More on the BYP: Jeff Carter Pours it on

[Thomas Graves]

The paragraph starts with this : "If Oswald’s Marxist tendencies had been more informed, his subscription and party membership activity should have been limited to one or other of Communist Party USA or the Socialist Worker’s Party." and then mentions the disputes between the two parties.

I say an informed stance does not mean that support for both is unreconcileable. In fact a support for both is an indication of a deeper marxist analysis.

Further the statement about Oswald having a marxist analysis as a result of a dislike of two contemporary systems is wrong as he himself states he leans towards the Minutemen, not marxism, as being a solution to an impasse.

In toto that paragraph is flawed in a number of ways.

Perhaps it is just stating its proposition wrongly. Idk.

As it stands, at the beginning of the article, I don't see what it is supposed to do. I don't think it can be used as an explanation for what the BYP's are suppopsed to mean.

At the same time it may indeed mean something. They appear pristine and the wrapping paper by the gate may have held one or both. ie, one or both were specifically acquired just for this use.

A truly wise "hippy" activist before his time!

--Tommy

Edited September 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

What Jeff is really arguing is the provenance of the camera and the photos. In other words, was that really Lee's camera and did Marina take the photos? No one, to my knowledge, has ever taken this argument as far as he has. This is why its so original and unique. So please read it.

That, imo, is the right approach.

1. I don't believe he owned the camera.

2. Since the photos are fakes, no - Marina did not take them. I agree with Sylvia Meagher. When she testified about taking one photo in March, she was telling the truth. It was taken in Minsk in March 1962 - with a camera you held up to your eye as she described. This photo was inscribed to June who had just been born. It shows Oswald holding his shotgun above his head - a kind of celebratory pose for the birth. This photo was destroyed by Marina on the weekend of the assassination because she feared it would be incriminating. But before doing that, she had spoken to Ruth Paine about it - and therein is the genesis for creating the fakes. Imo, Ruth got the idea after that conversation with Marina.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Kenneth Drew]

Good assessment Greg. JIm, I read the entire series and it does contain some interesting situations. Clearly the most influential event in the story of the photos and camera was the session that Marina had on the importance of her full cooperation with the investigation and the influence it may have on the determination as to whether she could stay in the US. It certainly refreshed her recollection on things that she seemed to have no previous memory. It seems as if the photos may well have been created sometime about March or April based on the plant growth in the photo, however it might have been taken as late as November, after the plant had lost it's leaves. . If I were to give my assessment. The photo of the location, the house and yard were taken with no one in them. A separate photo was made with someone posing and the face of Oswald was laid onto that body, both then transposed onto the yard. The brown image photos that have been shown show the plant growth and boards and grass through LHO's legs and shoes. If they were never there, i.e., blocked by the actual legs and shoes, then they could never be seen 'through' the man.

There is no doubt that the photos are fake, so, many of the other questions asked have to have creative answers. How did they know a MC rifle was going to be used? How did they know there was going to be an assassination? How likely is it that the body in the photo is Roscoe White, who was also likely the badge man shooter and did have knowledge there was going to be a shooting. How did the Reflex camera leave marks on negatives that were not used in that camera. Why did Roscoe White have a BYP in his possession at Headquarters on the evening of the shooting? Did he also have that photo in his possession prior to Nov 22? Very likely.

If there had been a trial of LHO, the BYP's would never have been allowed to be introduced as evidence (assuming the Court system in Dallas had not been fixed).

[John Dolva]

I read a bit further into the article . : "Researcher Dick Russell interviewed Walker for his book The Man Who Knew Too Much, and was told a private investigation revealed brothers Larrie and Bob Schmidt may have connected with Oswald and may have been responsible for the shooting at Walker’s home. 22 The Schmidt brothers were far-right political activists, part of a scene described by Peter Dale Scott as a “Minutemen-Cuban exile-General Walker milieu supported by H.L. Hunt.” Oswald the Marxist would have no business making friends with such persons. The paths of Oswald, Larrie Schmidt and General Walker would cross again in the autumn of 1963. Schmidt and Walker tie back to Munich, where a right-wing newspaper would print a story on November 29, 1963 claiming Oswald was responsible for the Walker assassination attempt. 23 Marina Oswald began relating her version of the alleged Walker attempt four days later on December 3, 1963."

Continuing on my previous theme : (sep2) "the statement about Oswald having a marxist analysis as a result of a dislike of two contemporary systems is wrong as he himself states he leans towards the Minutemen, not marxism, as being a solution to an impasse."

' Oswald the Minutemen supporter could indeed have business making friends with such (The Schmidt brothers) persons. '

The shooting at the window frame in Walkers wall as a staged event.:

For Oswald, per his diary writings, as a part of a strategy of causing a conflict between left and right.

