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

Garn G wrote:I can't post a source here or links...

You can after a week. The delay is to discourage spammers.

Lanceman wrote:I accept that the photos are genuine, taken in March for some intrigue Oswald was involved with at the time.

There was a case in 1990 of a pair of "eco-warriors" who also happened to be aspiring rock stars about to record their first album.

They were convinced by a "friend" who happned to be an FBI informant, to pose for the album cover dressed in jungle greens and holding all sorts of weapons. Soon after, a bomb exploded in their car and they were arrested for transporting explosives.  The photo was then sent to the press followed by claims that the bomb was meant for the head of a logging company.



Also sent to the FBI to be used against them was a published story from an 1989 edition of Earth First Journal (Earth First was the group they were involved with). The story was parody, requesting terminally-ill people to go out with a bang by becoming eco-kamakazis. 



I have wondered at times if maybe the photos, of someone else with Oswald's head stuck on was some type of similar parody, meant to mock him behind his back. THat would at least explain the one sent to deM with the notation on the back "HUNTER OF FASCISTS HA HA HA". If this is right, it would be what we would call here a "piss take". Sending someone up. Taking the Mickey etc.

In this scenario, I would suggest the person doing the photo work would be the person suspected of living with Marina at Neely St (or at least spending a lot of time there) who also happened to be a photographer at that time and who separated from his wife soon after having Marina live in his home - son-in-law of Jivin' George, Gary Taylor. 

As much as this scenario appeals to me and resolves some issues, it may not resolve them all. 

PS The estates of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney won huge civil damages against the police and FBI.

Mick_Purdy wrote:One of the most prominent critics of the photos also vehemently insists that the Apollo lunar landings were faked based on his interpretation of the photos.


And that my friends is why we're so F%#*^D trying to get anywhere with this case. 

My wording could be interpreted as lumping in everyone that considers the photos to be fakes in the same class as moon landing hoaxers. That was not my intent.

The person I was thinking of was Jack White who is deceased and cannot defend himself. As far as I could tell, while he had a lot of experience in photography, it is not clear what gave him experience in detecting fake photographs. When someone offers no indication of their qualifications or verifiable experience in a subject, one is forced to use other criteria to judge their work.Jack White made claims about the Apollo mission photographs that have been convincingly debunked. I can understand why there are no stars in the lunar surface photographs.

On the other hand, if Ted Kazcinski gives a mathematical proof of some theorem and it is evaluated and accepted by mathematicians, it does not matter that he was responsible for several murders.

“Badgeman” was only debunked when people went out and made actual measurements and tried to recreate the photo to determine what his size and distance would have to be. As far as I know, no one has done that with the BYPs. Has Doug Horne’s association with Hollywood film experts succeeded in identifying fakery of the Zapruder film? (I agree with Horne that both the Z-film and JFK’s body were subjected to preliminary assessments before the “official” evaluations).

There was a computer science professor that used 3-D modeling computer graphics software to demonstrate that that the BYPs are not fakes. I am not in a position to evaluate his methodology other than to say I am suspicious of computer modeling that is not accompanied by some real-world verification. Same with Dale Myers’ goose-necked JFK assassination graphics (though his “Badgeman” debunking is well done).

To be fair, I need to read the section of the HSCA report on the evaluation of the BYBs and reread Dino Brugioni’s “Photo Fakery” which was written in 1999 and from my recollection, his discussion of the BYPs gives no indication he believes they are fakes.

Mick_Purdy wrote:

barto wrote:A BYP re-enactment version I had not seen before. From the 6th fl museum.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29175/black-and-white-photograph-of-a-man-with-rifle-reenacting-th?ctx=4651f97c1838a737329fbe47c669b0bd5d5c08c5&idx=1017

Thanks Bart,
I'd seen this before, but one has to ask why would the FBI reenact this photo on the FBI HQ rooftop. This whole BYP thing had them in a spin. It's the same pattern over and over. Silly stupid reenactments to prove zero. All theatrics - no substance.

