Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I did a Google search for "Backyard photos proved authentic" and what I got was a torrent of articles extolling that new study out of Dartmouth:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Backyard+photos+proved+authentic

But, the new study didn't even address the main contention about the Backyard photo, which is the one that Oswald cited: that someone had moved his face to the body of another man. 

It wasn't even the whole head. It wasn't even the whole face because they left the anvil-like chin of the other man.

That whole issue was ignored, and instead they focused mainly on the issue of the man's posture, with the idea that he was unbalanced and didn't have his weight distributed properly- which was never an issue for me. 

They didn't begin to prove the authenticity of the Backyard photos, and their work was very easily demolished.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/dr.html

The first site pulled up in the search was from Phys.org, so a physics site. They said this:

At the time of his arrest, Oswald claimed the photo was fake. In addition, it has long been argued that the lighting and shadows in the photo are inconsistent; that Oswald's facial features are inconsistent with other photos of him; that the size of the rifle is inconsistent with the known length of that type of rifle; and that Oswald's pose is physically implausible (it appears as if he is standing off balance).

They had the decency to mention that a major issue has been that the facial features are at odds with other known images of Oswald. Very good. But, the new study doesn't deal with that issue at all. How does proving that the man could stand without toppling prove that Oswald's facial features are valid?

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Why would a physics site do that? Why would a physics site be at all concerned with political correctness? The only reason I can think of is that physics is a field of education, and education is a part of society that is completely dominated by government. Even private colleges and universities are completely dominated by government. Student loans come from the government. 

The next site reporting it was that of Smithsonian magazine. No surprise there. The Smithsonian Institution is a government institution. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/3d-model-just-proved-authenticity-controversial-photo-jfks-assassin-180956991/?no-ist

Then it was reported rote by Gizmag.

"Gizmag covers the full spectrum of new and emerging technologies, invention, innovation, and science news."

Sounds like it is a cousin of Popular Mechanics, which is extremely politically correct on everything. PM has done multiple lengthy articles defending the spontaneous collapse of the Twin Towers- even though such a thing never happened before or since 9/11. 

How does the political establishment get control of such magazines? What I think is that we have a fascist system in this country. Did you know Fascism was originally called Corporatism? That's what Benito Mussolini called it.

Let's pause a moment and consider that if the Backyard photos were real, Oswald would never have denied it. That's because he would know that it would be futile, that close analysis would find no anomalies. Why would he expect to get away with lying about it? Why would he think that his saying that his face was moved over (when it wasn't) would prevail just because he said it?

Think about it from your own perspective. Say you are in trouble, and say the police present you with a photo of yourself that's rather incriminating, but it really is you. You recognize the photo. You know it's you. Would it even occur to you to point to a photo of yourself and attempt to claim that it's not really you? That's pretty brazen as lying goes, don't you think? I don't think most people would even think of doing that. I think they would make some excuse for it, some rationalization, but not claim photographic fraud on the spot and out of the blue. You'd really have to be a well-practiced, pathological liar to do that.

And, as I've said, if you happen to believe that Oswald was innocent- framed and innocent- then you have to assume the Backyard photos were faked. Because, in the photo he is holding the murder weapon, and if he was innocent- if he didn't shoot Kennedy or Tippit- then he certainly had no reason to lie about a photo. 

It is extremely dangerous to lie to the police if you're innocent. You may not have much to lose if you're guilty. But if you're innocent, lying will make you look guilty. And that's why it is so bad to lie. Oswald was innocent. 

But now, we are going to finish on a positive note, and that is with a site called Brane Space. It does not address the new study out of Dartmouth. But, the guy in charge of that study, Hany Farid, has been at this for a long time. It turns out that he is making a career out of authenticating the Backyard photos. But, the person who runs Brane Space, and I don't know who that is, beat the living daylights out Hany Farid, rhetorically speaking. And not just rhetorically speaking but mathematically speaking. He challenges the guy's math and delves deeply into the formulas. And he says this:

"A much more disturbing aspect of the whole thing is that we know that Farid’s lab is part funded by the FBI, which is known to be one of the main agents of evidence-tampering and abuse in the wake of the JFK assassination."

"Now, I am not implying here that Farid faked the photos used for his work, so we are clear. However, he had to obtain the backyard photos he used from someplace and most plausibly it was from the FBI -which funded his lab along with the Justice Dept. We already are well aware of the record of the FBI’s chicanery in JFK assassination –related evidence-tampering: for example as noted earlier, and also when FBI special agent Richard Harrison (equipped with finger print ink and Oswald's alleged rifle) went to Miller’s Funeral Home where the slain Oswald lay, in order to get ex post facto fingerprints which weren’t there originally."

(Special Agent Richard Harrison? Isn't he the guy who took Carolyn Arnold's statement and changed the time from  12:25 to 12:15 since she said she saw Oswald between the glass door and the double doors? Carolyn Arnold put Oswald at the doorway.)


"One final point that may be worth noting, Marina Oswald Porter in three separate interviews (one of which I have on tape with Tom Brokaw, the others to assassination researchers Robert Groden ('TheKilling of a President') and H.L. Livingstone ('Killing the Truth') averred she only took TWO photographs with the Imperial Reflex camera, neither of which was facing the stairwell - but rather were taken standing adjacent to the stairwell (where Lee is in the shown photos). Something to ponder!"

That's the first time I've read that but it occurred to me that maybe Marina took other photos that were similar, in some respects, to the Backyard photos of fame, and she was twisted into thinking that she took them. 

Here is the link to the Brane Space article:

  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Way to go, Brane Spacer. I need to find out who that person is and invite him or her into the OIC.