Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Discharge Of Lee Harvey Oswald And Other Related Issues


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Two great questions.

1.  Marina said she took one photo and even insisted on that.

1.1.  The WC attorney was relentless that she MUST have taken two, because he had two different poses in his hand!

1.2.  He kept pushing the two photos in her face.  See?  See?

1.3.  Finally, Marina realized he was never going to stop, so she shrugged and said, "Well, maybe I did, without knowing it, since I never operated a camera before."

1.4.  This hassle happened more than once with the authorities.

In furtherance to that, here are a couple of quotes regarding the issue from this article:

Quote

In a 1991 telephone interview with conspiracist author Harrison Edward Livingstone, Marina Oswald Porter told him, "I did take those pictures of Lee. . . . I took them one Sunday. Yes. I swear on my children I'm telling the truth. I do not remember how many. Because I didn't want it; I didn't like it; but two [pictures] I definitely took,"

Quote

In a 2000 interview with Vincent Bugliosi and researcher Jack Duffy ("who," writes Bugliosi, "has studied the assassination for many years and leans toward the conspiracy theory"), Marina Oswald Porter reaffirmed that she took the famous photos. "That settles that issue," Duffy proclaimed, perhaps a tad too optimistically.

How many different 'backyard photos' are there? Three, and possibly four!

IV-15-HSCA.jpg

The fourth may be the one that Marguerite said that she and Marina 'destroyed' after the assassination showing the rifle being held over his head.

On the assumption that all of the photos are genuine and were all taken by Marina then the question becomes why would she think she took only one (possibly two) if there were more than that... does the difference in numbers lead to the conclusion that some of them were indeed 'faked', or could there be another explanation... if for example she 'pressed' the button 4 or 5 times, but later on Lee told her that only two of them worked, how many pictures would she have taken... ;)

Anyroads,

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

2.0.  WHY in the world would LHO want to have four variations?

2.1.  First reason: plausible deniability.  Each of the variations would NEVER be the original.

2.2. Second reason: LHO was immature, and wanted a memento of the historic occasion.

The easiest way to have 'plausible deniability' surely would be to have no photos taken at all. lol The next best way would be to merely take a photo of the rifle, pistol and newspapers in situ without himself in it... then he would have a 'momento' and 'plausible deniability'...

... why take any photos at all? To answer that question one needs to consider what he did with any of them after the fact. One he sent to the offices of The Militant's publisher, the Socialist Workers' Party presumably as a bit of 'political posturing',- what if that was his only reason for taking any 'backyard photos' to start with and the one he later 'gave' to DeMohrenschildt was an 'after the fact' thought... idk.

Anyway,

Paul, when you mention about 'with the help of Roscoe White', for clarity, can you expand on that a bit more please?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

In furtherance to that, here are a couple of quotes regarding the issue from this article:

How many different 'backyard photos' are there? Three, and possibly four!

The fourth may be the one that Marguerite said that she and Marina 'destroyed' after the assassination showing the rifle being held over his head.

On the assumption that all of the photos are genuine and were all taken by Marina then the question becomes why would she think she took only one (possibly two) if there were more than that... does the difference in numbers lead to the conclusion that some of them were indeed 'faked', or could there be another explanation... if for example she 'pressed' the button 4 or 5 times, but later on Lee told her that only two of them worked, how many pictures would she have taken... ;)

<snip>

Alistair,

Although Marina Oswald said in 1991 that she "definitely" took two photographs, that was only after she had been worn down by perhaps HOURS of arguments with the FBI, Secret Service and WC attorneys, with Marina insisting that she only took ONE, and they carefully, slowly, methodically, scientifically, painstakingly and patiently patronized her by waving TWO separate BYP's under her nose, to convince her that she MUST be mistaken.

After this grueling brainwashing under bright lights and before Federal Judges -- Marina Oswald finally caved in to the pressure -- and she testified -- under oath -- that she MUST HAVE taken two, although she didn't remember it.

