JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on January 25, 2021, 05:01:23 AM
-
The allegation is that the DPD faked the backyard photo in order to incriminate Oswald. This is what Oswald stated while in custody.
However as the interview in which Oswald stated this was not recorded, and it was the DPD themselves that stated that Oswald made this allegation, why would the DPD (if they had faked the photo) acknowledge that Oswald made this claim? As the interview was not recorded, the DPD could simply pretend that Oswald never made this allegation. This would help cover up the fact that they faked the photo.
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.
The same goes with the plaster cast which found no nitrates on it suggesting that Oswald might not have fired a rifle that day. If they went to the effort of faking the backyard photo, why not place fake nitrates on the plaster cast to incriminate Oswald? Why admit that there was no nitrates on the plaster cast?
All this points in the direction that the backyard photos are genuine, just like Marina said so.
-
The allegation is that the DPD faked the backyard photo in order to incriminate Oswald. This is what Oswald stated while in custody.
However as the interview in which Oswald stated this was not recorded, and it was the DPD themselves that stated that Oswald made this allegation, why would the DPD (if they had faked the photo) acknowledge that Oswald made this claim? As the interview was not recorded, the DPD could simply pretend that Oswald never made this allegation. This would help cover up the fact that they faked the photo.
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.
The same goes with the plaster cast which found no nitrates on it suggesting that Oswald might not have fired a rifle that day. If they went to the effort of faking the backyard photo, why not place fake nitrates on the plaster cast to incriminate Oswald? Why admit that there was no nitrates on the plaster cast?
All this points in the direction that the backyard photos are genuine, just like Marina said so.
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.
PHOTO??.... Which photo??.... There are three PHOTOS plus the De M copy of CE 133-A.... WHICH photo did Lee say was a fake??
-
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.
PHOTO??.... Which photo??.... There are three PHOTOS plus the De M copy of CE 133-A.... WHICH photo did Lee say was a fake??
Well, the one he was shown. And by implication, as the issue he had with the photo was that he was holding a rifle, he was implying all other photos that show him holding the rifle are not real.
-
Well, the one he was shown. And by implication, as the issue he had with the photo was that he was holding a rifle, he was implying all other photos that show him holding the rifle are not real.
Well, the one he was shown.
Would that be the same one a FBI agent showed Michael Paine on Friday evening, despite the fact that the BY photos were not (offically) found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon?
-
Well, the one he was shown.
Would that be the same one a FBI agent showed Michael Paine on Friday evening, despite the fact that the BY photos were not (offically) found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon?
You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday might not be admissible as evidence for the expected court trial as they had been taken without a warrant and so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday and just pretended they found them on the Saturday in accordance with now having actually got a search warrant like they should have done in the first place?
-
You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday might not be admissible as evidence for the expected court trial as they had been taken without a warrant and so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday and just pretended they found them on the Saturday in accordance with now having actually got a search warrant like they should have done in the first place?
You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday
I wasn't aware that the FBI (if that's what you mean by "they") took any evidence from Ruth Paine's house on 11/22/63.
Whatever the reasoning behind it, the fact is that DPD officers, with the assistance of local law enforcement officers, searched the house first on Friday, after Ruth Paine gave them permission, and then they decided to search again, but with a warrant, on Saturday.
so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday [/b
It wasn't whitewashed from the record, at least not completely, because Michael Paine talked about having been shown one picture by an FBI agent on Friday evening in his testimony. In fact, the WC lawyer specifically asked him about it. Having said that, the official narrative is, however, that they were found during the second search, on Saturday afternoon. Yet another anomaly involving the evidence.
-
Well, the one he was shown. And by implication, as the issue he had with the photo was that he was holding a rifle, he was implying all other photos that show him holding the rifle are not real.
Are you aware that officially NONE of the photos had been found at the time Fritz showed Lee a BY photo at the noon interrogation on Saturday. It was about three hours AFTER that interrogation session that the DPD detectives allegedly officially discovered TWO BY photos in among Lee's possessions in the Paine's Garage. Those photos are CE 133 A & CE 133B.....So since they were found until AFTER that noon session..... They cannonot be the photo that Captain Fritz displayed to Lee Oswald.....Commonsense should prevail ...and you should know that Lee told Fritz the the phot had to have been what we know as 133C.... THAT"S the photo that Lee said was a fake......and we didn't know about that photo until Geneva White,( the widow of a Dallas cop) produced a copy of it several years after that Saturday interrogation session. Clearly the DPD had was 133c , and Lee scoffed at it and told them it was a fake. Lee KNEW it was a fake because he knew what the two photos that Marina had taken looked like. and so he could easily pronounce 133c as a fake. ( He autographed a couple of copies of CE 133A for his daughter June and George De,Morhenschildt ) When Lee immediately pronounced 133c to be a fake it alarmed Fritz, who thought there must be something very obvious that Lee saw in the photo that indicated that it was a fake ....so he ordered that photo hidden and kept away from the public.
