http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html

Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.

“If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,” said Farid, who is also the director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth. “Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.” Farid added that federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was a conspiracy.

The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception.
Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in the Oswald photo analysis.

“The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its weaknesses,” says Farid. “The visual system can be quite inept at making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.”

At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.
“It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963,” said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic.

”As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,” said Farid.

It might not be a fake picture, but

1 How does a man stand at an angle that his body is in?

2. It's an obvious attempt to brand Oswald was a Marxist. Why would someone willingly pose with this incriminating stuff, especially when Oswald (Harvey) denied he shot anyone? If he came out and said I did it, it would be different. Wasn't there a point when Harvey knew he was being painted as a Commie?

3. If that's not Harvey, and I maintain it isn't him, it must be Lee Oswald (John Armstrong)


Kathy C

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a question. Has anyone here read A Deeper, Darker Truth yet? It covers the work of Tom Wilson and was written by Donald T. Phillips. Amazon has it for $25.15 (free shipping).

Adele

It is being discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14895

All I have to say on this is: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread411261/pg1

Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word

What I'd like to know is how this story got such deep penetration into the press. Who is pushing it?

Touche!

It is a non-issue, after all. He was the sole Fair Play For Cuba guy in New Orleans, allegedly shot at General Walker and espoused Marxist-Leninist views on the air. Oh, he lived in Russia, too. The photo was useful to Life Magazine and served its purpose in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but as time passed - and especially after the Warren Report was released in all its glory - it became just another construct of the Oswald legend, whether real or faked. As Robert Walker asked, who is pushing this and why? That is the compelling and real issue. It usually is.

JG

Very interesting article. Why don't you post it on the Forum?

This new DISINFORMATION is a DIRECT response to the new book on Wilson's work....and I have word more will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Jack White, and others, long ago proved the photos fakes....and the constant finding over time of new versions [as well as how and where the 'first' and 'only' originals were found] strengthens that. More versions 'out there'. Can't say more. Only the blind or cognitively impaired believe those photos were taken by Marina, and not composite fakes. 

LOL! I love seeing people grasping at straws!

Why the "analysis' you linked, gets it wrong. They fail from the get go.

Why you can't resize different photos to compare the size of objects.

First off, the case for conspiracy does NOT rest on proof of photo or film alteration.

And even if Oswald posed for the photo(s) and Marina took them all, and they are real and were not tampered with, how does that prove that Oswald is the lone assassin, as the story implies?

And even if Oswald was the lone assassin and posed for the incriminating photos, what was his motive, professional, political or psychological, because if he wasn't psycho, then he had criminal assistance, even if he did act alone.

More likely he was none of the above, and the photo was an integral aspect of Oswald being framed for the crimes, just as he claimed. Along with the rifle, the pristine bullet, the pistol, the shells and bullets and fingerprint on the rifle and sniper's nest cartons, the photos and the impersonators, all the basic evidence that implicates Oswald is too pat, and appears to have been staged and planted.

But the backyard photos certainly do provide clues, linking the principle, but not first suspect, with the alleged murder weapons, and the communist publications The Worker and the Militant.

Has anyone bothered to actually read the specific issues of the Militant or Worker that are in the photo?

Do they contain any articles about Castro or Cuba, about the CIA raider ships?

And why aren't these questions part of the story about the photos, and why is the story slanted to PROVE they are legitimate pictures and promoting the false illogical ergo that since they are real Oswald was the lone assassin?

So many questions, so little time,

Bill Kelly

Well, i don't know what the professors intention is, but the result is wrong.
The head model is pretty good (ears are wrong) but what happend to the rest of the body?
No more budget?

Stork legs?

Every 3D novice can place a light source at a location to make sure the shadow on a 3D face model looked like that.
He showed no wireframe, no view from the left or the right.
What is the distance to the pole and the fence behind? How high is the the fence? Actually measured in Neely?
No word mentioned.

What about the correct Longitude/Latitude (coordinates) from Neely street?
No word mentioned.

To complain an incomplete work as a convincing result is somehow an insult of a professor status.

It appears to be easy: Place a professor in front of the camera, let him claim positive evidence of Oswald's guilt and you got
the great stage.

It is scarying how powerful the coverup machine is working yet. /o\

Martin

Here's the guys cv Martin.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/cv.pdf

He seems very well versed in the subject. A bit more than you perhaps?