From that moment on, it became FACT -- testimony under oath.  And the WC lawyers were happy chappy.

UNTIL -- somebody came forward with the Roscoe and Geneva White version of the BYP.  Hmm.

Then, the pose with LHO holding his rifle above his head -- possibly the one seen by Marguerite Oswald -- became public.

That's FOUR different poses.  So, we're really back to square one.  Marina Oswald's original testimony was true and correct -- and the brainwashing sessions by well-meaning, scientific WC attorneys and FBI men -- turned out to be mistaken -- YET AGAIN.

The reason, IMHO, that the WC never pursued this diligently is because -- face it -- the Walker shooting has NOTHING to with the JFK assassination.  It is a sideshow.    It was briefly featured only to make LHO look like a really mean guy.   No other reason. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

...Anyroads...

... why take any photos at all? To answer that question one needs to consider what he did with any of them after the fact. One he sent to the offices of The Militant's publisher, the Socialist Workers' Party presumably as a bit of 'political posturing',- what if that was his only reason for taking any 'backyard photos' to start with and the one he later 'gave' to DeMohrenschildt was an 'after the fact' thought... idk.

Anyway,

Paul, when you mention about 'with the help of Roscoe White', for clarity, can you expand on that a bit more please?

Regards

Alistair,

Your point is valid -- LHO sent a copy of his BYP to The Militant.   We know this because, although The Militant WC witness said he never got one, years later their files turned up a BYP (now worth six figures, no doubt).

Now, you note that LHO also sent one to George DeMohrenschildt; and he signed it.  You say it was an "after the fact thought."   Perhaps you refer to the fact that George DeM found it in 1964.

The TIMING of the George DeM gift is interesting.  George says he never knew about it until 1964 until Jeanne opened a box in their storage room in Dallas to see the record collection and record player that Jeanne had lent to Marina in 1962, and from out of that box fell a BYP.  It was signed by LHO.   Jeanne let out a shriek.

Also -- on the back of that note -- written in Russian -- were the words, "Hunter of fascists -- ha ha!"

The Secret Service determined that the handwriting did NOT belong to LHO.  Nor did it belong to Marina Oswald.  Who wrote it?  IMHO, the writer was George DeM himself -- since at the bottom of the photo George DeM quickly added the (c) Copyright notice, because he intended to rent this to LIFE magazine to make some extra money.

Well -- the pen used to write that (c) Copyright notice seems to me, IMHO, to be the same pen that wrote, "Hunter of fascists -- ha ha!"   Just my opinion.

The BYP problem boils down to the Roscoe White problem, IMHO. 

1.   A new BYP showed up in the possession of Roscoe White's wife, Geneva as late as 1990.

2.  Photo expert Jack White (1927-2012) a late member of this FORUM, produced evidence that the body in the BYP did not belong to Lee Harvey Oswald -- but instead belonged to Roscoe White.

3.  The chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance -- all belonged to Roscoe White, a fellow Marine in Japan during Oswald's tour of duty there.

3.1.  Here is the YouTube version of Jack White's discovery:  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4]

4.  Also, Tommy Graves started a thread on this FORUM last September, entitled, "How Did They Get Roscoe White to Lean Like That and Not Fall Over?"  

4.1.  My post of 9/21/2016 in that thread attempts to explain why Roscoe might have participated in the BYP.

4.2.  Here is that link:  http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23028-how-did-they-get-roscoe-white-to-lean-like-that-and-not-fall-over/&page=16

In brief, Alistair, it is my opinion that LHO and Roscoe White were buddies in Dallas in early 1963.   In my CT, LHO convinced Roscoe that they could get steady jobs in the CIA through the great George DeM.   Roscoe was interested and would play along.

LHO said that he had learned Russian so that he could infiltrate the Communists, and this would be valuable to the CIA, since LHO planned to be a double-agent.   But he needed help.  He wanted to start by sending The Socialist Workers Party (whom he regarded as truly militant in the USA) a BYP, with him holding his weapons and claiming to be a True Revolutionary.

