Ed LeDoux

b.) how could the grey jacket be at Oswald's roominghouse for him to take on the afternoon of the 22nd ?

It can't.

Not without help.

Excellent post Gil!

Fraizer said only thing he remembers about oswalds clothing on the 22nd was he was wearing a gray jacket.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=783

Craig will support the shoddy work, in 3D rendering mind you, of Hany Farid who only examined one image.

"there is no way someone would have been able to get the internal and external elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the one photo, but two others in the series."-Farid

How would he know, this doesn't make sense. He acts like he only knew about one image, as if the other images he just mentioned either don't exist or ARE of the same head. Well which is it? I guess it would take him actually looking at all four images and a negative.

(Though he is not a photographic expert it would help him to at least know what he's speaking to.)

But Craig will discount those who actually examined all the photographic evidence in detail.

Farid, like Craig, will avoid using several images and comparing them in 3D. As I have said this is because when they are rendered they would show problems with these images. (This is why the rendering needs to be done accurately and independently)

Ray Mitchum is asking questions which would require an actual answer from Craig, but he, Craig, ignores this or say he does not care. Craig does not care to have his hat handed to him. He will continue to spout off about expertise in 2D imagery. Craig your only as good as your last post. The last few have been dismal.

For Farid/Lamson to be genuine with their arguments they would need to compare 3D renderings of each picture.

For only one image to be studied is not good science. In fact it is BAD SCIENCE!

They would need to compare the renderings against each other to come to ANY conclusions. What Farid has done is produced a PRE-CONCLUSION.

Lamson like Farid will use doubletalk to get around problems, blaming the human eye/brain for misinterpreting what it perceives, or others lack of experience with film and photography. I'm assuming (Farid/Lamson) both have the requisite organs, and they are functioning. So why the tap dance. Because a shadow from the sun is a single point light source. Both Craig and Hany will ignore the fact the shadow under a nose comes from above or overhead, while the body shadow is cast by a lower source. Claims of needing a mold of LHO's head are untrue. There are plenty of shots of LHO from many angles to render an accurate model, unlike the one Farid used.

So there is one flawed study by Farid and Lamson cheers???? Shows just how concerned he is for the truth, justice and doing actual science.

This guy is like the twentieth hijacker...If the FBI was thinking of using Farid in the future it should wisely rethink this.

My amends.

"Philadelphia Quakers With Oswald in Mexico City"

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_issue/quakers.html

and "The Man on the Motorcycle in Mexico City"

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/08/man-on-motorcycle-in-mexico-city.html

This link has history and genealogy. A book by Myers documents the Irish Quakers coming onto Philly 1682-1750.

http://net.lib.byu.edu/fslab/researchoutlines/NonGeographic/Quaker.pdf

References include: Hoyt, Edwin P., THE NIXONS - AN AMERICAN FAMILY: HBBL CS7l.N741972

More on Nixon as a Quaker:

http://www.kimopress.com/nixon.html

The best part of it where Hiss says "I am familiar with the law. I attended Harvard Law School. I believe yours was Whittier."

Will search for Von further when I get time...may try contacting a relative.

This has the genealogical references:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~peacockmoltrer/fam00317.htm

Von and Ruth (Winterbottom) had a child in Mexico, one "Kim Albert Peacock".

Ed

Ed, thanks for posting this Quixotie article, and while Linda Minor is a great researcher, I resent the hijacking of my article and reposting it with the insertion of JVB's comments and the assertion that I have ignored her book. I have two copies of her book and think its all very interesting, but there's nothing in there that can't be better referenced elsewhere, especially the info about Dr. Klopfer and his wife and daughters, one of whom Greg Parker interviewed. Chopping up my article and polluting it with the BS from JVB is very irritating and unnecessary.

BK

Sorry Bill! A bit of chaff got in with the wheat.

I was going to post the link to the article on JFKcountercoup:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/08/philly-quakers-with-oswald-in-mexico.html

But it was dated the 28th of Aug and the Quixotic one pre-dated it, 12th of Aug so I chose the earlier work, it also had the books of reference which would aide those interested in reading them. Again did not mean to throw a JVB into this, not my intention.

