For New Readers of This Forum

[JFK_Case]

Putting this up for newbies to this forum. Some really nice stuff that will cast doubt on the "Oswald Did It" verdict.

Even today, you can read write-ups in the news about how Oswald was deranged, was a Communist (their favorite word to cast doubt on people; has been going on for years now and not just for Oswald) and other BS. So here's the deranged assassin in the hallway after he was arrested. The media loved to use this photo because it makes him look proud of what he had just done. It's simply a matter of him showing his handcuffs.

But take a look at the caption in the photo. Sure, sure:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vrjkIg11WMc/YAnVwJz2ZOI/AAAAAAAAFrQ/GNPvFug_xSYTqvInNxGXa6S3aCn7xVOYwCLcBGAsYHQ/s800/LHO-WEARING-RING.png

***

A comparison photo of a guy who tried to re-create the Oswald backyard photo. But here's where it gets funny. Without this photo of him, there's no real hard evidence that he pulled the trigger with the rifle to kill Kennedy, nor the pistol that killed Tippit. so what do they do? They go all out with these fake photos - the rifle AND the pistol AND the Commie newspapers. HAHA. This has always led me to believe that he was supposed to be murdered in the theater with the pistol in his possession [because someone told him to bring it] to shut him up and the throwdown bullets and rifle at his place of work would have been nicely tied back to this photo too. And guess what? He admitted while he was held in custody the photos were fake.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IfF-FnnM958/Xz_-Z0EjxPI/AAAAAAAAFmA/8LkuGhIffFEM0ounEYrUkjZdYd-eLQdpgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/LHO-CAPPEL-PHOTOS.gif

***

One of my favorites. From the minute they started the WC, they knew they had a problem with the shot trajectory. The back wound [which our former President Ford changed in the report to "neck" to further jive with the report - tell me...does ANYONE reading this think that sticker on the guy's right shoulder is a neck wound?] terminated in the back; in other words it didn't exit. The front throat wound also did not terminate. So during the reenactment they put a sticker on the back of the neck. There is absolutely no photographic evidence of the autopsy showing a wound on the back of the neck where the sticker is. So why did they do that? Because they wanted to see where a shot from the rear neck would hit and therefore come out the throat. Only it didn't. HAHA.

And that, dear readers, is the quandary they were in because if the shoulder shot did not exit anywhere and the front throat shot didn't either, we have a big problem that only magic could solve. And that's how the BS Single Bullet Theory came to be birthed and continues to be how it all went down.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Putting this up for newbies to this forum. Some really nice stuff that will cast doubt on the "Oswald Did It" verdict.

Even today, you can read write-ups in the news about how Oswald was deranged, was a Communist (their favorite word to cast doubt on people; has been going on for years now and not just for Oswald) and other BS. So here's the deranged assassin in the hallway after he was arrested. The media loved to use this photo because it makes him look proud of what he had just done. It's simply a matter of him showing his handcuffs.

The push to show he was "deranged" goes back to the false claims made about the Youth House psych report That portrait was reinforced by all of the interviews of people who knew him either as a kid or as an adult, and called him "quiet" or an "odd duck", a "loner" or similar without understanding or caring that there could be a medical reason for his apparent oddities. False stories like the alleged threat with a  knife to the wife of John Pic only added to the flames of antipathy dancing around him.                  

A comparison photo of a guy who tried to re-create the Oswald backyard photo. But here's where it gets funny. Without this photo of him, there's no real hard evidence that he pulled the trigger with the rifle to kill Kennedy, nor the pistol that killed Tippit. so what do they do? They go all out with these fake photos - the rifle AND the pistol AND the Commie newspapers. HAHA. This has always led me to believe that he was supposed to be murdered in the theater with the pistol in his possession [because someone told him to bring it] to shut him up and the throwdown bullets and rifle at his place of work would have been nicely tied back to this photo too. And guess what? He admitted while he was held in custody the photos were fake.

Not sure that you said what you really tried to say here. The BYP are not hard evidence that he took a potshot at Kennedy. They are not even good evidence that he owned the weapons now in the archives since it can't be proved the weapons in the photos are the same ones. That said, they were certainly used as evidence to try him in the media.

In any case, as you say, they are absolutely fake. The expertize and technology are both available to prove this beyond any and all doubt. But actually getting the work done has something of a curse on it. 