In my CT, LHO added that he needed "plausible deniability," just in case the FBI came knocking at his door.  All great CIA men knew about this, and LHO had learned some photographic techniques to Fake photographs so that they look real, but they he could later say, "That photo is a Fake and I can prove it."   And he could prove it.

Roscoe White agreed to play along.  That is why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's -- and why Oswald's head looks too big for his body in the BYP.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Your point is valid -- LHO sent a copy of his BYP to The Militant.   We know this because, although The Militant WC witness said he never got one, years later their files turned up a BYP (now worth six figures, no doubt).

Now, you note that LHO also sent one to George DeMohrenschildt; and he signed it.  You say it was an "after the fact thought."   Perhaps you refer to the fact that George DeM found it in 1964.

The TIMING of the George DeM gift is interesting.  George says he never knew about it until 1964 until Jeanne opened a box in their storage room in Dallas to see the record collection and record player that Jeanne had lent to Marina in 1962, and from out of that box fell a BYP.  It was signed by LHO.   Jeanne let out a shriek.

Also -- on the back of that note -- written in Russian -- were the words, "Hunter of fascists -- ha ha!"

The Secret Service determined that the handwriting did NOT belong to LHO.  Nor did it belong to Marina Oswald.  Who wrote it?  IMHO, the writer was George DeM himself -- since at the bottom of the photo George DeM quickly added the (c) Copyright notice, because he intended to rent this to LIFE magazine to make some extra money.

Well -- the pen used to write that (c) Copyright notice seems to me, IMHO, to be the same pen that wrote, "Hunter of fascists -- ha ha!"   Just my opinion.

The BYP problem boils down to the Roscoe White problem, IMHO. 

1.   A new BYP showed up in the possession of Roscoe White's wife, Geneva as late as 1990.

2.  Photo expert Jack White (1927-2012) a late member of this FORUM, produced evidence that the body in the BYP did not belong to Lee Harvey Oswald -- but instead belonged to Roscoe White.

3.  The chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance -- all belonged to Roscoe White, a fellow Marine in Japan during Oswald's tour of duty there.

3.1.  Here is the YouTube version of Jack White's discovery:  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4]

4.  Also, Tommy Graves started a thread on this FORUM last September, entitled, "How Did They Get Roscoe White to Lean Like That and Not Fall Over?"  

4.1.  My post of 9/21/2016 in that thread attempts to explain why Roscoe might have participated in the BYP.

4.2.  Here is that link:  http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23028-how-did-they-get-roscoe-white-to-lean-like-that-and-not-fall-over/&page=16

In brief, Alistair, it is my opinion that LHO and Roscoe White were buddies in Dallas in early 1963.   In my CT, LHO convinced Roscoe that they could get steady jobs in the CIA through the great George DeM.   Roscoe was interested and would play along.

LHO said that he had learned Russian so that he could infiltrate the Communists, and this would be valuable to the CIA, since LHO planned to be a double-agent.   But he needed help.  He wanted to start by sending The Socialist Workers Party (whom he regarded as truly militant in the USA) a BYP, with him holding his weapons and claiming to be a True Revolutionary.

In my CT, LHO added that he needed "plausible deniability," just in case the FBI came knocking at his door.  All great CIA men knew about this, and LHO had learned some photographic techniques to Fake photographs so that they look real, but they he could later say, "That photo is a Fake and I can prove it."   And he could prove it.

Roscoe White agreed to play along.  That is why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's -- and why Oswald's head looks too big for his body in them.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

In my CT, LHO added that he needed "plausible deniability," just in case the FBI came knocking at his door.  All great CIA men knew about this, and LHO had learned some photographic techniques to Fake photographs so that they look real, but they he could later say, "That photo is a Fake and I can prove it."   And he could prove it.

I don't doubt for one second that Oswald had learned some photographic techinques... but would those techniques be good enough to fool the 22  experts that tested the photos for the HSCA and found no evidence of them being faked (and that included the 'graininess' of the images)... was Oswald such an expert that he could have indeed 'proved that the photo is a fake' but so many experts since have failed to do so...