Thanks, Ed

Welcome Greg.

Looking forward to what you have put together.

Thanks to Bill, he has done some excellent work on this.

is it reasonable to assume the label on the nara photo should be white?

IF so, then ramping up the gamma till it is near white and adjusting for bright sunlight seems to bring the shade closer. (using imageanalyzer, (which can also produce graphs of values))

edit add : that's a good point, Ed re blood, should be more consideration re that. But just how point blank? on the same: his trousers and shoes ( darn those shoes ) should have something as if he was standing over any spray would traject down as well.

Hey John,

I'd have to find it on Lancer but, if I recall correctly it was 16-18" for the head shot. That is close, and would be considered point blank.

It (jacket) should show signs of splatter. Not sure about shoes or pants, questions were focused on the cone of spatter and its direction. Sherry did a 'reconstruction' of the wound angles to Tippit, and I brought up the bloodsplatter analysis of this. Her CD was mainly on the JFK, frontal headshot bloodsplatter and trajectory analysis. I had her sign her 2006 CD "JFK HOMICIDE FORENSIC RECONSTRUCTION". :-)

It has a section entitled "Tippit Shooting Trajectory Analysis" which I just reviewed.

Craig,

She is AN EXPERT! She has TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES! She is tops in her field...get it?

Plus "I believe" means it has been a while, and I was not quoting Sherry directly. But I believe based on all the evidence and AN EXPERTS reconstruction and study, that yes the grey jacket would have to be ruled out solely on splatter. Thanks though for keeping us honest.

Interesting you state you don't care who killed Kennedy, then why would we care what your opinion is as to the Tippit murder or evidence therein.

Why not care about a slain leader, a murdered American, the death of a President?

Is it because he was real and not a composite image?

I feel this link to "Oswald's Quaker connection in New Orleans and Mexico City" would help others not up to speed on the Philly and Mexico stuff.

http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/08/oswalds-quaker-connection-in-new.html

and this thread will help also:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6548&pid=201372&st=45entry201372

Ed

This could be fun!

Do we have his Cotton Picking Application? Or just a reference to it by the FBI?

From one of her last posts on Lancer:

Dixie Dea Wed Feb-15-06 07:47 AM

Member since May 30th 2002

40 posts

#43840, "RE: Bertha Cheek - Jack Ruby's 'Banker'???"

In response to In response to 19

quote

"The information being discussed on this thread is extremely significant in my mind, I know Dixie Dea from John Simkin's Education Forum, she's a sweetheart."

unquote

Hi Robert...

Although this thread was posted a year ago, when re-reading it just now, the information is still significant to me too. Every once in awhile I still look through my notes and also look for new info. In fact, just the other day I was looking through Mary Ferrell's Data Base and her notes says that Bertha Cheek was to go into a Night Club business with Jack

Ruby, in December, 63. She even has the name, although it has slipped my mind at the moment....the Bistro or some such thing. But, this is not what Bertha told the Warren Commission. When both Bertha Cheek and Harry Olsen lied and hedged, in their testimonies, it just sorta makes me wonder why.

Yes, I am a member of John Simkins forum, as well as some others. However, my system won't let me post on Simkins forum now, I can only read there. However, that is probably not a bad thing, it keeps me out of trouble there..

A sweetheart? That is a surprisingly nice thing to hear on Valentines Day!

Best Regards

________________

Dixie

A sweetheart for sure! Ed

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

<grins> I know.

I asked Sherry Gutierrez Fiester on Lancer about blood splatter a while ago and it seems rather odd there was none on LHO, the jacket, gun, etc. especially with the close proximity of the coup de grace to the head of Tippit.

I believe we can rule the GREY jacket out as being worn by the Tippit shooter based on this.

He suggests that the jacket only APPEARS to be white in the video because of some technological reasons that exist in black and white video/photography regarding shadows and such.

Yes this would be ridiculous from an actual expert, but completely acceptable from a pseudo-expert

But the witnesses who saw the jacket IN PERSON didn't view it in black and white.

