Now, why do I call it a blooper? I call it a blooper because: when has any professional photo analyst EVER examined ANY political photograph with an eye towards identifying alterations? It has never happened; not with any photo. It has never even been articulated as a possibility. It simply isn't done.
We live in a Fascist State, and the State has its historic propaganda images. This is one of them; a cardinal one of them. YOU DON'T CHALLENGE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE IMAGES OF THE FASCIST STATE, particularly if you are a professional. It's a good way to lose your job.
The stupidity of Mr. Andersen is that he speaks as though professional photo analysts often do this: judge the authenticity of State photos, when the truth is that they NEVER do.
And, I can give you an example of the consequences of doing it as any kind of professional, whether photography expert or any other kind. There is a communications professor at Florida Atlantic University, whose name is James Tracy, who lost his job because of questioning the authenticity of images from the Sandy Hook disaster. The University is claiming that he was fired for "not filling out forms to indicate his outside activities, whether paid or unpaid." So, they make you fill out a form if you are writing a personal blog, do they?
"Tracy alleges the university wanted to get rid of him because of his controversial blog, podcast and a chapter he contributed to a conspiracy theory book. He says officials came up with reasons to get rid of him and claims he never refused to sign forms but repeatedly asked for clarifications because he thought the forms and university policies were ambiguous and unclear."
"Diane Alperin, vice provost, acknowledged in federal court on Monday, where the case is being tried, that there were no complaints about Tracy’s teaching methods, and he consistently received excellent performance evaluations from his supervisors and students who took his classes in communication."
Do you get it now, Andersen? It's a lot easier being a photo-mole of the Fascist State, like your friend Bob Jackson, than it is a photo-critic. And again: it's not just that the experts haven't looked at the Jackson photo: they haven't looked at the Altgens photo, the Moorman photo, or any other photo from JFK assassination, which happens to be the most photographically altered event in the history of Mankind.
But, you can't speak of it. And that's because this is a Fascist State, and you can't speak against the Fascist State and its highly altered photos.
Now, the Jackson photo is a lie, and Bob Jackson is a liar. He has said repeatedly that he had his foot up on the bumper of Fritz' car when it was backing up during the shooting. But, how can anyone have his foot on the bumper of a moving car? Do we need an automobile expert to determine that, Andersen?
Bob Jackson has always maintained that he took his photograph almost simultaneous with the shot. He likes to be funny about it and say, "he shot and I shot." But, that's not true. You just have to look at the many films of the shooting. The shot was taken at a moment in which the shooter was well to the side of Oswald.
That's when the shot occurred. You see there that Oswald is reacting to being shot, right, Andersen? Look at the angle that "Ruby" is to him. He is not in front of him, is he? He is well to the side of him. But, in the Jackson photo, the shooter is almost directly in front of Oswald.
Can you see that it is a totally different positional arrangement? Look at it again: There's this:
The difference there in "Ruby's" position vis-a-vis Oswald is close to 90 degrees. It's at least 70 degrees. The Jackson photo is really disinformation because it conveys the false idea that "Ruby" shot Oswald directly into his abdomen from the front. Not so. Oswald was shot from the side; the bullet went through his rib cage from left to right and also downward. You can't argue with the surgeons who tracked the bullet.
The bullet went across Oswald's body from left to right, but you would never know that from looking at the Jackson photo. Supposedly, it was taken .3 second after the shot, but how could anyone move that fast? How could so much change occur in .3 second? The Jackson photo looks staged, and it probably was staged.
And, that shooter is NOT Jack Ruby. His hair in back is not consistent with Ruby's.
Why would anyone think Jack Ruby had hair in back like that? Maybe Paul McCartney, but not Jack Ruby.
Jack Ruby on 11/24/63:
This man, who was FBI Agent James Bookhout, was undoubtedly wearing a toupee' to hide his close-cropped FBI haircut. The fact is that in 1963, very few men wore their hair this long in back. We're talking pre-Beatles.
And look at the anomalous grey vertical stripe in his hat ribbon. It's not present in the official evidence collection of Ruby's stuff:
That ribbon is all black. So, how did it get to be two-toned in the Jackson photo?
And these aren't even the worst things. The very worst thing is that false display of Oswald slapping his arm to his chest after being shot. Nobody ever said he did that. Nobody who saw it described such a response by Oswald. Nobody in the history of gunfire has ever done that. And nobody ever would. It is a grotesque falsification that was added to the photo.
And let's look at Detective Harrison, puffing away on his cigar, in the Jackson photo. Where is Blackie's arm going, and what is he doing with it? We are told that he was trying to interfere with the shooting and grab the gun.
But, how could he? How long do you think his arms were?
I put a yellow x where the gun is, and the white lines show you how long Blackie's arm would have to be in order to reach it.
That's how far he would have to reach to get to that gun. So, what was Blackie doing? And why don't we see him at all in the Beers photo? How come Blackie Harrison is MIA from the Beers photo, Andersen, when it was supposedly taken just .6 second before?
Where's Blackie, Andersen? And Bob Jackson: you need to answer for your photo. You claim you took it. We've all heard your story a thousand times. But, these anomalies; they say otherwise. And never mind what your friend Brian Andersen says, that we need to turn this over to photo experts. They won't look at it; they refuse; which means, according to guys like Andersen, that nobody can critically look at it. That we just have to accept it. Well, that's not going to happen.
Your photo is a fraud, Robert, and now we need to know how it really came about. Stop being a photo-mole for the Fascist State for once in your life. You've done their bidding your whole life, and do you know what that means to me? It means that you have blood on your hands, Robert. Because: a man died; a man was murdered; in this case Oswald; and as far as I'm concerned, your photo is an obstruction of justice. I've had it with the lies. It's time for the truth.