-
You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday might not be admissible as evidence for the expected court trial as they had been taken without a warrant and so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday and just pretended they found them on the Saturday in accordance with now having actually got a search warrant like they should have done in the first place?
It was the DPD that carried all of the Oswald's possessions from the Paine's garage on Friday. ( Mike Paine was there to direct them ) And one of the items the cops took was Lee's Sea bag. And that Sea bag contained the BY photo (CE 133A). Do you really believe that they didn't find the photo until they took that sea bag back to the Paines garage so that it could be officially found after a search warrant had been issued.
-
You mean the FBI realized that the photos they took from the Paine house on the Friday
I wasn't aware that the FBI (if that's what you mean by "they") took any evidence from Ruth Paine's house on 11/22/63.
Whatever the reasoning behind it, the fact is that DPD officers, with the assistance of local law enforcement officers, searched the house first on Friday, after Ruth Paine gave them permission, and then they decided to search again, but with a warrant, on Saturday.
so they whitewashed from the record that they had shown them to Michael Paine on the Friday [/b
It wasn't whitewashed from the record, at least not completely, because Michael Paine talked about having been shown one picture by an FBI agent on Friday evening in his testimony. In fact, the WC lawyer specifically asked him about it. Having said that, the official narrative is, however, that they were found during the second search, on Saturday afternoon. Yet another anomaly involving the evidence.
It was Mike Paine who showed a BY photo to the authorities.....Not the reverse.
-
It was Mike Paine who showed a BY photo to the authorities.....Not the reverse.
How do you explain this, Walt?
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.
Mr. LIEBELER - By the what?
Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
-
Are you aware that officially NONE of the photos had been found at the time Fritz showed Lee a BY photo at the noon interrogation on Saturday. It was about three hours AFTER that interrogation session that the DPD detectives allegedly officially discovered TWO BY photos in among Lee's possessions in the Paine's Garage. Those photos are CE 133 A & CE 133B.....So since they were found until AFTER that noon session..... They cannonot be the photo that Captain Fritz displayed to Lee Oswald.....Commonsense should prevail ...and you should know that Lee told Fritz the the phot had to have been what we know as 133C.... THAT"S the photo that Lee said was a fake......and we didn't know about that photo until Geneva White,( the widow of a Dallas cop) produced a copy of it several years after that Saturday interrogation session. Clearly the DPD had was 133c , and Lee scoffed at it and told them it was a fake. Lee KNEW it was a fake because he knew what the two photos that Marina had taken looked like. and so he could easily pronounce 133c as a fake. ( He autographed a couple of copies of CE 133A for his daughter June and George De,Morhenschildt ) When Lee immediately pronounced 133c to be a fake it alarmed Fritz, who thought there must be something very obvious that Lee saw in the photo that indicated that it was a fake ....so he ordered that photo hidden and kept away from the public.
I wasn't aware. Is there a specific book where this is mentioned? Where are you getting this information?
-
I wasn't aware. Is there a specific book where this is mentioned? Where are you getting this information?
Do you have the Warren Report? Captain Will Fritz's memo starts on page 599. It's Fritz himself who spills the beans....on page 607 Fritz writes about the interrogation session that started at 12:35 pm on Saturday 11 / 23 / 63, and he writes about asking Lee about a back Yard Photo that the DPD has. BIG Problem.....Officially the authorities did not know about any BY photo until three hours AFTER this interrogation session.
-
Do you have the Warren Report? Captain Will Fritz's memo starts on page 599. It's Fritz himself who spills the beans....on page 607 Fritz writes about the interrogation session that started at 12:35 pm on Saturday 11 / 23 / 63, and he writes about asking Lee about a back Yard Photo that the DPD has. BIG Problem.....Officially the authorities did not know about any BY photo until three hours AFTER this interrogation session.
Ok. I'm assuming so this was covered up to hide the fact they had first taken the photo without an official search warrant.
-
Ok. I'm assuming so this was covered up to hide the fact they had first taken the photo without an official search warrant.
No you're assumption is not correct.....
