The Backyard Photo Paradox

[John Iacoletti]

So only one negative still exists, right?

[Jack Trojan]

You're right, 1 negative for CE 133-B only. I mistakenly thought the negative for CE 133-C was found with Roscoe White. But it's the negative for the money shot CE 133-A that is suspiciously missing.

[Walt Cakebread]

I wish I could believe that you actually own a MC, but alas.

The Photographic Evidence Panel examined Warren Commission exhibits CE 133-A and 133-B, the two backyard pictures seized from the Oswald residence by Dallas Police in 1963; CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, and CE 134, an enlargement of CE 133-A.

Apparently, the DPD only found 1 negative for CE 133-B. They never found the negative for the money shot, CE 133-A. Surprise, surprise.

I wish I could believe that you actually own a MC, but alas.

Actually, Mt T... I own more than one, but what's the big deal about that??   20 - 30 years ago they were plentiful ( The CIA was dumping their inventory ) and cheap.  I know an ex-FBI man who had hundreds of the carcanos....

They never found the negative for the money shot, CE 133-A. Surprise, surprise.

I'm not certain that the FBI displayed the original "one and only" CE 133A to Marina......  ( who knows how many copies they made of that photo?) And Marina was more ignorant than I am about photography...( which is not good) .So she didn't even know that there was a difference between CE 133A and CE 133B.....   When those two photos were presented to her so that she could compare them and see that they were in fact two different BY photos she said that she didn't remember taking two photos of Lee...and she possibly had snapped the shutter twice when Lee was posing for the photo.  At any rate up until her appearance  before the Warren Commission she thought that there was only ONE  BY photo..... Then when she realized there were two...She tried to explain that by saying perhaps she had pressed the shutter twice.....  Well Ok let's ignore the fact that if she had pressed the shutter twice we wouldn't have any clear BY photos because she would have created a double exposure....But putting that aside...We now have THREE BY photos.....  She certainly couldn't have produced three photos with Lee in different positions in each photo by pressing the shutter multiple times.
 

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, the HSCA determined that the blow up of 133a came from the original negative. Since this negative was never handed over to the WC, this means the DPD "lost" this negative.

Or does it? The HSCA testimony off Robert Studebaker, which is now available on the Mary Ferrell website (thanks to some dweeb named...Pat Speer) indicates that Studebaker made numerous copies of the BY photos using a copy camera, and that the blow-up of 133a was in fact a photo of a photo. This, moreover, was also the position of DPD crime lab employee Rusty Livingstone in First Day Evidence.

If this is true, for that matter--that the blow up to 133A was in fact a photo of a photo--it means the photoanalysts for the HSCA couldn't tell a photo of a photo from a first generation print, which is to say they could not tell s from Shinola, and that their authentication of the BY photos is meaningless.

[Walt Cakebread]

FWIW, the HSCA determined that the blow up of 133a came from the original negative. Since this negative was never handed over to the WC, this means the DPD "lost" this negative.

Or does it? The HSCA testimony off Robert Studebaker, which is now available on the Mary Ferrell website (thanks to some dweeb named...Pat Speer) indicates that Studebaker made numerous copies of the BY photos using a copy camera, and that the blow-up of 133a was in fact a photo of a photo. This, moreover, was also the position of DPD crime lab employee Rusty Livingstone in First Day Evidence.

If this is true, for that matter--that the blow up to 133A was in fact a photo of a photo--it means the photoanalysts for the HSCA couldn't tell a photo of a photo from a first generation print, which is to say they could not tell s from Shinola, and that their authentication of the BY photos is meaningless.

their (HSCA)  authentication of the BY photos is meaningless. --- they could not tell s--- from Shinola,

Well knock me over with a feather duster......  However, they were smart enough to recognize that the murder of President Kennedy was " Probably a conspiracy".

[Walt Cakebread]

FWIW, the HSCA determined that the blow up of 133a came from the original negative. Since this negative was never handed over to the WC, this means the DPD "lost" this negative.

