Martin Hinrichs

OK Len, i got it. You were asking for a FBI document to back up the backyard photos were shown to Oswald before the evening session (though i have no idea why you asked this), while i misinterpreted your question and thought you asked the authenticity of the FBI document i've already posted in question and thats the reason i truncated your sentence to make sure you will know what i mean. I could have let the whole sentence intact with just the "NO" added in bold. Will do it next when it hurts you. My fault. But to my self defence i like to ask why is this question of relevance when i already provided Captain Will Fritz's official interrogation notes from the Warren Commission Appendix XI? I have no FBI document saying that because it doesn't exist and you know it. The notes are crystal clear confirming that the Dallas Police Departement was in the noon session already in the posession of minimum one backyard photo. Here again: For what is it good for to post a FBI document when the WCR made it clear? Would this convince you? Or would you then ask for a CIA or a DPD or any other Government document to back that up? Is this divertion by design? Shall i play Len Colby for a minute? Ok, here you go: You have FBI documents Oswald admitting to shot the president or Tippit? You have FBI documents were Michael Paine admitted the backyard photos were shown to him for the first time on november 23,1963? You have FBI documents shown photos of Oswald on the six floor shooting? I hope you see how little sense it made to send someone on a wild goose chase. Ah, and thats not enough? LOL Aha, FBI documents are more worth then WC documents or what? Why? I prefer not to respond to your last "Kindergarten" wording. Len, the nonexistence of a FBI document makes another (WC document) not obsolete. Get it? Ah, thats far better. Now i understand. The answer is no. I was not a witness there in 63 and would be therefore just speculation. Well, i can speculate and share ideas but you are the last person i like to share ideas with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To make this posting worthwhile the time i'd like to summarize the inconsistency and whereabouts of the backyard photos. I like to include some parts of the excellent research of Lee Farley too. Lee, i hope you don't mind. Please tell me if there is a problem and i instantly edit this posting. In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated primarily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were, stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=703416 And here according to Fritz's interrogation notes the DPD was already in the possession of minimum one backyard photo before it was found. Plain, straight, clear. Since we know time is running linear forward and not backwards we are facing here a major problem. Now to the research of Lee Farley: (Thank you Lee) Michael Paine's testimony is supporting that the backyard photos were found way before there were discovered: MR LIEBELER: Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the governement ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the president? MR PAINE: They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life. MR LIEBELER: Where you able to? MR PAINE: I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house. And here the documents showing the Hester's worked on the backyard photos in the night after after the assassination: http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1216/hester.jpg Martin

Stop, stop Len Colby. Wait a minute. What are you gonna try to suggest here? Why did you say "no"? We have to verify this important claim before any disscussion can continue. Why did you say "no" Martin

Lee, good question. Marina admitted to have taken one image from the steps of the stairwell. Not under oath but had discussed it with researcher over the years. So, all in all we have 5. The only negative i'am aware of is from 133-b. You'll need propably a magnifying glass. I have never seen a better copy nor do i know if it's accessable in the archives. Perhaps someone can help us here. I cannot say it's of significance for me that only one negative survived. The tampering was most likely done at enlarged copies. All you have to do is to photograph this copies in proper light condition and you have negatives as well. From all if needed. best Martin

Well, gazillion words have been written about the infamous backyard photos in the WCR, HSCA, FBI uncounted books from both the LN'er and the CT'er side but nothing change the fact what i have singled out here supported by official FBI and WC documents: The DPD was in the possession of minimum one backyard photo hours before it was discovered by Dectives ROSE and STOVALL in the Paine garage. Where? Most likely in the office of Captain Will Fritz. Between 12:35PM and 1:10PM. The only confusion i recognized here is caused by you. You quoted my text and mixed parts of Lee Farley's quoting in one pot without discriminate /distinguish our sentences-----> you've missed to allocate our names to our quotings. Imagine the following scenario: I'am going to quote you and mix Jack White's, John Simkin's and Pat Speer's (just an example gentlemen) sentences in one pot without any distinguish...... How confusing would this be? Can please get avoid of this behaviour in the future? thanks Martin