Not that he can't make a mistake, but why not questiuon him first before getting your shorts in a bunch? Or is it that this man just might blow your flawed study clean out of the water?

Heres more for you Martin...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0301/03.html

Thanks Craig, will take a look at your link.

Nice post William

Of course I read so many other posts attached that want to believe that this study is just another example of the conspirators ongoing coverup.

For myself I have always felt that the backyard photos, in particular the two magazines Oswald is displayed holding, is consistant with Oswald's request to have Jonathon Abt act as his attorney. The two magazines were produced by two different organizations that were, to say the least, at odds with each other.

The Warren Commission is quick to point this out and suggest that Oswald's understanding of the two organizations was an example of his lack of understanding of Communism and Socialism or political organizations and philosophy in general. Yet FBI Agent Hosty's testimony shows that the FBI in general and Hosty in particular knew that Oswald's understanding of Trotsky and his Socialist views were actually very strong.

That the photos were taken just prior to the attempt on the life of Walker is also interesting in my mind. That Marina admited taking them seems to point toward authenticity from the begining. Toss in that Oswald did not want to admit to living in the place where the pictures were taken while in custody, yet we know that he did live there is alson, in my mind telling. Why would Oswald wish to deny that he lived in the place where the pictures were taken after he had seen the pictures while in custody?

Then again he may have had good reason to want to deny them......

I do believe in a conspiracy and believe that I have some interesting leads on who was behind the assassination. Of course the people that I believe were behind the assassination were the same people who, during WWII, convinced the Germans that the Allied landings at Normandy were nothing more than a deception, and continued to convince many in Germany that those landings were a deception for weeks after the proof was clear that the Normandy landings were the real deal.

It is very easy to convince people to believe what they want to believe weather it is the truth or not seems to be of no concern to those that are already convinced of their own "truth."

As C. S. Lewis said, “In coming to understand anything we must reject the facts as they are for us in favor of the facts as they are.”

Jim Root

Peter,

I swear you are going to worry yourself into a tizzy. It seems Mr. Farid has done alot over the last few years with respect to this type of project. He may have had an interest in LHO's picture, and thought he'd try it and see what happened. I don't think there is anything dark and sinister going on.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/publications/


Kathy

Please correct me if in error.but as I understand this.....just the one photo was examed....what about the other two and were , or was this an original from the n/as or a copy and this was i think a digital copy but the backyard photos taken were not....thanks for any further info...what effect would a digital copy have on any study..b

Do not worry.
I will ask him Craig and erased the misspelling in your quote.

Martin

Here is a nice piece discussing indications that the photo(s) are faked, where Farid's
analysis dealt with only one. He clearly had not taken the time to conduct research, or
he would have discovered that there are multiple indications of fakery, not just one. So
even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photo(s). Consider
these:

http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

I presented a lecture on JFK that features the backyard photograph during the most recent
conference on JFK held at the University of North Dakota. The papers from the meeting
have been published as a book, which is now on-line for ease of access. My chapter is the
last and can be downloaded as a pdf. I discuss the backyard photo already on the second
page:

http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/

Not only has a Dartmouth professor gone far beyond the scope of his competence by
offering an opinion for which he has virtually no proof but, if he had only conducted a
search of the literature, he would have known that many issues are involved here beyond
the shadows. This is sloppy research on a topic of immense public interest. Dartmouth
should censor him.

Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/h...862.html&cp

CE133A & B were processed by a professional photo service - 133C-Dees and 133A- DeMohrenschildt were not. See page 147 of VOL VI.

Also noted on this page: CE749 (the negative for CE133B) "contained small emulsion tears which indicated it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying". Though there is nothing stated here to indicate what this might mean... it too, surely indicates amateur rather than professional work.

So in effect... the negatives appear to have been processed privately... THEN given to a professional photo service to make the prints. Later, more first generation copies were made by an amateur. This would mean all the photos examined by the HSCA except 133A and B.

Options for who did the amateur work:

Oswald in his tiny office/cupboard at Neely St.

Oswald at JCS

Mike Paine in his own dark-room

It is possible Lee could have developed the negatives in the tiny "office". But if he did that - surely Marina would have said? Moreover, he could certainly not have made any prints.

It is also possible Lee could have done the work at JCS - however, there is nothing in the records to suggest that he did - or that anyone saw him do so in what was again, a fairly cramped work area.

