Back Yard Photography

First topic message reminder :



The Most Incriminated Man In the World. 


All fun aside the new CTKA article was pointed out by Bart.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP4.html

One point made was, 
30) If the backyard photos were faked, it means that all items within the photo were deliberately chosen by the forgers. The odd inclusion on the Oswald figure is then the pistol. It invokes the Tippit slaying, but how could the Tippit slaying be anticipated months ahead? Perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated event.


Was slaying of Tippit with an automatic pistol changed to match the picture of a revolver. More likely they knew LHO had purchased a pistol in Fort Worth.  

Or were the photos composited onto an empty backyard photo after Tippits murder thus the need for a pistol wearing murderer.





When you examine the photos the shadows under the stairs do not change yet the shadow of LHO does, denoting time between images.
This would lend credence to Oswald's being composited onto a single image. See images below.



Again the stairs shadow is the same, note its appearance on the blanket etc. yet the "oswald" shadow has changed implying time between photos.

In fact the shadow of the rifle is at a different angle than the holder of rifle in second pose.

Of note is the bag or sack, or "blanket" possibly used to carry the rifle to the location, under the stairs by the post. Possibly a connection to the baby blanket later claimed to hold a disassembled rifle. 



In this image is a black 'thing' sticking out of the fence known as the black dog nose. It is likely light leak from the compositing process.


No black sports shirt with two white buttons was not on clothing inventory of LHO.

Do the black pants look like dress pants or more like work pants?


Do you think these are black dress pants?  


Please respond to the questions raised first, then we can expand the post to other areas of the BYPs.

Cheers, Ed

Great Docs Barto!
Full pages are here
[url=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI Records Files/62-109060/62-109060 Section 51/Section 51G.pdf]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/62-109060/62-109060%20Section%2051/Section%2051G.pdf[/url]


I think it is AMAZING that Mr. Schod (Assistant Attorney General of Time Corp) said "Life" magazine did not have the photograph they originally purchased.... 
and yet Schod said they will be suing The Detroit Free Press for their publishing of the "same" photo also supposedly obtained from an enterprising DPD employee.
Would have made an eye opening legal debate!!!
Where did you get the pic?
Why don't you have the pic you published and purchased?

I smell a large dead rat trying to pass off a bogus photo to incriminate Lee.... and a CYA operation ensued.
No lawsuit was filed I am aware of.

Cheers, Ed

Is it just me, or does the staircase post that Oswald allegedly stood next to look awfully short in this screen shot of the 214 W. Neely St. Backyard?

The vertical staircase post has remained at the third step up from the vertical rail post on the staircase since the BYP's were taken. As near as I can tell that hasn't altered over the years. 

After looking at the contemporary photos available online of Neely St. and the photos take back in 1963 and closely examining the vertical post on the staircase where Oswald stood next to, I have come to the conclusion that whoever took the BYP's may have done so either seated or knelt down slightly or alternatively had the camera on a very small tripod. How tall I wonder was Gary Taylor?

My opinion is that the photographs were taken with the camera closer to the ground and slightly tilted upward. This would explain the appearance at least to my eye why the vertical post seems quite tall as does the figure in the BYP.

If you look at the contemporary snaps of the yard in relation to the vertical post supporting the stair case those photos appear to have all been take with a camera held at a position to the eye while the person was standing. From this perspective it is my opinion that this more truly reflects the size of the vertical post. This is in line with the notion that the figure in the BYP is shorter than Oswald's height of 5' 9" tall.




Note the Police B/W re-enactment photo of the back yard is taken lower to the ground trying to replicate the BYP camera position.

Where as in any of the contemporary photos of the yard where the camera person has been standing while taking the photo the perspective of the whole stair case and back wall changes enormously.

Marina Oswald reported to be 5' 3" tall. If she held the Imperial reflex camera while standing at waist height then that would explain the low angle of the BYP was achieved and the tilt of the camera too. Or if it was someone taller and wanted to make it look like Marina had taken the pics they probably would have knelt on knees or possibly seated.

Mick, I agree with your observations. I don't know that this is particularly helpful but by way of further notes, the post in the old photos is constructed of two, back to back 2x4 boards. You can make out the joint between them running vertically. This provides a reference dimension of 1 1/2 inches for the edge dimension of one of the boards. The post is at an angle to the camera so a slight amount of foreshortening is occurring. In later photos, the double 2x4 post has been replaced with a single 4x4 and bracing added. It's a poor job as the post is not plumb. This opens the possibility that the post was moved, but as you say, all indications are that it was not.

For what it's worth.

Jake wondering if I could PM, DM / email to discuss some of the details above.