But Craig see's everything in black and white, he's stuck in 1964

And they described the jacket's color as white.

That includes policemen and civilians.

But there's more than just the visual that the jacket was white. The grey jacket has no chain of possession.

Not one of the officers who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the civilians who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the officers who handled the "white" jacket at the scene of discovery marked the grey jacket as the jacket they handled.

IOW, this grey jacket was not the jacket found in the parking lot. I believe that this jacket was recovered from the Texas Theater at the time of Oswald's arrest. Like the white jacket found in the parking lot, this grey jacket was handled by Capt. W.R. Westbrook, who went on later ( I believe in 1966 ) to leave the DPD for a job with the CIA.

Richard Gilbride has it in "Matrix For Assassination" as two years after the assassination, so '65.

I believe that Westbrook switched the jackets. I can't prove it, but that's what I believe.

You would be well within reason to suspect this happened Gil, especially if we add this to the other highly questionable if not manufactured "evidence" that was not photographed in situ

Dixie had a great presence, it would come right through the screen.

I never had the pleasure of meeting her in person, that I'm truly sorry she passed, wish I had.

Thanks Bernice for letting us know. A sad day indeed.

Respectfully, Ed

In other words: what do you got, if you hang a camera around van Peins neck? - Lamson...

KK

HAHAHA Now that is classic, thanks KK! I needed that.

Sure you do Ed. Keep the fantasy alive, its all you have.

Yet here we have LHO with a rifle and a pistol, and your "conjecture' about the ordering and receiving gets destroyed.

Funny how that works.

Which is why the big push to make sure the BY photos stay 'FAKE"

Your fear is palpable.

But thanks for playing.

That is rich! Chickens lay the eggs Craig, sorry its not the other way around. The rifle was never ordered or picked up by LHO. So how is it that fake pictures are now real, because you say so. OKAY. The rifle would need to be in LHO's possession for the pictures to be accurate. Seeing as that fairy tale has been dumped on like a landfill and shown not to be true, you'll still say the photo is correct. That is an odd way of looking at reality. So a faked photograph is your egg but you have no chicken to lay it. Hmmm

Thank you, and please do come again.

Craig, no one avoids the point with as much arrogance as you do.

So you are saying that you cannot tell where Oswald moved in relation to Marina?

And then you say that you do not know because you cannot figure out where he was at first?

Well, then did he move at all?

Can you answer that obvious one?

Jim, is reading really that hard for you or is it just that words mean nothing.

Heck you are totally oblivious to the point.

Lets try and and I'll talk r e a l l y slow so maybe you can understand (fat chance but what the heck)

The photos are in 2D space jimmy,( that means they are flat)

The scene was 'in the world' (that means the everything in the scene occupied a specific place in 3d space)

Since all we have to look at is a 2d depiction of a 3d scene ( that flat thing jimmy) we don't have enough "clues" to decide the actual way Oswald occupies the 3d space ( that means how he actually stood in the real world jimmy)

Since we have no way of knowing HOW he stood in one photo it is impossible to tell how he actually moved to get to his position in the second image. (That means we don't know exactly how he stood..in either picture. jimmy)

And that of course is why it is impossible to do a "recreation" based on a 2d image...you can't get the 3d aspects correct, you can only guess.

I can't tell you how Oswald moved at accurately, in 3d space ( that would be the world jimmy, the 2d photos ( that would be the flat things jimmy)don't give us enough data.

Of course Oswald moved, we just can't say HOW MUCH or WHERE TO (you do understand those worlds don't you jimmy?) with any degree of accuracy. (that means getting it really close jimmy)

Now why don't you tell us I'm wrong and prove it to use by showing us exactly how the body on the backyard photos moved from one photo to the next.

This should be HIGHLY amusing to say the least!

LMAO...

WRONG!

This is where Lamson lets it slip he cannot tell ANYTHING from the backyard photos.

See if a person moved in 3d space and was captured on 2d film he would be able to show his movement relative to his last position also captured in 2d.