Wasn’t there a difference between the size of the rifle “Hidell” ordered and the rifle found in the TSBD? Could the FBI have been staging the recreation to get an idea of what the relative difference would look like to see which one was photographed? They didn’t seem to care about the handgun.

Mick_Purdy wrote:One of the most prominent critics of the photos also vehemently insists that the Apollo lunar landings were faked based on his interpretation of the photos.


And that my friends is why we're so F%#*^D trying to get anywhere with this case. 

doesn't matter if they are fake or not.
Doesn't matter what Jack White said...moon landings...

seems to me from reading this and the other BYP threads here in addition to other reading, these photos were ready to go day of and not created day of.

The newspapers, the DPD and everyone else sure got a huge  plateful of Oswald before most suspects prints would have dried...

an aside, while we were looking at Walter Cockright on the news talking about moon missions, the CIA were dumping NASA money elsewere.. it was a missle delivery system..
Who cares if they landed there or not... (a whole other story)
But yeah, Moon hoax, UFO people and Bigfoots all screw it up.

also part of the prestige of this trick.... make everyone interesated look like nutjobs for asking why the WC etc were such morons.

I just try and look at a redcutive way of looking at this stuff..

omg typos...sorry. I can't post links or edit my posts yet so please understand I'm not a thirteen year old with gloves on...

“I have wondered at times if maybe the photos, of someone else with Oswald's head stuck on was some type of similar parody, meant to mock him behind his back. THat would at least explain the one sent to deM with the notation on the back "HUNTER OF FASCISTS HA HA HA". If this is right, it would be what we would call here a "piss take". Sending someone up. Taking the Mickey etc.”


Someone would have to go through a lot of effort to make parody photos that are not immediately obvious as fakes. 


I think Oswald was convinced to have the photos taken as part of an attempt to infiltrate a pro-Castro group. That the Worker and The Militant newspapers were from mutually antagonistic political parties doesn’t indicate fakery but clumsy staging.


Why create numerous fakes which increase chances of being detected as such when one would be enough and especially, why leave the negatives around around which would also help uncover fakery?


After 9/11, the FBI was constantly “disrupting terror cells” often by infiltrating groups of gullible people and getting them to do things like research poisons and explosives and leaving a a trail of evidence.

lanceman wrote:
I think Oswald was convinced to have the photos taken as part of an attempt to infiltrate a pro-Castro group. That the Worker and The Militant newspapers were from mutually antagonistic political parties doesn’t indicate fakery but clumsy staging.

Great point..
I've been saying this for years. I dunno that he would need "convincing" as such tho.
As an asset this is part of his "job".. He was aware.
His entire non WC narrative is that he is an expendable asset that never gets spent.... Russia doesn't work out but he comes back...with a pregnant wife.

After he  is set up in Episode Two: The Oswald Show and New Orleans is blown, he gets sent to Dallas .
"Go check out what relationship the Birchers have with the Anti Castro types " etc etc...
Perhaps... I dunno. I'm still working out the bugs on why he was there. He WAS the eventual Patsy but that's not "why" he was there...

my 18 cents


The whole time he has a paper trail of press, interviews etc etc.
First defector, now Pro Cuban...then box stacker....

Also keep in mind that as an Angleton asset, while he may have been looking at one faction, he is drawing out the others.
It's quite possible he was aware of a Plot against JFK and thought he was thwarting it...
I'll get into that more later...

Also as an Angleton asset, he was no doubt being fed red herrings to feed others to test the network.
See who talks, see what people know etc.


But yeah..Everything he does is more self incriminating than is usual in spycraft unless he could dissapear because he was never really there or because he could be dissapeared...

lanceman wrote:
After 9/11, the FBI was constantly “disrupting terror cells” often by infiltrating groups of gullible people and getting them to do things like research poisons and explosives and leaving a a trail of evidence.

Cointelpro and variations of that model have been in play well before 911
The Air India Bombing was exactly that.."lets give these guys the things they need so we can find out who wants to bomb planes and ...oh...hang on...a plane just blew up..."

Most times they are instigating not investigating.

