Lee Harvey Oswald - Photo and TV stills comparison
See also JFK - Fake assassination.
Below, on the left is a repetition of the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald when he is shot. On the right is a sequence of four stills from this CNN video. There is zero correspondence between the photo and any still shots, indicating that the shooting was staged and suggesting strongly that rather than being killed, Oswald was "sheepdipped" - the standard practice used for "disappearing" agents, that is, he was given a new identity and shipped off somewhere.
In addition to the lack of match between a still in the alleged live footage and the famous photo:
--- In the video, just after we hear the sound of gunshot, Oswald opens his mouth as we see in the photo but immediately drops to the ground with people in front of him. There is no possible way a photo could have been taken of this because it all happens so quickly, not to mention that in the photo people are not crowded in front of him.
--- As an agent playing patsy, we have no reason to believe, a priori, that Lee Harvey Oswald would be killed for real. The orchestrators of the event simply wanted us to believe he was killed, producing a convenient situation of the alleged gunman out of the way, they had no reason to kill him as far as we know. Killing an agent for real is not an ideal scenario for recruitment of other agents to play patsy in future events, is it?
Are you convinced there is no still from the video that matches the photo and that the speed at which things happen is too fast for a photographer to get the shot? If not, I ask you to consider very, very carefully why not. A very prominent characteristic of psyops is that the fakery is rubbed in our faces (see They tell us clearly). I'd make the perfectly reasonable claim in my opinion that not only is there no matching still, they don't even attempt to make the photo match a still from the video. There is a very clear mismatch and in the video the movement is much too quick for a shot to be taken.
In challenging the claim that there is no match, someone has stated that there could be a match and that the photo was simply taken from a different angle than the TV footage. This is simply plucking a possibility from the air and putting it forward with no rigour in trying to work out what the different angle would be, how the difference in placement of people around Oswald is to be explained and the lightning speed from the moment of gunshot to Oswald sinking to the ground surrounded by a crowd.
Unfortunately, it is a very common inclination among people to "cherry-pick" in this way, that is, to put forward, as if it in some way debunks the argument they challenge, a possible alternative explanation for a piece of evidence that, on scrutiny, proves to be far less compelling than the possibility argued for, especially in the context of all other evidence.
I ask the reader to be scrupulous when challenging arguments using the "possible alternative explanation" by ensuring you:
--- can determine at least one other piece of evidence that aligns with the possible alternative. If you can't, consider the value of putting it forward as a possible alternative explanation.
--- consider how compelling the possible alternative is compared to the possibility you challenge
In other words, do not simply pluck out of the air possible alternatives without considering the argument made as a whole and how the possible alternative fits into the whole picture.
Below, on the left is a repetition of the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald when he is shot. On the right is a sequence of four stills from this CNN video. There is zero correspondence between the photo and any still shots, indicating that the shooting was staged and suggesting strongly that rather than being killed, Oswald was "sheepdipped" - the standard practice used for "disappearing" agents, that is, he was given a new identity and shipped off somewhere.
In addition to the lack of match between a still in the alleged live footage and the famous photo:
--- In the video, just after we hear the sound of gunshot, Oswald opens his mouth as we see in the photo but immediately drops to the ground with people in front of him. There is no possible way a photo could have been taken of this because it all happens so quickly, not to mention that in the photo people are not crowded in front of him.
--- As an agent playing patsy, we have no reason to believe, a priori, that Lee Harvey Oswald would be killed for real. The orchestrators of the event simply wanted us to believe he was killed, producing a convenient situation of the alleged gunman out of the way, they had no reason to kill him as far as we know. Killing an agent for real is not an ideal scenario for recruitment of other agents to play patsy in future events, is it?
Are you convinced there is no still from the video that matches the photo and that the speed at which things happen is too fast for a photographer to get the shot? If not, I ask you to consider very, very carefully why not. A very prominent characteristic of psyops is that the fakery is rubbed in our faces (see They tell us clearly). I'd make the perfectly reasonable claim in my opinion that not only is there no matching still, they don't even attempt to make the photo match a still from the video. There is a very clear mismatch and in the video the movement is much too quick for a shot to be taken.
In challenging the claim that there is no match, someone has stated that there could be a match and that the photo was simply taken from a different angle than the TV footage. This is simply plucking a possibility from the air and putting it forward with no rigour in trying to work out what the different angle would be, how the difference in placement of people around Oswald is to be explained and the lightning speed from the moment of gunshot to Oswald sinking to the ground surrounded by a crowd.
Unfortunately, it is a very common inclination among people to "cherry-pick" in this way, that is, to put forward, as if it in some way debunks the argument they challenge, a possible alternative explanation for a piece of evidence that, on scrutiny, proves to be far less compelling than the possibility argued for, especially in the context of all other evidence.
I ask the reader to be scrupulous when challenging arguments using the "possible alternative explanation" by ensuring you:
--- can determine at least one other piece of evidence that aligns with the possible alternative. If you can't, consider the value of putting it forward as a possible alternative explanation.
--- consider how compelling the possible alternative is compared to the possibility you challenge
In other words, do not simply pluck out of the air possible alternatives without considering the argument made as a whole and how the possible alternative fits into the whole picture.