Will Fritz and many of the senior officers at DPD were conspirators. Fritz knew about the BY photo before the murder of JFK. He knew it would be a key piece of evidence in the framing of the patsy after the murder. He may not have known that it was a fake photo, until Lee Oswald told him that he knew a bit about photography and the photo that Fritz was showing him was a fake.
This does NOT mean that CE 133A and CE 133B are fakes..... And I doubt that Lee was ever shown CE 133A and 133B at the DPD. He only saw 133c ( the Geneva White photo) when Fritz displayed it to him.
-
No you're assumption is not correct.....
Will Fritz and many of the senior officers at DPD were conspirators. Fritz knew about the BY photo before the murder of JFK. He knew it would be a key piece of evidence in the framing of the patsy after the murder. He may not have known that it was a fake photo, until Lee Oswald told him that he knew a bit about photography and the photo that Fritz was showing him was a fake.
This does NOT mean that CE 133A and CE 133B are fakes..... And I doubt that Lee was ever shown CE 133A and 133B at the DPD. He only saw 133c ( the Geneva White photo) when Fritz displayed it to him.
The police displayed a BY photo to Mary Bledsoe on Saturday 11-23-63.....
Mr. BALL - But, you looked at the pictures of Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Showed you the pictures of Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - The man down at the police station, he had a picture of him with a gun,
-
How do you explain this, Walt?
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.
Mr. LIEBELER - By the what?
Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
I see no problem.....When a person displays a photo as evidence , it's good police work to ask the person who is presenting the photo, what they know about the photo.....
Mike Paine presented the photo ( which i believe was the photo that Lee denounced as a fake, photo 133c) and the cops asked him where he had got the photo and what he knew about it.
They asked the same questions that Liebeler asked.
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.
Mr. LIEBELER - By the what?
Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address.
-
There is no paradox here. All the BY photos were real but the money shot, CE-133a, was different from the rest. Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons? Give me a break.
As it was, the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve LHO's face well enough and you couldn't read the headline on the commie lit. That's why they took other photos at the same time with a different camera with a better lens. It's one of those photos that became the infamous CE-133a. Without a doubt, that photo was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. There is no way in hell that you can alter the spherical aberration of a lens by slightly changing the POV or the distance from the camera. Note the differences in distortion between the Imperial Reflex camera and the camera that took the money shot CE-133a below. These photos were taken at approx. the same distance from the camera and nearly the same POV.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
These photos were not taken with the same camera, and being a photogrammetrist, I should know. This is why Oswald claimed the photo was a fake because his head had been enlarged and the shot was in focus with minimal spherical aberration. Oswald obviously did not have access to the photos that were taken with the other, higher quality camera and that CE-133a was planted with the rest to frame him as the patsy.
-
There is no paradox here. All the BY photos were real but the money shot, CE-133a, was different from the rest. Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons? Give me a break.
As it was, the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve LHO's face well enough and you couldn't read the headline on the commie lit. That's why they took other photos at the same time with a different camera with a better lens. It's one of those photos that became the infamous CE-133a. Without a doubt, that photo was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. There is no way in hell that you can alter the spherical aberration of a lens by slightly changing the POV or the distance from the camera. Note the differences in distortion between the Imperial Reflex camera and the camera that took the money shot CE-133a below. These photos were taken at approx. the same distance from the camera and nearly the same POV.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
These photos were not taken with the same camera, and being a photogrammetrist, I should know. This is why Oswald claimed the photo was a fake because his head had been enlarged and the shot was in focus with minimal spherical aberration. Oswald obviously did not have access to the photos that were taken with the other, higher quality camera and that CE-133a was planted with the rest to frame him as the patsy.
What you're saying is is that all the backyard photos were blurry (ie you could not read the headlines on the paper) and so someone faked one photo, CE-133a, so that the headlines of the papers could be read which were then made out to be communist newspapers.
But what difference do the newspaper headlines really make? Isn't the main thing that he is holding the assassination rifle? Who cares about the newspaper headlines.
-
What you're saying is is that all the backyard photos were blurry (ie you could not read the headlines on the paper) and so someone faked one photo, CE-133a, so that the headlines of the papers could be read which were then made out to be communist newspapers.
All the photos were taken at the same time with both cameras. They made a judgement call whether to include any non-Imperial Reflex shots in the mix, depending how the Imperial Reflex shots turned out.
But what difference do the newspaper headlines really make? Isn't the main thing that he is holding the assassination rifle? Who cares about the newspaper headlines.
