Look, they've got a photo. There's no text on the photo. They develop the film, and then they have the photo, and they have to wire it. But, it's a very different process from wiring text, right? It's not the same thing, is it?
Look at this site:
http://www.cycleback.com/pressphotos/three.htm
It includes:
The wirephoto process allowed photographs to be transferred through telephone lines. The process required a large, expensive wirephoto machine both at the source and at the receiving end. The original photograph was placed inside the wirephoto machine. A special electronic eye scanned the photograph and translated it into electrical impulses. These impulses were sent through the telephone wire to the identical wirephoto machine at the receiving end. At the receiving machine the impulses were translated to light that was used to develop the image onto photographic paper. The development would take minutes to over an hour, as the photographic paper was slowly exposed line by line. In fact, the ultimate way to identify the wirephoto (the received image) is to look for the tiny horizontal or vertical lines.
This is from another site:
The moment the cylinder stopped rotating in New York, the receiving cylinders halted simultaneously in the cities of the network. Attendants carried the cylinders into darkrooms, negatives were developed and within another few minutes picture editors had on their desk the finished photographic print.
My point is that you didn't have to do all that to send text. Text was being transmitted by wire since 1835. Remember the telegraph? Samuel Morse?
So, I find it hard to believe that they would transmit the photo and the text the same way at the same time. Text doesn't have to be developed or processed. There's no time involved. So, the photo is the photo, and the text is the text, right? And as we know, the coded text wasn't even published with the photo, and as we also know, the papers often (if not always) revised the caption that the AP sent. So, why would they have to be attached in transmission? What would be the need?
So, this guy on EBAY was claiming that this is a wire-photo, but he didn't say where he got it; he didn't say where it was wired to; he didn't say anything about what makes it authentic.
And, if you look closely, you can see that the text overlaps the picture.
You see where the margin of the picture is on the far right, and it's lower than the top of the caption. So, the caption is overlapping the picture. You can't tell me they wired it that way. Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just fax the picture and then send the text separately, and let the recipients decide themselves what to use and how to use it? They weren't going to publish like that, so why would it have to been sent like that?
So, what do we really have here? It's an Altgens photo with a strip of text attached to it. How is it secured? With tape? With glue? They obviously didn't fax that in one piece. So who secured it together? Who glued it together? But, the most important question is: what would have stopped someone from making this themselves years later? What authenticates it as a wire-photo from 1963?
And, who in his right mind would pay $675 for that when there is no proof that it's anything but an Altgens photo with a strip of paper with some typing on it? Do you really think that someone coughed up $675 for that?
Do you remember that clipping from the Montreal newspaper about Oswald in the doorway? At least, we know that was authentic because nobody could have duplicated it. And the guy was only asking $25 for it. Just for the heck of it, I made a bid of $8. Boom! He took it and closed the sale. Apparently, that was by far the highest bid or the only bid. But now, we're supposed to believe that someone coughed up $675 for an unauthenticated wire-photo just because there's some text at the bottom? I'm not buying it (pun intended). Whatever happened here, it is no clean thing. It's fishy. Very fishy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.