... one thing that somewhat amuses me when reading about the 'Backyard Photos' being faked is how often I read that Oswald said they were faked and he could prove it - it somewhat amuses me because it seems so cut and dried, as if that's all that Oswald said on the matter and yet from reading through all that he said about them, a slightly different slant is put on it...

... first though, a consideration of a couple of points. If the backyard photos were indeed faked by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body then either that was done by Oswald himself and he would know that was the case, or it was done by someone else but Oswald at the time of first seeing it would surely (because of his 'photography expertise' know that straight away. Either way what should our expectations be when reading what Oswald said about them - that someone had superimposed his face on to another person's body... either that or for Oswald to say nothing about them at all. That really should be the only two options...

From Bugliosi's book Four Days In November:

Quote

"Now you told me yesterday that you'd never owned a gun," Fritz says innocently.
"That's right," Oswald replies. "I never owned a gun."
"Okay," Fritz says, reaching for the envelope Detective Rose has laid on his desk. "I want to show you something."
Oswald purses his lips and eyes the envelope the captain is reaching into. Like Houdini pulling a rabbit out of a hat, Fritz suddenly produces an eight-by-ten-inch black-and-white photograph and holds it out in front of Oswald.
"How do you explain this?" he says.
The photograph is an enlargement of one found earlier in the afternoon among Oswald's possessions stored in Mrs Paine's garage. After returning to City Hall, and showing it to Captain Fritz, Detective Rose has been working with officers in the Identification Bureau to produce this slightly cropped blowup. Everyone present can see that Oswald is flustered.
"I'm not going to make any comment about that without the advice of an attorney,"Oswald replies smugly.
"Well, is that your face in the picture?" Fritz asks, pointing at the image.
"I won't even admit that," he sneers.
"That's not your face? Fritz asks, scarcely believing that Oswald would deny what is so obvious.
"No," Oswald says. "That's not even my face. That's a fake. I've been photographed a number of times since I got here - first by the police, and now every time I get dragged through the hallway. Someone has taken my picture and put my face on a different body."
"So that is your face?" Fritz asks.
Oswald answers quickly to cover his own contradiction.
"Yes, that's my face," he says. "but that's not my body. I know all about photography, I've worked with photography a long time. Someone has photographed me and then superimposed a rifle in my hand and a gun in my pocket. That's a picture that someone has made. I've never seen that picture before in my life."
Fritz lays the photograph on his desk.
"We found this photo in Mrs. Paine's garage, among your effects," Fritz tells him.
Oswald rolls his eyes toward the ceiling.
"That picture has never been in my possession," he snaps.
"Wait a minute," Fritz shoots back, "I'll show you one you probably have seen."
The Captain reaches back into the envelope and pulls out a small snap-shot, the original photograph used to produce the enlargement. He shows it to Oswald, who squirms.
"I never have seen that picture either," he says defiantly. "That picture's been reduced from the big one."
Fritz asks him how that's so, and Oswald gets in to a long argument with Fritz about his knowledge of photography, asking Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or whether the larger was made from the smaller.
"We made this enlargement from the snapshot we found in the search," Fritz finally acknowledges.
"Well, I understand photography real well," Oswald says arrogantly, "and at the proper time I will show that they're fakes. Right now, I have nothing more to say about them."

Oswald at first says it isn't his face, then admits it is his face but that it's been superimposed on to someone else's body and then he slips up even more and says that it is his 'body' and someone has superimposed the rifle in his hand and the gun in his pocket...

With consideration to your other point about the 'plausible deniability' for if the 'FBI came knocking at his door' - if that was the case, why create a number with different poses in them? Surely the best way to have 'plausible deniability' would be to have no photos at all - or if he did need one (as a memento) to have one with the stuff in situ and him not in it... or if he (for whatever reason) needed to be in one why not just have one...