He was supposed to be arrested or murdered in the Theater. The theater setting and the box-top claimed to have been found on him are both keys to understanding this. A theater setting and a box-top were both part of the evidence that got the Rosenberg's the death penalty. 

I do disagree that he brought the pistol with him on his own volition or under orders.  

His own manifesto... which I do believe was a true reflection of his ideas - stipulated that pistols should be banned from sale to the public.

Moreover, I believe he went straight to the theater from work per Inspector Kelley's interrogation report prior to claiming Oswald changed his story. 

The pistol meets both the requirements of a typical police "throwdown". It could not be traced back to them and was not in working order. 

Here is a list of leads generated on these forums. It does need updating though, since a lot more has come to light since the last update.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t35-summary-of-leads

[Greg_Doudna]

Greg P. and JFK_Case, on the Backyard Photos (BYP), setting aside issues of the photo analysis for the moment itself there seem to be significant non-photo arguments for the BYP being genuine from Oswald. Since I realize you disagree, just for purposes of clarity could you give your interpretations (even if only a word or two) to make clear what you suppose to be or the explanation of each of these (e.g. "witness lying under instruction of handler", "witness lying on own", witness mistaken (not intentionally lying but wrong nevertheless); "fact true but irrelevant" to Oswald/BYP, etc.)? These are:

--Marina said she took those photos
--Marina says decades later to researchers, after she is pro-CT and thinks LHO innocent, that she took the photos, insists it is true.
--Photos identified as from a particular camera of origin, which was a camera turned in by Robert Oswald from belongings of Lee and Marina and ID'd as Lee/Marina camera
--BYPs were found among Lee's belongings in Ruth Paine garage by Dallas police officers on Saturday 11/23/63 in search warrant of Lee's things
--A photo of Lee with a rifle (a BYP?) was testified by Marguerite and Marina as in Marina's possession on Fri 11/22, hidden by Marina on her person, tried to give to Marguerite, Marguerite declined to take it, Marina destroyed it by fire in an ashtray in a motel room that evening
--Witness in contact with Oswald in April 1963 says later that Oswald showed him a BYP in April 1963: Michael Paine.
--A BYP reported by DeMohrenschildts found in their belongings several years later in storage, with inscription on back verified in Oswald handwriting and a joke "hunter of fascists ha ha" maybe from Marina

It seems like a lot in terms of quantity and weight that requires complex explanations if the BYP are fake? such as assumptions of handlers giving directions to testify falsely, suborning of perjury under oath, lifelong trust that no perjuring witness will spill the beans, etc and etc.? Did lying witnesses receive continuing periodic financial payments from their handlers for the rest of their life in exchange for not coming clean--how do you surmise that might have worked to ensure a lying witness does not later come clean?

Against the BYP being genuine are two arguments:
-- Lee denial (claim that BYP are fake), in his interrogation after arrest
-- disputed arguments that BYP are positively fake (not simply could be), which however did not persuade any of the HSCA panel of photography experts, who saw no grounds positively to call them fake, judged they were probably genuine, some concession to hypothetical possibility of forgery but saw no evidence of such and doubted it (so the HSCA experts). Arguably, practically all published claims and arguments of BYP fakery on photographic grounds have issues of confirmation bias since coming from CT believers.

Comment and question: all that is known of what Lee said after his arrest is hearsay. Because Lee was heard by multiple law enforcement persons those later written reports or real-time handwritten notes have been assumed approximately accurate and not wholly invented, which is probably correct. But there is no verbatim tape recording and no stenographer took down exact words nor is there a written statement signed by Oswald with exact words, dealing with the BYP. 
Is it possible Lee answered "no" to questions of ownership of a rifle because his argument was the US government, or an agency for whom he was working, owned it not he himself? (And the nuance was lost in the hearsay paraphrase?) Where Lee is supposed to have claimed the BYP were fake, is it possible Lee answered back to Fritz, "you could have faked these ... I will show you sometime how these could be faked, etc." deflection without actual denial, but those nuances were lost and it was heard and paraphrased as a categorical denial?

