The Backyard Photos
Recently the backyward photos of Lee Oswald, supposedly taken by his wife Marina, have been in the news due to a study by Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid. Farid's work has been challenged here and here.
Recently the backyward photos of Lee Oswald, supposedly taken by his wife Marina, have been in the news due to a study by Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid. Farid's work has been challenged here and here.
Originally there was one backyard photo, which Marina Oswald obligingly admitted to taking. Then a second photo was found and she remembered taking that one as well. During the House Select Committee in the 70's a third photo was found. I don't know if Marina commented on that one. Many have questioned the authenticity of these photos based on various measurements and the shadows. Also there is the matter of the "ghost" photo found in police files (below).
Now, just today, a new development. Researcher Peter Lemkin has posted a new backyard photo , this one showing someone other than Oswald.
I can not and will not tell where it came from, at this time, other than to say 'a reliable source'. ...
Look at the history of the slow 'drip' of new BYP's. There are even more! I even know who the man behind the glasses is and who was behind the camera; where developed and more - not LHO and not Marina there in that backyard - agents of a higher authority than most would believe. ...
The person who gave this to me will be furious at me, no doubt. To them, I ask you to understand and will forgive. I felt I had to...I couldn't keep it under wraps any longer. I hope I haven't endangered you [the person who gave it to me]. I think not. I hope not.
posted by gary at 1:29 PM
1 Comments:
The new photo has a generally hokey-suspicious look, as if it was cobbled together. It makes me uncomfy, especially with the narrative that goes along with it.
The disavowal of sourcing, whatever its intent, displays a clear function: to disenable routine fact checking. Consequences can be unintended, but they can also be a clue to motive, especially when its concealed or ulterior. Suspicion that protecting the storyline attending this 'funny photo' from any threat verification tests might pose - because of a certain trouble taken to justify the coverage or camouflage on dual ground, as if double talk: 'cannot' tell and 'will not' - kind of defiant, not just denial.
From criteria of credibility for testimony - that type angling elicits a skin crawling sensation. Who is this Peter Lemkin, and how might one verify any facts about this 'researcher'?
Amid almost no factually fixed coordinates to train inquiry upon - might one ask who is 'researcher Peter Lemkin'? What manner of qualifications, as a researcher, and in what disciplinary field - with training from what accredited institution or program? If any/
Or are we talking about self-reviewed research, a self-accredited researcher ?
Storylines about 'photographic evidence' anonymously to mysteriously adduced, from unknown sources - with invocations of 'no doubt' and 'I couldn't keep it under wraps' etc ... have quite a history do they not? One thinks of fiascoes from saucerology, its almost 'customary and usual' approach to spawning wide-eyed disinfotainment is it not?
From MJ12 'official' documents, rec'd in mysterious package with no return address (as told by, yup, a 'researcher') - to the "Guardian UFO" case with the videotape and 'official' info - this type staged routine has been played over and over, umpteen times by-and-on so many gullibles.
One of the central questions in evidence - not in story telling, nor narrative, claims of this and that - one of the few things clearly question in what few facts anybody can establish, when these tall tales arise - comes down to who exactly, is putting who on?
With storytellers and the layers of telling - from this Peter Lemkin, to its rebroadcast at this blog citing his name - its never easy to know whether someone actually believes what they are saying, as if genuinely deluded, honestly deceived ("useful idiots" or pawns in someone else's operation) - or are they deliberately deceptive, in the time-honored fashion of garden variety con artists and charlatans?
Post a Comment
<< Home