These measurements Craig is so found of trotting out fail him at this point when he should be using them.

But he can't!! Why?

Is it because it was not as he claims a true 2d image of a 3d object?

He is wrong in telling Jim "Of course Oswald moved, we just can't say HOW MUCH or WHERE TO with any degree of accuracy." Where in one post he will intimate great accuracy in trying to show these photos are real, except here where they really would show something by the measurements of the movement of the person in the photo. Lamson the 'expert' slips on his own tongue. Sorry buddy your expertise is sorely lacking you here.

Lamson has no idea how to recreate a 3D space from a 2D image. Yet he will profess great knowledge of flat 2D images, how every minute detail would change with things like perspective, etc, etc... yet this exercise is beyond him..? I don't think it is. I think he would show problems with the images when he begins actually recreating the WORLD that these images appear to represent. Craig must bury head in sand every time a 3D-2D converter is shown to him.

Similarity measurements between 3D objects and 2D images are useful for the tasks of object recognition and classification. The authors distinguish between two types of similarity metrics: metrics computed in image-space (image metrics) and metrics computed in transformation-space (transformation metrics). Existing methods typically use image metrics; namely, metrics that measure the difference in the image between the observed image and the nearest view of the object. Example for such a measure is the Euclidean distance between feature points in the image and their corresponding points in the nearest view. (This measure can be computed by solving the exterior orientation calibration problem.) In this paper the authors introduce a different type of metrics: transformation metrics. These metrics penalize for the deformations applied to the object to produce the observed image. In particular, the authors define a transformation metric that optimally penalizes for “affine deformations” under weak-perspective. A closed-form solution, together with the nearest view according to this metric, are derived. The metric is shown to be equivalent to the Euclidean image metric, in the sense that they bound each other from both above and below. It therefore provides an easy-to-use closed-form approximation for the commonly-used least-squares distance between models and images. The authors demonstrate an image understanding application, where the true dimensions of a photographed battery charger are estimated by minimizing the transformation metric

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F34%2F10562%2F00491630.pdf%3Farnumber%3D491630&authDecision=-203

How long is that rifle in the picture? How would you know? You can't measure a man, how are you going to measure the rifle? Rifle moves between pictures. Does it get longer? Does "LHO" move between pics? How do you know? Does he change height, weight, race...where do your measurements fail you??

Oh and This IS HIGHLY amusing to say the least! Please Please continue.

All the best, Ed

lamson does not care because he gets his ass handed to him along with the facts!

Try keeping up with us Craig.

And just cause its IN a photo does not make Craig an expert on the evidence shown in the photo.

Craig thinks the pics are real...Kinda hard to argue with that, except for the simple pill to swallow that is LHO never ordered a rifle or received one, likewise with the pistol. Yet Craig will measure a fake picture and scream the measurements are correct. Correct for what? A faked photo.

These things escape Lamson...

Plus this notion of someone being a "CT" as Craig puts it. I know he must not read other threads where conspiracy is proven...again these things escape Lamson.

Craig, its only a theory till there is factual evidence shown. Then it is no longer conjecture.

And no we don't want to 'try again', we got it right, you need to.

There is a reference to a Benrus wrist watch #476343

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=734079

FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 229

On 9/7/2011 at 9:29 PM, David Andrews said:

Looking back at post #4, I have to say that the head looks mismatched to the body proportionally in all three Warren Commission shots.

I wonder if we can better judge that by looking at the relation between body and head, and at the proportions of Oswald's body alone, in other torso shots of Oswald - such as the crossed-arms pose photographed after the Bringuer incident arrest, and stills from Oswald's TV interview after the New Orleans radio show.

When it was done by Jack White with the backyard pictures, the head/body did have mismatched proportions.

That was the point of that exercise, to show this fact.

(Thanks to Bernice for the video link to FAKE)

Not positive we can 'prove' a great deal by comparison to/with other LHO photos, but may be worth a try.

The HSCA did a Penrose study with his head. But they threw out the three most important data points(one was the CHIN!). A rather large omission when that is what your charged with investigating!