Or does it? The HSCA testimony off Robert Studebaker, which is now available on the Mary Ferrell website (thanks to some dweeb named...Pat Speer) indicates that Studebaker made numerous copies of the BY photos using a copy camera, and that the blow-up of 133a was in fact a photo of a photo. This, moreover, was also the position of DPD crime lab employee Rusty Livingstone in First Day Evidence.

If this is true, for that matter--that the blow up to 133A was in fact a photo of a photo--it means the photoanalysts for the HSCA couldn't tell a photo of a photo from a first generation print, which is to say they could not tell s from Shinola, and that their authentication of the BY photos is meaningless.

This, moreover, was also the position of DPD crime lab employee Rusty Livingstone in First Day Evidence.

I've always felt that Rusty Livingston gave his nephew, Gary Savage, information about the involvement of the DPD in murder of JFK in hopes that Savage would pick up on what his ol unca Rusty was trying to reveal, without  spelling it out in bold letters.

I met Rusty Livingston, and Gary Savage in the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas in 93, where they were hawking 1st Day Evidence... 

I had a heated exchange with Savage, because I felt that he was an LNer with  tunnel vision. He had an excellent source of inside information that Rusty had presented to him, but Savage refused to open his eyes and SEE what Rusty was attempting to do. 

As you've pointed out, Rusty told Gary Savage that the DPD had the photo  equipment and photographic expertise  to create fake BY photos that would be nearly impossible to detect the fakery.  I'll have to review 1st Day Evidence , but I believe Rusty was primarily focused on 133c.

[Walt Cakebread]

FWIW, the HSCA determined that the blow up of 133a came from the original negative. Since this negative was never handed over to the WC, this means the DPD "lost" this negative.

Or does it? The HSCA testimony off Robert Studebaker, which is now available on the Mary Ferrell website (thanks to some dweeb named...Pat Speer) indicates that Studebaker made numerous copies of the BY photos using a copy camera, and that the blow-up of 133a was in fact a photo of a photo. This, moreover, was also the position of DPD crime lab employee Rusty Livingstone in First Day Evidence.

If this is true, for that matter--that the blow up to 133A was in fact a photo of a photo--it means the photoanalysts for the HSCA couldn't tell a photo of a photo from a first generation print, which is to say they could not tell s from Shinola, and that their authentication of the BY photos is meaningless.

Hi Pat, I'm excited about your post....  You've opened the door to discussing information that came from Rusty Livingston, who, as I'm sure you know was a Dallas PD detective who was assigned to the crime scene search team at the time of the coup d e'tat.   IOW....Rusty Livingston was right there on the scene and knew what was transpiring.   Rusty presented valuable information that he had purloined from the DPD to his nephew Gary Savage.   Savage published some of that information in a book entitled JFK First Day Evidence....

I'd like to discuss just one small piece of evidence that Rusty presented to Savage and Savage published it on page 247 of his book, JFK 1st Day Evidence.   On page 247 there is a precise diagram of the sixth floor that Rusty Livingston created on 11 / 22/63.

Focusing on the NW corner of the TSBD you'll notice that Rusty has drawn a precise position for the place the carcano was found.   That location is 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall and about 2 feet from the west wall.  This is exactly where the carcano was found ON THE FLOOR beneath the end of a wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.   But his is NOT the location nor the position that the official in situ photos show it to be.   The in situ photos show the rifle standing upright ( the butt plate vertical with the bolt up and the magazine down)  and jammed between boxes of books that are tight against the roof support pillar.  ( the support that is approximately 12 feet from the west wall and 13 feet from the north wall,in the NW corner of the sixth floor.   

The diagram that Rusty presented to Savage clearly shows that the official in situ photos made by the DPD are FAKES...They are NOT photos of the rifle that were taken before the rifle was picked up FROM THE FLOOR by Lt Day.