and if anything, there is by far more evidence to suggest a conspiracy has taken place here (something the HSCA later went onto prove in 1979) as opposed to the evidence in favor of the official story.

reply to post by schitzoandro

but i will try to pull some more teeth and find out why my father's side of the family has pretty much disappeared and/or been hidden to me, other than my great grandfather... again, i am sorry, i would really like to know more myself, but it's always been something of a secret, and i think i've found out more as to why in the past year than i have in the 32 years of my life previously...

Out of curiosity though, would you be posting anything more you find? And It's fine, this is a secretive topic for many it would seem, certainly not a topic anyone shouts a great deal about anyway.

reply to post by Rising Against


i will absolutely compile as much (or as little) information that i can gather, from those of my family members who are willing to divulge... and you will absolutely be apprised of said info... and thanks again for forcing these issues back out into the open, hopefully however deep my family has buried it all, with enough digging, i'm bound to come up with what they aren't wanting to share with me... or i'll be digging my own grave... either way, i'll never know until they decide enough time has passed, or the people that are pertinent are all dead and/or missing...

reply to post by schitzoandro


Thanks for your post once more and all I can really say here is good luck with your obtaining of any and all information relating to this case.

The more information that can come to light from this, the better.