Jump to content
The Education Forum
Stephanie Goldberg

Where did Oswald develop the infamous gun photos?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Stephanie / Steve:

Re my listing of who occupied the Dal-Tex building in 1963 - the information that I had at the time I compiled that list was as accurate as I could establish at the time I originally wrote it, but - looking at it again now - it wouldn't really make sense that a building like that would not have anyone occupying the first floor. 

However, do I also correctly recall a wall-mounted list of occupiers on the outside of the TSBD in a photo/film (the Cook film, perhaps?) taken in the immediate aftermath of the assassination? If my memory is anything like I think it is, the companies Steve identified in an earlier post are on the wall-list of the TSBD, which was at 411 Elm. not 501 Elm. 

Chris.

[PS. Just found that Cook frame - attached, I hope]

    

Cook2_frame_0023.jpg

Edited by Chris Scally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 12:42 AM, Stephanie Goldberg said:

 

A note from Seth Kantor's notebook in the Warren Commission exhibits says in part - 

"Ask Fritz --

1 - Who N.C. preacher who tipped them about the mail-order purchase?

2 - 501 Elm is place that processed photo.  What are details of photo (showing gun & Daily Worker head: "Be Militant")"

501 Elm is the Dal-Tex building, isn't it?  Did they have a photo processing facility in March of 1963 among their offices?  I couldn't find that information.  And where did Mr. Kantor obtain this information about where the photo was allegedly processed?  

 

 

Stephanie,

 

Here's a pretty good shot of the two buildings, I think; with the Dal-Tex on the right, and the TSBD on the left.

image.png.e710e22d018f469ba3e1552c12a04640.png

The rifle photos were supposedly taken in March. Oswald didn't go to work at the TSBD until October.

If John is right, those publishing companies would still have been located in the Dal-Tex building at the time the photos were taken. I wonder why they moved en masse.

I still don't see any photo developing companies located at 501 Elm - at least in the 1961 City Directory.

image.png.b478182184c206c820a59504d6e989bf.png

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Imperial Reflex camera used 12-exposure spools of 620 film. The Backyard Photo prints found with Oswald’s possessions were printed using “drugstore print” finishing (description courtesy HSCA panel), which means an automated process common in drugstores, photomats, etc. This indicates a 12-exposure spool of film was inserted into one of these machines to produce the BYP prints (rather than using an individual negative). No other “drugstore” finished photos were found with Oswald’s possessions, and the other photo from the time (March 1963) matched to the camera (photo of Walker house) and found with the Oswald possessions was not in the drugstore format, and was therefore developed at another time.

An important question that investigators did not ask is whether the photo ID’ed as 133-C came into the hands of the Dallas police also as a “drugstore” print.

The Seth Kantor note is intriguing, but unsourced and otherwise lacking further context. A photo developing activity tied to that address would need one of those automated machines to be responsible for the two BYPs (133 A/B).

My speculation is that both the two BYPs and the Walker house photo were either given to Oswald by persons he knew, or they were planted. Or, cutting it finer, the two BYPs were planted, and the Walker house photo had been given to him in March 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Stephanie Goldberg said:

Where did Oswald develop the infamous gun photos?

[...]

A note from Seth Kantor's notebook in the Warren Commission exhibits says in part -

"Ask Fritz --

1 - Who N.C. preacher who tipped them about the mail-order purchase?

2 - 501 Elm is place that processed photo.  What are details of photo (showing gun & Daily Worker head: "Be Militant")"

501 Elm is the Dal-Tex building, isn't it?  Did they have a photo processing facility in March of 1963 among their offices?  I couldn't find that information.  And where did Mr. Kantor obtain this information about where the photo was allegedly processed?

Good questions, Stephanie.

I don't think I've ever heard anything about where the backyard photos might have been developed and processed.

But if it could somehow be established that one or more of the various backyard snapshots had been handled and processed by "XX Drug Store" or "XX Photo Lab" (or wherever), it would help to show that the photos were developed via normal non-sinister means and, therefore, are likely legitimate (i.e., non-fake) photographs.

But, as Stephanie herself alluded to in her opening post, it's very possible that Lee Harvey Oswald himself might have developed the backyard photos while he was still employed with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas. It would appear (based on the dates supplied earlier in this thread) that Oswald had six days of opportunity before he was fired (between March 31 and April 6, 1963) to take advantage of the processing facilities at Jaggars after the time when the backyard pictures were most likely taken (which was probably on March 31st).

I'll check Vince Bugliosi's book and see if he's got something in there about this topic.*

* EDIT ---- Here's what I found:

"Oswald asked his [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] coworker Dennis Ofstein whether the company equipment could be used to make copies of prints and enlargement of photographs that had been taken in small-format cameras. Ofstein told him that while Jaggers [sic] didn't sanction the use of company equipment for private projects, people did it now and then. He showed Oswald how to do it and watched as Oswald made photographic enlargements of snapshots taken in Minsk and while Oswald was in the service in Japan. Lee would later also do some other work that Ofstein never knew about, making calling cards for George de Mohrenschildt as well as Marina and himself. He also experimented with making photographic copies of some of his own documents—his birth certificate and his military and draft registration ID cards—which he would soon use in attempts to create crude forgeries. It was also during this period that Oswald started sending samples of his photographic work, apparently carried out in stolen moments at Jaggers [sic], to leftist organizations back East.

