I don't think this was Oswald. I think it is a fake image of him.
Why do I say that? Well, compare it to this one:
Let's put them side by side, shall we:
What do you think? Same guy, same day? Let's compare the length of the hair:
Do you think the hair on the right was the same length as the hair on the left?
Let's compare the necks:
Look at those prominent neck muscles on the left. He looks scrawny on the right. I recall that bpete once pointed to that image on the left to claim that Oswald didn't have a scrawny neck. No wonder he used that one.
Let's do another comparison:
Look at the size of that guy on the left. Look at his girth. Does he look like he weighs a mere 131 pounds? I am 5'6" and weigh 138 and nobody would call me stocky. Oswald was 5'9" and weighed 131. But that guy on the left looks much stouter than I am. And yet, he's supposed to be 3 inches taller than I am, yet 7 pounds lighter?
Now, let's consider the condition of the t-shirts.
Does it seem like the t-shirt on the left is in better condition? It doesn't look tattered at all, does it? Notice on the right that on the upper right, it's so tattered, it's got holes. There's a big hole at the upper right corner of the picture, and there is a smaller hole below it along the margin of the neckline fold. Let's hone in:
Shouldn't a hint of that lower hole be peaking out on the left? Doesn't the material look thicker and more substantial on the left, and also whiter, like it was a newer t-shirt? It had to be.
So, what were they trying to accomplish with this phony image?
They were trying to make Oswald look more intimidating than he was. He's stockier, heavier, more muscular, with some major girth. Then, that long, unruly hair that is practically in his eyes makes him look like a bad boy, a wild man, a rebel.
Let's do one more comparison:
Do you understand now why I say that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.