TIA Cheers Mick

Key Persons of interest. RE: BYP's and who might have taken them.

Robert Oswald.

Ruth Paine.

Ralph K Johnson.

Sigmund Andrews.

Sure Mick. Feel free.

Det. Brown was instructed how to pose by Sorrels of the Secret Service for this re-enactment photo session of the BYP Late November 1963.


Officially though the BYP Exhibit 133C was not discovered til 1967.


How did Sorrels know to request Brown to pose in exactly the same position as we see in CE 133C if it hadn't been discovered yet?




From the files of the DPD.

214 W. Neely Street, November 29 1963

A bit of assistance may be in the shadows, angles and knowns.
Ed

Are there any decent copies of these photos about?

Has anyone here at ROKC nailed down the sequential order that the BYP's were taken. I'm talking proof solid. Does the Powerline shadow give us this information?

Maybe Terry, Jake or Stan would know?

Mick, as the shadows go up the post, it gets later in the day. We're only talking minutes later, but later nonetheless. When I study the bottom shadow of the three power line shadows and look at it in relation to that wadded up fabric or whatever it is at the bottom left of the post, I see the bottom edge of that shadow going from just below the top of the wad of fabric, to about even with it, to above it. The correlating photos are 133 C, B, and A. So as I see it, C came first, then B, then A.

Jake Sykes wrote:Mick, as the shadows go up the post, it gets later in the day. We're only talking minutes later, but later nonetheless. When I study the bottom shadow of the three power line shadows and look at it in relation to that wadded up fabric or whatever it is at the bottom left of the post, I see the bottom edge of that shadow going from just below the top of the wad of fabric, to about even with it, to above it. The correlating photos are 133 C, B, and A. So as I see it, C came first, then B, then A.

Thanks Jake. 

From memory (possibly failing me) the WC pegged the pics in order of 133B (133C was not available to them) and then 133A
I think the comment was that Marina took 133B first and then the clearer better 133A as she had honed her skills by the second shot or some such nonsense.

The power line shadows at least to my mind would be genuine. So yes they are very good guide to timeline the sequential order in which the photos were taken.

Sending out for help. Is there a decent copy of this DEM 133-A Exhibit anywhere?

This Imperial Reflex camera does not appear in the inventories of Oswald’s possessions seized by the Dallas Police at the Paine address in Irving and the North Beckley room in the Dallas neighbourhood of Oak Cliff. Investigations determined that Oswald owned a “Russian camera” and an “American camera”. A Russian-made Cuera-2 camera appeared in the inventories, as did an American-made camera called a Stereo Realist. The Imperial Reflex camera only came to light, in the possession of Robert Oswald, about three months after the assassination and presumably after it had been determined that the Stereo Realist camera could not be linked with the backyard photos.

Jeff Carter

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3


So if Oswald was telling the truth about his face having been superimposed over the head of another in the Backyard photographs and I certainly believe he was then those pictures were most likely taken at 214 Neely Street either in late March or early September 1963. Depending on the background foliage comparisons. What is clear is that fact that the people involved who took these photos did not have to know at least at the time when the photos were taken that Oswald was to be involved in the post manipulation of the prints. That knowledge could have easily have come later.

What we do have with the provenance of the photos is what can only be described as a mess. But in my opinion not unsolvable.
As stated here before now and so clearly set out in Jeff Carter's 5 part series on the BYP's is the fact that the DPD most certainly had prints of 133A and 133B on either Friday evening or sometime Saturday before 4.30pm.

The DPD ID section has Rose report that they had 2 negatives of Oswald holding the rifle with a scope. That report was submitted on the 23rd. 


So the DPD had to have had the 133A neg on either Friday late evening as some suggest or even as late as late afternoon on Saturday. This is supported by the fact that the 10"x 8" CE 134  print enlargement of 133A  (known as CE 134) was shown to Lee Oswald by Fritz sometime between Friday evening and Saturday evening. I'm convinced Fritz had a 133A negative on either Friday or Saturday because that is how he and others at the DPD would have been able to produce the high quality 8"x10" enlargement to show Oswald. That we can be confident of.




So where did the 133A negative go? It's claimed by the findings of the HSCA as not recovered.
133A neg could have ended up with Time Life corp. If the DPD ID paperwork is correct and the neg was discovered at the search of the Paine's house on either Friday or Saturday then some body from within the force may have handed that over along with prints to Time Life. (Speculation)





The two photographs we see in the archives both 133A and 133B -the 3"x3" prints with the white borders were printed at least it's speculated by the HSCA that they were printed by a commercial photofinisher, one most likely found at a camera store, a drug store or some such. At a place which mass produced photographs for the general public. 