Hi Martin, As Josiah replied to you, it was a completely collaborative effort which resulted from a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. Some new info had been found, thanks to Jerry, and we decided to write up all that had been put up as proof as a hole in the windshield, our takes on it as had come up in the discussions there, and present it on both the Ed and Lancer Forums. A link to it was posted on the moderated group as well. According to the info that appears below our pictures on every post, I have been a member since '04, Tink since '05, and Jerry since '08. I don't know about Jerry or Tink, but though a member for a number of years, I did not participate by posting on this forum until a year or so ago...maybe a couple of posts here or there before that. I contacted John Hunt. I have known him well for a number of years and am aware of his extensive research on the items of evidence ... his many trips to the Archives and his having done high resolution scans of most of the evidence/documents. None of this is "Top Secret" ... lol ... in fact, the genesis of the article was spelled out in the intro of our article. The post was put up on our behalf by moderator/administrator Andy Walker dur to some technical issues with length and number of photos. Bests, Barb :-) Thank you for all this informations Barb and Josiah. Sorry Barb, i thought you are new here because of the number of your postings but i could have looked myself into your Profile which i did not. Yep i know Andy Walker was just kind in assistance. Josiah, as i said numberous times before on the other thread, it was work in progress to color Altgens6. My tranied eye found no solution at this particular place in Altgens. Jerry was drawing my attention to the whole "hole in the windshield" debate on Duncan's forum. I checked then if the spiral nebula in Altgens7 might be actually in the same place of Altgens6. And yes, it was the case. And i will prove that. thank you Martin

Hi Stephen Sorry for not replying but I've only just noticed you posted due to the strange formatting. The backyard photos are a quagmire for anyone who believes that they are genuine if you ask me (whether that belief is from a concrete or abstract perspective). The DPD desperately needed them to build their case against Oswald. If they didn't have them they would be have been left with the testimony of Howard Brennan and the curtain rods story from Buell Wesley Frazier that fails the litmus test on almost every level in my opinion, to prove that Oswald owned and used the rifle in question. You're right on the consensus. However, the pieces of evidence are the big picture and the big picture is the pieces of evidence. You can't separate them. I believe you can get bogged down in the minutiae of the single items of evidence and taken out of context they can support an erroneous conclusion. Commission exhibits 133-A and 133-B were supposedly found in Ruth Paine's garage the day after the assassination by Rose and Stovall (Saturday 23rd November). Michael Paine testified that he was shown them on Friday 22nd November. How was this possible? The backyard photos are not listed on the Property Received by the FBI. Why not? It is claimed by Gus Rose that two negatives were found but only one was passed to the Warren Commission. Why? When the FBI did their reenactments of the photgraphs at the Neely Street apartment on November 29th 1963 they completed a reenactment of 133-C, the pose that Oswald assumed for the photograph that was in the DeMohrenshildts possession until 1976. How did this happen? Where the FBI so omniscient that they could see into both the past and the future? These are serious questions Stephen and so far there are no plausible answers. Oswald was impersonated, many times and in many ways. The lone-nut argument begins to fall apart at the seams once this conclusion is reached and I don't believe that in 2010 anyone can deny that Oswald was impersonated. Even J. Edgar Hoover himself had to admit this so why is is so hard for others to acknowledge? If you begin with the impersonation premise in mind the evidence begins to look decidedly different. Don't you think? Once you believe that he was impersonated once you have set your own precedent concerning the evidence in this case and must from that point forth BELIEVE that it is POSSIBLE he was impersonated in other ways. Lee Well put Lee Let me paste a posting i made a while ago on another forum Here you go: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While searching the web and reading in particular the Appendix XI with Captain Will Fritz's interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department i found again something disturbing. Starting here: In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated primarily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were, stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. http://www.jfklancer.com/bysources.html#anchor2033440 Here is a fuzzy FBI document covering this discovery: The important parts in case you can't read it: On november 23, 1963, at 2:46PM, Detective ROSE and STOVALL contacted Detective WC CAB(S)E of the Irving Police Department and requested that he accompany them to the PAINE residence at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving to execute a search warrant .. as attempt to find any additional evidence in connection with the investigation of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. At 3:20PM, while searching the PAINE garage, Detective WC CAB(S)E advised that he found an envelope containg some pictures which he turned over to Detective ROSE. This envelope contained a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing with a rifle in his hand and a pistol visible on OSWALD'S right hip. At 3:20PM at november 23,1963, the first backyard photograph was found in the Paines garage. Now lets take look at the WC Appendix XI Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department. Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=9 At november 23, 1963 between 12:35PM and 1:10PM Captain Will Fritz asked Oswald about the backyard photo!! At this time the infamous photo, Oswald holding a rifle in the backyard was not discovered!¿? Martin

