On The Trail Of Delusion

[Mark A. Oblazney]

JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary includes a video clip of John Connally seemingly disputing the single bullet theory. Oliver Stone doesn't tell you the whole truth about John Connally.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-doesn-t-tell-the-whole-truth-about-john-connally

can't log in

[Bill Chapman]

If they're so 'renowned' why can't you name them?
That shadow on the left cheek?...Some kind of freak eclipse I suppose?

'why can't you name them?'

[3] C. McGlone, E. Mikhail, J. Bethel, R. Mullen, Manual of Photogram- metry, 5th Edition, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2004.
[4] R. Hartley, A. Zisserman, Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[5] V. Blanz, T. Vetter, A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces, in: SIGGRAPH, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Los Angeles, 1999, pp. 187–194.
[6] P. Guan, A. Weiss, A. Balan, M. Black, Estimating human shape and pose from a single image, in: International Conference on Computer Vision, Kyoto, Japan, 2009.
[7] Y. Ostrovsky, P. Cavanagh, P. Sinha, Perceiving illumination inconsis- tencies in scenes, Perception 34 (2005) 1301–1314.
[8] H. Farid, M. Bravo, Image forensic analyses that elude the human visual system, in: SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA, 2010.
[9] H. Farid, The Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos: Real or fake?, Per- ception 11 (38) (2009) 1731–1734.

'shadow on the left cheek'
_It's shading, not a shadow*

3.3. Posture
It has been argued that Oswald is leaning so far to the left as to be physically implausible. Our 3-D model allows for arbitrary views of Oswald’s body and measurements of his posture. Shown in Figure 7 are four renderings of Oswald’s body taken from the front, back, and left and right sides, each of which look qualitatively reasonable. The tilt of Oswald’s body was measured to be a physically plausible five degrees from vertical.
3.4. Chin
At first glance it may appear that Oswald’s chin in the backyard photo is too wide to be consistent with his chin in other photos (e.g., his mugshot) and hence evidence of a photo composite. Shown in the left column of Figure 8 is a photo of Oswald from his mugshot (top) and from the backyard photo (bottom). The yellow guidelines are drawn at the point in the top photo where the chin meets the jaw line. Note that the chin appears to be much wider in the backyard photo. Shown in the right column of Figure 8 are the corresponding 3-D renderings with neutral front lighting (top) and lighting to match the backyard photo (bottom). The yellow guidelines, of the same width as on the left, show the same apparent widening of the chin. From these 3-D renderings, it is clear that the apparent widening of the chin is due to the shading* along the chin and jaw, and not to nefarious photo manipulation.

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf

[Steve M. Galbraith]

For those not familiar with the matter, here's a snapshot from the movie's flashback scene that depicted a sexual orgy involving Shaw and David Ferrie and others. This was shown while Garrison questioned Shaw. It's disgraceful. There is no evidence whatsoever that it took place. And Garrison never questioned Shaw in the trial either. The whole scene is a lie. Well, the whole movie is a lie.

Stone was asked about Garrison's abuse of Shaw and said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." That's an admission, implicit if not explicit, that Shaw was innocent but was used by Garrison for some larger worthwhile effort. That is, winning the war. But now we have, once again, the smearing of the man for no purpose at all.

[Richard Smith]

Oswald's guilt and a conspiracy plot to kill JFK aren't mutually exclusive.

True, but why then question the evidence against Oswald if you are entertaining the possibility that he was involved in the plot?  Why question the BY photos, Oswald's ownership of the rifle, and other evidence that links him to the crime if he actually assassinated JFK (even as part of the conspiracy)?   It's only in a situation in which Oswald is innocent of any involvement that the widespread faking of evidence to frame him would be necessary.  If Oswald is playing along, then he is doing whatever the conspirators ask of him including posing with the rifle used to assassinate JFK.  In that scenario, it is not the authenticity of the evidence that is at issue but what evidence there is to link Oswald to some group of conspirators.  And of that there has been no credible evidence presented.

[Jon Banks]

JFK Revisited crams a lot of information into very short segments in the two-hour film and (it seems) the target audience is people who are already familiar with the basic details of the JFK assassination and the investigations that followed.