But the DEM 133A discovered many years later by DeMohrenschildt's wife was definitely processed at a much more sophisticated lab. At least according to most photo experts and the HSCA. That explains the better quality and higher resolution which people who have seen the print confirm. That print also shows more of the area of the original negative, hence the black borders and the more expansive background foreground area. This photograph it is claimed was printed and produced by someone with very good photographic skills and by someone who had access to sophisticated photographic equipment.

Stovall's copies can be explained but there are questions which remain, such as where might Shaneyfelt's test prints from the IR camera be located, the ones claimed to match the camera to the backyard photos. If both negatives were in existence either Friday or Saturday then why do we not see the original positive print from negative 133A anywhere in the archives? Uncropped to the edges like we see in DEM 133A. Could that be because Time Life hid that from public view?


Possibly a positive prints from the original 133B negative discovered at Ruth Pain'es house. Is this one of Shaneyfelt's test prints from the Imperial reflex camera?

And this too from Shaneyfelt:



The HSCA findings and Shaneyfelt's own conclusions reveal the following:

Indeed, both the FBI’s Shaneyfelt in 1964 and the HSCA panel in 1978 concede that a determined skillful forger with access to high quality equipment and then also to the Imperial Reflex camera in evidence, could have faked the backyard photos. Therefore, a categorical assertion of “authenticity” is not possible, and that someone may have superimposed Oswald’s face onto another man’s body cannot be ruled out.  


https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3


What is extremely intriguing at least to me is the fact that Gary Taylor and his photographic associate Ralph K Johnson., Taylor's then wife and daughter of George DeMohrenschildt or even his wife can all be connected in some way to the 133A DEM print. 
Taylor we know visited Marina once or twice at Neely St when Oswald was not present. His photographic associate had access to commercial photographic equipment and would have been experienced in a darkroom. 

Gary Taylor, his wife Alexandra DeMohrenschildt, Ralph Johnson (the commercial photographer and Taylor's associate), George DeMohrenschildt, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, (George's wife), Marina Oswald. Ruth Paine and Robert Oswald are all intrinsically linked in some way or another to the Imperial Reflex camera, the address 214 Neely Street, all having known one another, and the backyard photographs.

The Imperial Reflex camera only came to light, in the possession of Robert Oswald, about three months after the assassination and presumably after it had been determined that the Stereo Realist camera could not be linked with the backyard photos.

Jeff Carter: 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

2/24/64

“ROBERT LEE OSWALD made available a Duo-Lens Imperial Reflex camera made in the United States of America. It is aluminum colored ... ROBERT OSWALD advised that in about 1957, LEE HARVEY OSWALD purchased a camera at about the time he first went into the U.S. Marine Corps ... About 1959 ... he left this camera with ROBERT at Fort Worth, Texas. In about August 1962 ... LEE HARVEY OSWALD regained possession of this camera from ROBERT.”

(CE2557)

Jeff Carter.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

Robert Oswald volunteered the Imperial reflex camera only after Marina had stayed at his home for about 4 days sometime between the 18/2/64 and  24/2/64. After Marina had been shown the Imperial reflex camera and how it was used by Robert Oswald.

Prior to this Marina Oswald had no clue about this camera or any other camera as per one of her first statements to authorities suggested.

11/28/63

“(Marina) was asked whether she or Lee had any cameras and she replied that Lee bought one camera in Russia and a second one in the United States ... She added that she was not proficient with operating any cameras as she never had an opportunity to do so.”

(CE1792)

Jeff Carter:


https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3


In fact The camera was purportedly in Robert's possession while Lee Oswald was residing in Minsk.
Question: When did Robert hand back this camera to Oswald upon his return to the United States?

According to Robert Oswald, the Imperial Reflex (or whatever “American camera” Lee Oswald owned) stayed with him until Lee’s return to Fort Worth in 1962 and so could not have been used in Russia.


So in the Summer of '62 Robert allegedly handed back Lee Oswald's Imperial reflex camera to him, this could be true because there is some evidence to suggest the link between the edge markings from the Photo's of Marina and 6 month old June snapped at the magazine Street apartment NO's - allegedly and the backyard photographs.

Hany Farid's 2015 paper on his 3D modelling work.


https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/jdfsl15.pdf

"We of course made a number of assumptions and approximations in the construction of the 3- D model of Oswald. We applied a perturbation analysis to the 3-D model in order to verify that our conclusion of Oswald’s stability is not overly sensitive to these assumptions and approximations"

Thanks Bart
Hester's claims make Gus Rose and company's untruthful at best.
Cheers, Ed

Cover Ups Mag Issue 7

If the papers had really been delivered, she would have turned them in. No question in my mind that they only existed in hers.