Strange photos from JFK assassination

Oonagh75

Have you heard of Wilma Irene Bond? She claimed to have taken nine photos in Dealey plaza that day.
Only five remain.
I am sure all five photos are from just one photo.
They have been cropped and different hues added to grass and sky to make them look different.
You will notice the lamppost is in line with the same part of the pergola behind.
This is the same for all Bond photos. Unless she had a tripod (and she didn't of course) this is an impossibility.
There are more mistakes in what are purported to be genuine photos taken by this woman.
If you are interested, google this 'kennedy photo album'.
There are many photos but if you scroll down about a third and look for the first pic of a blue bus with white wall tyres, (it's beautiful) then The three pics above it are all bonds. Check it out!

jargon buster

I am sure all five photos are from just one photo.
They have been cropped and different hues added to grass and sky to make them look different.
You will notice the lamppost is in line with the same part of the pergola behind.
This is the same for all Bond photos. Unless she had a tripod (and she didn't of course) this is an impossibility.

"sigh"
Only three of the photos show the lamppost in the same place and if she stood in the same place and simply turned her head and clicked thats exactly what would have happened.
So no, not impossible at all

Oonagh75

There are only three together in Kennedy site. I chose this site for ease of comparison.
All five are the same. You can find them at 'index jfk pics'.
You can only view them one at a time here though.
Now consider the timeframe between pics. It seems to me there is a time lapse between them. A person entering frame may not be in another pic or has moved some distance from one pic to the next. The series suggest a couple of minutes.
Let's go with one to two minutes.
This woman hasn't moved an inch in the aftermath of the killing, yet moves the camera to her face five times (once every 12 to 24 secs on average) and gets the exact same shot through the lamppost to the pergola? If she wanted to , she couldn't. As Judge Judy says "if it doesn't make sense it's usually not true".
A better explanation is they are all from one photo. They have been altered.

jargon buster

The series suggest a couple of minutes.
Let's go with one to two minutes.

No, it doesn't , theres a car moving down the street its in two photos, look at the couple next to the street lamp. They have hardly moved.
I would suggest its simply seconds between the photos.

Have you really studied these photos are are you repeating something from another site?

jargon buster

Taken from Bonds testimony at the Clay Shaw trial

Q: And you say while you were taking pictures you were not able to look and see what was going on in this -- in the area?

A: When you are taking the picture you are looking but it was snapped fast as I could and I didn't see what was going on until they were developed and after I did see the things.

http://www.jfk-online.com/bondshaw.html

Now what?

Oonagh75

Take Bond no. four. It is the first in the series. And no. five is the second etc.
I can only assume they are numbered in sequence but it doesn't really matter.
There is a policeman running in Bond 4.
Where is he in Bond 5?
The lady sitting down in the red coat in Bond 4 .
Where is she in Bond 5?
Wilma Bond snapped as fast as she could. So what? How fast is fast? There is a time lapse presented here, is there not? The faster she snapped helps make my point! They have been doctored to give the illusion of time passing.
She turned the camera between Bond 4 and 5 yet the lamppost remains exactly aligned? The camera angles are different are they not? And it appears she turned camera to the left and took in the underpass. Yet the alignment of the lamppost with the pergola remains the same, does it not? How did she do that?
She took the photos with the same camera on the same roll of film.
Why are there different sizes of photo?
Different colours?
Now what?

jargon buster

The faster she snapped helps make my point!

Really? You wanted a slower snap rate earlier, now its been proven she snapped quickly you want to run with that?

She turned the camera between Bond 4 and 5 yet the lamppost remains exactly aligned? The camera angles are different are they not? And it appears she turned camera to the left and took in the underpass. Yet the alignment of the lamppost with the pergola remains the same, does it not? How did she do that?

By standing in the same place, come on this is kids stuff just put three dots on a piece of paper in a straight line, it will all become clear to you, if you were standing on the first one then no matter how far you turned the other two would still be aligned, thats how they used to draw straight lines you know.(three sticks knocked in the ground)

She took the photos with the same camera on the same roll of film.
Why are there different sizes of photo?
Different colours?

Really? You don't know why that is?

Oonagh75

I don't want anything from the photos.
At the risk of repeating myself, whoever altered the photos wanted something from them. A suggestion of a few minutes or so passing. Not me. I didn't alter them!
Now about the alignment. Find something easily aligned in, say your kitchen.
Line them up. Without averting your gaze, move your head fully left and/or right keeping your eyes fixed on the objects you are checking. Did they move relative to one another?
It works with one eye too.
It works with a camera.
It really does matter how far you turn.
It's just perspective, that's all.
Different colours and sizes etc., I think I do. I am just posing the question.
It's like the quizmaster , he doesn't ask because he doesnt know the answer, you know what I mean?

jargon buster

It's like the quizmaster , he doesn't ask because he doesnt know the answer, you know what I mean?

I know exactly what you mean.
Right, lay out your case and we can then look at what you have got so far, if not then were done here.

