Another ridiculous Backesism: 

"This insistence that the Moorman photograph was shot on the perpendicular is just nonsense." 

No, Backes. I'm NOT saying it was shot on the perpendicular. I'm saying that it was shot on a diagonal from the southeast. 

That is a film frame of Babushka Lady taking the Moorman photo on a diagonal. And, I have been saying that repeatedly for over one year. 

Then, he confuses two separate issues: whether the camera is centered on the subject AND whether the camera is being held level. He says that unless you use a tripod, that the chances of the camera being off center are large. No, Backes, the tripod has nothing to do with that. The tripod holds the camera level, and it also keeps it from moving when you press the shutter. But, it has nothing to do with the centering.

God, you're such an idiot. 

And what I said, Backes is that if the Moorman photo was taken with the photographer facing Elm Street squarely (being perpendicular) that the line of the limo would be parallel with the bottom of the picture. But, it's not.

And that's what tells us that the above photo was taken on a diagonal. 

And, I have only talked about this issue of perpendicular in relation to the Moorman photo. I never raised the issue concerning Zapruder and his film. So, what are you raising it for?

Then, Backes has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge that Jean Hill was deliberately turned and facing her boyfriend, BJ Martin when JFK rode by. That is bull shit! Jean Hill wrote a book, The Last Dissenting Witness, and nowhere in it does she claim that she was looking at her boyfriend when the President rode by. I've listened to many of her interviews, and never did she say that at that moment, she was turned and looking at him, her boyfriend. 

So, where did he get it from? And think about it behaviorally. Regardless of how fond she was of her boyfriend, she could see him most any time. This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the President of the United States and his glamorous wife up close, and she decided to forego it to make eyes at her boyfriend? And what's ridiculous about it is that she's not only looking that way, but her whole body is turned that way. She could have left her body alone and just shifted her eyes to look at her boyfriend. Or, if necessary, she could have moved her eyes and turned her head a little. There was certainly no need to move and reorient her whole body. He wasn't that far away. 

And think about the story that goes along with it. She said, in her book, that as the President approached, she spoke to him. She said:

"Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture." 

So, she's talking to the President and say that while she's looking at her boyfriend? 

That is ridiculous. She never claimed that, and there is no reason to think she ever did that. Nobody would. Backes is just a fool; a lying fool.

And then, he puts up a frame from Nix where it appears that Elm Street is rising to the west. But, they messed with that film, and Nix complained about it. He said he never tilted the camera that much. And in Mary Moorman's case, she was standing there poised and ready, and there is no reason to think she couldn't take a picture properly. People do it all the time, including amateurs. 

The idea that Mary Moorman wouldn't have captured that accurately is ridiculous. There is no excuse for the lack of descent in the Moorman photo. 

Backes, you're stupid. You were born stupid; you live stupid; and without a doubt, the last thing you say before Nature rids the world of your rotten presence will be something stupid. 

"And now he lies claiming he was never confused, that he never said a still photograph shows motion." Joseph Backshit

No, Backes. I did say that a still photograph can show motion. It's not that the photo moves but that it SHOWS motion, a person who is in motion, that we can tell that the person in it was moving at the time it was taken. 

And in the photo below, even without her legs showing, where one was off the ground, we can still tell that she was in motion:

So, how can we tell that she is in motion? Because she is obviously walking along talking on the phone? Is that not good enough? Then how about the fact that that that is not a stationary pose? If she were stationary, why would she hold the bag up? She's doing it as she walks because the swinging of her arms would make controlling the bag difficult at full arm's length. By shortening the fulcrum, she has greater control. But, if she were standing still, she would lower her arm and just let the bag dangle in her hand. People don't expend energy for no reason. There would be no need to hold the bag up if she were standing still. Any, if you look closely, you can see that her left thigh is in front of her right, as seen in walking.

It's very obvious that she is in stride, that she is walking, and I don't need to see what her feet are doing to know it. This cropped image still provides enough information to tell me that she is in a state of motion. 

You are such a fucking idiot. 

Backes needs the image in the photo to actually move in front of his eyes before he will recognize motion: 

"You can stare at these still photographs of yours for years Ralph and the subject(s) in them are never going to move."

Yeah, I know, Backes. But, the question- the only question- is whether you can tell whether a subject was in a state of motion when the picture was taken. And the answer is yes.

We don't have to see Michael Jordan dunk the ball in the basket to know that he was in a state of motion when the picture below was taken. 

That is the point, and it is the only point. Bringing the issue of "whole" and "complete" into it is just a distraction. That's not what we were talking about. It's whether the subject was moving at the split-second that the photo was taken. Can you tell whether a person in a photograph was at rest or in motion at the instant that the picture was taken? That's it. Period. Nothing else. That's the only thing we were discussing.  The shit you are spewing now is just a deliberate attempt to evade and confuse the issue. Not even the few friends you've got are buying it.  

Spewed Backshit: 

"He wants to see movement in a still photograph."


"And he still thinks you can capture and see MOTION in a STILL PHOTOGRAPH."



And don't bother deleting them, Backes, because I did a screen save. That's what you wrote. Repeatedly. And then when I showed you photographs of people who were obviously in motion, that's when you start spewing about the whole motion, the complete motion, etc. It's pure revisionism. 

What a lying mudderpluck you are. Whole and complete were NEVER the issue. The issue was whether one could tell in a photograph whether someone was moving, and you denied it. 

And now, you're trying to lie your way out of it. You are so unscrupulous, duplicitous, and diabolical, you reveal your gross dishonesty, which goes along with your gross stupidity. Really, you are just plain gross.  