Plans within plans.

There was a computer science professor that used 3-D modeling computer graphics software to demonstrate that that the BYPs are not fakes.

Here is his BYP analysis.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2651-byp-analysis

Vinny wrote:There was a computer science professor that used 3-D modeling computer graphics software to demonstrate that that the BYPs are not fakes.

Here is his BYP analysis.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2651-byp-analysis

thanks Vinny....
but...
there are a number of problems with those articles.

the methodology he uses is non scientific and broken.

1- no explanation of why the heads are the same in all shots and no counter explanation for why they wouldn't be . this is avoided by......

2- using samples  of one picture only (pointing out that they must be the same in all photos so...uh...)

3- he doesn't account for the shadows on the ground with any depth (see 6)

4- doesnt mention obvious grain characteristic problems in each of the photos.
(the grain on the face is different from everywhere else in the photos..)

5- Farid quotes his own work to cite his new work.

6- from the triptych in his photo from the above link that I can't post to...
left to right /a b c
-the shadow in the original a is farther left than the reconstruction photo b and photo c makes the answer fit the question by circling the original a and very badly i might add..

7- what were his source images? original? copies? drum scan? digital? print?

8- the body they reconstruct is made of blocks...shitty polygons...lazy work all around..

9- sunlight, date and time etc... all environmental data within the computer reconstruction is missing. because they lit only the head from a localised internal digital source, they didnt replicate sunlight environmentally...

I can take a light, in my house and duplicate those shadows on my face and say " see look! I have a triangle under my nose that reprints like a Chaplin/Hitler stache when it's reprinted too!" NOT FAKE SEEEE!!!

In effect, they make a case for only the head..which is pretty bad "science" if you are trying so show that it wasn't pasted on. It shows the opposite. It shows it probably was pasted on.

largely hogwash.

also, he has since addressed the failings of his initial research with an even more function added failure where he states
"Although there are three backyard photos, taken in
seeming succession, we focus our analysis on only one of
the backyard photos"


uh...of course


my 26 cents.

one thing I forgot to mention
Years ago Jack White furnished me with a drum scan (digital) of the originals that he got from Groden or Gary Mack I'm not sure where.
Sadly those died on a drive. (that is a story in and of itself)
Even on an early iteration of photoshop it was quite clear to me that:

1- the grain structures on the photos vary as film emulsion does but not on the face. The size of the grains was different which implied a different filmstock or a composite.

2-there are a number of artifacts on all of them that even without a pasted head, it showed that they were not the originals but rather reproductions from prints to negative. IE rephotographing..
Grain will double up on itself when you do that because you're adding grain from a print to the new grain on the new neg.
it then loses a generation. It was also obvious on the sides of the negatives as they have two types of bleed as opposed to one consistent grain pattern.
One set is in focus and the others are slightly blurred.

And that is a tell tale sign of a composite or a reproduction. Or both.

3- there were grain aberations in and around the neck and chin area that werent dirt, but only on one photo that suggested a paste.
There were also areas that suggested burns, dodges or flat out paint retouching on that same photo..Places where there was just black emulsion and no correspoding grain gradients. (even all black exposed neg or film will have a latitude of visible grain, this didn't in the areas around his head, specifically near his eyes..)

For the record, it's my opinion that they are composites with a pasted head.

Garn G wrote:one thing I forgot to mention
Years ago Jack White furnished me with a drum scan (digital) of the originals that he got from Groden or Gary Mack I'm not sure where.
Sadly those died on a drive. (that is a story in and of itself)
Even on an early iteration of photoshop it was quite clear to me that:

1- the grain structures on the photos vary as film emulsion does but not on the face. The size of the grains was different which implied a different filmstock or a composite.

2-there are a number of artifacts on all of them that even without a pasted head, it showed that they were not the originals but rather reproductions from prints to negative. IE rephotographing..
Grain will double up on itself when you do that because you're adding grain from a print to the new grain on the new neg.
it then loses a generation. It was also obvious on the sides of the negatives as they have two types of bleed as opposed to one consistent grain pattern.
One set is in focus and the others are slightly blurred.

