I have another problem with the Jackson photo: the thickness of this guy's arm. Isn't it a bit too thick? His arm couldn't have been that thick. So, was there that much surplus capacity in his sleeve? I doubt it. Take a good look. Doesn't it look like an extra dimension was added on, widening his arm? 

Compare it to other reaching arms:

Get the picture? It is too wide. It can't possibly be the thickness of his arm. He wasn't the Incredible Hulk. And the idea that his sleeve was that capacious doesn't seem likely either. So, I think the right explanation is: more photographic fakery. There must have been something they wanted to cover up. 

Backes. Idiot. Moron. Nincompoop. 

Now, he thinks James Angleton wrote Farewell America. Let's see: the CIA framed Oswald, yet their head of Counterintelligence wrote an expose' explaining that the official story is all a lie, a scam, that Oswald was just a patsy, as he said, and that really the powers-that-be in government, banking, the military, etc. did it.

Hey, Backes. I think I've got something for you. James Angleton must have thought up the phony bus and cab rides. Sure, that's the ticket. Somebody had to do it, and it was probably him. You stupid moron.

Then, the idiot posted this image of FBI records and presumes that they are the same thing as a telegram.

Then, Backes is back to saying that Bookhout was Nat Pinkston. That is really stupid because Oswald didn't know Nat Pinkston at all. So, why would he go up to him in the hall and start talking to him?  It was Saturday evening just before the 6:30 interrogation. We have the list of people who attended it. Pinkston isn't one of them. Bookhout is. 

Then, the imbecile posts this image, claiming that it's another view of the same scene with the same man. It's not. Why can't Backes see that this other man below in a Fedora hat was taller? Look how his hat towers over Oswald's head. 

I'm sure Backes can't see the arrangement differences between the Beers and Jackson photos either. Why? Because he is, and always will be, an idiot.

So, in Jackson, there is a guy sucking on a cigar with his black-robed arm stretching across in front of Tom Petit, while in Beers, it was a guy in a white trench coat in that spot, but Backes doesn't care. What he cares about, moron that he is, are the phony bus and cab rides. The phony bus and cab rides; the phony bus and cab rides. 

Then finally, he put up this image, claiming once again that it's the same man, presumably Pinkston.

Well, I know very well that isn't Bookhout. How do I know? Because if he was Bookhout, they would have zeroed out his face, just like they did here:

Now, if Backes were a smarter man, that is, if he had an ounce of smarts at all, he would realize that this isn't the result of any resolution problem because we can see Oswald's features just fine. Any techno-problem would affect the WHOLE fucking image, you dolt. That was a deliberate obfuscation because that guy was Bookhout, and they didn't want us to see him. People who fake bus and cab rides do that, you see. It goes with the territory. 

Backes, you're stupid. You were born stupid. You stumble stupid. You stagger stupid. And you spittle stupid. That's all you do, and you do it stupidly. 

This Hughes Doorway is fake. Toni Glover's movement are fake. She was, supposedly, standing pressed to her mother on the pedestal, her face pressed to her mother's back. So, how could she wave like this?

The limo wasn't even in front of her mother, never mind her. So, why the hell would she wave? And it's not even a wave. It's more like the movement in a jumping jack. 

What it is is a cartoon that somebody added to the film to hide Oswald in the doorway. He was in the center of the doorway, just as he was in Wiegman. But to distract and divert attention, they added another Doorman to hover above Carl Jones. The whole thing, every God-damn bit of it, is fake. Fake, fake, fake. 

So, on the left, the black x marks the corner, and you see Petit's shadow on the fore-wall. On the right, the white x marks the corner, and you see his shadow on the after-wall. And while you're at it, notice that on his left, there is a man in a white trench coat in Beers, and a man in a black sweater extending his arm in Jackson. So, they are different scenes, different takes. At a spontaneous shooting that no one knew about but Jack Ruby, and not even him since he brought his dogs along? Folks, it is a joke. A very sick, twisted, bloodied joke.  

Ralph

I just saw the blog entry. Very good. Petit's shadow falls in different places on that wall, on the left of the corner in the Beers and to the right of it in the Jackson. He is definitely in two places (almost) at once. 

What a madhouse. It reminds me of the demented atmosphere reported on Air Force One described recently by Lifton. The crowd outside should have rushed in and carried out a citizens' arrest of all the police.

WWW

W, it has reached the point of undeniability. In Jackson, Petit's shadow is on a different wall than it is in Beers. In Beers his shadow falls on the wall before the corner; in Jackson, his shadow falls on the wall after the corner. W, we haven't just won; we have floored the opposition. We've decked 'em. Ralph 

We know now, for absolute certain, that the Jackson and Beers photo were different takes of the Oswald shooting. But, did they mark the floor with chalk to show people where to stand? The Wizard Who's With Us found what appears to be a chalk mark around the foot of Tom Petit in the Jackson photo.

Here it is close up:

"OK, now you stand here, Mr. Petit. There, that's good. Now, raise the mic a little higher. A little more. That's it. Perfect, perfect. Now, just hold that position."

  

We are told that "experts" have determined that there was .6 second between the Beers and Jackson photos, with the shot occurring between them. But, that is impossible because they are two different takes. The scenes are different. 

In Jackson, you've got the guy on the right sucking on a cigar. Try to find him in Beers.

In Beers, there is instead a different guy in a white trench coat. 

And there are many other subtle differences, such as Tom Petit being in a different location, such as the guy in profile in Beers being missing from Jackson. The guy on the left against the wall has his head turned more in Jackson than in Beers. And so on. And no, these differences are NOT just a matter of perspective. They are different scenes, that is, different takes. 

Hey, Robert Jackson. I hope you enjoyed your Pulitzer Prize money. You were part of a bloody scam, you fool. Different takes means the whole thing was fake. My thanks to OIC senior member Paul Stevens and the Wizard Who's With Us.