This leaves Michael Paine as the main possibility. He told Mallon that he had seen the photo, and he is in the records as having visited the Oswald's on Apr 2. If he saw a BY photo on that date, and assuming Mar 31 as the date they were taken, it could not have been 133A or B since these could not have been processed by any professional service of the time and made available prior to Apr 3. Conclusion? If he saw a photo that early, it was one that was processed privately. Perhaps he was in fact showing it to Oswald and not the other way around?

hi Greg here is some info from harrison livingstone


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM
HARRISON LIVINGSTONE HIGH TREASON 11 PAGE 454...SEE AMAZON SEARCH BOOK..
Oswald's wife, Marina Oswald, is the one who supposedly took the backyard pictures. However, in a recently recorded interview, she said of the backyard photos, "THESE AREN'T THE PICTURES I TOOK" (Livingstone 454, emphasis added).

b..

Jim...I think you meant censure, not censor. We are all for free speech, no matter how dumb it is.

Jack

George de Mohrenschildt, I'm a Patsy (1977)

In February of 1967 we finally found a suitable place to settle down, before that we moved from one place to another and visited our children in California and Mexico. the place called conveniently "La Citadellle" was exactly fitting to us and was ample enough to accomodate all the furniture which had been stored in the warehouse since the beginning of 1963... It was about time to settle as four years storage at the Southwestern Warehouses began to axhaust us financially.

I thought of abandoning the whole junk and leave it to the warehouse - it's good sometime to start anew, but there were books...

And so we went to the warehouse with an old, faithful friend, always ready to help and to pick up some old junk for himself, and, before our furniture was taken out, we began looking through the accumulation of various and sundry items that could be eliminated. I was less intrested in this task, so I chatted with my friend, a good guy who had followed us on many of our trips, while Jeanne was finishing the selection of things to take and to discard.

Suddenly, he rushed out of the warehouse with a crazy look on her face, shouting excitedly: "Look, look, what I found!"

She dragged me to the pile of open crates and I saw inside a slightly familiar-looking green box. "What the hell is this?"

"This is the box with the records I gave Marina before our departure," she shouted.

"How did they get there? We left them such a long time ago?"

"I haven't the slightest idea, I considered them lost." Jeanne was short of words, this was so weird. "I had used them myself to learn English when I came to this country. They served me well. Then I loaned them to Marina long before our departure for Haiti."

"Remember how punctiously honest Lee was," I said. "He would not keep any of our belongings. But how the hell did they into this warehouse? Possibly he remembered where we were storing our furniture. Or, maybe he have the package to Glover to whom we had loaned some of our furniture and who finally added it to the rest of stored boxes at the Southwest Warehouse?"

This remains a mystery to this day, because we lost track of Glover, a good guy who got so frightened of his very slight acquaintanceship with the "President's assassin" that he moved out somewhere without leaving an address.

My wife began taking the albums out of the box and as she opened to see if the records were not broken, she shrieded almost hysterically.

"Look, there is a picture of Lee Oswald here!"

This was the same, so controversial picture of Lee, which appeared on the cover the defunct "Life". Many newspapermen and "investigators" had assumed and had written hundreds of pages that this picture was a fabrication, a "fake", a superimposed photograph. Frankly we did not care but now, right there, was a proof that the picture was genuine.

We stood literally frozen stiff, Lee staring at us in his martial pose, the famous rifle in his hands. like in a Marine parade. It was a gift for us from beyond his grave.

"What did he mean by leaving this picture to us?" I wondered aloud. "He was not a vain kind of a person."

Then Jeanne shouted excitedly again: "look there is an inscription here. It read: "To my dear friend George from Lee." and the date follow - April 1963, at the time when we were thousand of miles away in Haiti. I kept looking at the picture and the inscription deeply moved, my thoughts going back when Lee was alive.

Then I slowly turned the photograph and there was another epitaph, seemingly in Marina's handwriting, in Russian. In translation it reads; "this is the hunter of fascists! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Here Marina was again making fun of her husband, jeering Lee's very serious anti-fascists feelings, which we knew so well and described in several chapters of this book.

It's hard to describe the impact of this discovery on us, especially Lee's dedication and Marian's enscription. This message from beyond the grave was amazing and shocking. From the grave we did not even dare to visit, because FBI considered with suspicion all the visitors at Lee's burial place. The confirmation that Lee considered me his best friend flattered me but Marina's message expressed a chilling scorn for her husband. Anyway, if he were a hunter of fascists, and we agree with such a description, who was the making fun of him?

