Back Yard Photography

Wed 24 Apr 2019, 3:52 pm

First topic message reminder :

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Pbucket

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Mimitw10

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.

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 1backy10

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.

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 2-133a10

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 3-133b10

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.

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0Ws8LTadNjjep1yrsO2KI3y1LhcjlSp-XmJCJd-H3M0qu6sMk

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0Ws8LTadNjjep1yrsO2KI3y1LhcjlSp-XmJCJd-H3M0qu6sMk

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?

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Blackp10

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

Mon 17 Oct 2022, 6:04 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Jake_Sykes wrote:Mick,
I see nothing wrong in anything you've said and I agree it's critical. I came to the personal conclusion that the subject did not move sufficiently, if at all to account for the change in where the head shadow meets the fence. However, in the face of the inevitable challenge that will come from anyone who does not agree and will say the subject moved, I am unable to definitely disprove such an assertion, which is what is required for this analysis to gain traction.

Jake, many thanks for the feedback. As you know I'm going through the subject of the BYP's and I was keen on including the theory in my analysis of the topic.

My observations so far have left me thinking the subject moved forward towards the camera.
The camera also tilts between shots and pans slightly camera right or left depending on the sequence. Clearly in CE Stovall 133C the shadow of the figure is on the picket fence and in the other two photographs it has moved off the fence or vice versa depending on the sequence. Did you establish the sequence of the shots?

I think the feet in 133A have moved toward the camera and to support that the gap between the block of timber on the post in the background just above the figures head shortens from the photo CE 133C.

But it's also important to note that the powerline shadows do move quite a bit between shots.

It does appear the BYP subject moved closer or further away from the camera depending on the sequence.

The gap between block of wood on the rear post and the figure's head changes between shots. If CE133C was taken first then it would be my opinion that the subject moved slightly forward toward the camera for shot CE133A.

It also could explain why the shadow on the picket fence might have moved off it in CE133A.

CE 133A

CE 133C

I agree. Great observation and conclusion concerning the distance to the block. I never saw it.

Just looking at the shadows, I'd say the sequence is C, B, A for the shadows moving up the post with the passage of time. C and B are close together. B and A are further apart. Based on the model we're talking an overall time span of about 5 minutes.

Tue 18 Oct 2022, 8:57 am

Just looking at the shadows, I'd say the sequence is C, B, A for the shadows moving up the post with the passage of time. C and B are close together. B and A are further apart. Based on the model we're talking an overall time span of about 5 minutes.

Thanks Jake, I agree.

Fri 21 Oct 2022, 9:11 am

Ed wrote;

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.

The black blob is clearly visible on the exhibit CE - 749 negative. AKA the uncropped version of Backyard photo exhibit CE -133b
It is not visible on the C or A exhibit prints.
We can assume the black mark on the picket fence on the negative and the subsequent print was not the result of an in camera issue. This would appear to be an issue most likely created in the darkroom. Light leak -possibly - it's also worth thinking it might be a small chemical droplet as well.

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Ce_74910

Negative CE-749. The source for CE 133b

Sun 23 Oct 2022, 9:01 am

If the Backyard photo's are faked and we acknowledge and accept that Fritz waved the 10"x8" copy print of CE - 133a known as CE - 134 in front of Oswald's face sometime Saturday afternoon then one does have to ask when were these photographs introduced into the inventory and by whom?

There seems to be, at least to my mind only several scenarios possible. Either the Dallas police physically planted those photographs in the garage when they were on the 2nd search of the Paine's residence on the 23rd or Ruth or possibly even Marina Oswald placed them in a box yet to be discovered in the garage sometime before the second search.

One would still ponder why Ruth or Marina would somehow know in advance that there might be a second search and why if it were they who planted the photos would they not do this on the Friday. Further if it were they who planted the evidence there was always a chance that the photographs may be overlooked or missed in the search by Police.

And if the Police had possession of the Photos prior to Saturday 23rd why would they not have shown them to Oswald on the Friday evening?