Oswald was being sheep-dipped as a lone, rogue commie gunman, so as not to start any World Wars against the Commies. Hence the LN narrative throughout. IOWs, no conspiracy. Oswald was fully aware he was being set up as the patsy, but he was probably told by his handlers that he would be allowed to escape and given safe passage to Mexico. But he got double-crossed at the theater and the rest is history.
An interesting tidbit is that the wonky scope was left on the rifle so it would match the BYPs. But they forgot to sight it in, which is what any sharpshooter would have done prior to assassinating the POTUS.
-
There is no paradox here. All the BY photos were real but the money shot, CE-133a, was different from the rest. Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons? Give me a break.
As it was, the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve LHO's face well enough and you couldn't read the headline on the commie lit. That's why they took other photos at the same time with a different camera with a better lens. It's one of those photos that became the infamous CE-133a. Without a doubt, that photo was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. There is no way in hell that you can alter the spherical aberration of a lens by slightly changing the POV or the distance from the camera. Note the differences in distortion between the Imperial Reflex camera and the camera that took the money shot CE-133a below. These photos were taken at approx. the same distance from the camera and nearly the same POV.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
These photos were not taken with the same camera, and being a photogrammetrist, I should know. This is why Oswald claimed the photo was a fake because his head had been enlarged and the shot was in focus with minimal spherical aberration. Oswald obviously did not have access to the photos that were taken with the other, higher quality camera and that CE-133a was planted with the rest to frame him as the patsy.
Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons?
So you believe that the plot to kill JFK was in motion in February of 1963????
-
All the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald have been determined to be authentic.
-
The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo.
That's just what the DPD would want you to think!
-
That's just what the DPD would want you to think!
Mr Down's rebuttal doesn't make sense.....
Mr Down:..."The very fact that it was the DPD who admitted Oswald made this allegation is evidence against the idea that they faked the photo."
Perhaps he can explain ......
-
There is no paradox here. All the BY photos were real but the money shot, CE-133a, was different from the rest. Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons? Give me a break.
As it was, the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve LHO's face well enough and you couldn't read the headline on the commie lit. That's why they took other photos at the same time with a different camera with a better lens. It's one of those photos that became the infamous CE-133a. Without a doubt, that photo was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. There is no way in hell that you can alter the spherical aberration of a lens by slightly changing the POV or the distance from the camera. Note the differences in distortion between the Imperial Reflex camera and the camera that took the money shot CE-133a below. These photos were taken at approx. the same distance from the camera and nearly the same POV.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
These photos were not taken with the same camera, and being a photogrammetrist, I should know. This is why Oswald claimed the photo was a fake because his head had been enlarged and the shot was in focus with minimal spherical aberration. Oswald obviously did not have access to the photos that were taken with the other, higher quality camera and that CE-133a was planted with the rest to frame him as the patsy.
A very interesting take, Mr Trojan!
-
All the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald have been determined to be authentic.
What does "authentic" mean and who determined that? Unfortunately, a photo-analyst can't tell you whether you are looking at a picture of a picture that has been modified. So how can authenticity be established and what does it mean?
Roscoe White was the mastermind behind the BYPs. He had real darkroom skills and he was Photoshopping prints with film enlargers and taking pictures of edited prints. His wife Geneva even found an undocumented BYP in his garage after he died. This photo was designated CE 133-c and matched a cutout which was also found in Roscoe's possession.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/ce133c_cutout.jpg)
As far as I'm concerned CE 133-c is the smoking gun proving Roscoe White was an integral part in Oswald's sheep-dipping. There is no other reason for Roscoe to have an undocumented BYP and a matching cutout from another shot of Oswald's backyard in his possession. Maybe a LNer can enlighten me.
Did you know that Roscoe White was in the same military division as Lee Harvey Oswald, the 1st Marine Air Wing? Roscoe's wife Geneva swears he and Oswald were friends. He was also good friends with Jack Ruby. In the fall of 1963 Geneva worked for a few weeks as a hostess in Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. Roscoe even confessed to his involvement in the Big Event in his journal which his son Ricky claimed was confiscated by the FBI.
To prove the BYPs are all authentic, you need to examine their negatives, of which only 2 exist. But why were they cut from the reel? So you couldn't determine whether they came from the same reel, of course.
-
To prove the BYPs are all authentic, you need to examine their negatives, of which only 2 exist.
Which two?
-
There is no paradox here. All the BY photos were real but the money shot, CE-133a, was different from the rest. Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons? Give me a break.