First of all it makes in doubt her assertion that Lee tried to shoot General Walker, secondly for a Soviet Russian refugee the word "fascist" is not a laughing matter - some fifteen million people lost their lives fighting them. And how many more died of cold and hunger?

We kept this photograph for ourselves and showed it only to a few close friends. Their reactions were interesting: to some the photograph indicated that Lee was a maniac, a killer, it constituted a proof of his aggressiveness, of his guilt. To others, just the opposite - it gave him the aura of a militant idealist. The man of such anti-facist inclinations COULD NOT be the assassin of the most liberal and race conscious president in the history of the United States.

We did not show the photograph to any authorities, to them Lee Harvey Oswald's case was closed and we did not want any further involvements. Neither did we show it to any investigators or reporters in the United States.

But I did write a letter to a friend, one of the editors of Life Magazine, explaining that I had a message from Lee Harvey Oswald and I did ask him to keep the matter confidential. I added to my letter a short resume of the facts - how this picture got into our possession.

Immediately I received a call from my friend saying that Life had a team working on Oswald's case, a team of investigators, because the magazine had doubts of Warren Committee's conclusions.

The next day a reporter assigned to the assassination case called me and we talked for a long time. He was intimately familiar with all the details, psychological and technical, of this unbelievable complex case, having worked on it since November 1963. Like ourselves, he was at Marina's inscription and gave it the same meaning as ourselves.

"We shall use to as a main feature of our special edition if and when we know something definite about Oswald's involvement or of his innocence he said.

Again I asked the man to keep this matter confidential temporarily and he promised to do so.

Obviously either Life's people were talkative or, more probably, our telephone was tapped. This we found at several occasions.

New we know much more about "Watergate" type tactics of our government agencies, especially FBI, but at the time we did not have anything to conceal - except the existence of this picture - and this only for our own sentimental reasons. Whenever we heard a suspicious noise on the telephone, we laughed, spoke in foreign languages or made offensive remarks at whoever was listening in. Some voluminous files must be hidden somewhere contaning "transcripts", translations and obliterations of our conversations.

Again, being faithful taxpayers for years and years, we could but marvel at the unbelievable waste of our money. But what was it compared to 140 billion U.S. dollars spent in Vietnam. But one bad habit leads to another...

Now something should be said as to why we did not contact Marina regarding picture. Naturally she knew of its existence from our mutual friends, the Fords. But as this story clearly indicates, there is not love lost between Marina and us. We had helped her with the baby care, with her own health and finally made a supreme effort trying to solve her unsolvable conflict with Lee. We never received a word of thanks from her. But this is not important, we helped her when she was not poor and desperate.

Unfortunately, after Lee's death she showed herself a real "operator". She created an appearance of a helpless victim, of a woman searching for God, and naturally God-fearing Americans sent her substantial contributions or donations, all tax-free. We heard from some reporters that donations were sent frequently stuck between the pages of Bibles and she would grab the money and flung the Bible furiously on the floor.

We did not treat her very nicely in our testimonies, but we were utterly truthful. Marina should have recognized it, had she taken the trouble of reading our depositions. She might have come then to a true evaluation of herself and of her dead husband.

Well, she is settled now, when we see each other we say "hello" politely. As a matter of fact the last time I even did not recognize her. She looked prosperous and spoke excellent English.

Another reason we did not contact Marina and haven't had a serious conversation with her, was her attitude towards Mrs. Ruth Paine. Ruth was a perfectly charming, charitable Quaker, a Christian in the true sense of this word, who, like us, helped the Oswalds out of pure humanitarian impulses. Actually she did more for them than anyone else. Marina lived with her for and off, took advantage of her hospitality. Ruth drove her to New Orleans and back. She showed utter kindness to her occasionally Lee, and especially to baby June. She and her husband were simply admirable people. Yet Ruth had her own family to take care of as well as her teaching profession. Her only reward consisted of lessons in conversational Russian.

Lee, on the other hand, seldom accepted hospitality and certainly did not ask for it. And yet, Ruth's and Marine's great friendship ended abruptly after the assassination.

As Ruth told us later, upon our return from Haiti, Marina said that she did not want to see her ever again. And Mrs. Paine was too proud a person to insist.

It is possible that Marina was advised by the authorities to shy away from her former independent-minded friends and she must have been scared stiff of authorities. Time will tell. But still many years went by and she still does not see mrs. Ruth Paine.