To my mind one of the Police officers who searched the Paine's residence on the 23rd for the second time within 24 hours of the first search may have planted the BYP photos.
Of course this theorizing about planted evidence having been found at the house is based on believing that the photos were actually found where the Police claimed they had been discovered, in the Paine's Garage.
It's possible that the photo's were already at Police HQ's and corruptly introduced into the inventory on the Saturday.

Sun 23 Oct 2022, 9:35 am

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Margue10

Ft Worth Star Telegram Nov 18 1973

Sun 23 Oct 2022, 11:45 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:Ed wrote;

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.

The black blob is clearly visible on the exhibit CE - 749 negative. AKA the uncropped version of Backyard photo exhibit CE -133b
It is not visible on the C or A exhibit prints.
We can assume the black mark on the picket fence on the negative and the subsequent print was not the result of an in camera issue. This would appear to be an issue most likely created in the darkroom. Light leak -possibly - it's also worth thinking it might be a small chemical droplet as well.

Negative CE-749. The source for CE 133b

Mick would a droplet make a shadow of itself?
And which chemical?
Can you show examples of a chemical droplet causing these effecrs plural.

I have not examined 133b but heard no such thing about any spillage in any description nor any reason to suspect any damage to the image aside from those scratches to tie it to the IR camera.

I hear the neg is not in good shape so if you ran to NARA tomorrow you might be too late
Is this something you read somewhere?

[list=347][*]Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying.

[/list]

here is more from the expert panel (barf)

4. The backyard pictures were also visually inspected with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be viewed in three dimensions.* This was possible. because the camera's movement exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these two pictures are viewed together in astereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. (161)
This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fakery because photographs of prints (i.e., a photographic copy of a photo- graph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.**

Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures

OR AS WE HAVE IT THE CAMERA MOVED UP BETWEEN 133B THEN 133A

OH BUT WAIT THE MOVEMENT IS SEVERAL VERTICAL(?) INCHES MOVEMENT....
IE ALONG ONE AXIS !!

SO THAT TEST IS JUNK SCIENCE FOR REPHOTOGRAPHING

BUT THEY GO ON AND EXPLAIN WHAT A FAKE WOULD REQUIRE AS TO SHADOWS

Examples of evidence of fakery concerning the lighting would be shadows in the wrong position in relation to the position of the Sun and the object casting the shadow,

BAM.
TERRY SHOWED THAT WITH POWERLINES.
ITS FAKE THEN SO SAID THE EXPERTS!
THANKS GUYS.

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 10:53 am

Mick would a droplet make a shadow of itself?
And which chemical?
Can you show examples of a chemical droplet causing these effecrs plural.

Sorry, bad choice of words ...touch up work - bleach - the emulsion looks likes it's been obliterated, at least to me. Could also be light leakage for sure

I have not examined 133b but heard no such thing about any spillage in any description nor any reason to suspect any damage to the image aside from those scratches to tie it to the IR camera.

No I've not read anything about any significant damage. But is clearly evident that something happened with the CE 749 Neg in the darkroom. At least to my eye. It's claimed to be one of the two negative's found at the Paine residence in that second search.

I hear the neg is not in good shape so if you ran to NARA tomorrow you might be too late
Is this something you read somewhere?

Who from? My last email to the archives in ML late last year states the negative is in reasonable condition. Let me know if you have a source for that please. I would like to contact them. Cheers.

[list=347]
[*]Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying.

[*]

[/list]

here is more from the expert panel (barf)

LOL

4. The backyard pictures were also visually inspected with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be viewed in three dimensions.* This was possible. because the camera's movement exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these two pictures are viewed together in astereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. (161)
This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fakery because photographs of prints (i.e., a photographic copy of a photo- graph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.**

This is the biggest load of clap trap from the panel and shows that they had no clue. They could not have viewed anything in true 3D produced from those two prints - it is impossible even with today's technology. It's been tried. So Farid's work and their's is a farce and should be considered void.

Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures

Yes, thankfully we have 2 BYP's which are the prints of the entire neg's frame - Dem133a and the print from CE 749...they show the area to the negative edges we can see clearly that the headroom changes from photograph to photograph. According to Jake's powerline model the sequence for the snaps are b, c, and a
So, way too much headroom in C, then followed by a slight correction for B, and then finally the last result is A. That's my take anyway. The camera also pans slightly left between shots, at least according to B and then A

OR AS WE HAVE IT THE CAMERA MOVED UP BETWEEN 133B THEN 133A

OH BUT WAIT THE MOVEMENT IS SEVERAL VERTICAL(?) INCHES MOVEMENT....
IE ALONG ONE AXIS !!

SO THAT TEST IS JUNK SCIENCE FOR REPHOTOGRAPHING

BUT THEY GO ON AND EXPLAIN WHAT A FAKE WOULD REQUIRE AS TO SHADOWS

Examples of evidence of fakery concerning the lighting would be shadows in the wrong position in relation to the position of the Sun and the object casting the shadow,

BAM.
TERRY SHOWED THAT WITH POWERLINES.
ITS FAKE THEN SO SAID THE EXPERTS!
THANKS GUYS.

If the Oswald head has been inserted and is a composite or whatever, then all shadow analysis of the upper body shadow on the ground in those photographs is off the table imo.

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 11:37 am

Really thats good news because in 1979 it had emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying....yet your conversation with archives say its "reasonable" condition. Why am I not excited by that descriptor.
Especially over this length of time.

"The negative of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density. As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film. Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an enhanced copy of the original image.
*See pars. 16-34, supra.
The computer was also programed to manipulate the data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts; it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more complicated derivation. It could be programed to search for edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original."

Only a repeat of the test and the results matching would show no data loss (film has not degraded).
Just a visual "reasonable" guess is not very scientific. For some reason mate I dont have heaps o faith in me guberment.
Thanks tho!

I hope you get to it before its a mere shadow of itself.

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 11:38 am

We know that the police found and inventoried two BYP negatives - there is a police inventory report which states this. This is very important.
It's claimed at around 6:00pm on Saturday 23rd Oswald was shown a 10x8" printed copy of photograph 133a. According to the inventory report they had the negative that corresponded with the 133a print.

The prints found at the Paine's house from memory were 3" x 3".

"Anyway, it was claimed they had been processed at a drugstore or photofinisher because they appeared to have been produced on the type of commercial photo printing machine used by photofinishers for camera stores, drugstores and mass-produced prints.”

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

The prints are small (3”x3”), with a white border and markings consistent with an automated commercial machine.
They claim 133c was found much later - around 1967. That's important too as there is evidence that the Police took reenactment photographs of the BYP's at W Neely on November 29, what's staggering then is the Police officer who was the stand -in subject in the photograph stood in a pose that matches 133c exactly...so that begs the question how was that possible if 133c had not yet been discovered.

The Panel notes that DEM 133a was: “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” due to its increased resolution. The HSCA panel also noted that “the entire negative area is printed” (showing more picture than the cropped “drugstore” print 133a), and that the print had yellowed, “indicating that it was not adequately fixed or washed during the development process”. Another print of 133-A (Stovall), was larger (5”x8”) and cropped on the sides.

The two prints of 133-C (Stovall / Dees) were 8”x10”, the same size as the blow-up print shown to Oswald a few hours after discovery (CE134).

So, Jeanne de Morenschildt claimed to have found this new print of CE 133a in 1967. It covers the entire in camera frame and clearly is printed from an in camera negative as it is considered first generation.

We know that the police had 2 negs on the 11/23/63 - presumably one of those was 133a.

