Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 29, 2019 21:29:28 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.jfk-online.com/oswald-chin-comparison-3.jpg
To me the chin issue is the easiest way to show that the Backyard (BYP) photographs are faked. The chin seen in them is simply NOT the chin Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had. LHO had a cleft chin, but in the BYPs we see a square chin. Why?
Michael Griffith concisely writes about this issue. Here is what he wrote regarding the chin seen in the BYPs.
Quote on
------Lines in the Chin Area------
[Calvin S.] McCamy admitted that a line running across the chin was found on 133-A, as well as on 133-A, DeMohrenschildt, and on 133-A, Stovall. This line is shown in Jack White's video FAKE. It is a nearly straight line. It begins on one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and ends on the other side of the neck.
McCamy declared, without any qualification, that this line was caused by a water spot. However, Mr. [Brian] Mee and other professional photographers with whom I consulted told me that it would be unusual for the edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight line. Mr. Mee noted other problems with McCamy's explanation of the tell-tale line.
AND:
------Explaining the Conflicting Chins------
Now we come to the crucial issue of the chin seen in the backyard photos. As is well known, Oswald had a sharply pointed, cleft chin. This can be seen in any of the undisputed pictures of him (see, for example, Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, pp. 102, 107, 108, 130, 141, 165, 171; hereafter cited as TKOAP). But the chin of the figure in the backyard photos has a square, flat chin. (I might add that in the TKOAP pictures, Oswald's chin is pointed and cleft even when his mouth is in varying positions.)
Mr. McCamy claimed that in some photos of Oswald in his younger years, his chin was "more rounded and didn't seem to show this cleft as much." First of all, the appearance of Oswald's chin as a youth is irrelevant, since the backyard photos supposedly show him as an adult. Putting that fact aside, and just for the record, however, I dispute McCamy's assertion. I would direct the reader's attention to pp. 188 and 190 of British scholar Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT.
Page 188 shows a picture of Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, i.e., when he was about 15 years old. In this photo his chin is just as pointed and cleft as it is in later pictures of him. (This same snapshot can be seen on page 130 of TKOAP, although it is much larger in Smith's book.) Page 190 (of Smith's book) shows a picture of Oswald when he was in school, either junior high or high school. Here, too, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.
The pictures McCamy displayed of the younger Oswald which supposedly showed a more rounded chin with less cleft were so unconvincing that Congressman Fithian said, "I did not visually at least identify any other chin that was even approximately as square as the one in the backyard photograph--from all of the pictures that you put up."
Mr. McCamy's only remaining argument was that the point of the chin in the backyard photos allegedly disappeared in the shadow of the chin. "It just disappears in the shadow," he said. McCamy's "best evidence" to support this claim was a police photograph of Oswald showing a PROFILE view, i.e., a picture that was taken of him FROM THE SIDE. McCamy admitted, grudgingly and obliquely, that none of the frontal shots of Oswald's head supported his theory. But, said McCamy, in the police profile shot,
. . . there is apparently a rather wide, broad, flat area here. If this were illuminated from above, you can see that the shadow might very well be cast, even as high as this. It could be cast fairly high. If it were, then the apparent point that one sees in his EARLIER photographs would not show up. (emphasis added)
Putting aside the speculative nature of this claim, what did McCamy mean by "his EARLIER photographs"? Was he referring to the pictures of Oswald in his younger years? This seems to be the case. If so, what relevance do these photos have given the fact that the backyard snapshots supposedly show Oswald as an adult?
Frankly, I find it hard to take McCamy's waffling and theorizing seriously. Instead of credibly dealing with the numerous photos which show Oswald with a pointed, cleft chin, McCamy appealed to a lone profile picture and then offered an unlikely theory based on speculative assumptions. The plain, undeniable fact of the matter is that in every frontal picture of Oswald's face, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.
Further confusing matters, McCamy cited the eye shadows to support his vanishing-chin-point theory. He said,
The eyes, for example, hardly show up on the backyard photographs because of this overhead illumination.
But the eye shadows in the backyard photos surely were caused by sun light at around noon because they fall straight down into the eye sockets. I think McCamy realized this difficulty, for he continued as follows:
Of course, the nose shadow is produced by that [i.e., the overhead illumination that caused the eye shadows], but the chin form is not.delineated well on that picture at all because there is little or no light coming from the front.
First of all, McCamy certainly had not proven that there was "little or no light coming from the front" in terms of the light hitting the face. There was plenty of light striking the face from the front, which is why the nose and eye shadows are readily visible and fall straight down in a twelve o'clock position. Second, the statement that "the chin form is not delineated well" was merely McCamy's opinion. McCamy had no choice but to deny that the chin form was fully visible in the backyard photos, otherwise he would have had to admit that the chin in those pictures was not Oswald's.
It seems to me that the chin form is definitely visible in the DeM photo, and it is still square and flat, as it is in the other backyard pictures. Furthermore, in a reenactment photograph shown in Jack White's video FAKE, the chin form of the man is also visible. The man is standing in Oswald's backyard; he is striking a pose almost identical to that of the figure in the backyard snapshots; and the sun is at about a four o'clock position in relation to his body, thus causing the body shadows to fall at a ten o'clock slant, as in 133-A. Yet, the man's chin form is visible.
Mr. Mee disputed McCamy's assertion that the chin form disappeared in shadow, pointing out that the sun was not in the necessary position to cause this alleged effect.
Quote off
It is clear that the chin seen in the BYPs is NOT the type of chin that LHO actually had, therefore, his claim that the Dallas Police Department superimposed his head onto someone else's body seems correct. These photographs are fake in all likelihood, but every if they were genuine they prove nothing in regards to the assassination.