I have some question: Barb Junkkarinen, Josiah Thompson and Jerry Logan, can you tell me please who initiated this thread? As far as i know Jerry and Barb are both new members. It would be interesting to know how the connection appeared and how the tasks of this article were presented. My guess is: Jerry was responsible for the pictures, Barb for the wording and Josiah for the idea. Please correct me. Please another question: Who contacted John Hunt? I'am just curious and would be grateful to get an answer. I hope it's not Top Secret. Thank you forward. Martin

Thank you for kind words, Jack. Yes, we don't agree on many things but you spend respect to me altough i'am a newbie over here. I was also very harsh with you in one posting. But you forgive me with a disagreement. Thats a respectul manner. We all can disagree. No problem. I even disagree with my best friend many times. The way the conversation turned out to be, is important. best to you Martin

Jack, You're not doing your best work. You're just trying to pull our tails again, right? I think we should ask Martin what he thinks. Martin and I studied the car park and train together for some time. I believe he might have an expert answer. Jerry The train - too far away to show up in the pergola windows and door. Yep, Jack. Jerry is correct here. It's the train in the background. Different perspectives/locations. I hope you don't blame me for this statement. To disagree is Ok with me. best to you Martin

Thank you for your kind words Jerry. Let's see it as a kind support which i'am very grateful of and not as an outrage Jerry. Jerry, i think it would be fair to post the whole informations in this context. I hope you don't mind if i do it. 1. I provided a comparison of Altgens6 and Croft with the intention to demystify the secrets of this altgens crop with a coloring. My initial goal was not to find a damage in the windshield. I stumbled over this part cause i found no solution in this area. It was a painstaking progress which has lasted over months on Duncan forum. Some 95% of this crop is now to me uncovered. Not many people know me here, so i wanted them to know i'am not just a buff and i know what i'am talking about. 2. I provided my expertise that the POI in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6. Based upon my experience as a 3D expert and a photo research student. This is also based on my 3D dummy of the windshield. I know you know that i made that claim not just out of hot air. 3. I provided to accomplish this work and to public it as well. Ergo, i have nothing to hide. The reason why i don't want to show this work in a beta status did i have mentioned very clear. Isn't it? There are fellows out here whom have a crash on me. There are just waiting for something like that to attack me. I wanted to get avoid to name that people, but on the other hand it may help that some people may understood me and thought that shoe may fit to them. I mean Lamson and Colby. I don't know if you are aware of my work on the backyard photos. This work is in Beta Status and is bluntly attacked by this persons. Some of them even count the number of my views and when i'am online here. a. You provided your expertise to made a study of the windshield by your own. Let me quote you: Martin, I can see how you might think that - however, today I went out with white tape, large automobile and 105mm Nikon lens. Replicating Altgens 6 puts the "nebula" very close to the edge of the mirror. There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart. Moving to the rear of the vehicle I tried to create the separation between the defect and mirror shown in Altgens 7. My result was that there's no reasonable way to get the "nebula" in 6 to the same position as Altgens 7. (Note: I wasn't concerned with up/down, just left/right.) So here's the deal - based on my tests it's not possible to place the "nebula" in Altgens 6 at either the Altgens 7 position or the CE350 position. However, it is possible to place the Altgens 7 defect at the CE350 location. (Left/right of mirror.) Best to you, Jerry so far so good. b. You have never shown your study to the public. Is this correct? You may have your reasons as me as well but you didn't say why. And you didn't promise to publish it at any time. Is this correct? Isn't there a discrepancy? I don't understand why i'am now the bad guy here. All i want to do, is to inform the public and to show the whole image. I hope thats Ok with you My best to you Martin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ladies and gentlemen, this above quotings are just