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Greg P. and JFK_Case, on the Backyard Photos (BYP), setting aside issues of the photo analysis for the moment itself there seem to be significant non-photo arguments for the BYP being genuine from Oswald. Since I realize you disagree, just for purposes of clarity could you give your interpretations (even if only a word or two) to make clear what you suppose to be or the explanation of each of these (e.g. "witness lying under instruction of handler", "witness lying on own", witness mistaken (not intentionally lying but wrong nevertheless); "fact true but irrelevant" to Oswald/BYP, etc.)? These are:

Okay. I'11 take pick the fake for 100, thanks, Greg.

--Marina said she took those photos

Marina originally said she took one.- and funnily enough, she only had concern over one. Even funnier, the one she had concern over, was one of Lee holding what was described by two female non-guin people as a rifle but was more likely a shotgun. No pistol. No Commie newspapers. 


Marina had a fortune dangled in front of her during questioning and had promises of not being deported. So she did what any self-respecting Russian Cold War widow would do in the US in this situation. She did the math and started saying whatever they wanted, after initially telling the truth. "You say I took 2 photos. Okay I took 2" You found another one? Musta been 3".  "Lee went to Mexico? Of course! He bought me a taco! The lying bastard told me he got it Taco Bel!"

--Marina says decades later to researchers, after she is pro-CT and thinks LHO innocent, that she took the photos, insists it is true.

Marina is only Pro Matrina and tests the prevailing winds. She long stopped caring about what she says because no one - not CT authors, not the goverrnment - are really interested in the truth. 

You're talking about a woman who sold her own ring as Lee's for a fortune.when she ran out of real shit Lee owned that she could sell.

She took one photo - andf not with any Imperial Reflex which she had zero clues about how to use. Since Lee never owned a rifle, but did own a shotgun in Minsk, and since the photo in question was taken in March as claimed - and was inscribed to June, iI conclude it was taken in March 1962 in Minsk as a keepsake for June when she got a bit older. 

--Photos identified as from a particular camera of origin, which was a camera turned in by Robert Oswald from belongings of Lee and Marina and ID'd as Lee/Marina camera

And one she did not know how to operate. But I won't argue that the photos in the archives were taken with this camera that Marina had never laid eyes on before.

--A photo of Lee with a rifle (a BYP?) was testified by Marguerite and Marina as in Marina's possession on Fri 11/22, hidden by Marina on her person, tried to give to Marguerite, Marguerite declined to take it, Marina destroyed it by fire in an ashtray in a motel room that evening

It was only Marguerite who testified to it. The WC knew not to ask Marina about it because who the hell would know what would come out of her mouth? 

What you have to ask yourself, Greg is why Marina would be so worried about a photo of Lee holding a shotgun and transcribed to his daughter -and NOT be concerned about far far far more incriminating photos. I put it to you, Greg, that she was not concerned about them because they either did not exist at that time, or she did not know about them if they did exist, or she did know about them but had no acess to them (though that last one doesn't seem likely).

--Witness in contact with Oswald in April 1963 says later that Oswald showed him a BYP in April 1963: Michael Paine.

Really? You're going to take what he claimed declades later over what he said under oath?

Here is what he was shown in April:

Mr. PAINE - We were invited to a party, Ruth and I were invited to a party, given by Everett Glover. I had a cold and wasn't able to go. Ruth went at that time and subsequently went once or twice to see Marina. And she invited Marina and Lee to our house for dinner, and here the date that comes to mind is April 10.
Mr. DULLES - Where was Marina staying at this time?
Mr. PAINE - Berry Street.
Mr. DULLES - Berry Street in Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER - Berry Street or would it be Neely Street?
Mr. PAINE - Neely Street. So this was the first time I saw them. I had to go over, he didn't drive a car and I had to go over, and pick him up in my car and bring him back to the house. So I went over to Neely Street and saw them. Marina took about half an hour to pack all the things for Junie. Meanwhile I was talking to Lee at their house there.
Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us about that conversation?
Mr. PAINE - I asked him what he was doing, his job, and he showed me a picture on the wall, which was a piece of newspaper, I think--that is beside the point. I asked him about Russia, what he liked about.
Mr. DULLES - Could we get that picture?
Mr. PAINE - I think it was beside the point. It was a piece of newspaper showing a fashion ad, I think. I think his job was--
Mr. DULLES - Nothing to do with politics at all, to do with his job. I see.

How you continue to defend this pair is beyond me.  But please - knock yourself out explaining this testimony away. 