I tell you, this clip of "Lovelady" is really freaky. He is immaterial. He's like a ghost. He turns his face, and it goes right through the head of the woman in curlers.

And, it's weird that both the woman in curlers and the woman in the white scarf are so stiff and stationary throughout the clip. It continues for 7 seconds, and that's a long time to be so still, especially in such a situation. What the Hell were they looking at? What the Hell were they waiting for? What the Hell were they doing there?

This clip is FAKE. It is is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE! It didn't even surface until 1966, three years after the assassination. For three years, nobody noticed Lovelady in that film amidst all the swirl of controversy about who was the Man in the Doorway? And, the clip was said to be from the Martin film, except that you don't see it in the Martin film. Not in any version of the Martin film does it appear.

I had contact with the Sixth Floor Museum proprietor Gary Mack about this, and he told me that he knows of no version of the Jack Martin film that actually contains this clip. Therefore, why should we believe that it came from there? Just because they tell us that? It isn't even qualitatively the same as the Martin film. I can tell you that the above clip is the clearest, sharpest, most vibrant clip of any from the whole JFK assassination. In contrast, the Martin film is about the worst, qualitatively.

I'll tell you what happened: JFK Authors Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg were both making a racket about Oswald in the doorway in their respective books, both of which came out in 1966. And, it was shortly after that and in response to it that this clip suddenly appeared. No one had noticed it before. No one had mentioned it before. Apparently, no one had seen it before. The guy in it playing Lovelady doesn't even look like Lovelady. He has vastly different features. 

Compare the shape of the head, the ears, the nose, and the neck. They are vastly different. No way are they both the same man.

And what is the story of this frame? Who is the old guy in the Fedora hat and what he is doing there? What is he waiting for? Who is the old woman in the scarf on the right side? What's her story? 

That is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams in the brown shirt on the left, except that it was 15 minutes after the shooting, and Williams was still being detained inside the building at the time. "They wouldn't let anyone out" Williams said. And the white guy front and center is supposed to be Danny Arce, except here is Danny's actual coloring. He's hispanic, not white. 

Obviously, it's not the real Danny Arce in the clip either. It is just a phony thing from start to finish. And what makes it worse is that Lovelady wasn't even there at the time. He left the front of the building right away with Bill Shelley. They walked to the railway area with a throng of others. And then they reentered the building through the back door, never returning to the front. By 12:45, Billy Lovelady was inside the building guarding the freight elevator, as per Roy Truly's order. He was not outside milling around in front. 

This Lovelady clip is an unspeakable fraud. It is truly an outrage. And it was all done to hide the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of President Kennedy.

Here's the Tri-X film again, cropped and close:

It says 400 TX. 400 is the speed, and TX is short for Tri-X. 

It is probably true that there is only one idiot in all the world who doubts this, and that idiot is Joseph Backes.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

Question: Why would Oswald use an unreliable rifle (it tended to jam,
wasn't real accurate) that had been sitting in the garage for two months?
He didn't maintain it (according to Marina), hadn't practiced with it
(Sports Drome claims excepted), and had to take it apart in a risky
maneuver to smuggle it into the building.

He didn't know with any certainty when JFK would pass in front of him, he
couldn't count on his co-workers not being around at whatever time that
would be, he couldn't be sure he'd have the privacy needed to assemble the
rifle and wait for JFK to pass by, and he couldn't be sure he wouldn't be
spotted (as he was) and exposed (which he wasn't).

Look at all of the risks involved in this plan: Unreliable rifle, not
tested or used for months, taken apart, questionable accuracy, timing of
when JFK could be there, privacy, exposure...so many things had to go
right and so many could go wrong.

Why not use the revolver? Wait on the street and approach JFK and shoot
him as he passes by. It's a suicide mission whether he uses the rifle or
the revolver. And the revolver tactic has so many fewer chances of
failure. 

Ralph Cinque: That is a rather strange admission coming from a lonenutter. I guess Steve didn't get the memo that you're not supposed to point out things like that. And there are a lot more strange aspects to it than he mentioned. How could Ruth Paine have not seen the rifle wrapped in the colorful blanket when it was sitting in plain view in her small garage for two months? Her husband Michael kept running into it every time he visited, causing him to speculate in different ways about what it could be. Was it a military shovel? Was it tent poles for camping? He wondered. But, he never contemplated a rifle. However, Ruth claimed never to have seen it at all. And, it was her garage. She lived there. Michael didn't. 

If Oswald entered the TSBD with a rifle wrapped in a makeshift bag made of shipping paper, why didn't anybody see him with it? And I mean, of course, besides Frazier. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald the moment he walked in through the back door. So, why didn't he see it? Why didn't anybody else in that crowded building report seeing Oswald carrying an awkward package? 

Indeed, how could Oswald have made the assumption that the 6th floor would be all his? And worse than that, how did he go up there and set up the Sniper's Nest and retrieve his rifle and assemble it using a dime for a screwdriver when Bonnie Ray Williams was up there the whole time eating his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper? And Williams stayed put there until he heard his friends James Jarman and Harold Norman arrive on the 5th floor below him. Then he left to join them. But, that was VERY late, just scant minutes before the motorcade arrived. So, how, logistically speaking, could Oswald have done his prep work? 

The whole story has no legs. It is so outlandish, so preposterous, and so outrageous, that only a fool could believe it. And the only thing holding it up is the brute force power of the State and its iron-grip control of the US media. But, even that isn't going to sustain it. It's coming down, just like the Towers.