a kind record board for me. It's easier for me to gather it here in this posting instead of search over and over again through this now long thread. It will help me to find easier what i'am searching for, when i need it in the future. This whole thread was frightening and revealing at the same time. I learned a lot about the mechanism of two long experienced competing parties. It seems there is a deep trench between the lines, where newcomers become immediate and ruthless in the line of fire. Some of my research was cherrypicked, missunderstood and misquoted. There were moments were i felt like Oswald. The patsy who was abused for something bigger. I learned also a lot about some persons. I pondered now i while in silence and calmly about this happening. I will try to see it positive and will transfer it into something constructive. I take it as a chance. I change the way i initially wanted to public my assertation. Meanwhile i think it's a better idea to create something greater. Something which is permanent available. Maybe a website, a Blog or/and a Youtube video about my entire 3D study. Something which is not lost quickly in the deep throat of a forum. I recognized the brisance of this subject and i think it's wortwhile to present it now to a great audience. Some names will get a special bonus. To get underestimated has it advantages. I like to take the chance to thank persons whom participating in this thread: Thank you Robin Unger, Bernice Moore, Doug Weldon, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, Tosh Plumlee, Todd Vaughan, John Dolva, Thomas Graves, Don Jeffries, David Butler and Jerry Logan. Ah, before i forget it...thanks for the motivation. Sincerely Martin

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support! Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others. best to you Martin

Jerry, i don't know what makes you feel that i'am defensive here. All along this thread i stated every time the same. I come to the conclusion.........nothing more nothing less. Please go to the thread again. I have the impression i've been used as a pinball-ball here. Thank you Jerry. About Dale, well it's been proven he was dishonest with his work on the SBT. I agree, and thats the reason why i will accomplish this work. To present work in Beta status can be of such great help too, but unfortunately here are people with a stalker behaviour to attacking work even with less knowledge but a big mouth. Thats why i don't post work in beta Status anymore even if it would be helpful. As i said, i will do Jerry. I'am not retired and have to take care of my company and my time is limited. Some people see it otherwise. They think i should work just for them. (Sometimes i felt like i'am back in the army) and ordering special work from me in a pestering manner to follow their request and timelines. (not you) best to you Martin

Hi Jerry. Ah, i see. Thanks for your confidence in me. Once i show a wire, doubts would be raised whether the perfect Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X is. I build just a 3D dummy of the windshield and the mirror. And i can rotate it in my application. I made that statement not of a sudden. Jerry, i'am 3D expert. OK? And i come to the conclusion it's in the same place. To make it bullet proof, a 3D photomatch have to be done. Which means we need the lens configuration, Topography of DP Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X in both Altgens6 +7. This shall include the entire presidential limousine in 3D, many parts of Dealey Plaza in 3D and also JFK and Lady 8 in 3D. That need hundred of hours as you may can imagine. But thats on my tasklist as many many other Tasks too. To remember i said i come to the conclusion and the discussion has not ended. I did never say it's a certainty because this work have to be done at first. But i can ensure you it will turn that way i predicted it, because i'am a 3D expert. Til then i would be more than happy if can disuss this Topic in a good controversial and productive and hopefully respectful manner. What about your study? Let me put one posting from Duncan's forum over here please. Would you mind to share your work with us? It's up to you. You may can convince the doubters here. Me included. I'am going to predict another thing: Let's say my upcoming work will convince everybody that the Location of the POI is in both Altgens6+7 in the same place..... you and other will say thats no proof...just a coincidence. Thats just a pocket in the background. Isn't it? Welcome in the mad world of the JFK assassiantion forums. best Martin