-A BYP reported by DeMohrenschildts found in their belongings several years later in storage, with inscription on back verified in Oswald handwriting and a joke "hunter of fascists ha ha" maybe from Marina

Graphology is the analysis of handwriting with attempt to determine someone's personality traits. No scientific evidence exists to support graphology,[1][2] and it is generally considered a pseudoscience[3][4][5][6] or scientifically questionable practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology

Sorry Greg, but your significant non-photo arguments are smoke and mirrirs - except for the ones that are actually evidence of fakery - ie the photo Marina destroyed, the camera she had no clue about how to use, and Mike Paine's lies in later life about what he was shown in April '63 by Lee.

[Greg_Doudna]

Thanks Greg P. I think theres a misunderstanding, I'm not intending to argue any particular claim, but trying to understand the structure of the argument. You skipped over a comment on the police finding of BYP among Lee's belongings? Also, please--what is the positive argument calling for fake BYP in the first place (that you see)? Is it that the BYP cannot be genuine photographically? Or is it they could be genuine but you think for another reason they aren't?

A couple of comments (not intending to defend a position, just comment): on handwriting, graphology as personality analysis has no scientific merit, true, but handwriting analysis here is different, in the genre of expert pattern-matching methods that have some basis. However they aren't perfect and can be fooled by forgers, if only a couple of words fairly easily, so maybe that is what you mean. A more important question there though is what is your thinking on how the BYP got in the DeMohrenschildts' storage belongings? Were both of the DeM's fooled by someone else planting them, or did both DeM's themselves invent the story themselves of finding that BYP as part of witting disinfo? And yet George D. tells of that in his book mss. which is one of the most sympathetic portraits of Oswald from one who knew him, other than Titovets in Russia, that there is. He ended his life either in suicide or murder, whichever it was, because it looked like he was tormented by the case and convinced Oswald was innocent. Yet he believed that BYP that he and Jean found. But if he and she were fooled by a planted forgery, that gets a little complicated, how does that work, how complicated does it get. 

On Michael Paine' story, it sure is true he wasn't volunteering it. I don't think it rises to perjury if he wasn't asked directly. I think that was his position later when asked why he didn't speak of it earlier to WC, that he hadn't been asked. So either he held it back until 30 years later for some reason, or it wasn't true and he claimed it was 30 years later. I don't have a strong opinion, other than to reject what I used to think that it was a mistake (malleable memory of a witness not intending to lie); not credible it was a mistake. Its either truth or lie. If the BYP are genuine on other grounds I'd probably go 80/20% in favor of truth even if it did come late. If BYP are forged on other grounds then of course Michael Paine's 30 yrs later is of little use in the opposite direction because its such a latecomer of witness testimony. 

The point about Marina saying anything, 2, 3 photos, whatever you want, could be. On the photo she had being of a shotgun from Minsk 1962, interesting, that would make sense. My main problem in going for fake BYP is the basic question of why suppose they are fake in the first place. Everyone thinks Lee said they were fake and while that may be true we really don't quite know he said that do we. No tape recording, no stenographer, no written signed statement, and maybe even issue of trusting the police doing the reporting. So although it looks like he said it, its a little short of certain that he said it. Is there enough uncertainty there to remove Lee claiming "fake photos" as a certain reason? I don't know. On the matter of the photographic objections to authenticity, I am no photography expert and my eyes glaze over at all the arguments on the Education Forum about fake photos. I know how easily it is to be fooled by optical illusions such that I don't trust my own judgment on subtle arguments of photo fakery, and the problem is I don't trust CT's making such arguments either because of tendentiousness. I default to recognized experts who don't care about WC or CTs but just are objective and experienced in judging photographic issues. If their verdicts come up nearly 100% as the BYP are not certainly fake, which seems to be the case so far as I can tell, that says to me they probably are not certainly fake. (I think most photographic experts admit fake BYP are possible, but that is not the same thing--it returns to what is the reason for supposing fake BYP in the first place.)

Here it looks like I'm taking sides, but again for me this is more about attempting to understand comparative arguments accurately, as to what the argument is exactly, without necessarily criticizing it or advocating it. If you're interested in saying! Anyway thanks for the reply whether or not you continue.