So it has to be assumed that the DEM 133a discovered in 1967 and released to the HSCA in April 1977 is a photograph that was printed from the negative which had processed the existing cropped printed photos of 133a in the record....back in 1963

It's interesting also that an internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 is far less circumspect, stating: “Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.” The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, “made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.” Life Magazine negotiated a price of $5000 with Marina Oswald’s business agents for the publication rights to the photo, but the photo itself came from “an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department.” Life had an “original copy negative” of the photo, made in Dallas. (Shaneyfelt Exhibit 10)2

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

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 11:48 am

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Really thats good news because in 1979 it had emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying....yet your conversation with archives say its "reasonable" condition. Why am I not excited by that descriptor.
Especially over this length of time.

"The negative of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density. As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film. Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an enhanced copy of the original image.
*See pars. 16-34, supra.
The computer was also programed to manipulate the data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts; it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more complicated derivation. It could be programed to search for edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original."

Only a repeat of the test and the results matching would show no data loss (film has degraded).
Just a visual "reasonable" guess is not very scientific. For some reason mate I dont have heaps o faith in me guberment.
Thanks tho!

I hope you get to it before its a mere shadow of itself.

I agree, that verbals count for little - especially coming from the Government run Archives. Anyway I don't need to have it in pristine condition - I want a 4k scan of it but I need to attend in person with a scanner. That ain't happening anytime soon.

Unless someone knows of a high res print copy floating about among the research community I'm stumped.

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 11:50 am

Ed,

"The negative of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density. As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film. Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an enhanced copy of the original image.
*See pars. 16-34, supra.
The computer was also programed to manipulate the data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts; it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more complicated derivation. It could be programed to search for edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original."

Source for this? Cheers mate.

Mon 24 Oct 2022, 1:53 pm

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 A_b_c_11

Dees/White CE -133c FBI print of CE - 749 (133b to the negative edges) CE - DEM 133a (First Gen print to the negatives edges)

Thanks to Terry and Jake's work on the movement of the powerline shadows on the upright post to the Oswald like figure's right we can determine the sequence that the photographs were taken.

133c, 133b, and finally 133a

Tue 25 Oct 2022, 8:07 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Really thats good news because in 1979 it had emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying....yet your conversation with archives say its "reasonable" condition. Why am I not excited by that descriptor.
Especially over this length of time.

"The negative of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density. As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film. Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an enhanced copy of the original image.
*See pars. 16-34, supra.
The computer was also programed to manipulate the data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts; it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more complicated derivation. It could be programed to search for edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original."

Only a repeat of the test and the results matching would show no data loss (film has degraded).
Just a visual "reasonable" guess is not very scientific. For some reason mate I dont have heaps o faith in me guberment.
Thanks tho!

I hope you get to it before its a mere shadow of itself.

Anyway I don't need to have it in pristine condition

BUT I DO.
I WANT TO KNOW IF THE DOGS NOSE WAS FROM DAMAGE TO EMULSION BACK THEN.
WHICH I DOUBT BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN SHADOW.
OR IS THAT AN IMAGE ON THE NEGATIVE.
(FROM RE/SHOOTING THE SCENE WITH THE IR)

I NEED TO KNOW AND SHITTY PANEL EXPERTS FAILED TO TELL ME/US.

SORRY IF IM TRYING TO RUSH YOU TO GET TO NARA. WHAT IS THE DELAY ANYWHO?

Ed

PS YOU NEED TO DO THE TEST TO COMPARE NEG. TO 1979 TEST TO SEE THE DEGRADATION FULLY.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR SUCH FROM NARA?

Tue 25 Oct 2022, 8:12 pm

[Mick
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/JFK%20Assassination%20Photos%20Book/Pages%20301-350.pdf

url=https://servimg.com/view/17602890/2404]

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Hl-17911

[/url]

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Hl-17910

Hires copies.
Thx Bart!

Tue 25 Oct 2022, 11:16 pm

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Really thats good news because in 1979 it had emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying....yet your conversation with archives say its "reasonable" condition. Why am I not excited by that descriptor.
Especially over this length of time.

"The negative of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density. As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film. Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an enhanced copy of the original image.
*See pars. 16-34, supra.
The computer was also programed to manipulate the data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts; it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more complicated derivation. It could be programed to search for edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original."

