Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

More from the past on BYP

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Sandy, I think the Imperial reflex used 620 film and yielded square negatives.


Tom, thanks for that information. I just looked into it and see that you are right.

 

8 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

CE133A and CE 133B were commercial square prints.


Why do we never see these square prints? Do you know?

 

8 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

133C is not square because the negative went missing and what we were left with were prints made on the Dallas Police Department's enlarger - 8  x 10 prints, I believe. The meant that we also lost some of the right and left background from 133C.

 

I also just found out that Officer Guy Rose of the DPD reportedly found the negatives for 133A and 133B, Though the negative for 133A was reported lost after a print was made from it. So supposedly the Archives still has the negative for 133B.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I have no doubt that your challenge to Ray will end with YOU looking for fine cuisine recipes for CROW! Perhaps it is already one of your specialties and you were thus attracted to the challenge. I wait, eagerly, to see a pic of your plate, Bud!

You let me know when you are ready to discuss the Kennedy assassination...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And when she was asked to recall the specific details of how she held the camera and how many photos she took, she just flat-out forgot. Yes, she did remember some of the details about the Backyard Photos session---such as the detail about how silly and "crazy" she thought Lee looked that day in his all-black outfit with his guns....

So Marina remembered the CONTENT of the photos, but remembered nothing about how and when she took the photos.

Oddly, that is how all of us here would testify if we PRETENDED to have taken those photos. In other words, we all know the content of the photos, but not how and when they were taken. Just like Marina.

I'll bet Marina testified to taking only one picture because only one was shown to her during her coaching session.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

You let me know when you are ready to discuss the Kennedy assassination...

Bud, you let me know when you, like David Von Pein, are ready to have anything to say  besides ... “but, but, but.... the Warren Commission sez....”. But, Bud, please don’t forget to share your plate of Crow du Ray; when it’s ready, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Bud, you let me know when you, like David Von Pein, are ready to have anything to say  besides ... “but, but, but.... the Warren Commission sez....”. But, Bud, please don’t forget to share your plate of Crow du Ray; when it’s ready, of course.

Pay attention, please !

David Von Pein didn't quote the Warren commission, he quoted Marina Oswald. The wife of the assassin. The very person who took the pictures. And who has maintained throughout the years that she indeed took those pictures. She remembers that. Well, she may not remember exactly how she was holding the camera (I mean, come on !), but she does remember taking the pictures. That's important ! 

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So Marina remembered the CONTENT of the photos, but remembered nothing about how and when she took the photos.

Given the manner in which Lee Harvey was dressed (including the two guns he was outfitted with that day in their backyard), I would say that Marina remembering the CONTENT of the pictures more so than the number of pics, the date, and the exact details of how the camera worked, was perfectly reasonable and understandable.

Naturally, though, the conspiracy theorists have to add in a dash of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" where none has ever existed. That's to be expected, of course.

Also....

If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63? Do you think Marguerite was lying in her testimony too [at 1 H 152]? ....

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

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

2015 E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


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

Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

[...]

What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. :)

Gary

 

Quote

Oddly, that is how all of us here would testify if we PRETENDED to have taken those photos. In other words, we all know the content of the photos, but not how and when they were taken. Just like Marina.

I'll bet Marina testified to taking only one picture because only one was shown to her during her coaching session.

Marina's memory has always been fuzzy when it comes to the precise number of backyard pictures she took of her husband. She just simply could not remember how many she took, and she couldn't remember the exact date she took them. Big freaking deal!

Of course, had she stopped to think really hard about this subject just a little bit more, she would have realized that she had to have taken a minimum of two photos, because she and Marguerite destroyed one of the pictures on 11/23/63. So she could have easily figured out that she took at least two.

Related discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#The-Backyard-Photographs

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63?


Hey that's right guys... where DID Marina get ahold of that photo that nobody ever saw??

LOL

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marina claimed to remember taking a picture, and later claimed that she may have taken more than one.

This does not necessarily mean that Marina took CE133A, CE133B, and, 133C, it does not necessarily follow that Marina took what we know as the Backyard Photos. 

This will make sense to those familiar with my hypothesis. There were originally four Backyard Photos and they were a creation of Lee Oswald and his crew. They are a complex puzzle created at least partially for our benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey that's right guys... where DID Marina get ahold of that photo that nobody ever saw??

LOL

So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony at 1 H 152. That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview.

(Should we now get bogged down into a silly conversation about "Imposter Marguerites"?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, Francois is Bud, correct?

David Von Pein, is  Bud your pseudonym for “Bud”? Is Francois Bud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, is  Bud your pseudonym for “Bud”? Is Francois Bud?

What on Earth are you babbling on about? What's all this "Bud" stuff? The only Bud I know is the LNer who goes by the name of Bud at the Usenet newsgroup forums. Is that the guy you're referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of a fairly famous politician "What difference does it make now?"  Does it matter anything about the camera?  Does it matter anything about what Marina said or not?  We all know the photos are FAKES.  Let's see if I can repeat that FAKES. 

Jack White listed 15 things.  I listed one .  Ed Ledoux listed another.  I believe Sandy Larsen listed problems.  And, many others have pointed out things.  What more do you want?

People like Von Pein and people like him will never accept that you are right.  They have their beliefs and they are religiously applied.

I think DiEugenio noticed that the forum is kind of slow these days so he brought back and Oldie but, Goodie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony at 1 H 152.


Absolutely! Marguerite told a lot of lies. Which explains why she got so many things wrong, including simple things that most people would remember.

 

Quote

That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer....

 

(And the same Mark Lane who wanted to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission.)  For good reason... Marguerite suspected her son wasn't guilty.

 

Quote

....and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview.


Which he was! That's one thing Marguerite got right.

I've noticed you never try to debunk the evidence showing that Oswald, as a youth,  was in two places at the same time. And that he both was missing a couple of teeth while at the same time wasn't missing either tooth.

A lot of people dismiss this evidence, but it just shows they don't grasp the "astronomical" odds against all that evidence being mere mistakes. (IMO)

(I say "astronomical." One day I will compute what the odds are. At the moment I know it's at least many millions to one.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

We all know the photos are FAKES.

[...]

People like Von Pein and people like him will never accept that you are right.  They have their beliefs and they are religiously applied.

In addition to Marina Oswald's decades-long insistence that she, herself, took the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, here's another good reason for "people like Von Pein" to disagree with the conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that the backyard photos are fakes:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

The full HSCA "Backyard Photographs" report begins here.

But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists. After all, those expert CTers know way more about the ins and outs of photographic interpretation than any of those 20 or so experts who were part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel, right?

Per the CTers, those 20 photo experts (as a unit) were all apparently either despicable liars or totally incompetent when it comes to their conclusions concerning not only the Backyard Photos, but they were also completely wrong when they said that President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner". (The same goes for the "Handwriting Experts" panel as well. According to many conspiracists, those handwriting guys got everything wrong too. Go figure.)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×