Saturday, December 10, 2016

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines surreal as: "marked by the intense, irrational reality of a dream" and that is what the Oswald shooting is, surreal. In the Jackson photo, there isn't one set of startled, alarmed eyes. There isn't one open mouth, as when people are shocked. We see a man standing with his hands clasped in front of his body, and he hasn't budged; he hasn't changed a thing. Even though a gunshot has gone off, he is still standing there relaxed, clasping his hands. Who would behave like that? 

Then, on the right, we see a detective taking a drag from a cigarette, unperturbed that a shot has just gone off, and sticking his long arm right into the action, but what for? He's not holding a microphone. He is a detective not a reporter. So, what is the "story" behind his action? What are we supposed to believe he is doing? Are we supposed to believe that he is reaching to stop "Ruby"? But without interrupting his drag from the cigarette? And why don't we see that man in the Beers photo or other photos?

Why instead of Detective Blackie Harrison being there is there instead a different man wearing a light trench coat? And that's just one thing. The fact is that the setups of the Beers and Jackson photos- the arrangements of the men- are vastly different between the two images even though we are told that there was only .6 second between the two. How much reshuffling could take place in .6 second? Then when you consider that the only ones moving were the trio and "Ruby" why should there have been any reshuffling at all among the others? Then, the presence of the microphone in Beers and its absence in Jackson is another glaring contradiction that is inexplicable.  

Now, look at the Jackson photo again and hone in on the cop standing next to the wall with his hands clasped in front of him like a kindly Jehovah's Witness. Observe his position in relation to the corner of the wall. 

Look at it up-close. Where is he in relation to the wall? 
I would say he is right at the corner, extending a little beyond it. 

But, look at where he is in relation to the corner in Beers.

He is far from that corner, way outside it, and you can't rationalize it. These photos are supposed to be .6 second apart, which leaves no time for any reshuffling or rearranging. And, you can see that in both photos, he is planted where is, like an object at rest. He's not going anywhere. This isn't just an angular difference between the photographers; it's a different setup. The same can be said of Tom Pettit, looking on the other side of each photo, where he is inside the corner in Beers and outside the corner in Jackson. These are different takes, and they can't possibly be .6 second apart. 

How much difference between the photos does it take to recognize that these were different takes of a staged event? It's all a prop. You only have to compare the particulars of the Beers photo to the particulars of the Jackson photo to realize that. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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