HEY WANNA SEE MY WATCH...I mean bracelet

Der. 4/6/64

MARINA OSWALD was interviewed at her place of residence,

629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Texas.

She was questioned further concerning the silver-colored'

bracelet, which LEE HARVEY OSWALD had given her following his return

to Dallas, Texas, after his trip to Mexico. She said this bracelet

was very similar to a bracelet which LEE HARVEY OSWALD wore. His

bracelet had the name 'LEE' engraved upon it . She stated she believed

OSWALD purchased his bracelet about the time they were residing on

Elsbeth Street, or perhaps during the time they rented a place on

Neely Street.

She recalled OSWALD's watch had been in disrepair and,

instead of having the watch fixed, he bought the bracelet and wore

it in place of the watch. On a previous occasion, when OSWALD's

watch was in disrepair, he had had it fixed at Leonard's Department

Store in Port Worth, Texas. This was at a time when they resided in

Fort Worth.

She believes OSWALD was working at Jaggars-Chiles-stovall

at the time he purchased the bracelet.

MARINA said she does not know where OSWALD purchased the

bracelet which he presented her. OSWALD did not say he had purchased

it In Mexico. He presented it to her within the first hour after

they were reunited following his trip to Mexico. She recalls seeing

a bracelet very such like the bracelet which he gave her in the

Woolworth Store at New Orleans.

She did not like the bracelet and never wore it.

COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1844

The fact that LHO did not have a wristwatch and had pocket watches would be a large nail in the backyard photos coffin. Add the fact the bracelet was likely purchased before the Neely Backyard photos and we have a serious problem with a wristwatch wearing Lee.

Too bad we can't zoom in on that rascally backyard wristwatch to see what time it is, maybe it even had a date function so we can see what day too. lol

Thanks again to Bernice for that Elgin POCKET WATCH pic

Who's watch?

http://cityofirving.org/library/archives/accessions/mvf-5-10/7-11.asp

On the supposed water spot:

“One thing is the sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and then ends at the other side - right where Oswald's head could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed to be a water spot.”~ Brian Mee

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard

Note:

Dallas police officer R. L. Studebaker testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that in 1963, while working in the Dallas Police Department Photography Laboratory, he made numerous copies of the Kennedy photographic evidence for fellow Dallas police officers ; included in the pictures distributed were prints of CE 133-A and CE 133-B as well as of the third pose not seen by the Warren Commission. Testimony of R. L. Studebaker, supra note 127

I see pass them out like party favors or like candy to children Pass them to everyone who asks...except the FBI and Warren Commission!!

PS: Ed, it was bad enough when Ray Carroll was the funnel for Mack/Dunkel. If he has something to say, let him say it himself. He has been doing this stuff for years on end. Is there a clause in his contract at the Holocaust Denier Museum that says he cannot post online? If not, then let him man up and post himself.

I thought it was important to re-post Larry's question(?) How I answered it and how he still evaded that answer.

Plus we all know Larry doesn't post.

Duplicating the Nose Shadow? With CLAY AND STICKS? Good luck Craig.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm

Both Marina and Marguerite testified to having destroyed a fourth BY pose the day after the assassination, and both confirmed to me in the late 70s/early 80s that they did, indeed, do just that.

Might have been a hunting pic, from Russia, different gun etc etc etc...we don't know for sure do we. I think the inconsistency with what we do HAVE is enough to worry an WC supporters.

Ed,

That is what Sylvia Meagher believed - and I agree 100% with her. This photo was probably taken in March - of '62. It was said to be inscribed to June - and March '62 was soon after her birth. The photo showed Oswald holding a weapon above his head. No pistol. No commie newspapers. Why would Marina be concerned enough about this photo to bring it to Marguerite's attention as being possibly incriminating and be completely unconcerned about the others in the alleged series showing commie papers and a pistol as well as the rifle? The only sensible answer is that she was concerned about this photo because it was the only one in existence at that time.

The idea for the back yard photos was based on that original photo.

I agree and have argued the same point. That is a point Gary/Larry won't accept. But whatever, please continue.