[...]

Oswald probably intended the backyard photographs to be of great historical significance, telling Marina the photos were "for posterity." He may have intended to leave them for inclusion in the dossier he was compiling on his assassination of General Walker. Or they could have been another exhibit he could flash at Cuban leaders who were going to welcome him with open arms when they realized that he was the one who killed one of Castro's greatest American enemies. If anything went wrong with his plan, the photo could still serve as a memento. Several days later, after developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggers [sic], he gave Marina a print, on the back of which he had written, "For Junie, from Papa." Marina was appalled. "Why would Junie want a picture with guns?" she asked Lee. "To remember Papa by sometime," he said.

Sadly, the photographs did in fact turn out to be of historical significance, not because of Lee's bungled attempt to kill General Walker but because of his all too successful attempt to murder John F. Kennedy. One of the three received the accolade of becoming a front cover of Life magazine, and it has been reprinted countless times in newspapers, magazines, books, and television documentaries. The photograph Marina took that Sunday afternoon has become the enduring universal image of, for some, the assassin of President Kennedy, for others, the helpless patsy caught in the vortex of a dark conspiracy. Whichever it is, one thing is reasonably certain. It is the image by which, more than any other, Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to be remembered, not just by his baby daughter but by the entire world. And that wish came true." -- Pages 666, 685, and 686 of "Reclaiming History"

 

The two sources listed for this assertion by Bugliosi....

"after developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggers"

....are:

1 H 16, WCT Marina N. Oswald

and:

McMillan, Marina and Lee, p.341.

Since there's nothing on 1 H 16 that says anything about Lee developing the pictures himself at Jaggars, that must mean that "Marina And Lee, Page 341" is the source for the info about Lee developing "at least three of the negatives at Jaggers [sic]".

I can't check Page 341 of the 1977 edition of Priscilla McMillan's book (I don't have it). So I'll have to assume that McMillan says something on that page that made Vincent Bugliosi 100% positive that Lee Harvey Oswald himself developed three of the backyard photos at Jaggars in early April of 1963. What that "something" might be, I haven't the foggiest. And Bugliosi's firm, definitive stance on this matter is even more questionable when we consider the following HSCA testimony provided by Marina Oswald in 1978:

~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. McDONALD -- "Do you know if Lee developed these by himself, at his place of employment?"

MRS. MARINA OSWALD-PORTER -- "I think once he worked somewhere, it was possible to do it at work, I believe. I really do not know if he developed himself or he send it for."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Bugliosi was probably right about LHO developing the backyard photos himself while Lee still worked at Jaggars (what with Lee having easy access to the photo-processing facilities at Jaggars just after the pictures were taken—and what with Lee also being such a cheapskate and all), but given the way Marina testified above, I think Vince should have probably phrased the relative sentence on page 685 of his book in this manner instead:

"...after PROBABLY developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggars..."

But Vince is usually pretty good (and accurate, IMO) when it comes to his "reasonable inferences". Here's another example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Bugliosi And The Smelly Bus

 

Steve Thomas said:

If John is right, those publishing companies would still have been located in the Dal-Tex building at the time the photos were taken. I wonder why they moved en masse.

Here's some more info that might clear up the confusion about why the various book publishers all moved from 501 Elm Street (the Dal-Tex Building) to 411 Elm Street (the TSBD Building)....

The text below comes from these two sources:

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48681#relPageId=25

http://deeppoliticsforum.com/411 Elm Street's Mysterious History

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

"1952 – the TSBD management and clerical personnel at Pacific Avenue building relocated to the first floor of 501 Elm St (the Dal-Tex building). At some point, Jack Cason decides to lease the building across the street, 411 Elm St. There is some confusion about when this happened. O.V. Campbell told William Weston that this happened around 1958. Spaulding Jones, former branch manager of MacMillan Publishing, thought the move to 411 took place in 1957 or 1958.

[...]

1962 January – the TSBD acquires the 411 Elm St location, leasing it from D.H. Byrd (SS report CO-2-34030 12/7/1963) The Polk’s criss-cross 1962 business directory shows that the TSBD was still listed as having an address on the first floor of 501 Elm St (Dal-Tex Bldg). The same directory lists the 411 Elm St building as vacant. The 1963 directory lists the book companies at 411 Elm. Also that year the first floor of the Dal-Tex becomes vacant. (William Weston)"

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all good information!  Thank you to EVERYONE who has posted here!  🙂

The address issue is a bit confusing, but I understand what's been said so far.  I have to think on this for a bit, but as far as the publishing companies moving en masse, we know that the TSBD building was taken over in 1963 for the purpose of school books, yes?  Or was it?  Can we fix the date of the move of those companies from their previous address as shown above and into the TSBD building?  How does that correlate to Oswald's move to New Orleans?

