Back Yard Photography

Ed. Ledoux wrote:This is a bit from interwebs that should be  recognizable.,

Quote: "My investigation has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zapruder never stopped his camera at that point, as he repeatedly told people , and that the film was cut and optically reframed so that there is no splice. Optical reframing is the method used when a film receives " special effects" or is altered. As is explained in my book on the film, "The Hoax of the Century", there are no flash frames or evidence of "first frame over exposure" at Z-133, the transition from the three motorcycles leading the motorcade to the limousine, and it is a jump cut. I have interviewed a leading film expert in the world as well as the inventors of the camera who were trying to prevent such flash frames, and it is a certainty that the camera always produced them when it was stopped and then restarted .We do not see them at this crucial transition from one scene to another in the film.

It is reasonable that there was another person operating a camera close by Zapruder with essentially the same perspective, perhaps in the "pill box" just behind Zapruder in the pergola. This film was the one that was flown to Kodak in Rochester N.Y, as testimony indicates, altered, and Zapruder's film disappeared later on. During the massive shell game that was played with Zapruder's film before it was developed in Dallas. the other film was already in the air. Or, as I elsewhere suggested, it was being developed in either the Hester�s lab, or in a mobil film lab somewhere�. Off Quote. 

Marilyn Sitzman, Charles and Beatrice Hester were filmed by Abraham Zapruder shortly before the motorcade arrived�..the same Charles Hester owned �Commercial Photography���. 
A Robert and Pat Hester were part owners, along with Fritz and Helen Holland of a company called �The National Film Company��� 
The daughter of Robert & Pat Hester, Vicky Mayne who worked in the lab, of TNFC, told Harrison Livingstone that had actually developed numerous films and photographs, including photos taken of the President�s body at Parkland. ..upon which seeing, she threw up�She also mentioned that she helped develop the Zapruder film�. 

Below from �Killing The Truth� H.E Livingstone.. 

Vickie Mayne : Page 511

� Vickie Mayne was sixteen on the day that John Kennedy died. She helped
do the work in her parents film lab when the Secret Service brought in
all the photos, films, and the Zapruder film they had rounded up in
DealeyPlaza. She told me that she had seen the photographs of
Kennedy's body taken at ParklandHospital, a fact that no outsider was
aware of. She remembered this with great clarity because she threw up
upon seeing them. What else could make her throw up but pictures of a
dead body and terrible wounds?

Two couples owned the lab, the National Photo Company, and the Secret
Service supposedly allowed them to retain copies of all the pictures
they developed that day. If this is true, it would seem an unlikely
scenario that the Secret Service conspired to kill President Kennedy. 
Another interpretation is that the passing of copies to outside
witnesses was for their S.Ss own protection. Some of
the Secret Service agents had testified to other guns and the sounds of
pistols. They must have known it was a conspiracy, and their later
descriptions of the wounds were not in line with the Warren Commission
story.

In any event, the home of Vickie Mayne's parents burned down some time
later, and the treasure trove in it---if that is where it was----burned
with it. "There were hundreds and hundreds of rolls of film," she told
me.Mayne said the fire was determined to be arson. Healey told me
that he knew of the trove and that Mayne's parents had, had this
material. Vickie told me that her family still had the materials when
her mother died in June 1987.
Her parents were Robert and Pat (Edna) Hester. The other couple was
Fritz and Helen Holland, both deceased and leaving no children.�

I recall Sen(?) Gonzales had some info on pictures, his met a unknown fate... supposedly...
Spooks burning down the house to stop the pics.
Wild stuff. Great article Bart.
Cheers, Ed

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Mick,
Going in ...as in living there, or squatting there?
How would just anyone acquire the padlock key from Mr George., someone who made a spare jey, made a mold or impression of the key .... or picked the padlock.
Anyone recall any hasp for a padlock, or a padlock in any of the photos of Neely ????