[JFK_FNG]

I’m no expert on the BYPs, but one thing that stands out to me is that despite the conclusions of the HSCA photographic panel, they noted several unexplained anomalies like irregular lines in the grain structure on Oswald’s chin. They tried to explain it away with a tsunami of speculation, but it’s still something purely technical that may suggest a suspicious origin of the photos.

The Panel’s unconvincing analysis of a strange line that just happened to appear right along the border of Oswald’s face as a “water spot” is another one. Basically, I think the HSCA panel came up with more than enough evidence to warrant a new examination with better technology; but unfortunately that won’t happen until the case gets reopened.

Also, like Greg P. said, Marina’s testimony sure suggests that she had no idea in hell how to work that camera, and she initially said she’d only ever taken one photo. She also changed her story on when the photos were taken. The camera itself too had a pretty bizarre path into evidence.

You are right that we don’t know what Oswald actually said verbatim, but based on the statements of those who were there I think it’s a pretty damn safe bet he made a categorical denial. Is it just a coincidence that a bunch of credible evidence has come out suggesting that he was telling the truth?

Again, I’m no expert, but I think there’s definitely reason to be suspicious of BYPs. As far as alleged fake evidence goes, the BYPs have a lot more backing up that allegation than most other claims of fakery. Quite a few credentialed photo experts have said they were fakes, and it’s the kind of thing IMO that a good defense attorney would easily be able to challenge in court.

[Vinny]

Excellent discussion about the BYPs.



https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1991-back-yard-photography

[JFK_Case]

I would like to encourage readers to click on that GIF link above that shows the Oswald photo lined up with the recreation photo. Just open it up and then squint your eyes and stare at it. NOBODY on Earth stands the way the fake Oswald is standing in that photo. Nobody.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall that day they took that photo, listening in as they prepped to take the photos. And a hearing fly since I'm deaf. They had to have purposely done the photo this way. My guess is it may have had something to do with lining up the head with the body and the fence posts in the background. If you stare at it long enough, you'll note how the head suddenly kind of shoots straight up and when you then see the recreation photo, the naturalness of that one throws the fake one off even more.

But even in the recreation photo, the guy is trying to mimic the Oswald body lean but does a very poor job of it.

[JFK_FNG]

NOBODY on Earth stands the way the fake Oswald is standing in that photo. Nobody.

Buell Frazier would like a word with you lol. On my phone so this might come out distorted but it’s a pretty damn similar slant. Scroll down for original pictures:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1456p725-buell-wesley-frazier-wheres-your-rider-part-a

EDIT: I guess the pic didn’t even work, but I agree. Other than Buell apparently, nobody stands like that.

[Mick_Purdy]

I've often wondered if Michael Paine stood that way as well. Or Gary Taylor. 

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Mr Frazier and Mr BYP.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Thanks Greg P. I think theres a misunderstanding, I'm not intending to argue any particular claim, but trying to understand the structure of the argument.

There is no single, united argument. 

Like you, I have no particular photo analysis skills. 

I was first convinced the photos were fake by Marguerite's testimony about ONE photo, coupled with Marina's concern with only ONE photo. I think it was Sylvia Meagher who first opined that this single photo was taken in Minsk - and the more I looked into that possibility, the more it looked correct. Since then, easy-to-understand and replicate technical measurements have only added to the belief that we are looking at fakes.

You skipped over a comment on the police finding of BYP among Lee's belongings?

Unintentionally. This find is typical of what you see in known cases of planted evidence. The evidence is found in a place already searched and is evidence that is sorely needed to boost a dying case.

Also, please--what is the positive argument calling for fake BYP in the first place (that you see)? Is it that the BYP cannot be genuine photographically? Or is it they could be genuine but you think for another reason they aren't?

Using image measuring software and the known width of the newspapers (they have been confirmed as printed in tabloid format which is 11 inches wide), the figure is too short to be Oswald. Moreover, the rifle is too short to be the one found on the 6th floor. It comes out at about 36 inches - the size ordered - and there is a good visual argument for this actually being the 36 inch model.

If you want to test this, knock yourself out.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_suggest_free_scientific_image_measurement_software

A couple of comments (not intending to defend a position, just comment): on handwriting, graphology as personality analysis has no scientific merit, true, but handwriting analysis here is different, in the genre of expert pattern-matching methods that have some basis.

My apologies. I have a gazillion bookmarks on nearly as many topics, including a bunch on handwriting. In too much of a hurry and picked the wrong one.