Only a repeat of the test and the results matching would show no data loss (film has degraded).
Just a visual "reasonable" guess is not very scientific. For some reason mate I dont have heaps o faith in me guberment.
Thanks tho!

I hope you get to it before its a mere shadow of itself.

Anyway I don't need to have it in pristine condition

BUT I DO.
I WANT TO KNOW IF THE DOGS NOSE WAS FROM DAMAGE TO EMULSION BACK THEN.
WHICH I DOUBT BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN SHADOW.
OR IS THAT AN IMAGE ON THE NEGATIVE.
(FROM RE/SHOOTING THE SCENE WITH THE IR)

I NEED TO KNOW AND SHITTY PANEL EXPERTS FAILED TO TELL ME/US.

SORRY IF IM TRYING TO RUSH YOU TO GET TO NARA. WHAT IS THE DELAY ANYWHO?

Ed

PS YOU NEED TO DO THE TEST TO COMPARE NEG. TO 1979 TEST TO SEE THE DEGRADATION FULLY.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR SUCH FROM NARA?

The really simple answer Ed, is I can't physically get to the Archives in Maryland to scan the neg...I'm not sure I can organise anyone to go there on my behalf. For the purpose of my study I just need a reasonably hi res print from ce749, which I've asked about here and PM'd a few others and have had no reply. So I'm guessing the FBI's Shayneyfelt's low res exhibit with the markers on it produced for the WC is the only one available on line. Shame. The archives permit a scan of ce749 negative with your own personal scanning device - at least that was so late last year.

Tue 25 Oct 2022, 11:17 pm

Ed.Ledoux wrote:[Mick
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/JFK%20Assassination%20Photos%20Book/Pages%20301-350.pdf

url=https://servimg.com/view/17602890/2404][/url]

Hires copies.
Thx Bart!

Cheers Ed , thanks Bart

Wed 26 Oct 2022, 4:15 am

YW
From the Harry Livingstone collection.

Wed 26 Oct 2022, 11:15 am

barto wrote:YW
From the Harry Livingstone collection.

It's such a pity that the hi res copy here of 133b is cropped and not a print copy of the original neg CE749 to the neg's edges. Please don't get me wrong mate, I'm very grateful - I just wish someone before us had bothered to get a hi-res print of CE749. It would be helpful in our analysis.

Wed 26 Oct 2022, 3:35 pm

Wed 26 Oct 2022, 8:57 pm

These are straight scans from the Kodachrome slides which most likely come from Jack White's collection. HL had these.

I suggest you have a look at Baylor UNI, which houses the JW collection and/or contact them.

Thu 27 Oct 2022, 10:34 am

barto wrote:These are straight scans from the Kodachrome slides which most likely come from Jack White's collection. HL had these.

I suggest you have a look at Baylor UNI, which houses the JW collection and/or contact them.

Cheers mate

Thu 27 Oct 2022, 5:58 pm

And otherwise contact NARA and ask them for the BYP

Thu 27 Oct 2022, 8:01 pm

barto wrote:And otherwise contact NARA and ask them for the BYP

Done that thanks - I would have to attend in person to obtain a scan, and they will not scan the neg CE749 on my behalf..

Thu 27 Oct 2022, 10:02 pm

Yes they will.
Stop drinking these!!!

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Foster10

Thu 27 Oct 2022, 11:13 pm

barto wrote:Yes they will.
Stop drinking these!!!

They're rubbish - Cat's piss! Don' touch the stuff.

Much prefer these:

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Uluru-australia-th-dec-vb-beer-ayres-rock-just-sunset-vb-beer-ayres-rock-australia-just-sunset-212492697

Back Yard Photography - Page 13 Uluru-australia-th-dec-vb-beer-ayres-rock-just-sunset-vb-beer-ayres-rock-australia-just-sunset-212492697

And no NARA will not scan the negative CE 749 on behalf of citizen.

Back Yard Photography

Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography

Re: Back Yard Photography