Cheers, Ed

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Could photos be made in succession?
1- Backyard
2- The backyard with a person
3- The backyard with Lee's face on person.

Rather than one go with access to everything all at once, a progression.
Likewise those taking photo 1 or 2 may not be making 3.
I am generalizing the process, hopefully not being overly complicated or too simplistic.
Cheers
Ed

Jake Sykes wrote:I spent some time trying to find a photo of Gary Taylor. No luck. Wondered what body type he had and if it was similar to Lee. A couple of scenarios came to mind. One where he has Marina take the photos of himself modeling the weapons. Another where during his visit photographing June, he takes shots of the empty back yard  for future use if needed. With his film background and spooky connections, he might have been an operative working in this way.

It stands to reason he and Marina may have had relations. If so, that could have helped persuade her to come across with her testimony saying she took the photos of Lee, even though she knew not how an Imperial operated.

Gary Taylor: “Some of the baby's toys – a ball and something or other – were out there on this porch.”

Jake Sykes wrote:I spent some time trying to find a photo of Gary Taylor. No luck. Wondered what body type he had and if it was similar to Lee. A couple of scenarios came to mind. One where he has Marina take the photos of himself modeling the weapons. Another where during his visit photographing June, he takes shots of the empty back yard  for future use if needed. With his film background and spooky connections, he might have been an operative working in this way.

It stands to reason he and Marina may have had relations. If so, that could have helped persuade her to come across with her testimony saying she took the photos of Lee, even though she knew not how an Imperial operated.

Re: Back Yard Photography

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Brilliant Stan.
Translucent paint applied to a large format neg then all taken though the IR, to be traceable to LHO.... (eventually) 
Recreation photo has the indentation in leg shadow





Cheers 
Ed

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-01-04

Re: Back Yard Photography

To be exact the recreation photo indentation is caused by rifle.



The positioning of the leg is angled back.
Different from 133a
This shortens the length of legs shadow and minimized the area of knee.
Still to be fair 133a shows no indentation from rifle ...arrow straight edge (across terrain no less)
Cheers 
Ed

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-01-04

Re: Back Yard Photography

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-01-04

Re: Back Yard Photography

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-01-04

Re: Back Yard Photography

[size=20][size=16]Notes

[/size][/size]

1  501 Elm Street is the Dal-Tex Building. Since the two photos and their corresponding negatives were said to be found inside a “packet”, perhaps that packet had an identifier listing this address. Did the Dal-Tex building have a tenant in 1963 which could process photos in the fashion associated with the originally discovered backyard photos?


OF NOTE of the note by Jeff Carter 
Packet doesn't necessarily mean photo finishers packet it could be any kind of packet 
and the TSBD did have their address their
so until a better look at the packet and its address it is not proper to think a photo lab existed in the DALTEX and no photo labs or stores or photographers give a 501 Elm addy in the city directory

Cheers, Ed

PS
Why did HSCA let LIFE give them a print instead of a copy negative of their original copy negative of 133a 

PPS
Where the hell is their Original Copy Negative of 133a anyways

Stan Dane

Posts : 3458
Join date : 2013-09-02
Age : 66

• 
  
  
  
  
  

Re: Back Yard Photography

on Tue 14 May 2019, 1:56 pm

Ed. Ledoux wrote:

PS
Why did HSCA let LIFE give them a print instead of a copy negative of their original copy negative of 133a 

PPS
Where the hell is their Original Copy Negative of 133a anyways

It's almost as if...there was a conspiracy to commit/cover-up a crime.

In theory anyway.