Short sketches of various incidents involving Marina will prove to the reader these peculiarities of her character, which may incidentally appear admirable to many readers. Her dreams of America bristling with high buildings, criss-crossed with high-speed roads, blessed with luxury for everyone and especially with fast automobiles for all teenagers and adults. And she was right, some economist calculated fifteen years ago that if the automobiles dept on proliferating at the same rate, each family in America would possess five hundred automobiles at the end of this century. A paradise of earth!

Yet we never disliked Marina, there was really nothing to dislike, there was no substance in her. She was amusing sometimes, witty, naive mostly, like some Russian peasants, yet with great deal of shrewdness underneath. My wife used to call her affectionately - "that rascal Marina" - and that description fitted her perfectly. Unusual visitors.

The photograph we found in the record album is identical to the one Life magazine published shortly after the assassination. I think Marina took it, at least she so testified. Only the dedication to me and the inscription by Marina constitute new elements. This picture, unquestionably did a lot of damage to Lee. It shows him in a militaristic pause, holding a rifle, a pistol on his side.

But let's not forget that Lee was trained by the Marine Corps to hold, show and respect weapons. The Beretta we saw in his apartment was well oiled and immaculately clean. Another bow to the United States Marine Corps. But whatever later testimony tried to prove, I knew that he was not a particulary good shot. He did not have that cold stare in his eyes - incidentally he had rather attractive gray eyes - he did not have a very steady hand and a stiff stance which indicate to anyone familiar with things military a good marksman. To Jeanne and I he did to have an ugly expression of a killer, and we knew professional killers, Jeanne in China during the Japanese occupation, I in other parts of the world. He owned a pistol but we never discussed why, I assumed for self defence, he lived in a very disreputable part of Dallas. Maybe Lee liked to shoot at the leaves, but he did not have a decisive, self-assured, automatic attitude of a sharpshooter. On the contrary, he was nervous, jittery, poorly coordinated type, and, as I said before completely unathletic. Also devoid of any mechanical ability. I had observed boys and men of that type in my own regiment and the were totally unfit for military performance - and usually very poor shots.

We had tried to keep the existence of Lee's photograph as secret as possible, just a few friends saw it and Life's reporter knew of it. Something, however, leaked out and about two weeks after my conversations with Life's writers, I received a strange telephone call. A slightly accented voice said, and I quote: "we are from Life Magazine,' and he mentioned the name of the reporter I had spoken to, "we are here in Dallas and would like to see you?"

"Certainly," I agreed immediately. "Come over."

They knew the address and an hour later two men appeared in our house. A strange pair; one slight, Latin-American type fellow, the other a big bruizer, beefy, powerful, Anglo type. They sat down, announced that they represented Life Magazine, the Latin mentioned his repetorial qualifications, the beefy character said he was a photographer. Indeed he was loaded with cameral of all types. The names were respectively - Smith and Fernandez. Smith mentioned also that he was a staff photographer for Fortune Magazine, which put me completely at ease.

"We would like to ask you a few questions the other Life reporter failed to discuss with you," said Fernandez.

I obliged him. These questions were unimportant, mostly about Lee's habits and his character. Then they became more specific. "Was he sociable? Whom did he know well? What were his relations with fellow workers in this country and in USSR? Did he have many friends in addition to us? What did he do in Mexico? Whom did he meet there? Could he speak Spanish? Why did he go to New Orleans? Could he drive a car? And many other questions, which I do not recall now.

I answered these questions to the best of my ability, but naturally many had to remain unanswered, since I was out of the country and did not have any contacts with Lee during that time.

The question may arise; why was I so frank with Life Magazine people and let myself pumped out so naively. The answer is that one of my most admired friends used to be a staff writer for Life and he had performed an extremely kind and difficult intervention of behalf of my father stranded in Europe during the war. Incidentally, I felt very much at ease with these two character because I had a visitor at the time, an economist from the East, a very athletic fellow and a good friend and he was there all the time.

Later in the afternoon Jeanne arrived, very surprised to see the unusual guests. I explained who they were. "But you have a very strong Spanish accent?" she asked Fernandez.

"Yes, of course, I am of Spanish origin and I had worked as a reporter for life mostly in Latin America. So, excuse my poor English."

This sounded reasonable enough.

Then Smith, "the photographer", producer a series of excellent, very clear photos of some twenty men, mostly of Latin appearance and asked pointedly if we had ever met any of them.

