This isn't talked about nearly enough, but if you defend Oswald, if you champion his innocence, then you must endorse photographic alteration in the JFK assassination. That's because of the Backyard photos, which show Oswald flaunting the murder weapon, allegedly used to kill Kennedy.
Oswald denied that that was him. He said that someone put his face over the body of another man. And, he said that, from having worked at a photo lab, he knew how to do it himself and could show them.
And, being an intelligent person, he had to know that it would be futile to lie about it, were it him in the picture. If he knew it was him, and that his wife took the picture, then he would have known that they would go to her, and she would confirm it.
So, if that was him, he'd have admitted it. And, if it was his rifle, he'd have admitted that too. "Yes, that's my rifle, but I didn't kill anybody with it. Someone must have stolen it from where I had it stored, and used it to kill the President in order to frame me." How hard is it to say that?
Imagine the President got killed at your place of work, and you were suspected of doing it. They drag you in, and suddenly, they bring out your weapon. What are you going to say? "Yeah, that's mine, but I don't know how it got here. I didn't have anything to do with this. Someone must have stolen it."
Of course, you are going to say that- or something like it. You don't even have the mindset to start lying. Why would you lie when you know you're innocent?
If it's really as simple as someone stealing your gun- that is not a hard concept to grasp. It is not hard to communicate.
So, Oswald would have said it- if it were true.
But, it was not true. It was not his rifle. He didn't own any rifle. He didn't know anything about the rifle. And it was NOT him in the pictures.
So, I would argue that anyone who refuses to admit that the Backyard photos are fake is not a real Oswald defender, but rather a phony Oswald defender. And, there are a lot of phony Oswald defenders.
And that's because, in this war we're fighting, the other side knows that they stand a better chance of influencing real Oswald defenders by claiming to be one of them. "Yes, I defend Oswald; I know he was innocent; but he wasn't standing in the doorway during the shooting; he was drinking a Coke in the lunch room." That can't be true because both Truly and Baker said that Oswald had no Coke when they saw him in the lunch room, which means that Oswald didn't get his Coke until AFTER his encounter with them. And since his encounter with them wasn't until a minute and a half after the shooting, what was he doing there during that time? Counting the holes in the ceiling? But, the fact is that Oswald had just reached the lunch room when Baker first saw him. In fact, he was just getting there. He was still in the anteroom. He hadn't made it into the lunch room yet. So, he couldn't possibly have bought a Coke, and he obviously wasn't there a minute and a half before.
Or, they might say, "Yes, I defend Oswald; I know he was innocent; but, Captain Fritz said he said he was eating lunch with other employees at the time of the shots." Well, that is obviously false because if it were true, Fritz would have named the other employees. The employees- all of them- got off work at 11:45, which was 15 minutes early, so that they would have plenty of time to eat before the President arrived. So, who would put off eating lunch until 12:30, only to miss seeing the motorcade? Nobody. Not Oswald, and not anybody else.
Already, that exhausts all the other possibilities. The fact is that there is no place else but the doorway that Oswald could have been during the shooting.
So, when you realize that he wasn't on the 6th floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, then the logical progression puts Oswald in the doorway and no place else.
But, let's get back to photographic alteration. There is a lot of it in the JFK assassination. There is a ton of it. The JFK assassination is very likely the most photographically altered event of all time. I bet you that in all of World War II they didn't alter as many photos as they did for the JFK assassination.
Take the Moorman photo. It has to be altered too. It's widely agreed that the Moorman photo was taken AFTER the last shot. And you know what happened on the last shot: JFK's head was blown out in back. The Harper fragment of Kennedy's skull was found on the grass on the south side, and it measured 10 cms. Another sizable fragment was found in the limo. Numerous other small pieces of bone were found elsewhere in Dealey Plaza. And, Motorcycle Officer Chaney said he was literally soaked in Kennedy's exploding brain matter. So, how could the back of Kennedy's head look intact as it does in the Moorman photo?
Of course, we insist that the Altgens photo was heavily altered to cover up Oswald in the doorway. But, the other side, including the bogus Oswald defenders, say that the Altgens photo was wired to the world so fast (at 1:03 PM) that it could not have been altered. But, that is a bogus claim, and we have proven that there was a multi-hour delay in getting the Altgens photo out. The Altgens photo was first shown to the world at 6:30 PM Eastern time by Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News. That was at 5:30 PM Central time, so 5 hours after JFK got shot.
It's important to remember that the Backyard photos were concocted BEFORE the JFK assassination. So, if they had the mindset to falsify images beforehand, then, they obviously were prepared to do it afterwards.
And think about what they were going to do: They were going to kill Kennedy in a military-style, triangulated attack. In fact, they were going to have shooters almost full circle around him, well, let's say 3/4 circle around him. If you accept that they had a shooter on the train overpass at the bottom of Dealey Plaza, as many believe, then that's about 3/4 circle surrounding him that they had shooters. And yet, they were going to blame all that shooting on one man in the 6th floor window of the Book Depository. Do you know how many of the known shots came from that window? None. I'm not saying that no shots were fired from that window, only that none of the known shots came from that window.
But, since they knew they were going to be telling a very different story than what they were actually going to have done, they had to know that some photos would likely need fixing. And so, they had to be prepared to do it- and they were. It's likely that Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA-connected photo lab where Oswald worked from October to April, was where the dirty work was done.
Photographic alteration. You have to believe in it in order to be a real Oswald defender.