The Walker Case

[John Mytton]

Martin’s post said nothing about anybody planning to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos. Maybe you need to read it again, more slowly.

No, it is you that needs to reread "Martins" post where he admits to alternate cameras and a single photo that is either lost or is somehow transformed into the multiple backyard photos which now exist and he further admits that his opinion is a product of speculation.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

He didn’t say anything about someone using the background as a template for fake photos. That was all you.

You don’t get to make a “Marina said so” argument and then ignore what Marina actually said. And yes, Martin said “possibility”. You do know what possibility means, right? Pity you don’t use it enough for your own storytelling.

[John Mytton]

He didn’t say anything about someone using the background as a template for fake photos. That was all you.

I'm happy to be corrected, perhaps in your own words you can further elaborate exactly where "Martins" speculations were leading?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe you could try reading what he actually writes instead of trying to invent “where he is leading”. Or ask him and actually pay attention to the answer.

[John Mytton]

Maybe you could try reading what he actually writes instead of trying to invent “where he is leading”. Or ask him and actually pay attention to the answer.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and we can endlessly debate "Martin's" vague speculative post and ask "Martin" who's heavily biased to further elaborate which we must agree will obviously be a waste of time and achieve nothing, but now it's time to focus on your original post, here's a more realistic established neutral "expert", who's opinion has been used to support backyard photo arguments and here Thompson attempts to definitively answer your original question.

Who claimed that anybody planned to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Also famous "scholar" quoter Michael T Griffith makes the following "observation" about pasting Oswald onto an earlier "template". It's weird that you weren't aware of this common refutation but whatever it takes, eh John!

That's easy: they could have taken the doctored figure image and pasted it onto an earlier picture of the backyard, using the same background for each picture but creating small differences via keystoning.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

but now it's time to focus on your original post, here's a more realistic established neutral "expert", who's opinion has been used to support backyard photo arguments and here Thompson attempts to definitively answer your original question.

. . .

Also famous "scholar" quoter Michael T Griffith makes the following "observation" about pasting Oswald onto an earlier "template". It's weird that you weren't aware of this common refutation but whatever it takes, eh John!

What I’m aware of is that you tried to claim that Martin was making a claim about using the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos, and you quoted a passage where he said nothing at all like that. What do Mr. Thompson and Michael Griffith have to do with it?

[John Mytton]

What do Mr. Thompson and Michael Griffith have to do with it?

You can't be serious, your following question is the very foundation of this entire discussion and they both answered your question with flying colours. Next!

Who claimed that anybody planned to use the Neeley street background as a template for fake backyard photos?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Maybe you could try reading what he actually writes instead of trying to invent “where he is leading”. Or ask him and actually pay attention to the answer.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and we can endlessly debate "Martin's" vague speculative post and ask "Martin" who's heavily biased to further elaborate which we must agree will obviously be a waste of time and achieve nothing,

JohnM

Classic "Mytton". It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that "Mytton" (once again) made up something that I am supposed you have said, but didn't. It also shows he isn't the least bit interested in asking me about what he now calls "Martin's vague speculative post" because he already knows I am going to call him out for outright lying, so he just calls me "heavily biased to further elaborate".

Now that John has him pinned down (I guarantee you he will deny that), "Mytton" decides to move the goalposts to divert attention away from his made up arguments by bringing up a so-called "expert" (quotations marks added by "Mytton"!).

How somebody like "Mytton" can be taken seriously is a complete mystery to me.