Questioned document experts in most courts, can testify to differences/similarities in differrent documents, but are prohibited from testifying that this proves anything. 

Here is why:

“The overall error rate even for experts is large enough as to raise questions about whether their estimates can be sufficiently trustworthy for presentation in courts,” notes Martire. “We suggest that a cautious approach should be taken before endorsing the use of experience-based likelihood ratios for forensic purposes in the future.”
https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/can-estimates-from-forensic-handwriting-experts-be-trusted-in-court-/15635428

A more important question there though is what is your thinking on how the BYP got in the DeMohrenschildts' storage belongings? Were both of the DeM's fooled by someone else planting them, or did both DeM's themselves invent the story themselves of finding that BYP as part of witting disinfo? And yet George D. tells of that in his book mss. which is one of the most sympathetic portraits of Oswald from one who knew him, other than Titovets in Russia, that there is. He ended his life either in suicide or murder, whichever it was, because it looked like he was tormented by the case and convinced Oswald was innocent. Yet he believed that BYP that he and Jean found. But if he and she were fooled by a planted forgery, that gets a little complicated, how does that work, how complicated does it get. 

To my knowledge, neither gave any indication of recalling being given such a photo, only of finding it in among their stored belongings on return from Haiti. If my memory is correct here, no more need be said.  It was almost certainly planted. 

On Michael Paine' story, it sure is true he wasn't volunteering it. I don't think it rises to perjury if he wasn't asked directly. I think that was his position later when asked why he didn't speak of it earlier to WC, that he hadn't been asked. So either he held it back until 30 years later for some reason, or it wasn't true and he claimed it was 30 years later. I don't have a strong opinion, other than to reject what I used to think that it was a mistake (malleable memory of a witness not intending to lie); not credible it was a mistake. Its either truth or lie. If the BYP are genuine on other grounds I'd probably go 80/20% in favor of truth even if it did come late. If BYP are forged on other grounds then of course Michael Paine's 30 yrs later is of little use in the opposite direction because its such a latecomer of witness testimony. 

I never said he perjured himself in testimony, I am saying her lied decades later as I do not for a nanosecond believe that Oswald showed him a newspaper ad that he worked on at JCS, and then said, "btw, I would also like to show you this cool photo that I got Marina to take of me holding a couple of weapons and Commie newspapers."

This is the same Michael who later allegedly handled the alleged rifle in his garage, but despite being ex-army in a war zone and despite claiming to have seen Oswald in a photo holding the rifle, he somehow mistook what was in the blanket as camping gear.  We are also expected to believe that this alleged pacifist never questioned Oswald about the weapons in the photo, nor inquired after reconnecting with him in October, what became of the weapons.

We also have Ruth testifying that neither she nor Michael would have allowed any weapons to be stored in her garage,  Which means that Michael never mentioned anything about the weapons to Ruth, otherwise I am sure she would have given Lee the third degree about what happened to them.

That such disturbing questions escape you is in itself a bit disturbing.

The point about Marina saying anything, 2, 3 photos, whatever you want, could be. 

Not "could be" - IS a rock solid fact as amply demontated here.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring

I lost count of the number of different stories she told about Oswald's non-existant wedding ring. The number of stories on this alone is proof she didn't care what she said because she knew no one else cared about the facts and that the government would never probe her too deeply for fear of a few damaging facts slipping out.

She was bought and paid for by the Secret Service with possible assistance from ONI from about the second or third day of her "protective" custody at the 6 Flags ONI "safe house". 

My main problem in going for fake BYP is the basic question of why suppose they are fake in the first place. Everyone thinks Lee said they were fake and while that may be true we really don't quite know he said that do we. No tape recording, no stenographer, no written signed statement, and maybe even issue of trusting the police doing the reporting.

Correct. We do not know precisely what was said.

We DO know WHY we don't know. It is sometimes necessary when framing someone to put words in their mouth. This is known (at least here) as "police verballing".

Having studied the workings of this particular part of a frame, I can tell you that you do NOT willy-nilly change or add to what the framee has said.  You need to make sure you provide as much of what they say as accurately as you can and change ONLY what you need to change, to help make your frame work. The more you play around with what a suspect says, the more that can go wrong and the greater the risk of your frame being exposed.

In short, if there is no great need to alter what was said, don't alter it.