Ed. Ledoux

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-01-04

• 
  
  
  
  
  

Re: Back Yard Photography

on Tue 14 May 2019, 11:01 pm
Yes especially when one looks at the evidence provided 





"Officer Kirk was tasked with providing the Committee an analysis of the forensic photography and photographic documentation of the JFK investigation. This included providing testimony to the Committee on Lee Harvey Oswald’s infamous “backyard photographs,” which many in the public had begun to think were fabricated. Through his work and testimony, Kirk and his team confirmed the authenticity of these photos.
Varying examples of the Lee Harvey Oswald’s infamous backyard photograph. Kirk made prints from the photograph’s original negative to present as part of his testimony. Collection of the National Law Enforcement Museum, 2015.2.3.
The archive includes copies of Kirk’s testimony to the HSCA with his hand written notes, as well as examples of some of the photographs he used to make his case."

Not so fast lawman.
Kirk actually did a poor job and his case is flimsy, unfounded and there is broken custody chains, with disparate testimony and statements. Legally Kirk should have been more discriminatory.
But when no checks or balances apply this is the end product.

Cheers, Ed

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 885
Join date : 2013-11-29
Age : 67
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

• 
  
  
  
  
  

Re: Back Yard Photography

on Wed 22 May 2019, 2:22 am
Either Ed or Bart (I believe) posted a link to a Jack White hour-long presentation on the BYPs and I watched the whole darned thing.

Very interesting as it seems he mentioned the problem with the shadows I noticed a couple of years back and while that one fact alone proves they were forgeries he decided to focus on two main discrepancies:

1 - the erroneous chin and the probability that it proves the same head was pasted on each photo, and

2 - the odd stance Oswald has in the photos... he claims no one can stand like that.

He mentions off-handedly the relation of the shadows on the ground and the fence as well as the erroneous proportions of the papers, the gun, and Oswald himself but seems to push all of that aside for the very nuanced evidence that he supports.

Why marginalize the most obvious sound undeniable scientific evidence and instead rely on the touchy-feely of the stance and the "face doesn't look right" claim. One was recently disproven by some jerk in a studio and the other relies far too heavily on whether of not the viewer can see the obvious artifacts in the manipulated photos - and not everyone can.

I prefer to leave the fuzzy logic and opinion-oriented crap off the table.

Makes me wonder why that was Jack's "best" argument.


_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - [size=10]Ignatz Verbotham[/size]

Mick Purdy wrote:We also have to note, that if we subscribe to the idea that that the figure in the BYP (Minus the face/head) was actually photographed standing in the backyard with the items in the figures hands then what do we make of the supposed claim of manipulated body shadows falling on the ground.

Why would the body's shadows on the ground need alteration if that person really did stand in the backyard at Neely St?

Jake Sykes wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:We also have to note, that if we subscribe to the idea that that the figure in the BYP (Minus the face/head) was actually photographed standing in the backyard with the items in the figures hands then what do we make of the supposed claim of manipulated body shadows falling on the ground.

Why would the body's shadows on the ground need alteration if that person really did stand in the backyard at Neely St?

It's true that if he had Marina take them, then the shadows needn't be altered. I threw it out here on the principle that until we know for sure, we should consider alternatives to our own theories. I do agree the evidence does suggest alteration of the shadows.

Mick Purdy wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:We also have to note, that if we subscribe to the idea that that the figure in the BYP (Minus the face/head) was actually photographed standing in the backyard with the items in the figures hands then what do we make of the supposed claim of manipulated body shadows falling on the ground.

Why would the body's shadows on the ground need alteration if that person really did stand in the backyard at Neely St?

It's true that if he had Marina take them, then the shadows needn't be altered. I threw it out here on the principle that until we know for sure, we should consider alternatives to our own theories. I do agree the evidence does suggest alteration of the shadows.

I think that's what does your head in Jake. For the life of me the figure (minus the face from the chin up) looks like it actually stood in the back yard at Neely Street. I've read all the arguments for shadow alteration/manipulation and I keep asking why if thats actually the figure standing in the backyard in the BYP.

I fail to see the cut out of any of the body or the weapons and the newspaper. It's got me stumped. Could it be they were that good at the post work we cannot detect the insertion of the Oswald figure into the Neely Street backyard on an empty frame of same.