The Clay Shaw trial isn't mentioned in the film (it's only mentioned that Shaw denied working for the CIA and that the HSCA confirmed he did have a relationship with the CIA) but neither is the Tippit shooting or Gen. Walker stuff.

Less than a minute was spent on Clay Shaw so your thread title is a little ridiculous.

Many things related to the Kennedy assassination were left out due to time constraints, not dishonesty. They were required to keep the film no longer than two-hours.

An extended version will be released in February.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again
Today is the 58 anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We should all take some time today to remember his life and the optimism he engendered in Americans. Unfortunately, Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited, will be showing today and, once again, he crucifies Clay Shaw, an innocent gay man whose life was ruined by Jim Garrison. Shame on you, Oliver Stone.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again

Trump delayed the release of the files to protect LBJ and the CIA? From exposing their involvement in the assassination?

Does anyone think that's, well, not very logical? Trump? Protecting the Establishment? He thinks they were all out to get him. Why would he protect them?

[Jon Banks]

True, but why then question the evidence against Oswald if you are entertaining the possibility that he was involved in the plot? 

I believe Oswald likely was involved with the plot (wittingly or unwitting).

I include the possibility that he was unwitting given the legit evidence that he might not have been on the Sixth Floor when the shots were fired at JFK. But I don't rule out the possibility that he in fact involved as a shooter.

In other words, I'm not convinced that he was innocent but I see it as plausible that he was set up to take the blame. 

Why question the BY photos, Oswald's ownership of the rifle, and other evidence that links him to the crime if he actually assassinated JFK (even as part of the conspiracy)? 

Again, I haven't questioned the authenticity of the BYP, I question whether Marina really took them based on her inconsistent testimony. If someone else took the photos, why would she lie? If she took the photos why did she forget basic details?

I think it has been established that the rifle found in the Book Depository isn't the same model as the rifle Oswald allegedly ordered. It's hard to read too much into photographic but the rifle Oswald holds in the BYP also doesn't appear to be the same model as the Book Depository rifle. There are other issues with the rifle. I'm only grazing the surface.

Those seem like valid questions that I currently can't answer.

It's only in a situation in which Oswald is innocent of any involvement that the widespread faking of evidence to frame him would be necessary.  If Oswald is playing along, then he is doing whatever the conspirators ask of him including posing with the rifle used to assassinate JFK.  In that scenario, it is not the authenticity of the evidence that is at issue but what evidence there is to link Oswald to some group of conspirators.  And of that there has been no credible evidence presented.

That's not true. If someone was handling Oswald, they could've told him anything that they needed to tell him in order to maniulate him. His handler wouldn't need to tell him all the details of the plot against Kennedy.

In covert ops, one only needs to tell the person the information that he or she needs to know to complete whatever task the person is given. If someone wants to know "why" they're doing a certain task, the handler could lie about the real agenda.

So no, I don't agree that someone who is involved in some way with the plot couldn't unwittingly be set up to take the fall...

[Walt Cakebread]

It's pretty clear from Marina's HSCA testimony that she had no idea how many Backyard photos existed or how to use an Imperial Reflex Camera.

She wasn't able to say if she took 1, 2, 3, or 4 pictures (there were at least four).

She couldn't explain to the HSCA how to operate the camera (strange that she wouldn't remember the details of the first time she ever used a camera).

Still, she probably did take the photos but if that's true, why has her testimony been so inconsistent?

 she (Marina)probably did take the photos but if that's true, why has her testimony been so inconsistent?

I'd answer: ....She was terrified and as confused as anybody....   She knew she had taken hptos of Lee in the yard at the Neeley street house, but she like so many others believes the photo(s) are incriminating and prove that Lee owned the carcano.

Some of us recognize that although two of the BY photos are authentic photos which Marina took.....They are nothing but laughable presentations which attempt to trick the viewer into believing that the man in the photo is a honest to goodness communist revolutionary.  LOL!    The photo(s) is nothing but a silly attempt to trick the viewer that the person being photographed  is something that he is not. They are nothing but "carnival photos" which Lee wanted to fall into the hands of Castro's spies, so he would be accepted as a friend of Cuba.

People who can't see the obvious are forced to resort to labelling the photos "fakes"....  Which in a way they are, but not in the sense that the photos were created by fake photography.