And that is a tell tale sign of a composite or a reproduction. Or both.

3- there were grain aberations in and around the neck and chin area that werent dirt, but only on one photo that suggested a paste.
There were also areas that suggested burns, dodges or flat out paint retouching on that same photo..Places where there was just black emulsion and no correspoding grain gradients. (even all black exposed neg or film will have a latitude of visible grain, this didn't in the areas around his head, specifically near his eyes..)

For the record, it's my opinion that they are composites with a pasted head.

Garn G, welcome to the forum.

Points 1,2 ,3 can be proven how? This is your belief or is this material written up somewhere.

Point 1. The size of the grains was different which implied a different filmstock or a composite. 


Where is this documented?


Point 2. there are a number of artifacts on all of them that even without a pasted head, it showed that they were not the originals but rather reproductions from prints to negative. IE rephotographing..


Where's this documented?


Point 3. There were also areas that suggested burns, dodges or flat out paint retouching on that same photo..Places where there was just black emulsion and no correspoding grain gradients. 


Is  this documented anywhere?


If you have links or some such please share. 


Or is this your opinion? 


The reason I ask is I'm currently writing an essay on the topic and if anyone can show conclusively that the photos have been "touched up" re any of the above assertions I'd be extremely interested to hear about it. 


Cheers Mick

Mick_Purdy wrote:
Is  this documented anywhere?


If you have links or some such please share. 


Or is this your opinion? 


The reason I ask is I'm currently writing an essay on the topic and if anyone can show conclusively that the photos have been "touched up" re any of the above assertions I'd be extremely interested to hear about it. 


Cheers Mick

Hey Mick

It is my "opinion" yeah but that opinion was born from hours of looking at those scans with a fine tuned photoshop.

I have an extensive background in film and photography, I'm not a dilettante as they say. I've also spent a fair amount of time in an actual darkroom..enough that I could fly a passenger darkroom if the pilot died LOL...

Lemme see what I can scrape up and once I can post some attachments I'll show you what I'm talking about with visual references and all that. I don't know that I need those scans as such.
Keep in mind as well, there are a lot of "versions" out there.
There's WC versions, HSCA versions that I know of. Jack told me the one's I had were scans of the "originals", whatever that means..
He didn't tell me where he got them from exactly. again it was either Groden or Gerda COUGH Gary Dukel aka Mack aka 6th floor suppository.
He was kinda cloak and dagger about where he got the scans done and digitized as well.

I have the original notes I made and when I find those you are welcome to them. In the meantime I'll commit what I can from memory down and pass that along.

I'm looking (again) for the highest res versions of those that I can find as sadly I don't have the Jack White versions anymore.
I had them on an old zip drive and the media just stopped working.

That said, you might want to see what Groden has. You might try and email him.
The Sixth Floor Suppository has since died but he was little use anyway.
Jack is dead as well.
Jack was a bit nutty but he was a hell of a nice guy.

OH and remember, there are variants in print as well as you probably already know.
Various newspapers had versions where Oswald looked like a balloon because his head was so large and the retouching is obvious as hell.

That is another story:
Who had those pictures to service media with and when? I haven't looked into that..But thats another good question.... when did those get leaked...

Then you want to see if you can get close to the WC versions of the camera that showed the keystoning etc
The test photos they took with what was supposedly the same camera to show they weren't fake...

I hope that's of some help.

Mick,

Jeff Carter has done some decent work over at kennedysandking

 "A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3
Written by Jeff Carter "

I hadn't read this until today strangely.
It has some interesting info.

lanceman wrote:“I have wondered at times if maybe the photos, of someone else with Oswald's head stuck on was some type of similar parody, meant to mock him behind his back. THat would at least explain the one sent to deM with the notation on the back "HUNTER OF FASCISTS HA HA HA". If this is right, it would be what we would call here a "piss take". Sending someone up. Taking the Mickey etc.”


Someone would have to go through a lot of effort to make parody photos that are not immediately obvious as fakes. 