Here's my take, fwiw.

There were only 3 people who knew about the original photo. Marina because she took it - and Ruth Paine and Marguerite because following the assassination, Marina apparently panicked and spoke to Ruth Paine in Russian about it, then got the photo to show Marguerite.

One of those three told the FBI about the original photo... I think we can all guess who...

That fourth pose existed in March 1963 and Oswald knew all about it. Are you saying that HE faked his own picture? And then sent one of the poses to The Militant? And that the other three were faked after November 22?

Sent how? Through the US mail? This is a Sylvia Weinstein reference ala

Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK

By Gus Russo

http://books.google....n%20jfk&f=false

or

Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

http://books.google....ilitant&f=false

Can you sort this out for me?

Gary

cc: Craig Lamson

The one sent to the Militant... yeah... so where is it?

Exactly. Maybe Gary Mack can ask William Kunstler? :-O

From the very beginning of the investigation, the FBI wanted to use Oswald to embarrass communist and socialist groups in counterintel ops. It recently dawned on me that there was no reason why Marina could not have taken a photo of Oswald in the backyard of Neely St in early March - just a normal happy family snap - the same type taken of June and Marina around the same time (thanks LF). This completely innocent photo was then used to reproduce the destroyed photo - with a few added extras.

I always had it, if there were quaint family pics, an original would be of LHO holding June in the backyard, perhaps there even was a picture of an empty yard/garden what with Lee trying to show Marina how to take a picture? If that is a baby blanket folded up by the stairs, then someone "has to be" holding the baby.

And back from Mack:

Sorry, Ed, but both women knew about the BY photo controversy and they said it was a fourth pose from the same picture-taking event.

So if the pictures are fake, Oswald faked them – ALL of them - months prior to the assassination. But why? I’ve been asking this question for years and no one has an answer. Do you?

Gary

Cc: Craig Lamson

HSCA speaks for itself Craig...

and a note from Gary (Larry) Mack. I had to cut and paste it though...

Ed,

Both Marina and Marguerite testified to having destroyed a fourth BY pose the day after the assassination, and both confirmed to me in the late 70s/early 80s that they did, indeed, do just that.

Might have been a hunting pic, from Russia, different gun etc etc etc...we don't know for sure do we. I think the inconsistency with what we do HAVE is enough to worry an WC supporters.

So who "faked" the photos, as you suggest, eight months prior to the assassination? And why?

Hesters were working on something, and it was not eight months prior.

That fourth pose existed in March 1963 and Oswald knew all about it. Are you saying that HE faked his own picture? And then sent one of the poses to The Militant? And that the other three were faked after November 22?

Sent how? Through the US mail? This is a Sylvia Weinstein reference ala

Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK

By Gus Russo

http://books.google.com/books?id=9yTzkAUw6EEC&pg=PT1176&lpg=PT1176&dq=sylvia+weinstein+jfk&source=bl&ots=K8U-xGZC0f&sig=IDK7Q1J1rtfyoU62SvMHSaMugbs&hl=en&ei=A7ZnTuDOBYfKiALl75GGCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sylvia%20weinstein%20jfk&f=false

or

Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

http://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&pg=PA685&lpg=PA685&dq=oswald+picture+militant&source=bl&ots=WlmMcDSZmp&sig=ozaQ4k-jjt0NTnZ_H-M7M5tNSMw&hl=en&ei=tLNnTuf5JPPWiAKvpJmECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=oswald%20picture%20militant&f=false

Can you sort this out for me?

Gary

cc: Craig Lamson

© Evidence of retouching

(422) Each of the backyard pictures, as well as the only original

negative, was examined microscopically for evidence of retouching.