On the matter of the photographic objections to authenticity, I am no photography expert and my eyes glaze over at all the arguments on the Education Forum about fake photos. 

Nothing to do with anyone here.

[lanceman]

I would like to encourage readers to click on that GIF link above that shows the Oswald photo lined up with the recreation photo. Just open it up and then squint your eyes and stare at it. NOBODY on Earth stands the way the fake Oswald is standing in that photo. Nobody.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall that day they took that photo, listening in as they prepped to take the photos. And a hearing fly since I'm deaf. They had to have purposely done the photo this way. My guess is it may have had something to do with lining up the head with the body and the fence posts in the background. If you stare at it long enough, you'll note how the head suddenly kind of shoots straight up and when you then see the recreation photo, the naturalness of that one throws the fake one off even more.

But even in the recreation photo, the guy is trying to mimic the Oswald body lean but does a very poor job of it.

So how did the original “stand in” pose the way depicted in the photos?

[JFK_Case]

So how did the original “stand in” pose the way depicted in the photos?

That's why I said I'd like to have been a fly on the wall or just to be able to have seen what exactly they were doing when the photo was taken.

Do you not see - compared to the recreation photo - how the Oswald legs are slanted to the left? The recreation photo was done pretty well but he failed to recreate everything in the Oswald version, including the leg slant.

Maybe it didn't matter and maybe it means absolutely nothing the way the body is posed and positioned. For what it's worth, I think the Oswald body is someone else and they added his face to make it look like it was him holding the weapons and papers. This is what Oswald said it was while in custody.

As I mentioned above - and to clarify - his palm print off the box in the book building was shaky. One of the shells had a dent in it. The rifle itself was a piece of shit, with a misaligned scope and as Pat Speer pointed out on his site, research shows that the scope would have caused the sighting to be worst, not better. And so on.

So these photos of him were going to be literally the smoking gun to 100% "prove" that he did the deeds he was accused of doing. They had literally nothing else evidence wise, which is what I meant above and these faked photos were going to be the absolute proof. Put another way - if none of these photos existed, what else would they have had? Nobody has proven he was up on the sixth floor to this day.

That's why he knew the jig was up. It was dawning on him, and that's WHY he said he was a patsy. We have that on record. No "oh, maybe he didn't say that." He did. This guy was no dummy. And he worked at Jaggers, a photo company. He KNEW how these things were done, which is why he said what he said when he was shown them.

Here's his testimony

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340577/m1/1/

[JFK_FNG]

Random question: does anyone know what the deal is with the "sealed bull black envelope" the BYPs were originally 'found' in by McCabe and opened by Rose? Again I haven't looked into the BYPs very much but in a cursory search I can barely find freaking anything on this damn envelope. Not an exhibit number, fingerprint examination, not even a description other than McCabe's original report: 



Rose and Stovall's inventory list from 2515 W. Fifth just says "envelope containing some 35mm negatives". In the same inventory they go out of the way to describe some envelopes as "brown", so you'd think a "bull black" envelope containing the most important evidence discovered in that search would deserve a little more attention.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217813#relPageId=423

It's the same kind of thing on the DPD property clerk receipt. Apologies if this has been discussed before but I feel like there should be a lot more information on this black envelope.

[Ed.Ledoux]

I read
Dull black envelope.
No idea on it...

[JFK_FNG]

I read
Dull black envelope.
No idea on it...

 
Oh duh. I guess my eyes weren’t working last night. You’d think that’d be a pretty important piece of evidence though, right? Also it seems a little weird to me that the BYPs were just sitting there in their own sealed black envelope in the garage. I could be wrong but from what I can tell the BYPs are the only photos found in a sealed envelope at the Paine’s, and that there were no other black envelopes - or at least none described as such in Oswald’s possessions.

[StanDane]

Put another way - if none of these photos existed, what else would they have had? Nobody has proven he was up on the sixth floor to this day.

In 1969, six years after the assassination, after having much time to reflect on the hard, cold facts, Jesse Curry said: "We don't have any proof he fired the rifle. No one has been able to positively put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
 
In 2022, fifty-nine years after the assassination, Jesse Curry's words are still 100% true.
 
Placing Oswald up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building with a firearm in his hands is simply a theory, a weak, problem-laden theory.
 
Those who believe what Oswald told interrogators while in custody—that he was down in front—have far more evidence to support their claims.
 