I think Oswald was convinced to have the photos taken as part of an attempt to infiltrate a pro-Castro group. That the Worker and The Militant newspapers were from mutually antagonistic political parties doesn’t indicate fakery but clumsy staging.


Why create numerous fakes which increase chances of being detected as such when one would be enough and especially, why leave the negatives around around which would also help uncover fakery?


After 9/11, the FBI was constantly “disrupting terror cells” often by infiltrating groups of gullible people and getting them to do things like research poisons and explosives and leaving a a trail of evidence.

Regardless of when and why the photos were made, someone went to the trouble of doing it. The same arguments apply. If made as part of a frame, one would surely do. 

The difficulty of making them is only to a degree commensurate with the expertise and equipment available - again - regardless of the when and why.

What we have here is Marguerite talking about a photo she was shown by Marina which was apparently absent pistol and newspapers, and was taken for Junie. 

Marguerite testified that this was the only photo Marina was concerned about. I agree with Sylvia Meagher that this photo was likely taken in Minsk with the shotgun he owned there and was taken in honor of the birth of Junie. 

So why wasn't she worried about the set of far more incriminating photos now in the archives? Perhaps because she believed these were all with other people? 

Like the DeM one in which she described her husband on the back in mocking terms? 

I think the Minsk photo had been the inspiration for the BYP's. 

All that said, if they were made in September/October, the chances increase that they were made as part of a frame, although you then need to explain the DeM photo.

Garn G wrote:Mick,

Jeff Carter has done some decent work over at kennedysandking

 "A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3
Written by Jeff Carter "

I hadn't read this until today strangely.
It has some interesting info.

Yes Carter's work is good. He also has part 4-5 as well. Disagree with some of his conclusions but not a bad effort I have to say.

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Garn G wrote:Mick,

Jeff Carter has done some decent work over at kennedysandking

 "A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3
Written by Jeff Carter "

I hadn't read this until today strangely.
It has some interesting info.

Yes Carter's work is good. He also has part 4-5 as well. Disagree with some of his conclusions but not a bad effort I have to say.

Thanks Mick
I just finished reading.
never thought of the "hey Militant, here's my dating shot" scenario specifically ... yeah. some stuff I don't buy but solid work nonetheless..

I found some "decent" scans and I'll be writing up some stuff in the next bit.
I'll post my resources somewhere for you as well so you can download and use them as well.

Now im trying to find a decent copy of the DeM pic....

lanceman wrote:

There was a computer science professor that used 3-D modeling computer graphics software to demonstrate that that the BYPs are not fakes.
To be fair, I need to read the section of the HSCA report on the evaluation of the BYBs and reread Dino Brugioni’s “Photo Fakery” which was written in 1999 and from my recollection, his discussion of the BYPs gives no indication he believes they are fakes.

I'll post an in depth debunk of this "computer clown" and his "work" later.
Short version is, there are two papers he wrote, the second of which while more "in depth" is again shoddy and counterfactual.
I mentioned this guy earlier.


And as for Dino Fuggliacci, this should tell you everything about his work:

"Dino Antonio Brugioni was a former senior official at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. He was an imagery analyst and also served as NPIC's Chief of Information."
Everything uttered from his face hole is garbage.


I have two photos upcoming that will show you they are fake/staged and that there is no way Marinas "I took those photos" yackery holds any water.
And they have been sitting there this whole time..

Cheers

JFK didn’t seem to think so. He relied on Brugioni’s interpretation of the surveillance photos of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Can experts be wrong or disagree? Sure. Is there a danger in relying on credentials and appeals to authority? Definitely.

Still, I’d like to see someone with a few verified examples of identifying fraudulent photographs critique what the other “experts” have found.

I read the Jeff Carter series 1-5. I’ll probably have to re-read it as my head is still spinning from keeping track of photos, negatives, cameras, addresses etc.

Haven’t read the HSCA report on the photos yet.