As far as the method of development, that is extremely interesting.  If you believe that Oswald developed them, then they were potentially done while he was at JCS.  He had opportunity there, but did he have the means?  Were there machines at JCS which could develop prints by the drugstore method?   (I wonder how the HSCA determined that the prints were developed by the drugstore method?  Is there any record that the Warren Commission or the HSCA tried to locate the drugstore at which they might have been developed?) 

It's curious that the only other print matched to that camera (the Walker house) was not developed the same way.  Back then, developing film was something of a luxury for people of limited means.  You'd think that every print on the roll of twelve would show the same type of developing.    So if the Walker house print was developed separately, how/when was it done?  

The article by Ms. Minor is fascinating.  I wouldn't have stumbled onto that one on my own!  

I have yet to read Mr. Bugliosi's book or Ms. McMillan's.  (I'm like years behind everyone here in research, so thanks for the quotes!)

And yes, I know the Seth Kantor note is unsourced.  It's a tantalizing what if at best, but it started me thinking.  So many things seemed to have been unresolved from the early research of many people who were on the scene.  Could be dead ends.  Maybe not.  -shrugs-  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

[...]

Mr. Bugliosi was probably right about LHO developing the backyard photos himself while Lee still worked at Jaggars (what with Lee having easy access to the photo-processing facilities at Jaggars just after the pictures were taken—and what with Lee also being such a cheapskate and all), but given the way Marina testified above, I think Vince should have probably phrased the relative sentence on page 685 of his book in this manner instead:

[...]

nah, LHO creating composites that implicates himself? Common sense Sherlock. He'd of burned up a ton or print paper getting the composites aligned and correct. And it would take time... lots of time. All that ruby work? And that's before he got to the lab. No this took a pro. Are you sure it wasn't Dale *wanna see my EMMY* Myers who wrote this nonsense you quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

nah, LHO creating composites that implicates himself? Common sense Sherlock. He'd of burned up a ton or print paper getting the composites aligned and correct. And it would take time... lots of time.

[...]

No this took a pro. Are you sure it wasn't Dale *wanna see my EMMY* Myers who wrote this nonsense you quote? 

Well, David H., the facilities at Jaggars were certainly there and available for Oswald to use (if he, indeed, knew how) during that brief 6-day period in question (April 1-6, 1963, just before he was fired).

And if it could somehow be proven that Oswald did, indeed, develop the backyard pictures himself (which can probably never be done), then it would certainly eliminate for all time the decades-old (and also unproven) notion that the backyard photos are fakes.

Because, as you yourself implied, why would Oswald himself be creating and developing a series of fraudulent composite pictures that implicate himself? That idea, of course, is nuts.
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Well, David H., the facilities at Jaggars were certainly there and available for Oswald to use (if he, indeed, knew how) during that brief 6-day period in question (April 1-6, 1963, just before he was fired).

And if it could somehow be proven that Oswald did, indeed, develop the backyard pictures himself (which can probably never be done), then it would certainly eliminate for all time the decades-old (and also unproven) notion that the backyard photos are fakes.

Because, as you yourself implied, why would Oswald himself be creating and developing a series of fraudulent composite pictures that implicate himself? That idea, of course, is nuts.
 

nearly as nuts as the Single Bullet Theory.... What Lab did the Hester's work at in Dallas, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

It's a tantalizing what if at best, but it started me thinking.  So many things seemed to have been unresolved from the early research of many people who were on the scene.  Could be dead ends.  Maybe not.  -shrugs-  

Stephanie,

 

Ah yes. The wonderful world of JFK assassination research.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which one is the Trinity Building or is that different from the Dal-Tex and the TSBD.  Can't find any info on Google for the Trinity Building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

nearly as nuts as the Single Bullet Theory.... What Lab did the Hester's work at in Dallas, again?

If Oswald had any spy training at all, I'm sure it would have involved taking photos and developing them.  He had a real spy camera, the Minox.  How did he get it without being a spy fellow.  There would have been labs available for GIs posted overseas, such as the free photo lab available to GIs in Korea, where you could take your film and learn how to develop film.

Even a camera and film moron such as myself developed film, in a one night setting, I had taken overseas at a free military photo lab. 

"How did he get it without being a spy fellow. "  On reflection this is weaker than I originally thought.  I was not a spy.  I bought a Minox 35 mm in a "Kimchi Shop" in a rural village.  It was different from the usual pictures showing a Minox.  It had a featureless aluminum case that slid open to show the controls.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to be ASSUMING that the Walker house photo and the backyard photo(s) were taken on the same roll of film.

Or, as DA Hamilton Burger would have said on "Perry Mason": 

" OBJECTION! Assumes facts not in evidence."

So different film developing processes might mean that the photos came from different rolls of film. Just a possibility we should consider.

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

×
×
  • Create New...