As it was, the photos taken with the Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve LHO's face well enough and you couldn't read the headline on the commie lit. That's why they took other photos at the same time with a different camera with a better lens. It's one of those photos that became the infamous CE-133a. Without a doubt, that photo was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. There is no way in hell that you can alter the spherical aberration of a lens by slightly changing the POV or the distance from the camera. Note the differences in distortion between the Imperial Reflex camera and the camera that took the money shot CE-133a below. These photos were taken at approx. the same distance from the camera and nearly the same POV.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
These photos were not taken with the same camera, and being a photogrammetrist, I should know. This is why Oswald claimed the photo was a fake because his head had been enlarged and the shot was in focus with minimal spherical aberration. Oswald obviously did not have access to the photos that were taken with the other, higher quality camera and that CE-133a was planted with the rest to frame him as the patsy.
Geeeez...I wish I could accept your self accreditation, Mr T.......
-
Geeeez...I wish I could accept your self accreditation, Mr T.......
I wish I could believe that you actually own a MC, but alas.
Which two?
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.
-
So only one negative still exists, right?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oswald knew he was being sheep-dipped as the patsy, which is why the BY photos exist at all. I mean come on, the assassin poses for >7 photos (Marina only recalled taking 1) holding commie lit and both murder weapons?
So you believe that the plot to kill JFK was in motion in February of 1963????
On November 28, 1961, Kennedy presented Allen Dulles with the National Security Medal at the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The next day, November 29, the White House released a resignation letter signed by Dulles and he was replaced by John McCone. Allen "The Architect of the Big Event" Dulles, did not go quietly into the night. His best bud, and chief of CIA Counterintelligence, James "The Ghost" Angleton plucked Oswald from the fake defector program to be the designated patsy and blackmailed J. Edgar "The Original Don" Hoover with a salacious photo to bring him into the fold. Eventually, they got Johnson's go-ahead and pulled off the greatest coup d'etat of all time. And as sloppy as they were, they almost got away with it scot-free, thanks to the WC Defenders a.k.a. the LNers, who put tinfoil hats on all the CTs to discredit them because, in spite of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, they truly believe a lone nut gunman pulled off the Big Event and there was no conspiracy.
-
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.
Interesting. Yes, the HSCA photoanalysts were only looking for darkroom editing applied directly to the print. They were oblivious to whether they were looking at a photo of a photo. You can edit a photo and it will match the negative exactly as well. The only way to determine a photo is not authentic is if its print does not match the negative. But what about a photo of a photo? For that you have to match all the negatives to the same reel. In this case, we only have 1 negative and it was cut from the reel. The negative for the money shot 133a is missing because the DPD knows it is the smoking gun that would prove it was not taken with the same camera as the rest. If we had that negative, the DPD would have some splainin' to do. They have a lot more splainin' to do re the timeline of the development of the pics and who wound up getting copies of them as well as their re-enactments in Oswald's backyard. I mean, come on.
You can reach no other conclusion other than the DPD was heavily involved in sheep-dipping Oswald and planting all the evidence for the assassination. They controlled every aspect of the event from discovering all the evidence to sheep-dipping, capturing, interrogating and murdering Oswald. Fritz had either suddenly become a total incompetent investigator or a conspirator. There is no middle ground. Between their involvement with the BYPs, their handling of the crime scene evidence and their murdering of Oswald, I don't know how anyone could still think they were not involved in the conspiracy. Hoover recruited the DPD and SS for their parts. The FBI were the "cleaners" who confiscated all the film and photos and put the squeeze on witnesses, "You saw nuthin', see". They locked up all the evidence/documentation until all the conspirators were good and dead, then slid Johnson into place and it was bidness as usual. A coup d'etat checkmate!
-
On November 28, 1961, Kennedy presented Allen Dulles with the National Security Medal at the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The next day, November 29, the White House released a resignation letter signed by Dulles and he was replaced by John McCone. Allen "The Architect of the Big Event" Dulles, did not go quietly into the night. His best bud, and chief of CIA Counterintelligence, James "The Ghost" Angleton plucked Oswald from the fake defector program to be the designated patsy and blackmailed J. Edgar "The Original Don" Hoover with a salacious photo to bring him into the fold. Eventually, they got Johnson's go-ahead and pulled off the greatest coup d'etat of all time. And as sloppy as they were, they almost got away with it scot-free, thanks to the WC Defenders a.k.a. the LNers, who put tinfoil hats on all the CTs to discredit them because, in spite of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, they truly believe a lone nut gunman pulled off the Big Event and there was no conspiracy.