For the full click this link.
miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
www.jfk-online.com/oswald-chin-comparison-3.jpg
To me the chin issue is the easiest way to show that the Backyard (BYP) photographs are faked. The chin seen in them is simply NOT the chin Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had. LHO had a cleft chin, but in the BYPs we see a square chin. Why?
Michael Griffith concisely writes about this issue. Here is what he wrote regarding the chin seen in the BYPs.
Quote on
------Lines in the Chin Area------
[Calvin S.] McCamy admitted that a line running across the chin was found on 133-A, as well as on 133-A, DeMohrenschildt, and on 133-A, Stovall. This line is shown in Jack White's video FAKE. It is a nearly straight line. It begins on one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and ends on the other side of the neck.
McCamy declared, without any qualification, that this line was caused by a water spot. However, Mr. [Brian] Mee and other professional photographers with whom I consulted told me that it would be unusual for the edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight line. Mr. Mee noted other problems with McCamy's explanation of the tell-tale line.
AND:
------Explaining the Conflicting Chins------
Now we come to the crucial issue of the chin seen in the backyard photos. As is well known, Oswald had a sharply pointed, cleft chin. This can be seen in any of the undisputed pictures of him (see, for example, Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, pp. 102, 107, 108, 130, 141, 165, 171; hereafter cited as TKOAP). But the chin of the figure in the backyard photos has a square, flat chin. (I might add that in the TKOAP pictures, Oswald's chin is pointed and cleft even when his mouth is in varying positions.)
Mr. McCamy claimed that in some photos of Oswald in his younger years, his chin was "more rounded and didn't seem to show this cleft as much." First of all, the appearance of Oswald's chin as a youth is irrelevant, since the backyard photos supposedly show him as an adult. Putting that fact aside, and just for the record, however, I dispute McCamy's assertion. I would direct the reader's attention to pp. 188 and 190 of British scholar Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT.
Page 188 shows a picture of Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, i.e., when he was about 15 years old. In this photo his chin is just as pointed and cleft as it is in later pictures of him. (This same snapshot can be seen on page 130 of TKOAP, although it is much larger in Smith's book.) Page 190 (of Smith's book) shows a picture of Oswald when he was in school, either junior high or high school. Here, too, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.
The pictures McCamy displayed of the younger Oswald which supposedly showed a more rounded chin with less cleft were so unconvincing that Congressman Fithian said, "I did not visually at least identify any other chin that was even approximately as square as the one in the backyard photograph--from all of the pictures that you put up."
Mr. McCamy's only remaining argument was that the point of the chin in the backyard photos allegedly disappeared in the shadow of the chin. "It just disappears in the shadow," he said. McCamy's "best evidence" to support this claim was a police photograph of Oswald showing a PROFILE view, i.e., a picture that was taken of him FROM THE SIDE. McCamy admitted, grudgingly and obliquely, that none of the frontal shots of Oswald's head supported his theory. But, said McCamy, in the police profile shot,
. . . there is apparently a rather wide, broad, flat area here. If this were illuminated from above, you can see that the shadow might very well be cast, even as high as this. It could be cast fairly high. If it were, then the apparent point that one sees in his EARLIER photographs would not show up. (emphasis added)
Putting aside the speculative nature of this claim, what did McCamy mean by "his EARLIER photographs"? Was he referring to the pictures of Oswald in his younger years? This seems to be the case. If so, what relevance do these photos have given the fact that the backyard snapshots supposedly show Oswald as an adult?
Frankly, I find it hard to take McCamy's waffling and theorizing seriously. Instead of credibly dealing with the numerous photos which show Oswald with a pointed, cleft chin, McCamy appealed to a lone profile picture and then offered an unlikely theory based on speculative assumptions. The plain, undeniable fact of the matter is that in every frontal picture of Oswald's face, his chin is clearly pointed and cleft.
Further confusing matters, McCamy cited the eye shadows to support his vanishing-chin-point theory. He said,
The eyes, for example, hardly show up on the backyard photographs because of this overhead illumination.
But the eye shadows in the backyard photos surely were caused by sun light at around noon because they fall straight down into the eye sockets. I think McCamy realized this difficulty, for he continued as follows:
Of course, the nose shadow is produced by that [i.e., the overhead illumination that caused the eye shadows], but the chin form is not.delineated well on that picture at all because there is little or no light coming from the front.
First of all, McCamy certainly had not proven that there was "little or no light coming from the front" in terms of the light hitting the face. There was plenty of light striking the face from the front, which is why the nose and eye shadows are readily visible and fall straight down in a twelve o'clock position. Second, the statement that "the chin form is not delineated well" was merely McCamy's opinion. McCamy had no choice but to deny that the chin form was fully visible in the backyard photos, otherwise he would have had to admit that the chin in those pictures was not Oswald's.
It seems to me that the chin form is definitely visible in the DeM photo, and it is still square and flat, as it is in the other backyard pictures. Furthermore, in a reenactment photograph shown in Jack White's video FAKE, the chin form of the man is also visible. The man is standing in Oswald's backyard; he is striking a pose almost identical to that of the figure in the backyard snapshots; and the sun is at about a four o'clock position in relation to his body, thus causing the body shadows to fall at a ten o'clock slant, as in 133-A. Yet, the man's chin form is visible.
Mr. Mee disputed McCamy's assertion that the chin form disappeared in shadow, pointing out that the sun was not in the necessary position to cause this alleged effect.
Quote off
It is clear that the chin seen in the BYPs is NOT the type of chin that LHO actually had, therefore, his claim that the Dallas Police Department superimposed his head onto someone else's body seems correct. These photographs are fake in all likelihood, but every if they were genuine they prove nothing in regards to the assassination.
For the full click this link.
miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm