Sunday, April 24, 2016

So now with the nominative error about the name of the Black Man in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film duly noted and long resolved, I'll address the rest of Backes' latest rant. I'll point out not only the mistakes he's making but the outright logical errors- the mistakes in his thinking. And, thinking is something he has never been any good at.

First, Backes continues to misstate and misrepresent my claims. He says that I say that Carl Jones wasn't really there. I don't say that at all, Backes. I say that he was there- but not the way he appears to be in the Altgens photo. Big difference. 

I've warned you before: DON'T MISREPRESENT ME!

Next, Backes says that my claim- that the image of Carl Jones in the Altgens photo was taken from a Phil Willis slide- can't be true because the Altgens photo was wired out within 30 minutes. But, that would mean that an amazing coincidence took place that day, that Ike Altgens and Phil Willis, from different locations and different angles and at different times, happened to catch identical images of Carl Jones. Not only are the odds of that slim, but because the angles were so different, it isn't possible at all. And if you think otherwise, then you go to Dealey Plaza with a camera and subjects and prove it. 

But, Backes failed to address any of that. He only said it had to be legit because the Altgens photo was wired out in 30 minutes. But, that claim is very much in dispute. It's not a "fact" that he can play like a trump card- and least of all with me, since he knows I deny it. So, it's not a card he's holding in his hand. Well-respected British researcher Paul Rigby agrees that there was a delay in the release of Altgens6- and so do many others. And it's a separate issue. So, for Backes to glibly play it here is not only disingenuous, but it is quite diabolical too.  The guy doesn't have an ounce of integrity or intellectual honesty. Forget get, Backes. The Altgens6 did not go out at 1:00, and you saying it does not make it so.

Then, Backes goes back to a claim that, in the annals of JFK research, only two people have ever claimed: him and Richard E. Sprague, that the arm in the Altgens photo isn't Doorman's but rather that of a mysterious black man who is not otherwise seen, meaning not Carl Jones. 

I have pointed to Backes that it's the same greyscale on the supposed rolled-up sleeve as on his naked arm. There isn't the slightest difference. So, was he wearing a shirt the exact same color as his skin? And since arms are attached to torsos, where is the torso that corresponds to that arm? Where is the man's head? Explain to me his location such that he could be captured in his arm only. I have also pointed out that man's hand is turned the wrong way, with the thumb on the wrong side. And note that this claim of Richard E. Sprague was never even presented in a book or research paper. It was just a casual remark that he made to one other person in a personal letter. And on that basis, Backes thinks that I and the world are obliged to honor this?????????????? Note also that none of Backes' friends in this fight have come out in support of this claim- so far. And frankly, if they did come out in support of it after all this time, when he's been saying it for years, it would hardly seem genuine. In a word: it's too late. 

So, since Richard E. Sprague, the fletchettist who thought that Umbrella Man shot JFK with a poison dart is long dead, it means that Joseph Backes is the only living spokesman for this theory. And I know of no one who has been sold. But, that doesn't stop Backes from referring to it the way he does the Altgens6 photo being sent to the world at 1:03. 

Next, Backes admits that Doorman is so far away from Black Man that he couldn't possibly have his wrist in front of his neck. But, rather than embrace photographic alteration as the reason (and note that every Oswald defender admits that the Backyard photos, featuring Oswald brandishing the murder weapon, must be altered, and Oswald himself said they were altered, which means that they were altering JFK photos even before the assassination) Backes (who is not an Oswald defender) just ignores it and acts as though the term "photographic alteration" is foreign to him. He doesn't even acknowledge it as a concept. It's like it's never happened. It's like it doesn't exist- even theoretically. 

The fact is that that is Doorman's (Oswald's) arm. It is his sleeve. You can't dream up another person just because you think you need him. There is no other black man. If there were, wouldn't we see him in the Wiegman film? In the Towner film? In the Bell film? In the Hughes film? Or did he manage to avoid being visualized in all of them? It's just plain ridiculous.

Then, Backes posted this definition of parallax: 

  "Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines."                    

And then, Backes complained that I only referred to one angle. But, it's almost always the case that parallax is referred to in the context of one image. The other image is INFERRED, you dumb pluck. 

Let's take the example of Doorman.

Now, his right shoulder isn't showing. It's cut off. You can't see it. Is it behind the column? No. He's nowhere near the column. He's in the center of the doorway.

Backes may think that Doorman was running around the doorway between Wiegman and Altgens. Seriously, he may. Of course, he wasn't. So, since he was nowhere near the column, what accounts for the fact that his right shoulder is out of view?

It's because of parallax: parallax caused by the angle from which James Altgens shot. Now, what's the other angle? It would be a straight on shot. Nothing cut off here:

That's the other line of sight, Backes, you dumb pluck: the straight on shot. 

And, I'll tell you something else, Backes: there is nothing about this graphic below that is in dispute. There is no doubt that from Altgens angle, the west side of the doorway was mostly cut off to him. 

Don't you know, Backes, that the line and the designations of blind and see are unassailable? (Look it up.)

You don't even know what your options are. You only have one: to claim that the Wiegman placement of Carl Jones isn't right for Altgens- that he moved, that he relocated. That's your only move. You can't argue about the rest. It's like arguing with Physics. do you notice that line goes through Doorman's right shoulder? Well it does:

And, I have been saying for over 4 years, that they pieced in Carl Jones' face above Oswald's cuff, and they put in a shamrock-shaped form to represent his body.

Backes says he doesn't know what I'm talking about as per the shamrock. Can you see it now, Backes?

Then, Backes tries to claim that Frazier drove Oswald to work every day- from his room in Oak Cliff. Oh really, Backes? Then why hasn't Frazier ever said it? He's got this cottage industry going as a "living witness." He does all these interviews and presentations. So why, in 53 years, has Buell Frazier never made the simple statement that he picked Oswald up in the mornings, routinely? It would be pretty duplicitous for him to leave that out all this time. Don't you think? 

But, instead of just making the claim, Backass, why don't you find out directly from Frazier? Why don't you try to get him to admit it? Why don't you do with him what Larry Rivera did with Roy Lewis? And you want to know something? I hope it turns out that you're right because it would prove that Buell Frazier has NOT been forthcoming all this time. I don't think you are right. I think, as usual; you're wrong. But when the guy (Frazier) is still alive, and you just make claims about what he did without even checking with him- hearing what he has to say about it- it goes to show what a jerk you are.  

Backes complains that I can't produce the name of a bus driver who routinely drove Oswald to or from work. This from a guy who claims to know that Oswald was waiting out in front, and someone he knew drove up and yelled, "Get in the fuckin' car, Oswald!", but Backes has no one idea who this driver was or that he existed. 

I would be very, very surprised if it turned out that Frazier was transporting Oswald to work every morning. Was he also driving him home every evening? I'd be surprised because there was no evidence that Oswald and Frazier knew each other prior to this, and Oswald wasn't even friendly with people. I imagine he was civil. But, on what basis would Frazier offer to pick the guy up at his room every morning and drive him home every evening? Listen, if it turns out that is what happened, I'm actually going to love it: just knowing that Frazier withheld it all this time. 

So, by all means, ferret it out, Backes. Go to Frazier and find out. But, until you do, until you have actual evidence and not just your own hapless deduction, shut the fuck up. 

And finally, there are some photos in which you can see some new plywood applied on the 6th floor, but Larry Rivera is right that you don't see tools. You don't see hammers, nails, etc. And you don't see big cutting tools. Do you know how plywood is cut? It takes a big table saw, where you push it through the blade. How else are you going to get a straight line?

If they were building a floor, where they needed tight joints between all the boards, that's how they would have made the cuts. 

And why assume that a project like this requires no skill? That you can just grab some 19 year olds and have them do it? 

"Guess what? You're not going to be an order filler today. Today, you're going to be a carpenter." 

That would be risky both from the standpoint of the quality of the job and that they could hurt themselves. This was a going concern. Why couldn't they get real carpenters to do it? And do you know who the forearm of this construction project was? Bill Shelley? What background did he have to be such a forearm? He was head of the "Miscellaneous Department" and he wore a suit and tie to work, as he did on this day. Suddenly, on this day, he turned into Bob Vila? 

Why don't you think, Backes? Oh, that's right; you don't know how. But, here's a hint: Somebody had to build the Sniper's Nest, to arrange the boxes, and it wasn't Oswald. See what you can do with that.

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid. You live and breathe and talk stupid. And there isn't one aspect of the JFK assassination that you get right. The one thing you accuse Dallas Police of chicanery over- faking Oswald's bus and cab rides- are things that he actually did. You couldn't be more useless.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.