You've got a interesting tale there Mr Trojan.....But do you really believe that a huge conspiracy plot to murder the President of he US could have remained secret for two years?
-
Keep it secret for 58 years, you mean?
-
Keep it secret for 58 years, you mean?
Refusing to accept the obvious truth is not exactly the same as keeping something a secret.....
Example.... If I knew beyond a shadow of doubt that my mother had been one of Charlie Manson's whores, because she had been seen and filmed with Manson, .....and Charlie was my father,....I quite naturally would deny that fact....
But if someone were bent on exposing the facts, and presented the films and DNA evidence ..... I could not deny the obvious.
The same idea can be applied to the murder of JFK.... Simply because many folks will not accept that we have allowed a murderer to intrude into the most esteemed position in our government, and bask in the glow of the White house ...does not alter the facts. It's simply a matter of being honest with ones self and accepting harsh reality.
-
My approach is to reverse engineer the Big Event since there is enough evidence for me to conclude this was a conspiracy and Oswald was the patsy. That is my starting premise and I work backwards to make the tale fit the evidence. A coup always happens from within, by those who have the motives and wherewithal to make it happen. Only the top men could have pulled this off and kept it a secret. But you only need a hand full of people to make it work if their marching orders come from the very top. Besides who would believe them if they spilled the beans? Perhaps those that tried are swimming with the fishes.
Why doesn't anyone believe E. Howard Hunt's confession, or James Files, or Roscoe White? Is it because Allen Dulles, James Angleton, J. Edgar Hoover, and Lyndon Johnson were saints and would never participate in a coup d'etat, unless the POTUS really had it coming? Richard Nixon thought they were animals capable of anything. He knew.
-
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.
The in situ photos taken by the DPD, 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 official instu photo that was created by the DPD was taken at night..... and the photo shows that the rifle is 13 feet from the north wall and 10 feet from the west wall. Rusty Livingston' s diagram on page 247 places the rifle at 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall and about 2 feet from the west wall. There was a window in the west wall directly to the west of the rifle and the sun was shinig in that window so the area was bathed in bright sunlight, and yet Deputy Boone didn't see the rifle until he moved a box from above and shined his flashlight down into the cavern where the rifle lay on the floor.
The crux of this information is the fact that the rifle was too far away from the E/W aisle at the top of the stars to allow Lee Oswald to reach across and place the rifle where Rusty has shown it to be. That rifle was placed there BEFORE the shooting....
-
What does "authentic" mean and who determined that? Unfortunately, a photo-analyst can't tell you whether you are looking at a picture of a picture that has been modified. So how can authenticity be established and what does it mean?
Roscoe White was the mastermind behind the BYPs. He had real darkroom skills and he was Photoshopping prints with film enlargers and taking pictures of edited prints. His wife Geneva even found an undocumented BYP in his garage after he died. This photo was designated CE 133-c and matched a cutout which was also found in Roscoe's possession.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/ce133c_cutout.jpg)
As far as I'm concerned CE 133-c is the smoking gun proving Roscoe White was an integral part in Oswald's sheep-dipping. There is no other reason for Roscoe to have an undocumented BYP and a matching cutout from another shot of Oswald's backyard in his possession. Maybe a LNer can enlighten me.
Did you know that Roscoe White was in the same military division as Lee Harvey Oswald, the 1st Marine Air Wing? Roscoe's wife Geneva swears he and Oswald were friends. He was also good friends with Jack Ruby. In the fall of 1963 Geneva worked for a few weeks as a hostess in Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. Roscoe even confessed to his involvement in the Big Event in his journal which his son Ricky claimed was confiscated by the FBI.
To prove the BYPs are all authentic, you need to examine their negatives, of which only 2 exist. But why were they cut from the reel? So you couldn't determine whether they came from the same reel, of course.
Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.
-
Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.
Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.
But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.
-
Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.
But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.
Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A & 133c
-
Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A & 133c
What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!
-
Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.
But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.
Yes, I was replying to your previous post.
There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.
-
What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!
Yes, I agree Mr T.... and I believe that 133c is the photo that Fritz displayed to Lee on Saturday 11/23/63. And We know that the DPD were "experimenting" with 133c...... Someone 25-30 years ago made the point that the DPD had a BY photo that had the figure of " Lee Oswald " cut out of it .....and that photo was the one that had the figure in the pose seen in 133c.
