A New Look at the Enigma of the BYP

[Kenneth Drew]

Thanks for sharing this important article, Jim.

I recent years, there has been a willingness on the part of many supposedly pro-conspiracy researchers to accept these obviously forged photos as legitimate. This epitomizes what I refer to as "neo-con" belief. Oswald's posture alone, the problems with the shadows, and the impossible overkill of posing with both alleged murder weapons and commie literature to boot, should have discredited these fakes a long time ago in the eyes of any credible researcher.

To quote from my book: In 1970, researcher Jim Marrs interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester, who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They told Marrs that they’d been very busy developing photographs for both the Secret Service and the FBI on the night of the assassination. They particularly recalled seeing color transparencies of the backyard photos, including one in which there was no figure in the picture. A “ghost image” backyard photo was discovered in the 1980s, featuring a surreal white outline of Oswald’s body. This photo, along with ten others that were taken in the backyard without a figure, was found in the files of the Dallas Police Department....

I agree that viewing the photos should be enough to convince most persons that they are not 'real' photos. Kinda like Barack Obama's 'birth certificate'. Both of them have way too many errors to be real. I have seen one photo, can't find it now, but it has/was 'lightened' a little so that the black color of his pants are not so overwhelming in 'covering everything' up and you can see the grass, plant leaves and fence boards 'through' his leg and shoes. That kinda says to me that the 'body' was laid on over the background.

[Jon G. Tidd]

DJ, your comment #5 is most interesting to me. The author of the CTKA article makes a pretty good case that [a] the BYP were taken with the Imperial Reflex, and Ruth Paine is a candidate for picture taker.

I think also about a report, maybe more than one, of Ruth Paine driving Marina's husband here and there.

And a question arises: Was something going on between Ruth Paine and Marina's husband?

[Glenn Nall]

yes, but it wasn't sexual, i don't think. have you read about that White Russian Community in Dallas? Mysterious little clique, that one. and some mysterious behaviors with the Oswalds before, during and after the murder...

yep, something was going on between Ruth and Lee...

if it was sexual, i hope she was better looking than he was.

[Greg Parker]

if it was sexual, i hope she was better looking than he was.

Mr. KNIGHT. We [Ruby and Knight - my insertion] talked about generalities which I, if I remembered I would say it. But evidently at this time he had seen Oswald in person because he said Oswald was a good looking guy, said he looked like Paul Newman. These were his words. Paul Newman, the movie star. At the time I didn't question where he had seen Oswald. I am sure that same day at the police station because he had been hanging around and I think he was there when they brought him in, on the outside looking in.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/moore_r.htm

[Jon G. Tidd]

Glenn,

I imagine the White Russian Community in Dallas was not mainstream.

Ruth and Marina's husband were not Russian, however.

Just me: I've always thought Ruth in 1963 was good looking. I can't say whether women would have found Marina's husband attractive. Apparently, Marina did for a certain period.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The photo known as 133-A and which appeared on the cover of Life Magazine shows clear indications of alteration in the stock of the rifle.

Look closely at the part of the stock directly behind the rear end of the bolt, and then compare it to this photo of another M91/38 short rifle:

Can you see the difference?

[Glenn Nall]

Glenn,

I imagine the White Russian Community in Dallas was not mainstream.

Ruth and Marina's husband were not Russian, however.

Just me: I've always thought Ruth in 1963 was good looking. I can't say whether women would have found Marina's husband attractive. Apparently, Marina did for a certain period.

no, but Ruth was teaching English to Marina, and Russian (technical Russian) as was her friend, can't remember the name, to several students connected to Magnolia Labs and indirectly to the July 20th Ass. plot on Hitler - it was actually the russian community who introduced the Paines to the Oswalds. Names slip my mind, but there are others in here who can provide them.