No such evidence could 'be detected . Particular attention was given

to the area to Oswald's left in CE 133-B, where it has been alleged

that a retoucher painted on a montage but carelessly allowed the color

material to spread onto the front of a nearby vertical post, thereby

giving the appearance of an indentation on the post that does not

appear in either of the other two backyard pictures. (181)

(423) Close examination of the original print revealed that the apparent

indentation is a shadow, most likely of a leaf or leaves . The

straight edge of the post is still visible in this shaded area. This

straight edge was detected and indicated by a computer programed

to seek such edges. (See fig. IV-37, JFK exhibit F-198.) (182)

(487) 15. Are the backgrounds and shadows identical on any of

the three different views (CI:-133A, CI'.-13:3, and CE-1:1:3) . thereby suggesting

that different figures have been superimposed on different

prints of a single background photograph?

(488) The speculation is either that someone started with a photograph

of a backyard with no figure and added the three figures from

other photographs, or that Oswald's head was added to three photographs

of someone else standing in the backyard . The backgrounds are.

not identical, thereby ruling out the possibility that figures were added

to three prints of a single photograph of the backyard . The differences

include changes in the convergence of vertical subject lines (the posts,

the boards in the fence, and the building on the right) with changes of

camera tilt, changes in the area of the background included in the three

views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows of some branches

and leaves.

AND

(510) The undersigned copied a photographic print with the Oswald

camera, using a -F 4 diopter supplementary lens over the camera lens,

to demonstrate that it is possible to make a copy negative that has

characteristics of an original negative including edge markings,

scratch patterns, variations in center to edge sharpness, pincushion distortion,

and consistent grain patterns (fig. RIT 22-1 A and B ) . For

this type of fakery to be successful, it would be necessary to use a large

format camera with a good quality lens for the original photographs

to avoid introducing graininess, scratches, unsharpness, or distortion

at this stage. Also, any alterations would have to be made on large

photographs so that retouching or discrepancies could be concealed.

Furthermore, the Oswald camera would have to be available to the

person making the fake photographs and it would be necessary to cal- 215

culate a combination of supplementary lens focal length and original

print size to obtain an in-focus image of the desired size with the

fixed-focus camera.

(511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include

strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens,

loss of ~,,radiation in highlight areas and loss of detail in shadow areas

which typically occurs when copies are made, and possible detection of

imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion was

much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald

camera than on the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs

made with the Oswald camera without the supplementary lens .

Since there is no wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs

are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the

shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original

photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that

are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses

marry technical problems, any one of which if not solved would lead to

detection under close examination of the photographs, we do not believe

such a procedure was used to produce the three backyard photographs

of Oswald.

Two additional first. generation prints, one of 133-A and

one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective

Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was among the

police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the

search of the Paine premises . (154)

Nice of Dick Stovall to hang on to these till Roscoe's had surfaced.

(379) The photographs show a slight variation in the horizontal and

vertical dimensions of the prints and borders that were caused by artifacts

of masking position . On the back of each is the small graphite

mark characteristic of automatic printing machines. It indicates to an

electric eye scanner where the long continuous roll of prints should be

cut into individual snapshots. (See figs. IV-18, IV-19, JFK exhibits

F-179 and F-182.) As most drugstore prints, these were apparently

cropped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border

around their periphery. Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the

negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indicated

that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots

indicative of improper washing or drying .

Were they all "Drugstore" photos printed on an automatic printing machine. Do the emulsion tears and water spots account for the dog nose its shadow(piece of emulsion) and other anomalies?

And thus began Marina's story about the Imperial Reflex camera used in the BYP. Which, btw is weird, since she did not even know how to use such a camera. When the HSCA tested her on this she said you raised it to eye level. Nope. You bend over it while holding it at your waist. Oopsy Daisy!

The reason this switcheroo was important is that the first three cameras took the equivalent of 35 mm pictures in shape and configuration. But the BYP were on 620 roll film. Therefore, the belated "discovery" was necessary. And Ruth was jolly on the spot. Just like she was for the FBi when they wanted to ditch the Minox.

No one ever asked, "How did the police scoop up the miniature Minox but miss something like the Imperial Reflex?"

Pretty tough question to answer. Just like its difficult to figure how Ruth did not realize it was not hers, and why she did not turn it over to the authorities herself. Oopsy Daisy again!

Great questions Jim, and this shows the dance that was going on with the evidence.