The DPD explained that they had gone to the Neeley street address to take some photos and attempt to verify that that was the site where the BY photos ( CE 133A & B ) were taken. At that time just days after the coup d e'tat, nobody knew about 133c, and yet the DPD used the pose of the figure in 133c. Proof that the DPD had 133c and were doing "something" with it ( perhaps creating a photo that shows Lee Oswald with the alleged murder weapon) The fact that Rusty Livingston had a copy of 133c verifies Ricky Whites ( Ricky was Roscoe Whites' son )claim that the DPD had 133c and created it to frame Lee Oswald.
-
Yes, I was replying to your previous post.
There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.
Dartmouth probably had a respectable team of forensic photo analysts looking at the photo(s), however, being a photogrammetrist myself, I know the limitations they faced with 3D modelling. The algorithms can only detect a sloppy job and can only identify content that doesn't fit the model. But they can't detect any superimpositions if the scaling, color, composition and resolution are accurate. The absence of mistakes doesn't make it authentic. So take Dartmouth's analysis with a grain of salt because they were only looking for obvious signs of editing. Not a useless analysis, but inconclusive at best, otherwise, incomplete. You need the negatives to authenticate anything. And even then.
That said, I buy their conclusions that the photos weren't edited because they didn't need to be. People assume they were edited because of the gross differences between 133a and 133b. Oswald's head becomes enormous and in focus. Dartmouth must have concluded that Oswald's head was outside the "sweet spot" of the lens for all shots except for 133a, which accounted for the distortion. What they should have done was compare the spherical aberration for all the photos and look for anomalies. It would soon become apparent that 133a stands out like a sore thumb and does not match the others. Why didn't Dartmouth investigate whether all the photos where shot with the same camera/lens and analyse the negative for 133a? Oh, right, the DPD (cough, cough) lost it along with all the others. If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.
-
Farid from Dartmouth told me via email that he only studied One (1) of the photos. Note not PHOTOS (plural)
-
Dartmouth probably had a respectable team of forensic photo analysts looking at the photo(s), however, being a photogrammetrist myself, I know the limitations they faced with 3D modelling. The algorithms can only detect a sloppy job and can only identify content that doesn't fit the model. But they can't detect any superimpositions if the scaling, color, composition and resolution are accurate. The absence of mistakes doesn't make it authentic. So take Dartmouth's analysis with a grain of salt because they were only looking for obvious signs of editing. Not a useless analysis, but inconclusive at best, otherwise, incomplete. You need the negatives to authenticate anything. And even then.
That said, I buy their conclusions that the photos weren't edited because they didn't need to be. People assume they were edited because of the gross differences between 133a and 133b. Oswald's head becomes enormous and in focus. Dartmouth must have concluded that Oswald's head was outside the "sweet spot" of the lens for all shots except for 133a, which accounted for the distortion. What they should have done was compare the spherical aberration for all the photos and look for anomalies. It would soon become apparent that 133a stands out like a sore thumb and does not match the others. Why didn't Dartmouth investigate whether all the photos where shot with the same camera/lens and analyse the negative for 133a? Oh, right, the DPD (cough, cough) lost it along with all the others. If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.
If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.
Yes, I think you're right, the BY photos implicate the DPD....and are more incriminating to the DPD than they are to Lee Oswald.
Perhaps that's why they were hidden from us "pissants" ( as LBJ called us) until after the the big lie had been widely accepted by us suckers.
The vast majority of the public still believe that the BY photos are proof that Lee Oswald was guilty. But when they are viewed in the light that they are simply ridiculous renditions like "carnival fakes" that depict a subject as being jail bird in black and white stripes, and a ball and chain around an ankle, then one can understand what Lee was referring to when he scoffed at the BY photo that Fritz showed him.
-
Here are some facts about the 133c cutout images.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. So when we see Lt Brown doing the 133c pose in the Dallas PD backyard photo recreations it is no mystery. White was tasked to take those Dallas PD backyard photos and had is copy of 133c at the time.
I don't know how 133c fell through the cracks after Stovell and White got their copies but it never made it into evidence. Maybe that is nefarious but the other issues surrounding 133c are explainable.
The cut out image I believe was found with the contents of White's desk or as part of his work stuff. He was tasked with testing Oswald's claims by trying to duplicate the BY photo. The claim has been that the cutout was a pre assassination test run at faking a photo to set up Oswald. but the background in both the cutout images are from the Dallas PD re creaction photos taken after the assassination. The shadows on the bottom of the back door are an exact match for two of the Dallas PD photos. Also the Dallas PD photos were taken from a couple feet to the left and from much lower like 18 inches.