Bartholomew:

Can there be any doubt that Bancroft asked, if she did not know first hand, how her close friend's son and daughter-in-law, Ruth and Michael Paine, came to know Lee Harvey Oswald? If she did, she would have learned that George de Mohrenschildt, who in 1940 worked briefly for his distant cousin, Baron Constantine Maydell, then the top German Abwehr agent in the U.S., had introduced Oswald to Volkmar Schmidt, who had lived and studied with one of the July 20 plotters.

She would have learned that after talking to Oswald, Schmidt particularly wanted him to meet Michael Paine. Schmidt arranged the party where, allegedly, Oswald and Ruth Paine met. And Paine eventually got him the job in the School Book Depository. Oswald also met, at that party, a man whose father had worked for C.D. Jackson's Radio Free Europe. Jackson, along with being the man who bought the Zapruder film for Bancroft's lover Henry Luce's Life magazine, was the CIA's propaganda mastermind.

What did Mary Bancroft think of all this? Did she know Michael's friend, Volkmar? Did she know Volkmar's former professor and housemate, Dr. Wilhelm Kuetemeyer? Did she know de Mohrenschildt?

[Kenneth Drew]

The photo known as 133-A and which appeared on the cover of Life Magazine shows clear indications of alteration in the stock of the rifle.

Look closely at the part of the stock directly behind the rear end of the bolt, and then compare it to this photo of another M91/38 short rifle:

Can you see the difference?

Yes, there is clearly a difference in the rifle stock. The photo is also one that you can see images in through his leg. look at his left (your right) leg. You can see the line where the concrete on the ground extends across his shin. Below that line, you can see where the patterns in the grass 'continue' onto his pants leg. You can also see the continuation of the grass above his shin where the grass in belows the boards on the fence and the lines continue onto his leg. As I said, I've seen other prints that are even clearer. As everyone knows, the camera can only capture what it sees and if a person is in front of something, the camera will not see what is behind that person. One thing on the rifle, it appears in the photo that the sling is attached about 5 inches from the bolt. On the one in the other photo, it is attached near the end of the stock, probably 12 inches away from the bolt.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Kenneth

Yes, there is a great difference between the two stocks. On the real one, the wood dips down to the pistol grip as it goes forward, while the top of the stock in 133-A is a straight line. To make things worse, the top of the stock in 133-A is so high, it would be impossible to open the bolt on this rifle.

Of course, it may be possible that the editors at Life felt the stock of the rifle did not stand out clearly enough against the background of the black pants, and an artist at Life, with a limited knowledge of rifles, re-drew the stock of the rifle to make it more noticeable. Perhaps someone can enlarge an original of 133-A to see if the mistake appears there as well.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

The photo known as 133-A and which appeared on the cover of Life Magazine shows clear indications of alteration in the stock of the rifle.

Look closely at the part of the stock directly behind the rear end of the bolt, and then compare it to this photo of another M91/38 short rifle:

Can you see the difference?

Yes, there is clearly a difference in the rifle stock. The photo is also one that you can see images in through his leg. look at his left (your right) leg. You can see the line where the concrete on the ground extends across his shin. Below that line, you can see where the patterns in the grass 'continue' onto his pants leg. You can also see the continuation of the grass above his shin where the grass in belows the boards on the fence and the lines continue onto his leg. As I said, I've seen other prints that are even clearer. As everyone knows, the camera can only capture what it sees and if a person is in front of something, the camera will not see what is behind that person. One thing on the rifle, it appears in the photo that the sling is attached about 5 inches from the bolt. On the one in the other photo, it is attached near the end of the stock, probably 12 inches away from the bolt.

Robert, a little more. If you extend a line straight from the barrel to the end of the stock in the photo with the pistol grip, the distance from the line to the stock would be about 3 inches. If you do the same on the cover, the distance would be about 2 inches. also, the top of the end of the stock on the mag cover has a hump and 'changes color' where it crosses the line of his trousers. That's the same triangle that got 'left behind' in 133B. I guess you know that no one is supposed to 'notice' these little discrepancies.