An excerpt from the HSCA Hearings Second session volume V1 Photographic evidence (released March 1979)

This analysis was performed sometime in 1978.

lanceman wrote:JFK didn’t seem to think so. He relied on Brugioni’s interpretation of the surveillance photos of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Ok..Look at what you posted here.
that is an apple to an orange.

1- No one was asking if the Cuba Photos were fake.
2- JFK also trusted the Secret Service.
3- I can go on but I won't.

I've been putting together a presentation of this stuff. Now I read "Still, I’d like to see someone with a few verified examples of identifying fraudulent photographs critique what the other “experts” have found."..

Don't troll. It's a lot of work and time to present things and I'm still a week away.
Post your essay on why they are right rather than poking and running with "maybe the moon is full of mayonaise?"
I'm trying to ADD something..
You are not ADDING by asking questions that have Coke or Pepsi answers.

And don't attack other peoples "credentials" as you may or may not understand them: IE mine.

A CIA  shill says they are real? Not a conflict of interest or anything there no..He knows better than I because....Cuba...
You know who processed all those photos? The Cuban missle photos?
Jaggers-Chiles-Stovals...


They also had a guy named LHO working there....

A LOT of information has been brought to light by people who are not lawyers or rocket scientists.

Don't like my posts??

Don't reply.

Maybe I'm misreading your post I don't know.
In the meantime, what have YOU got?
And Go read the HSCA report on the photos.
I have.

https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

Mick_Purdy wrote:https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

Thanks for your posts Mick...

“ And Go read the HSCA report on the photos.”


I have done so. It seems to me that the HSCA analysis of the backyard photos was thorough and demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that the backyard photos are not fakes or composites and were made with Oswalds camera. The fine lines evident under extreme magnification were plausibly explained on the very next page. Two critics of the photos authenticity were given an opportunity to present their case. They ultimately backed away from their objections, stating their original conclusions were based on poor quality copies. The HSCA analysts  raised the same questions I thought of such as why forgers would make more than one fake photograph and why didn’t they destroy the camera and negatives. Further, I wonder why the forgers would not use the entirety of Oswald’s face instead of grafting it onto the chin of a stand-in? If you have any technical objections to the conclusions the HSCA reached, please share them.


One possibility the HSCA did not address was that the photos were taken sometime closer to the date of the assassination. The HSCA agreed with the Warren Commission that the photos were most likely taken on March 31, 1963. I used an online tool that given a date, time and location, calculates the shadow lengths, sun altitude and azimuth.


https://www.suncalc.org


The HSCA stated that the backyard photos were taken at an orientation (presumably inferred by the orientation of fixed objects such as the fence, posts etc. of the backyard of 214 Neely St.) of 70 degrees north of east with the sun in the southwest quadrant of the sky (presumably in mid-afternoon). I assumed 2:00 PM on March 31, 1963.

Using the SunCalc tool, I looked for a time in September-October to see a good match for the shadow length, sun altitude and azimuth which matched those of March 31, 1963. I found the best match was on September 11, 1963. This makes sense since March 31 was 10 days after the vernal equinox and September 11 was 10 days before the autumnal equinox.

March 31, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.03.31/14:00/1/3

September 11, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.09.11/14:58/1/3

They are not an exact match but are very close.

The problem is, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald and the camera were in New Orleans on September 11, 1963.

Unless other convincing evidence or explanations are forthcoming, I’m concluding that the photos are not fakes, were taken in late March 1963 with the knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It seems to me that the HSCA analysis of the backyard photos was thorough and demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that the backyard photos are not fakes or composites and were made with Oswalds camera.


Really, how do you arrive at that conclusion. Oswald's camera? Where is the evidence for that?


The fine lines evident under extreme magnification were plausibly explained on the very next page. 



Really, plausibly explained - no, what they actually said was that it was possible that the lines were consistent with other lines within the photo.




They ultimately backed away from their objections, stating their original conclusions were based on poor quality copies. 


They? Backed away from their objections? What does that mean?



The problem is, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald and the camera were in New Orleans on September 11, 1963.




There's no problem. Again where's the evidence that categorically shows Oswald was with that IR camera in New Orleans?