One interesting thing about those cutout images is they were a sloppy failed attempt. White uses a cutout image from 133a and located the cutout so the head would align at the same place as 133c relative to the roof line in the background. The problem though, is the camera for the Dallas PD photos is much lower and lowered the roof line relative to the stairway post next to Oswald. This caused the cutouts feet to land at a place much lower in the frame. Lower ground is closer ground in the 2d photo and now Oswald's feet appear much closer to the camera. This means he should appear much larger but the cutout was sized to the background to match Oswald in 133c.
This not only makes him too small for reality it messes up the perspective. As you get closer to the camera your image size increases as you feet grow down and your head grows upward. But in the case of the cutout the feet grew down but the head moved down too, the image of Oswald did not grow.
So with those obvious mistakes it is understandable that White also rotated the cutout too far to the left. Although it is interesting that 133a seems to also be rotated too far left.
-
Here are some facts about the 133c cutout images.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. So when we see Lt Brown doing the 133c pose in the Dallas PD backyard photo recreations it is no mystery. White was tasked to take those Dallas PD backyard photos and had is copy of 133c at the time.
I don't know how 133c fell through the cracks after Stovell and White got their copies but it never made it into evidence. Maybe that is nefarious but the other issues surrounding 133c are explainable.
The cut out image I believe was found with the contents of White's desk or as part of his work stuff. He was tasked with testing Oswald's claims by trying to duplicate the BY photo. The claim has been that the cutout was a pre assassination test run at faking a photo to set up Oswald. but the background in both the cutout images are from the Dallas PD re creaction photos taken after the assassination. The shadows on the bottom of the back door are an exact match for two of the Dallas PD photos. Also the Dallas PD photos were taken from a couple feet to the left and from much lower like 18 inches.
One interesting thing about those cutout images is they were a sloppy failed attempt. White uses a cutout image from 133a and located the cutout so the head would align at the same place as 133c relative to the roof line in the background. The problem though, is the camera for the Dallas PD photos is much lower and lowered the roof line relative to the stairway post next to Oswald. This caused the cutouts feet to land at a place much lower in the frame. Lower ground is closer ground in the 2d photo and now Oswald's feet appear much closer to the camera. This means he should appear much larger but the cutout was sized to the background to match Oswald in 133c.
This not only makes him too small for reality it messes up the perspective. As you get closer to the camera your image size increases as you feet grow down and your head grows upward. But in the case of the cutout the feet grew down but the head moved down too, the image of Oswald did not grow.
So with those obvious mistakes it is understandable that White also rotated the cutout too far to the left. Although it is interesting that 133a seems to also be rotated too far left.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. ( And Detective Rusty Livingston also had a copy of 133c) He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day.
133C did not surface until many years later.... Do you have solid evidence that the DPD had 133c on 11/23/63? I believe that Fritz had 133c BEFORE 11/22/63........
Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. Huh? She was married to both of them?
-
To be precise, Dartmouth University didn't do the analysis. Hany Farid, who happens to be a faculty member at Dartmouth, did the analysis. As far as I know, he only looked at a print of CE 133A.
-
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).
The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.
The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.
Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.
One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.
Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.
-
Do you have solid evidence that the DPD had 133c on 11/23/63? I believe that Fritz had 133c BEFORE 11/22/63........
Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. Huh? She was married to both of them?
[/quote]
No there is no solid evidence that the Dallas PD had the photos. There is just the testimony of Stovall who said they had copies made that day. Still the image went missing at some point and I guess that would have been after they made copies and before things were entered into evidence. The only other thing we know is that Roscoe White used 133c to do the Dallas PD backyard photograph of Lieutenant Brown and he used 133c to make his cut out image.
I should have said " Stovall, and Roscoe whites wife". One missing comma and the meaning totally changes.
The point I really wanted to make was that the cut out images cannot be evidence that they were working on fabricating the backyard pictures prior to 11 22 63 since the background for the cut-out photos are the Dallas PD backyard recreations.
-
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).
The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.
The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.
Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.
One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.
Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.
I have a question about stereoscopic viewing. If you photograph the same objects from slightly different directions they will appear in a 3D fashion when viewed through a stereoscopic viewer. I could see how that works for the background because it's in the exact same position from two slightly different viewpoints. What I don't get is how that could apply to Oswald himself because he is in different positions for each photograph. I thought they were only verifying the backgrounds of the backyard photographs?