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

[Andrew Mason]

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf

So she snapped the shutter twice without advancing the film....and took two different photos....How's that possible?

If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her.  Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that.   And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time. 

[Jerry Freeman]

... the ones Oswald [allegedly]  took of General Walker's back yard.   They were taken by the same Imperial Reflex 620 camera [reportedly]  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.

Another mystery...who printed all these pictures? Personally, I think they were processed in the Dallas police photo lab.
 

The Imperial 620 Snap Shot Camera was made by the Herbert George Company of Chicago Illinois in circa 1961. It is a simple twin-lens reflex style vertical camera constructed of Bakelite plastic. It features a full sized built-in view finder, removable synchronized flash unit, fixed focus lens and simple snap shot shutter. It was capable of capturing twelve exposures, 3 1/2 x 3 1/2 inch in size, on number 620 color or black and white roll film. It was made in various colors including black or grey with a cream front.

  http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Imperial-Camera/Reflex.html
 I would have thought the size was 2 1/4 X 2 1/4

If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her.  Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that.   And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time. 

Why is it obvious? Face it ----she just lied.

[Jerry Freeman]

Part 1

Part 2

[Walt Cakebread]

If she didn't understand how to work the camera, maybe Oswald advanced the film for her.  Or maybe she figured it out, advanced the film but forgot that she had done that.   And she obviously took at least 3 photos since 133c is a different photo taken at the same time.

Andrew....Marina Did NOT take more than ONE BY photo.     LOOK at 133B.....It's obviously a fake made by using the background from the Negative of CE 133A....

And 133c was made by the DPD....

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew....Marina Did NOT take more than ONE BY photo.     LOOK at 133B.....It's obviously a fake made by using the background from the Negative of CE 133A....

And 133c was made by the DPD....

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!

[Louis Earl]

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.

True.  If you think that any of the BY photos are authentic ("if") then it doesn't matter how many other versions there are.   

[Andrew Mason]

Part 1

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!