We both looked carefully at these strange, sometimes brutal, faces.

"I am not sorry not to have met any of them," I quipped. "They look rather disreputable. Who are they ?"

Somehow this question remained unanswered.

"I have an excellent memory for faces and I am positive not to have ever seen any of them," I added.

Jeanne, in a more cheerful and confident mood pointed out three better-looking ones: "This one has a cute moustache! That one has an interesting look about him. And this one is so handsome! Oh, I would like to meet these three men," he concluded laughingly.

This cheerfulness was met by a stony silence, a kind of hostile attitude. Fernandez did not say a word. He seemed disappointed. Smith broke the awkard silence and asked: "May I take a few pictures of you and the dogs?"

The mentioning of the dogs conquered Jeanne and we obliged again. Many photographs were taken.

The conversation lingered for a while longer. Fernandez became more amiable and called our dog Nero in the Spanish manner "Senor Neron" which pleased Jeanne to no end. Finally the two strangers left, promising to contact us again from new York, to gove our regards to my friend there and to send us copies of the pictures.

A few days went by. We both were busy and didn't have time or occasion to discuss this visit. One evening, lying in bed, I asked Jeanne: "What did you think of those two characters who came to visit us the other day?"

"Rather suspicious," she said. "I was thinking of them at this very moment. This is ESP. How did you know they were from Life?" She asked. "Did they have any identifications?"

"None," I mused. "And I did not ask for any. But they knew exactly what I was talking about with the Life reporter in new York. Fernandez remembered all the questions and all my answers."

"You were very careless," said Jeanne convincingly. "Don't you know that the house has been bugged on and off. More on than off."

She was absolutely right. These men were imposters. Next day I checked with the Life office in New York. Smith and Fernandez did not exist as far as Life was concerned.

Well if you say so Peter, then color me blind and cognitively impaired. The photos were proven genuine long long ago, when you and I were still young lads and, as Bill Kelly points out, they do not incriminate Lee Oswald.

They prove that -- as of the time they were taken -- Lee Oswald possessed a rifle, but we knew that anyway. THey also prove that he possessed a revolver, but then we knew that too. In fact, such evidence as we have shows that he never denied having a revolver in his possession (he lived in a disreputable part of Dallas, according to his friend De Mohrenschildt). They also prove that he subscribed to the Worker and the Militant, but that is not news either.

The photos are interesting in that they appear designed to illustrate two principles of the American Bill of Rights which did not exist in the Soviet Union at that time, namely the right to Free Speech, and the right to bear arms.

But when Lee Oswald suddenly found himself in handcuffs and accused of a horrendous crime, he very wisely decided not to admit anything about these photographs until he could retain a lawyer. In fact, if he had had a competent lawyer, he would have been advised to NOT ADMIT (at least at that early stage of the proceedings) that the photos were even genuine. He would have been advised to tell the police: "You prove it."

Talk about a tempest in a teapot!

That's a good question.

I can't find the quote right now, but he apparently claimed he was being asked almost daily by researchers to run tests on the photos, but he wanted to wait until he had the right technology.

So the question is begged... who are those researchers?

Put your hand up if you have ever contacted Hany Farid and pressed him into doing this. C'mon on. You must be out there...

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

Here's a link to Shenyvelt Exhibit #21, the front page of the issue of the Militant of March 24, 1963, that Oswald is apparently holding in the backyard photos.

I don't know why they don't publish the entire issue, but the front page alone has an article on the General Dynamics TFX Scandal and an editorial on the CIA JMWAVE maritime raids against Cuba that are directly tied to the Dealey Plaza operation.

Article: War Hogs fight At TFX Plane Proft Trough

Editorial: Killers on the Loose

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do

THe simple fact is that that Jack White's theory was debunked by a panel of experts at the HSCA

HSCA FInal Report Page 56

In addition to the photographic analysis the committee was able to employ handwriting analysis to aid in the determination of whether the photograph was authentic During the course of the committee's investigation George de Mohrenschildt who had been a friend of Oswald committed suicide The committee pursuant to a subpena obtained de Mohrenschildt's personal papers which included another copy of the Oswald backyard photograph This copy unlike any of those previously recovered had an inscription on the back "To my dear friend George from Lee. It was dated April 1963 and signed "Lee Harvey Oswald. (106) In an unpublished manuscript de Mohrenschildt referred to this copy of the photograph and stated that after his return from Haiti where he had been at the time of the assassination he discovered the photograph among personal possessions that he had previously stored in a warehouse (107)