Oonagh75

Right, I think Wilma Bond got one photo that had no incriminating evidence on it.
She had 8 that did. Possibly the limo fully stopped for the head shot. Or maybe a shooter.
Anyway she has this one 'good' photo that runs from left of the underpass to well right of the pergola.
They snip here and call it Bond 1.
The snip it on the other side, Bond 2. Etc.
They then give them different colours and add figures to them to make it seem naturally different photos.
I bet they didn't present them together or their work may have been spotted.
I would love to ask Special agent Lyndal L Shaneyfelt, what he thought of them.
He's a hard man to find.
I don't even know if he is still alive.
That is my take on it.
Wilma Bonds' photos were altered, as part of the cover up.

jargon buster

Wilma Bonds' photos were altered, as part of the cover up.

Quick question, maybe I'm a bit thick but why didn't they just kill Wilma and destroy the photos?
After all they just killed the President, Im sure Wilma would have been small potatoes.

jargon buster

Why is it with all these daft conspiracy theories can a relatively simple man come up with a far easier way of killing Kennedy?

The guy had a chronic back problem, simply fill him with painkillers and whisky, job done no questions asked all behind closed doors.

No lets kill him in front of hundreds of eye witnesses all with cameras to record everything???

Judge Judy Oonagh75?

"if it doesn't make sense it's usually not true".

clever_name

Oonagh75 wrote: »

Anyway she has this one 'good' photo that runs from left of the underpass to well right of the pergola.

Did she have a panoramic camera? did not know they were available in the sixties. She would need one to take a photo with that scope.

Oonagh75 wrote: »

They snip here and call it Bond 1.
The snip it on the other side, Bond 2. Etc.
They then give them different colours and add figures to them to make it seem naturally different photos.
I bet they didn't present them together or their work may have been spotted.

So instead of keeping the photos they alter them and give them back, myself I would have told her they were evidence and she could not have them back, job done.

jargon buster

I would love to ask Special agent Lyndal L Shaneyfelt, what he thought of them.
He's a hard man to find.
I don't even know if he is still alive.

SHANEYFELT, SHIRLEY FEARN (AGE 88)
On June 4, 2004, of Alexandria. Beloved wife of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt; loving mother of the late Terry L. Shaneyfelt. Also survived by three granchildren, Garth, SooAe, and one sister Eilene Fearn Manning. A Funeral Service will be held on Friday, June 11, 2004 at DEMAINE FUNERAL HOME, 520 S. Washington St., Alexandria at 1:30 p.m. Interment will follow at Ivy Hill Cemetery, Alexandria. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to the American Cancer Society.

If he's dead chances are he will be next to his wife, you can go and check there, hell he may still be knocking about and may turn up with flowers.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=shirley-fearn-shaneyfelt&pid=2299139&fhid=4948

CiaranMT

It's like this thread was cut out of another halfway through a debate or something...

Oonagh75

J.B., with regard to your first question ..why not 'kill Wilma and destroy the photos etc.?'.
I say why kill her at all? She never saw the photos in the first place.
She could not contradict them, could she?
They could (and did) use the 'good' photo 5 times over to get their version of the immediate post assassination Dealey plaza out there.
They need them.
With regard to your second question, 'why was he killed in front of eyewitnesses and cameras etc.?'.
Imagine if out of all the cameras you mention, hundreds of them, there wasn't one of the grassy knoll? It would weigh heavily against them.
They needed the 'good' Bond.
They jumped on it.
I am not saying it is the only one they used but it was a good one for them ,I suspect.
C.N.
'Did she have a panoramic camera? Did not know they were available in 60s. She would need one to take a photo with that scope'.
I say I can fill the frame of a camera with my fingernail!
I can fill the frame of my camera with my front door, my street or thousands of square miles of land!

clever_name

Oonagh75 wrote: »

J.B., with regard to your first question ..why not 'kill Wilma and destroy the photos etc.?'.
I say why kill her at all? She never saw the photos in the first place.
She could not contradict them, could she?
They could (and did) use the 'good' photo 5 times over to get their version of the immediate post assassination Dealey plaza out there.
They need them.
With regard to your second question, 'why was he killed in front of eyewitnesses and cameras etc.?'.
Imagine if out of all the cameras you mention, hundreds of them, there wasn't one of the grassy knoll? It would weigh heavily against them.
They needed the 'good' Bond.
They jumped on it.

So they needed her photos to manipulate them to get their side of the story accross, that is beyond stupid. Maybe this happened;

Shadowy figure 1 "Lets hope a woman takes some photos that we can alter"

Shadowy figure 2 "why dont we just have our our people take the photos we want?"

Shadowy figure 1 " eh... my ways better... yeah it just is"

Oonagh75 wrote: »

I say I can fill the frame of a camera with my fingernail!
I can fill the frame of my camera with my front door, my street or thousands of square miles of land!

Have you ever actually used a camera? Yes you can do all those things but they all depend on where you are when you take the photo.