If we can ever get this into a courtroom, we will be dealing from a position of strength.

[JFK_Case]

In 1969, six years after the assassination, after having much time to reflect on the hard, cold facts, Jesse Curry said: "We don't have any proof he fired the rifle. No one has been able to positively put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
 
In 2022, fifty-nine years after the assassination, Jesse Curry's words are still 100% true.
 
Placing Oswald up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building with a firearm in his hands is simply a theory, a weak, problem-laden theory.
 
Those who believe what Oswald told interrogators while in custody—that he was down in front—have far more evidence to support their claims.
 
If we can ever get this into a courtroom, we will be dealing from a position of strength.

Yes, this is the point of what I'm trying to say about the photos. If you take the fake photos away, there really is nothing substantial in the Oswald case. They needed something visually provable to show several things: Oswald was a basket case; Oswald had possession of not only the rifle found on the 6th floor, but the pistol he brought with him to the Texas Theater, where he was going to be gunned down there by the police and of course we would have never heard from him blurt out that he was a patsy; and Oswald was a deranged Red Commie who took it upon himself to murder the president. This last part ties in nicely with him supposedly going to Mexico City and "talking with" with the Russian assassin down there. The powers that be were hell-bent on invading Cuba to get rid of Castro.

That's why too when the murder in the theater failed, they sent Ruby in on live TV no less to finish it. They really didn't give a fuck that was going to be broadcast live.

From there, it was relatively easy to control the narrative of what happened, which is what ended up happening with the Warren Report whitewash. And here we are 59 years later. Still dicking around with releasing more papers from the archives (ALWAYS the official reason is "national security"); every single "shocking update" that comes out in the media is the same old shit; and out and out lies and fabrication on some of these programs, like the one when they used graphics to massage the story; and people being bought and paid for to fit the narrative (e.g., Dale Myers and his corny and dishonest 3D animation).

[barto]

For New Readers of this forum......

RUN!!!

[JFK_Case]

Why, Bart? Because you post a hundred million scans of documents here with no fucking narrative and that makes you some kind of expert?


FUCK OFF!!!

[barto]

Almost every word of your post is based on a misunderstanding........

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Almost every word of your post is based on a misunderstanding........

Has someone lost another digit and is a bit cranky?

I mean... that's a bit of an exaggeration, ol' boy.

He really hasn't said anything that isn't commonly said among the conspiriatii now or in the past 40 years. 

I have no real quibble, with the following exceptions...

Oswald took no pistol into the theater.

Ruby was sent in by the police to save a trial in front of the world's media. A bit hard to rig a trial under those circumstances. The murder of Oswald by police order of course, suited everyone.

Except Oswald.

There is great doubt about Kostikov ever being involved with any assassination unit of the KGB. But it's immaterial since Oswald never went there, and whatever was going down using Oswald's name and background, was unrelated to any JFK plot.

This part does resonate in it's general tenor:

From there, it was relatively easy to control the narrative of what happened, which is what ended up happening with the Warren Report whitewash. And here we are 59 years later. Still dicking around with releasing more papers from the archives (ALWAYS the official reason is "national security"); every single "shocking update" that comes out in the media is the same old shit; and out and out lies and fabrication on some of these programs, like the one when they used graphics to massage the story; and people being bought and paid for to fit the narrative (e.g., Dale Myers and his corny and dishonest 3D animation).

The "dicking around" needs to give way to a concerted push for Oswald to be given the "Making a Murderer" treatment. 

Mike, one thing... Bart is more than just an archivist posting documents all over the web. Go to his website. He has done some extremely valuable work there.

[Ed.Ledoux]

Yes Dull.
I mean the envelope.

Dull black envelope is a rare animal.





What was under the Paines' name badges?

[JFK_FNG]

Thank you Ed. If that really is the envelope in that picture it’s pretty interesting cause when the WC looked into how the press got the BYPs, a reporter, I forget his name, was adamant that he saw one of the photos in the hand of a police officer on either the evening of the 22nd or morning of the 23rd - but the BYPs weren’t officially discovered until around 3pm on the 23rd.

Like you said, it just seems to me like a dull black envelope is a fairly rare item; and they should have attempted to trace where it came from and checked it for fingerprints - but it doesn’t look like that was ever done.

[Sponsored content]