Marina's Camera....The Backyard Pictures Revisited

[Dale Nason]

This is a very unscientific analysis, pretending to be scientific. We are supposed to be persuaded that the photos were taken hours apart because the narrator says confidently that 133A has a 10 o'clock shadow and 133B has more of a 12 o'clock shadow? We can see that the shadows are the same in both (look at the shadows under the stairs).  The sun moves 30 degrees in 2 hours!!  If he was being scientific, he would know how to show what two hours difference in shadows looks like and show us the difference in the photos.  But, of course, he can't.  His measurements are laughable - he says one head looks bigger in proportion to the body but doesn't show it with measurements!!  It doesn't look bigger to me - you have to do proper measurements.  The "centre of gravity" issue is laughable as well.  Not only does he not explain how the centre of gravity is determined and fails to show how it is impossible to stand that way, he actually has someone stand that way without falling down.  The missing fingernail issue is also laughable.  If the fingernails are missing it is much more likely because Oswald is gripping the paper with his distal phalanges directed toward the newspaper -what one might be expected to do to keep a newspaper rolled up.  Totally ridiculous!

If you want to totally blow the WC Report out of the water, have the current administration bring Marina in front of a commission established by Pres. Trump and testify whether she did or did not take the two ( three?) photographs. She has nothing to lose now. Give her immunity. I'd be willing to bet that she'd testify now that SHE NEVER took these photos. If she does that......end of case. LNer's are dead in the water. WC is dead in the water.

[Walt Cakebread]

133B was taken by Oswald's Imperial Reflex TLR camera. That can be proven from the negative.  The only way that 133B could be a fake is if it was a photograph of a photograph.  A big problem with that, however, is that the focal length of the lens does not permit a close-up. So the original photo and Oswald's superimposed face  would have to have been printed life-size in order to do the forgery.  The second generation copy would also lose detail and would have increased contrast.  And it would be easy to distinguish from 133A and 133c. One photo would be extremely difficult to fake but it would be easy to detect - unless 133A and 133c were also fakes. In that case someone had to do the next to impossible fakery three times using a different position of Oswald and the guns/newspapers. One would also need three slightly different poses of Oswald's face.  The faces and stand-in bodies would have to be enlarged to life-size, then the face meticulously superimposed on each and re-photographed with Oswald's camera.  And that makes absolutely no sense!  All you need is one photo putting Oswald with the gun.  Why go to all the trouble of making three extremely difficult to disguise fakes when only one would be needed.  There is a much simpler explanation: the photographs are not fakes!

Andrew..LOOK at CE 133B.....It's the photo with the rifle in the man's left hand and on the his hip .....Notice the black triangle on the fence....That triangle is a dead giveaway that the background from CE 133A was used to create CE 133B.....   And I suspect that it was Lee Oswald who created that fake....  He was just fooling around and trying to create a good "carnival photo" that would cause the viewer to believe that they were actually looking at a genuine communist revolutionary who was armed and ready for a fight.   In my opinion the BY photo CE 133A is a ludicrous incredibly silly portrait of a nut who was too naive to understand that he was overdoing the act.  ...

But maybe "Someone" saw the obvious silliness ...because on the back of the Demorhenschildt print was written...."Hunter of Fascists...Ha,ha,ha"...

[Martin Weidmann]

If you accept Marina's admission that she burned the prints of the backyard photos, that ends the controversy over whether they were forged (if the negative of CE133B doesn't end it by itself).  There are only two possibilities:
 
1. Marina was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald by lying about taking the backyard photographs that she knew she had not taken but had been doctored to show Oswald with the murder weapons or
2.  Marina was telling the truth that they were undoctored photos taken by her.   

If 1 is true, it would make no sense for her to burn copies of the photographs as Marguerite requested.
Maybe the same roll of film was used for the other "backyard" photos - the ones Oswald took of General Walker's back yard.   They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera based the edge detail of the Walker photograph matching that of Oswald's camera.

How do you know that Oswald's camera took 12 photos on a roll of 620 film?  I had an old Kodak accordian type fold-out camera that used 620 film and I could get only 8 photographs per roll.  They were nice large negatives though.

Or there is option 3. A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.

[Andrew Mason]

I'd be willing to bet that she'd testify now that SHE NEVER took these photos. If she does that......end of case. LNer's are dead in the water. WC is dead in the water.

She has already testified under oath that she took the photos.  If she now were to tell the "truth" and admit she did not take them, she would have even more questions to answer: e.g. how she got the photos (and how it was that de Mohrenschildt got a copy signed by Oswald and with her handwriting on it "Hunter of Fascists") why they were faked, how they were faked, and why she lied.   Her "immunity" would be only if she told the truth this time (i.e immunity from past perjury).   

[Martin Weidmann]

She has already testified under oath that she took the photos.  If she now were to tell the "truth" and admit she did not take them, she would have even more questions to answer: e.g. how she got the photos (and how it was that de Mohrenschildt got a copy signed by Oswald and with her handwriting on it "Hunter of Fascists") why they were faked, how they were faked, and why she lied.   Her "immunity" would be only if she told the truth this time (i.e immunity from past perjury).

Actually, Marina has always denied and it was determined conclusively that Marina did not write "hunter of fascists" on the back of the De Mohrenschildt photo, which of course opens up a whole new line of enquiry.

De Mohrenschildt believed that Michael Paine had placed the box with records, containing, the photo in his storage unit, which by itself is somewhat strange since the Paine's have always stated that they did not know the De Mohrenschildt's very well. So, if Michael Paine did indeed place that photo in the storage unit and it wasn't Marina who wrote that Russian tekst, then who did? Who else is involved in the BY photos saga? 

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew..LOOK at CE 133B.....It's the photo with the rifle in the man's left hand and on the his hip .....Notice the black triangle on the fence....That triangle is a dead giveaway that the background from CE 133A was used to create CE 133B.....   And I suspect that it was Lee Oswald who created that fake....  He was just fooling around and trying to create a good "carnival photo" that would cause the viewer to believe that they were actually looking at a genuine communist revolutionary who was armed and ready for a fight.   In my opinion the BY photo CE 133A is a ludicrous incredibly silly portrait of a nut who was too naive to understand that he was overdoing the act.  ...

But maybe "Someone" saw the obvious silliness ...because on the back of the Demorhenschildt print was written...."Hunter of Fascists...Ha,ha,ha"...

I don't get then why you would call that a fake i.e. a picture of Oswald with his guns.    If Oswald wanted to produce a picture showing him as a hunter of fascists, why would he take a picture of someone else with his guns and then stick his head on it?  Why not just get the guy to take the picture of him?  And, even easier, why not just get his wife to take it and not bother with finding a guy about his size and body type and age who would not reveal the deep dark secret later....

[Walt Cakebread]

Or there is option 3. A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.

A young widow, alone with two small children and faced with possible extradition buckling under the pressure of a multitude of interrogations and testifying to what she believes the powers that be want to hear for pure self preservation.

I agree....I believe you hitting the nail....but not quite squarely on the head with full force....

I would add that she was up against a vile inhuman beast who sat at the seat of power as director of the the FBI.   That fiend had sent powerless people like Marina to their executions on trumped up charges....

She may not have known who was holding the lever of the guillotine ....but she damned sure knew her head was in the block....