For the Minutemen as a pre cursor to Nov22 with Oswald as the cheated one, the Patsy.

[James DiEugenio]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up Jeff's exposure of Gus Russo again.

I guess not enough people read the footnotes. Consider:

Gus Russo would claim in his book Live By The Sword that interviews he conducted in 1993 with former employees from The Militant confirmed that a backyard photo was sent to the paper and caused consternation. “After the assassination, Farrell Dobbs directed that the photograph, together with ‘every scrap of paper’ mentioning Oswald, including his subscription plate, be swept from the files and given to William Kunstler ... ” (Live By The Sword, endnotes p. 537). In fact, Dobbs, the National Secretary of the Socialist Worker’s Party, publisher of The Militant, brought all existing communications to and from Lee Oswald with him to his Warren Commission testimony, whereby they became Commission Exhibits. Dobbs approached his Commission testimony carefully, appearing with legal counsel. It is hard to imagine a backyard photo, or any other artifact from Oswald, being deliberately withheld from the Commission as the potential repercussions would be great, and there would be reason to suspect an informant might already have reported the receipt of such a photo. No legal counsel for Dobbs would have advised anything but full disclosure. An informant had reported details of a “closed membership meeting” of the SWP held November 27, 1963 during which responses to Oswald’s connections to The Militant and the SWP were discussed with concern, and no photo was mentioned (CE2213).

Edited September 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Parker]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up Jeff's exposure of Gus Russo again.

I guess not enough people read the footnotes. Consider:

Gus Russo would claim in his book Live By The Sword that interviews he conducted in 1993 with former employees from The Militant confirmed that a backyard photo was sent to the paper and caused consternation. “After the assassination, Farrell Dobbs directed that the photograph, together with ‘every scrap of paper’ mentioning Oswald, including his subscription plate, be swept from the files and given to William Kunstler ... ” (Live By The Sword, endnotes p. 537). In fact, Dobbs, the National Secretary of the Socialist Worker’s Party, publisher of The Militant, brought all existing communications to and from Lee Oswald with him to his Warren Commission testimony, whereby they became Commission Exhibits. Dobbs approached his Commission testimony carefully, appearing with legal counsel. It is hard to imagine a backyard photo, or any other artifact from Oswald, being deliberately withheld from the Commission as the potential repercussions would be great, and there would be reason to suspect an informant might already have reported the receipt of such a photo. No legal counsel for Dobbs would have advised anything but full disclosure. An informant had reported details of a “closed membership meeting” of the SWP held November 27, 1963 during which responses to Oswald’s connections to The Militant and the SWP were discussed with concern, and no photo was mentioned (CE2213).

I love footnotes and this one deserves more than a passing thought.

[James DiEugenio]

I mean did Russo just make that stuff up?

[Greg Parker]

I mean did Russo just make that stuff up?

Maybe... but it could be just as likely the people he interviewed were especially keen to be "helpful".

[James DiEugenio]

Here is Part 5:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP5.html

It looks like Jeff agrees with Greg about the participation of the Paines.

But also, it appears the first person that Mike Paine told that BS story about Oswald showing him the BYP was, drum roll please, Gus Russo! Boy Russo is so bad.

Nice to see that other writers have come to see that, as Carol Hewitt said so long ago, Ruth and Michael are not at all what they appear to be.

He also makes the case that the intercepted phone call on the 22nd was likely a tap, for Marina. And Liebeler cover this all up.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thanks, Jim, for continuing to post here Jeff's CTKA pieces.

Jeff does an excellent job of reporting facts. The question is, what conclusion does one draw from those facts?

If the conclusion is that Michael Paine shades the truth, nothing he says is reliably the truth.

If the conclusion is that he portrays Marina's husband accurately, even only sometimes, I think it's important to ask: Who was Marina's husband?

[Kenneth Drew]

After reading the series, I have no problem with the opinion that Paine was involved in the creation of the BYP's as I have no idea who really did make them. I'm sure, in my own mind, that LHO had nothing to do with creating them nor did he even know they existed. At least I certainly have not see any evidence that he had any knowledge of their existence.

[David Von Pein]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9wKlkuzN1c

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos-part-2.html

Edited September 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Also --- Can someone tell me.....

Why, after watching the video linked below, are there people who still insist that Oswald's nose shadow is proof the backyard photos are fakes? Do CTers think this 3/31/67 CBS photo is a fake too?* ....

dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html

* Silly question --- Of course they do....

jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#The-Backyard-Photographs

Edited September 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9wKlkuzN1c

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos-part-2.html

Total hogwash

[David Von Pein]

Is this testimony by Marina just more "hogwash", Ken?....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7