Antti Hynonen Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 (edited) Does anyone know whether or not the DeMohrenschildt copy of the b-y photo, was one taken with the same equipment as the others? Edited December 8, 2004 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Gary Mack has sent you this email from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php. Wim, This is all so simple. The cops who had one or more copies of at least one of the backyard photos include Richard Stovall, Rusty Livingston, Roscoe White and, I have heard, several others. You see, shortly after Oswald died and the realization there would be no trial, some officers asked the crime lab for copies of a few evidence photos. All three men had first generation prints of the third pose, which proves the DPD did, in fact, once have the camera original negative. The Warren Commission never mentioned a third pose and none of their documentation, or that of the FBI, mentions it either.Whether the DPD or the FBI last had the negative is unknown to this day. None of the DPD officers with a copy of the third pose could have known that the negative was missing from the official records; nor could they have known that there was any significance to the print they had. Then, after the Warren Report was issued, there was no Warren Commission left to receive items or! answer inquiries. There were one or two burglary reports made by Paris, Texas police after calls from Geneva White. Both list the items that were stolen and there were no photographs on either list.The third backyard picture is not phony, nor are the other two, and nor was the fourth pose which was destroyed on 11-23-63 by Marina and Marguerite Oswald. Both women have described the pose and admitted what they did and why. Marguerite Oswald told me she believed the backyard photos were real because the #4 picture was similar in pose to the others, which she later saw in LIFE and elsewhere over the years.Anyone can come to Dallas and re-create those pictures at or near the spot Oswald stood in 1963. If the shadows were wrong, as the buffs allege, it would be obvious in the re-creation pictures. So far, after 41 years, no one has detected any problems with the shadows falling at the wrong angle..or anything else.And besides, the pictures don't prove anything at all. So ! Oswald posed for pictures with his rifle and revolver? So what? The pictures don't prove he shot anyone. And if investigators wanted to help convince the public Oswald was connected to the assassination, they could have released the photos as soon as they were found.Instead, as revealed by documents and video tapes, police let reporters see the photos that weekend, but planned to withhold them from publication until the trial. After Oswald died, the police continued to withhold them from the public until one was "made available" to LIFE magazine three months later. Gary Mack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 (edited) (You need to take the gunshot off of the soundtrack when we click on your site. So Corny, the crack of the gun sound............. Edited December 8, 2004 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 (edited) Yeah Shanet, I will get rid of the gunshot. I agree it's corny. Heritage from my predecessor. I have trouble understanding the rest of your post by the way. I believe both Hunt and Files were in Dallas that day. It's just fact for me that Hunt and Sturgis were not the bums, to AJ's and Jack's dismay perhaps. Wim Edited December 7, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 (edited) By the way, It is also fact to me that the backyard photographs are indeed Oswald's head pasted on someone else's body, just like Lee said. Aside from the different chin and the straight shadow under the nose, defying the position of the sun and the other shadows in the picture like the one from the chin, the clincher is really that in one the photographs the head is slightly tilted, yet the shadow from the nose stays EXACTLY the same. It is the same head photo in alll three photographs. Bill Miller or Jack White should post a moving GIF or animation to show that. You'll see it will be very convincing. Gary, you're welcome to comment. Wim "Don't believe the so called evidence" (LHO to his brother Robert) Edited December 7, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Great summary of the light board transparency silouette process' failings, but those snaps performed their propagandanistic function if not there proper evidentiary role, exposed as fraud. The snaps and the Gen. Ed Walker thing, these are the corners of the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Shanet Clark Posted Today, 12:51 AM Great summary of the light board transparency silouette process' failings, but those snaps performed their propagandanistic function if not there proper evidentiary role, exposed as fraud. The snaps and the Gen. Ed Walker thing, these are the corners of the frame. Add Marina Oswald's testimony to obtain the remaining corners of the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 (edited) Gary Mack has sent you this email from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php. Wim,It's the same head in all three photos because it is the same guy - Oswald. Duh. And the shadows fall at the exact same angle because the pictures were all taken within a minute or so of each other - the difference would be too slight to notice.Read the HSCA photo panel report and then come up with some documentation for your claim....then maybe you'll have something.Gary Mack ------------------- Gary did not read correctly what I wrote. The three backyard photographs are all different but the head pasted on the body is the same head PHOTO. Read the original post and you'll see that I wrote "head photo". ONE head photo has been used to create the THREE photographs. The shadow under the nose that stays the same, despite the different positions of the head (related to the sun) proves that. Wim Edited December 8, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Not the animation I mean, but rather nice too: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Oswaldbackyardfake.gif it showes how the body grows quite a bit in size as the camera moved closer to the subject, but the head stayed exactly the same size between photos. (Courtesy of Bill Miller) Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Wim Dankbaar Posted Yesterday, 03:40 PM Not the animation I mean, but rather nice too: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Oswaldbackyardfake.gif it showes how the body grows quite a bit in size as the camera moved closer to the subject, but the head stayed exactly the same size between photos. (Courtesy of Bill Miller) Wim Thanks Bill and Wim. I would like to see how "they" explain that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Antti and all, This is what I meant: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/oswaldtilted.jpg Although taken just seconds or minutes apart, the tilt of the head on the second photo also tilts the nose shadow.... ????? It would be even clearer if you make a GIF animation showing them alternatively Gary ???? We need you to debunk that! Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Martin Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Just out of curiousity, does anyone else have any large copies of these photos? I've only seen small ones until I, just now, scanned one into a bit larger quality from my copy of "The Complete Kennedy Saga." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Just out of curiousity, does anyone else have any large copies of these photos? I've only seen small ones until I, just now, scanned one into a bit larger quality from my copy of "The Complete Kennedy Saga." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is about the best scan available from the 133ADeM copy. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Martin Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Just out of curiousity, does anyone else have any large copies of these photos? I've only seen small ones until I, just now, scanned one into a bit larger quality from my copy of "The Complete Kennedy Saga." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is about the best scan available from the 133ADeM copy. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks so much, the quality on that one is just gorgeous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 (edited) Greetings, Mr. White... I began writing this before I noticed you had the last post - this wasn't supposed to be directly at you... but, you are probably one of the most knowledgable regarding this area... It seems like it was Lyndal Shaneyfelt who stated to the WC that the original 2 snapshots found with the negative were most certainly printed at a commercial photo shop due to the white border and the way the picture was cropped from the negative. Considering the compressed timeframe in which the pictures had to be taken and printed (one of the Marxist papers was a 3/24/64 issue (I believe), which at the very outside would have taken 7 days for delivery (WC's determination) - and G. de Mohrenshildlt's 133A was dated on the back, 4/5/64 - the WC ascertained that the photos had been taken on Sunday, 3/31/64...) , it should have been a fairly simple thing to find the shop near Oswald which printed the pictures. (Did they have 1-hour photo, or did developing take longer?) In the testimony that I read, the subject was suddenly changed to the rifle-strap at the point that questions of this nature might have been logically asked. Has anyone ever heard of any police follow-up on the local photoshops and what was determined? Were the rest of the photographs from that role ever found? Whereabouts within the series did the backyard pictures fall? Near the front or end of the role? Could this be determined? The pictures taken before or after may have been important - how many pictures were taken between the backyard and the photoshop? A great number? If the other pictures from the role were never found - why not? I'm tired of the excuse, "Shoddy policework..." There's shoddy - then, there's completely unacceptable... Edited December 11, 2004 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now