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Roscoe White agreed to play along.  That is why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's -- and why Oswald's head looks too big for his body in the BYP.

I've read this kind of thing before. As mentioned above though there were 22 experts at the HSCA who found no fakery in the backyard photos; and in more recent years there have been many experts who have come to the same conclusion...

... you mention 'Roscoe White's chin'... I presume then that you are of the opinion that the 'line' seen across Oswald's face in the Backyard Photo is where the 'cut' was made to paste in his face... on that point here are some images;

oswald-chin-comparison-3.jpg

chin-mytton.gif

chin-capture-comparison.jpg

 

Of course there is the 'intrigue' of how one of the Backyard Photos ended up in the 'care' of Roscoe White - how do you think that came about Paul?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair,

1.  The FBI experts told the Warren Commission clearly -- there was no Fakery in the BYP that they could see -- but they would not rule out a "very clever Fake."

1.1. Jack White showed how clever those Fakes really were -- using very rare techniques of slanting the photographs slightly, and so on.

1.1.1.  Also, LHO  knew how to take photos of the photos, and photos of those photos using the same Imperial Reflex camera, for best effect.

1.2.  I maintain (along with perhaps no others) that LHO himself pasted his own face onto Roscoe White's body.

2.0.  Bugliosi merely quotes the testimony of Captain Will Fritz, in whose custody LHO died while surrounded by Fritz' men.

2.1. Will Fritz had the privilege of telling the world the Last Words of LHO.

2.2.  I don't believe a single word of those conversations.  They were not recorded, or written down until WEEKS later.

2.3.  Captain Fritz and all those present had WEEKS to coordinate their stories about what LHO said.   It is mostly LIES, I am convinced.

2.4.  I challenge any writers who dare to take Fritz's testimony about what LHO said -- at face value.

3.0.  As for Roscoe White, he had a BYP because his very own chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance were part of the BYP.  He was there.  He got his copy.

Regards,
 --Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I don't doubt for one second that Oswald had learned some photographic techinques... but would those techniques be good enough to fool the 22  experts that tested the photos for the HSCA and found no evidence of them being faked (and that included the 'graininess' of the images)... was Oswald such an expert that he could have indeed 'proved that the photo is a fake' but so many experts since have failed to do so...

Hey there Alistair...

Not sure you're aware but the HSCA "experts" were all fooled, on purpose, with a "FAKE" photo project...  Jim D can fill you in on more of this...

Additionally, the HSCA chose to disregard the conclusions of a test done on the images at extremely high resolution at Aerospace Corp...

Why do you supposed they dismiss the finding of these lines exactly where they are supposed to be and in contradiction to the HSCA "Experts"?

It's as if they say that simply because we looked more carefully and closer than the HSCA, the finding cannot be right...  worse still is that they use the same old tired excuse - there's "No evidence" it shows what it shows so it must be they way WE stated...  Puh-leeze...

It sounded like you were defending these HSCA experts - or am I reading that wrong?

and finally, the very LAST thing Paul can claim is expertise in the area of the CIA, the FBI, the DPD, and Roscoe White.  

Comments like
"All great CIA men know that"  and
"Roscoe White agreed to play along. That's why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's"

are once again OPINIONS of the man who does not like to preface with "IN MY OPINION"  Paul has no idea how to connect Roscoe to that image beyond some guesswork about his wrist bump...  these posts are conclusions which Paul can offer nothing to support.   Furthermore, there is an image circulating on the internet of what is supposed to be an unaltered version of the BYP.  There are names associated with the BYP like Wilson/Gum that require a bit more in-depth work than the glossing over Paul here offers.

Alistair - good luck with Paul.  I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the self awareness to know he's out of his league.  Most can offer unsubstantiated theories, that's easy...  offer something that has evidence of any kind supporting the conclusion...

And finally - I can't believe I have to do this again - If Marina took any of these photos, even one, and this is one of the only times she EVER uses a Camera (according to her honest testimony :rolleyes: ) how in the world can she possibly forget what she did to take the photo? How can she possibly claim she held the camera to her face 1, 2, 3 even 4 times if we believe the one photo that was burned when what she would have seen was this:  

Was she lying about it Paul, covering Harvey's butt or do you still think her testimony was honest AND she took any of these photos?

 

----

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area.   The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations).

(399)    Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph. This is because similar, although less pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.
( 400)    Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the fine lines were not observed in photo-optical photochemical enhancements or in phase-contrast microscopic inspection of the chin area. In addition, the lines are disconnected ; they do not cross the entire chin and are extremely fine, roughly equal in width to the size of the grain clumps in the emulsion.

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

15 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure you're aware but the HSCA "experts" were all fooled, on purpose, with a "FAKE" photo project...  Jim D can fill you in on more of this...

 

I'm always happy to be filled in with more info. ;)

 

28 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

It sounded like you were defending these HSCA experts - or am I reading that wrong?

Not really defending the HSCA experts... more raising the question of just how good somebody like Oswald would be himself at faking the photos.

With regards to the 'Aerospace Corp' test...

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area.   The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations).

 

(399)    Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph. This is because similar, although less pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.
( 400)    Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the fine lines were not observed in photo-optical photochemical enhancements or in phase-contrast microscopic inspection of the chin area. In addition, the lines are disconnected ; they do not cross the entire chin and are extremely fine, roughly equal in width to the size of the grain clumps in the emulsion.

 

 

In furtherance to that;

Quote

401. Three other possible causes for the lines are suggested:

402. (1) They could be due to the presence of very fine scratches on the glass plate used to support the film while it was being scanned;

403. (2) They could have been introduced during the film drying process. Particulate and dissolved material in the film wash water can leave a so-called water stain on film. As the water evaporates, the particulate and dissolved material is deposited on the emulsion, usually in thin, irregularly shaped lines. The probability of the lines being caused by very faint water stains is heightened by the observa- tion of very noticeable stains in the neck and ear area, as discussed below.* These marks are found in the work of photographers who pay inadequate attention to the washing and drying steps in the processing of the film;

404. (3) Changes in emulsion temperature during processing can) cause silver grains in the emulsion to clump together in fine linear effect known as reticulation.

405. While subsequent generation prints of the backyard pictures appear to show a line running across Oswald's chin, (174) this phe- nomenon is not surprising because copy prints often have higher con-, trasts than originals. If an object or an original photographer of the object has a rather diffuse band that is dark at the center but becomes progressively lighter at the edges, a photographic or printed ink copy very often will show that hand as a distinct line with sharp edges. In generating a copy photograph, the photographic or printing process may not be able to depict the entire tone range of the original object or photograph. In that case, a range of lighter tones will all appear a single light tone and a range of darker tones will all appear as one dark tone. It is in this way that a broad smooth tone scale becomes a sharp transition from dark to light. This apparently happened in copies of the Oswald photographs, causing the shadow across the chin to appear to be a sharp line. Accordingly, no probative value can be attributed to such materials.

I will need to do some more digging in to this...

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good Alistair...  I think Oswald may have done this fake ID...  but that does not involve creating a composite with 2 different people.

Cole goes off record as he is not 100% sure these are the same SSS cards he looked at before...  we should also remember his access to photographic equipment at Jaggers and who knows where else...

With regards to the HSCA's excuses for the line being there...  did you expect anything less? ;)
DJ

Mr. EISENBERG. At that time did you examine the negatives which I now hand to you? 
Mr. COLE. I did. 
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these are a set of negatives which were found at one of the premises inhabited by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Chairman, may I have them admitted as 800? I would like these negatives which Mr. Cole examined and which were found in one of the residences of Lee Harvey Oswald to be received as 800. 
Senator COOPER. It is so ordered. 

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss the negatives, Exhibit 800, that you referred to in your examination? 
Mr. COLE. Yes; there are two negatives which are of Selective Service System notice of classification. Both of these negatives show extensive retouching, sometimes called opaquing, for the purpose of preventing certain material which appeared on an original from printing on a photographic print. The two negatives are apparently related to a single original. One of them has a somewhat greater amount of retouching than the other It is my view that the second negative, that is, the one showing the smallest amount of retouching, was probably made from a photographic print of the first one. In other words, the retouching operation has involved two steps which resulted in the production of two separate negatives. A possible reason for the second step was that on the negative showing the most extensive retouching there is still some material remaining from the original document, namely the lower extensions of two letters "f' which pass through certain wording at the right side of the document, reading "local board," and another word reading "violation." Now on the second negative of the pair a successful operation in touching out those titular parts was accomplished. 

 

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you need, Mr. Cole, in your belief, the type of equipment you are likely to find in a printing plant, or could this be done with home equipment? 
Mr. COLE. I would say it could be done with home equipment, but I think it is unlikely with respect to the actual preparation of the' negative that one would get a successful result from home equipment. I believe that for the preparation of the negative, that is, apart from the retouching operation, that one would need a very accurate camera such as are found in photographic laboratories and printing plants. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Could the opaquing have been done off the printing premises? 
Mr. COLE. Yes; the opaquing could be done almost anywhere, in any ordinary living accommodation, needing only a source of light to pass through the negative, the liquid opaquing material, and a small brush. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, if you were going to prepare a forged Selective Service System notice of classification, and if you did not have access to blanks of the Selective Service System itself, how would you go about preparing such a forgery? 

Mr. COLE. I would use a method similar to that already described here with one modification; namely, that in preparing the original negative, I would make an enlargement directly on the negative, then go through the opaquing operation, and in making the final print I would, reduce it back to original size. That would produce a somewhat better quality of print, and it gives somewhat more freedom in the opaquing operation, that is, in working with a larger negative there is not as much danger of running the opaque into some material that you want to save, and we see on these negatives there are a few places where the person doing the opaquing has actually permitted this material to run into a part that should be saved on the original. 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

A link to that would be conducive. ;)

 

Alistair,

Here is the Jack White video in question.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MHlzSixqgM

Skip to minute 40:50 and watch for about 5 minutes.

Regards,
--Paul

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Here is the Jack White video in question.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MHlzSixqgM

Skip to minute 40:50 and watch for about 5 minutes.

Cheers Paul, much appreciated. I will give it a watch later on. ;)

I've read, on this forum, a lot of Jack White's posts, and also read a few bits and bobs elsewhere... to be honest I am a bit skeptical because I have read some quite wild things that he said (one example that springs to mind was when he claimed that for a person to catch something travelling at 11mph they would need to run 22mph - which would only be true if they started 11 miles behind and had an hour to catch up with it. lol)

but yeah I will give it the credence it deserves.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Cheers Paul, much appreciated. I will give it a watch later on. ;)

I've read, on this forum, a lot of Jack White's posts, and also read a few bits and bobs elsewhere... to be honest I am a bit skeptical because I have read some quite wild things that he said (one example that springs to mind was when he claimed that for a person to catch something travelling at 11mph they would need to run 22mph - which would only be true if they started 11 miles behind and had an hour to catch up with it. lol)

but yeah I will give it the credence it deserves.

Regards

Alistair,

There is much blabbering in Jack White's lifetime work, in addition to his instinctual genius.  Jack was no scientist.

His greatest achievement, IMHO, was his discovery of Roscoe White's body in the BYP.  He should have built on that, but instead he went wild, IMHO, and gave birth to the ridiculous , "Harvey and Lee" CT of two Oswald's which, like Frankenstein, took on a life of its own, and made all CTers look like idiots.

Even when it comes to the BYP I cannot always agree with Jack White; e.g. his implied CIA-did-it CT.

There were two professional photographers in the UK government who showed enough data to prove the BYP were Fake .  Jack repeats much of their work...but Jack also comes up with some gems of his own, and the Roscoe White discovery was his stroke of genius.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...