The committee examined the photograph to determine its authenticity and examined the handwriting to determine if Oswald had actually written the inscription and signed it If Oswald did sign the photograph his claim that he did not own the rifle and that the photograph was a fake could be discounted

The photographic panel found no evidence of fakery in the back yard photographs including the one found in de Mohrenschildt's effects (108) The handwriting on the back of the de Mohrenschildt copy was determined by the questioned documents panel to be identical to all the other documents signed by Oswald including the fingerprint cards (109) Thus after submitting the backyard photographs to the photo graphic and handwriting panels the committee concluded that there was no evidence of fakery in the photographs

© Mary Ferrell Foundation. All Rights Reserved. |Press Room |Our Policies|Contact Us|Site Map




Precisely.

The whole subject is a tempest in a teapot

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe".

Oh my little Craigy

I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack

I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember

White is Right

If the BY photos were faked and latter planted as the photographic 'experts' claim then how is it possible that Oswald's own mother not only saw one of the set but actually helped destroy it on the very same day Kennedy was assassinated? This is the testimony from Marguerite Oswald, clearly stating that she not only saw one of the photos but also helped Marina in its destruction. It forms part of an article by the highly respected researcher Ian Griggs, hardly someone who could be accused of being a LN'er. Here's just a short piece:"Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, testified before the Warren Commission at Washington D.C. on Monday 10th, Tuesday 11th and Wednesday 12th February 1964. "Now, gentlemen, this is some important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian. 'Mamma', she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, 'Mamma, I show you.' She opened the closet, and in the closet was a load of books and papers. And she came out with a picture - a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, 'To my daughter June'"The rest can be read here scroll down to the heading "Was there a fifth backyard photograph" http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

from a post at lancer thanks....("Firearms, Photographs, & Lee Harvey Oswald" by
Ian Griggs http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

From John Goldsmith, professor at University of Chicago:
1( At least one of the negatives found (or allegedly found) by the police
at the Paines' house showed a pattern of scratches which positively
associated it with the Imperial Reflex camera that
Robert Oswald turned over to the FBI; this result was established by
photographic experts assembled by the HSCA.
2. Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission (although the
inconsistencies in this account could arguably make this testimony into an
argument against the validity of the photos);
3. de Mohrenschildt's testimony;
4. statements from workers at The Militant/The Worker (which?) that they had
received a copy of the photo
end quote
b...

"But let's not forget that Lee was trained by the Marine Corps to hold, show and respect weapons. The Beretta we saw in his apartment was well oiled and immaculately clean"

The Beretta!? huh?

-Bill

from lancer thanks...b
Were the photos, as some have written, using the conflicting publications to
send a message that Lee Oswald was working for both sides? Was this why the
photo Marina had in the closet was being saved for June, his daughter?

Goldsmith also noted this dilemma:

The background is virtually identical in the photos, to an extent that is
highly improbable if the photos were simply snapped by Marina Oswald, with
the requisite rewinding motions made inbetween shots; the perfect, or nearly
perfect, match between the backgrounds indicates either that a single
background shot was used to create the photos, or that a tripod was used to
take the shots (or both).
(Note from Debra, the HSCA panel went over this opinion here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/rifle_hsca.html . Scroll down to "(e) The identical
backgrounds.")

and

The Militant and The Worker were the publications of Marxist organizations
that were enemies; it makes no sense, from a Marxist's point of view, to put
them together as Oswald did.
(Course on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, John Goldsmith,
Spring 1994, Spring 1995
http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/11_HCSA.pdf )
--

What makes me wonder somewhat about the HSCA's findings is this document --
found by John Armstrong -- written about by Tomlin on his website.

"John Armstrong sent me a newly released HSCA document regarding the
backyard photos which is extremely interesting. Apparently HSCA staff
drafted reports based on evidence and sent the reports to each member of the
photo panel for comments and suggestions. The document I am looking at is a
transmittal letter returning a report on the backyard photos, from one
member of the photo panel, David B. Eisendrath of Brooklyn, to Mickey
Goldsmith, HSCA senior staff counsel. One of Eisendrath*s comments is very
intriguing":

QUOTE
**I have already written to you about the photogrammetry of the backyard
pictures and after several rereadings STILL feel that this should be
re-edited, re-calculated, or destroyed. It*s a bomb-shell and should not be
published in its present form.**
UNQUOTE
(from http://www.whokilledjfk.net/not%20investigate.htm )
---

Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we.

Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites.

And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory...

Jack is a Hack.

I can do that

But I gave you a challenge that you did not take

Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination

So are these the things you want me to post?

1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work

2. What I did to check it myself

3. What conclusions did I come up

4. What I used or how I went about checking it?

Is that a good enough list of things you want posted?

If not tell me what would make you happy and go away

I conceded the "assassination knowlege" quiz to you. You have me beat, fair and square. What more do you want?

I'm asking the three best proofs for the backyard photos being fake, as produced by Jack White ...how did you say it....your research backs up, and lets see what you have. Just give us the three proofs you feel are White's best for the backyard photos and how your "research" was done to validate his claims.

If, as you think, your work is not meaningless then you simply will wipe the floor with me.

Clear enough?

Oh and using your rules, your thoughts only, don't go running for help.

BTW, I'm not going away....

________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Great postings on this by the usual suspects. Thanks, guys, I'm havin' a ball reading the results of some genuine critical thinking and terrific research. Hope all are well.

Yours Truly,
JG

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...e%20Oswald.html
According to Mae Brussel, during his interrogation Lee Oswald said:



Can anyone cite the actual source for this statement?

HI RAYMOND IT'S FROM ONE OF FRITZ'S NOTES,NUMBER 5 BUT THE WORDING IS NOT EXACTLY AS SCRIBED AT MAE'S SITE..

B..OR COULD BE PERHAPS WITHIN FRIT'ZS TESTIMONY...

here it is raymond from this trivia library .com part 7 site..

6:00-6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office


"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . . .




© 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace
Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books.
All rights reserved.

You Are Here: Trivia » Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald » JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 7
« JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 6 JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 8 »

Thank you Bernice. I also found this in Bookhout's testimony:

I didnt mean go away from this website, I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face, I know you will always be here ready to try and take down anybody who dosent have 25 years of "expert" photography work

Now I know your going to go crazy and say a whole bunch of stuff about how dumb I am because I know nothing about photography but let me explain

My main focus has always been on the photgraphic record of the actual assassination

The backyard photos (while important im not saying they are not) are not my main area of study

I dont even own the book "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong, and I know I should own it but I dont focus on LHO, I have not put enough time and study into LHO or pictures of him (besides the man in the doorway, who I believe is Billy Lovelady anyways)

So I have view Jack's video on the backyard photos and read his posts and work on them but have never studied them myself.

I am in no way sie stepping your challange, i just need you to pick a photo subject that Jack has done on the actual assassination pictures

Any of his studies that are in his part of TGZFH (The photographic evidence from A-Z) you can choose and I will show you what I have done to prove jack's work to myself.

Please just be civil about this and understand that for me to try and reply to your challange in an area that I have not fully researched would not only make me look stupid but if I tried to come up with reasons why I thought he was 100% correct I would be selling both of us short.

Thanks in advance for understanding, I await your picks so I can get started on proving that I dont just see something Jack has worked on and just "believe"

Dean

I'm simply blown away. Here we are, in a thread about the backyard photos. You reply to one of my posts...about the backyard photos...where I suggest someone simply BELIEVES instead of knows. Your reply:

"I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack"

Note that I was not even talking to you yet you say...

"I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face"

Lets recap.

You state you are done with me in another thread and within a few posts you are telling me something unasked. Then you reply AGAIN!

You post to me in this tread unasked and make your I just don't believe " statement...again unasked.

The you ask me to go away ...all the while you are continuing to make comments to me.

Good grief deano, you are massive mess.

Now back the the backyard stuff.

You tell me in a backyard thread you don't just believe in Jack your research backs it up...in a backyard photo thread.

Asked to give the three best proofs of Jacks for the backyard photos you now claim, well I don't really know because I've not studied them....after making your claim...in a backyard photo thread.

Color me simply amazed but not suprised.

Now you want me to "pick some claims" Well I have...the backyard photos.

But I'll cut you some slack. Start a new thread. Give us the three best White proofs, YOU HAVE RESEARCHED, that PROVE alteration. Note that these proof must rest on Photographic Principles, no "I think I see a bunny in the clouds" opinion bullcrap. Tell us HOW you research the work and HOW you verified it.

Wow

Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be

I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos

However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my "own" research

I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you

How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on

So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you.

Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos.

Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be?

YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES!