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

The USSS has a 5x4" neg of the BYP, thx to Malcolm Blunt https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OH9opkBGxXpryVZgsMXjdHQpnfBKEinP/view?usp=sharing

barto wrote:The USSS has a 5x4" neg of the BYP, thx to Malcolm Blunt https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OH9opkBGxXpryVZgsMXjdHQpnfBKEinP/view?usp=sharing

If the negative existed would that now be with the Archives?

I'm curious also as to why a 5"x 4" neg was floating about on or around the 12 Dec 1963. The Imperial camera using 620 film created 2 and 1/4 " squares IIRC

Probably went into the skip.....or the incinerator....or pinched for souvenir purposes.

Where are the 120 roll negatives of that 'shoot'.

barto wrote:Probably went into the skip.....or the incinerator....or pinched for souvenir purposes.

Where are the 120 roll negatives of that 'shoot'.

There is one negative still at the archives. I have tracked that down but COVID has prevented the scanning of it at the moment.
Exhibit CE - 749.

Who produced the 5x4 neg, that's the 64 Dollar question.

[url=https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2186][/url]

[url=https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2187][url=https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2189][/url][/url]

[url=https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2187][url=https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2188][/url][/url]

Thank-you Bart,

Ruth, Robert and Marina - the triangle. 

Det. McCabe stated he'd observed the IR camera in Ruth's garage but decided it had no evidentiary value. Not one other person or Detective noted observing the Imperial Reflex camera whilst searching the Paine's Garage. 

Was Marinas stay with Robert at his house just prior to the camera being handed over to the FBI mere coincidence?

Robert Oswald would claim he “had never made this camera available to authorities before February 24, 1964, because he had never been asked for it previously and he could see no evidentiary value ... of this cheap camera ... He stated that it had never occurred to him that anyone would be interested in the camera.” (CE2557) This is after he had been specifically interviewed about and shown photos of cameras (February 16). It would also turn out to be the second instance in which a subjective judgment apparently kept this camera away from the sweep of the investigation. Marina Oswald temporarily stayed with Robert Oswald in February 1964, coinciding with the FBI’s determined efforts. She was thereby in the same house as the Imperial Reflex and, a week later, she suddenly recalled the camera was “aluminum” colored and that it was sighted “by looking down into the viewer”


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

Phil  Slater HSCA w thx to Malcolm Blunt.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xCfKPHHB6WIX9AWApy0jFwqlJcOzWdol/view?usp=sharing

Was the pistol added after the Tippit slaying? My own view is that it was not. The backyard pix are too elaborate a confection for it to have been done overnight. It would have needed hours with relevant equipment and a darkroom, not to mention the requisite skills, to knock up a composite image of this complexity. I hesitate to say 'sophistication' because it is so obviously faked, as mini-Oswald proves beyond doubt. And incidentally, on that note (as pointed out in earlier posts), the easiest way of calculating backyard Oswald's height is to use the 'ruler' he is conveniently holding under his chin: The Militant newspaper. It is exactly 11 x 17 inches in size. All you need is Photoshop or similar, and it's easy enough to work out his height with a fair amount of precision, ie about 5 ft 1 inch, give or take an inch. 

My own view is that the original photo, of an individual dressed in black, was taken somewhere else entirely, months beforehand, as the conspiracy took shape. As Oswald became a more likely candidate, a photo of the backyard could have been taken while the property was vacant, ie after Oswald and his downstairs neighbours left, ie probably some time in June or July (the flowering on the bush behind Oswald is apparently consistent with that time of year).

It could be that Oswald's handlers told him to buy a pistol to fit with the photo, rather them scrabbling to match the one he had bought. We will probably never know. Either way, the whole thing was a complex exercise that would have taken some planning, although the fact that they got Oswald's height wrong does suggest an element of haste or incompetence at some point. 

What surprises - and shocks - me is that none of the official investigations picked up on the height discrepancy at all. Or was it known about all along and simply ignored, or hushed up? 

Incidentally, it's been suggested that Oswald might have knocked the photos up himself at Chiles-Jaggers-Stovall, maybe as some kind of joke, or just to show off the skills he had acquired. But it seems pretty clear that a) he probably didn't have the necessary level of expertise, and b) he would have been seen by co-workers. 

There's also the question of the de Mohrenschildt print that 'materialised' in 1967 with Oswald's signature and dedication on the back (authenticated by the HSCA) along with the famous 'hunter of fascists' comment. That print, of course, only became public when Jeanne de Mohrenschildt revealed its existence to the HSCA ten years later. It's a weird one, but the ten-year time lag and the fact that the dedication is oddly squashed into one corner does seem odd. The fact that Michael Paine had access to the de Mohrenschildts' things while they were away in Haiti is also a bit of an eyebrow-raiser.

It's also possible that Oswald was party to faking the photos himself in cahoots with unknown others in the belief that he was helping to create a 'legend' that would help burnish his 'left-wing' credentials. There is a letter from an 'L.H.' in Dallas in the issue of The Militant he's holding that does read suspiciously like a 'fishing' exercise. Is that 'L.H.' as in 'L.H.O'? Again, we will probably never know, likewise why the letter was apparently never picked up on by investigating authorities at the time and, well ... investigated.

Nice write-up, Orange. For my money, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Oswald did these fake photos. The reason is because there's too much evidence to show that he was also burnishing his left-wing credentials when he was out handing out leaflets as well as being on that TV show later. So those and the photos all go hand in hand when it was time for him to take the fall. It'd be much easier to have the body posed, then simply ask him, "Hey, Lee, can you paste up your head on these like you've been handing out leaflets and so on?"

I'm really glad, too, the media was able to record him saying he was a patsy, that he actually explained that the photos were faked and his head was pasted over the body and so on. His answer to that when shown the photos goes hand in hand with the long-running theory that his head was pasted. Personally, I've always thought his head was just a little bit too big on the stand-in's body.

And the 10-year lapse of the other photo is ridiculous that any savvy lawyer would have gotten thrown out in court.

Oh, and one more thing - when he was arrested, he had his USMC ring on. To me that's like a WTF Easter egg LOL.

Thanks, JFK. If I'm honest, I think Oswald was telling the truth, and had never seen the photos before. His response was too quick, and too certain. He knew they were fakes, because he played no part in their creation. And if it was about burnishing his credentials, I doubt that would have been served by photos that make him look like a nut job. Of course, maybe that was just the point. But wouldn't it have been (a lot) easier to simply pose in the backyard with relevant accessories and get Marina - or some other 'collaborator' - to snap away?

Either way, it doesn't explain the signature on the de Mohrenschildt print. Unless the HSCA experts were mistaken, or 'under pressure.' Plenty there for a great History Channel doc at some point.

Orange, great post. I know I can't prove it, but my gut instinct tells me that the figure in the BYP setting is not of Oswald's body only his head. I'm also of the opinion that the figure stood in situ at the Neely St address. The other point is that the photos were most likely snapped either in late March early April or September early October '63. The Commission went with the March date because it married with their narrative but that's no certainty. The timeline issue has been discussed at length earlier in this thread, so I won't go into the details. That means at least to my mind that somebody actually posed with the items we see on the person in the Neely St. backyard photos on either of those timelines in '63. Clearly it was staged managed and had some sort of purpose. The Mannlicher Carcano prop we see in the photograph to my mind can be no coincidence. Someone whoever that may be knew to throw down a Mannlicher Carcano rifle in at the TSBD. And someone knew to insert Oswald's head into the Neely St BYP prior to the assassination.

I'm re-reading the excellent Jeff Carter essay [link was posted above but here it is again]:

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

...and right off the bat, Carter says what I had always thought as well - that these photos were too pat [to use his words] or too perfect. They needed some kind of smoking gun if you will and these photos did it for them. The only thing missing in the photos is smoke coming from the barrel of the gun. If you take these photos away, the record is far more muddied. But it's almost comedic to think that they went overboard with them - it wasn't enough to have the rifle but the pistol and even a left-wing newspaper to boot.

I'm walking back on my thoughts that LHO was involved in mocking up the photos himself now, too. Though they already had plans to burnish his credentials down in NO that summer, LHO was no dummy and I think his eyebrows would have been raised if he had seen the photos before with someone else's face [the body stand-in] and been asked to put his on them. But as he said when he saw them, he knew they were fake.

There are two additional parts to Carter's essay. Here is 4:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-4

...and if you change the number in the URL to 5, you'll get the last part. I guess Jim's web guy dropped the ball on this because when you read 1-3 you hit a dead end for 4 and 5. 

I encourage any newbies on here to read Carter's story. The only angle I don't like with Carter's write-up is the Nagell one. I've never bought that story as it sounds too far-fetched and from what I read about Nagell, it sounds like he was an unstable flake.

JFK_Case wrote:I'm re-reading the excellent Jeff Carter essay [link was posted above but here it is again]:

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

...and right off the bat, Carter says what I had always thought as well - that these photos were too pat [to use his words] or too perfect. They needed some kind of smoking gun if you will and these photos did it for them. The only thing missing in the photos is smoke coming from the barrel of the gun. If you take these photos away, the record is far more muddied. But it's almost comedic to think that they went overboard with them - it wasn't enough to have the rifle but the pistol and even a left-wing newspaper to boot.

I'm walking back on my thoughts that LHO was involved in mocking up the photos himself now, too. Though they already had plans to burnish his credentials down in NO that summer, LHO was no dummy and I think his eyebrows would have been raised if he had seen the photos before with someone else's face [the body stand-in] and been asked to put his on them. But as he said when he saw them, he knew they were fake.

There are two additional parts to Carter's essay. Here is 4:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-4

...and if you change the number in the URL to 5, you'll get the last part. I guess Jim's web guy dropped the ball on this because when you read 1-3 you hit a dead end for 4 and 5. 

I encourage any newbies on here to read Carter's story. The only angle I don't like with Carter's write-up is the Nagell one. I've never bought that story as it sounds too far-fetched and from what I read about Nagell, it sounds like he was an unstable flake.

JFK,

I agree Carter's essay is exceptionally good. 

The work done here in this thread earlier on the timeline of when the photographs were taken leaves wide open the possibility that the BYP's could have been snapped in late September early October. The equinox allows for that possibility along with the foliage we see in the pics. That's not to say that they were not taken in late March early April either. 

The September timeline is interesting. The more I read on the BYP's the more inclined I am to believe De Mohrenschildt and possibly Michael Paine were involved in or knew of the photographic session at Neely St. and that they also knew of the subsequent manipulation of the original photograph.

orangebicycle wrote:And incidentally, on that note (as pointed out in earlier posts), the easiest way of calculating backyard Oswald's height is to use the 'ruler' he is conveniently holding under his chin: The Militant newspaper. It is exactly 11 x 17 inches in size. All you need is Photoshop or similar, and it's easy enough to work out his height with a fair amount of precision, ie about 5 ft 1 inch, give or take an inch. 

There are some caveats to that, notwithstanding that the margin of error needed, should be too great to change the conclusion that it is too short to be Oswald. 

But... lens distortion and other factors can affect the final outcome. 

JFKCase wrote:I'm walking back on my thoughts that LHO was involved in mocking up the photos himself now, too. 

Good to know. I think he did mock up the alleged Hidell ID -- because he was told at JCS to play with the equipment to learn how to use it. But I think he had his own name on it. They simply changed the name to Hidell post arrest.

But I agree - he had zip to do with mocking up the BYP.

Mick_Purdy wrote:The September timeline is interesting. 

FWIW, I agree because it is September that the plot (and the use of Oswald as patsy) is being put together. 

I think back in March, there was ONE photo taken. The DeM photo - as a pisstake given DeM and others had discussed Walker with Oswald and got him to agree that Walker should be taken care of before becoming another Hitler. Oswald's asperger's prevented him from picking up that it was a pisstake - so they mocked up the DeM photo to continue the joke ("Hunter of Fascists hahaha"). 

I think they went back in September and did more - this time not as a pisstake - but to help incriminate.

And incidentally, on that note (as pointed out in earlier posts), the easiest way of calculating backyard Oswald's height is to use the 'ruler' he is conveniently holding under his chin: The Militant newspaper. It is exactly 11 x 17 inches in size. All you need is Photoshop or similar, and it's easy enough to work out his height with a fair amount of precision, ie about 5 ft 1 inch, give or take an inch. 

Orange, love your work mate. I wish it were that easy. There are so many caveats to this though. It seems so simple and yet it's so very complex. 

Compare the pic below with this linked document.
same agency/same date yet.....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cJuuhki4BcfrUg9jeIhYhkdUoG4KnJ9m/view?usp=sharing