It appears to me someone are/is not really paying attention. All the answers are there. Josiah, just in case you've missed posting #98 here again for you: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hello Josiah I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6. I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed. Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning. I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me. It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join. The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end. Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background. Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here. As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this. Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket. But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6. Lady 8 is the one under inspection. I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides. Thats the next part on my tasklist. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ok, Josiah show you study. Enlight us. I'll be willing to judge it with an open mind whatever it is. But please not just claims. By the way, i'am 3D expert since 1992 and experienced in the photographic field. And yes, i'am impartial. The only rule i follow is the truth. Martin

Here you go Bernice: This signatures obviously are not from the same person. Why not do the copies from the original signed document. Thats the usual process. OR if the the signed document is not a hand....let it blank. To let is sign from another person is document falsification and can be prosecuted. I'am puzzled that this has happend in this delicate case. Martin

Hi Jerry May i ask you to give me the email contacts of this two persons? Thank you forward. Ps. I say they are dead wrong Sincerely Martin

You know so little about it and have such a big mouth Len. Your thoughts are up to you but i can ensure you....you are wrong. I have meanwhile evidence at hand that it would can fill a book. I consider to do something like that. Time will tell. The problem that you don't understand sun angles is not mine. My goal is to show my research to the public. Not just to you. Live with it. Where did I ever ask you “to show [your] research…just to [me]”? To the contrary YOU promised to post it here and all I’ve asked you to do was keep your promise. You on the other hand expect Farid to spend his time engaging in a private exchange with you. You complained it took him weeks to get back to you but its been 4 months since you promised to post your video. The one it seems who doesn’t understand sun angles is you. Your posts gave no indication as to what you though the time of day was yet you claimed to have calculated what the angle was to 0.1 degrees, however it would only take about 36 seconds for the angle to change that much. If you took the time of day into account you should have made that clear. I’m sure that if you show that you were right and make me “look like a fool” you would have done so a long time ago. Yet for four months you’ve procrastinated and made excuses and now you stoop making insults. This is NOT “rocket science” the data is widely available on the Internet and it only requires a junior high school understanding of geometry. Once this post is no longer on the last page of this thread I will start a new thread to ask you about this. I will keep bumping it to keep it on the front page. Do really think anyone will believe your excuses after you repeatedly fail to respond? You can either admit to being a fool and get it over with or continue to look like one for the indefinate future. The choice is yours. Do what ever you will Stalker Colby. You picked the wrong man. You will regret it.

Yes Robin, that is correct. best to you

No problem Doug. Thank you best Martin

Ok, here you go: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...5d2e193200932e9 Anthony Marsh: It is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds. Photographic evidence is not his strength it appeared to be. /o\ Martin

This fake photos are hard evidence. Thats the big mystery!

Can you see it too Josiah? Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment. Thank god there are people out there whom realize it. Martin Maybe this will help, Martin. It's an enlargement from the original Altgens #6 negative that was done in 1967. It's about as clear as anything I've seen and matches what Pamela got from an Archives copy. The light area containing the socalled "spiral nebula" has a dark area very near it. This would be what you would get with the dark green surrounding the light area that Barb thought might be a "purse" being held by Lady #8. The white area surronded by green would show up in Altgens from a very different angle... nearly in profile. This looks better and better, Martin. You may have the answer. Doug Weldon started this thread but has uttered not a peep when asked if he believes Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield. What do you think, Doug? Has Martin worked us to the answer concerning the true nature of the socalled "spiral nebula?" Josiah Thompson Tink, you misunderstood me. Let me repeat from an ealier post: I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. In Posting #114 i made it also clear. Anthony Marsh+Jerry Logan and me are in disagreement. I do believe we see the the same damage in ALtgens6 and 7. I don't know if it's a hole. But for sure a damage. I hope this is now clear!

Barb, i've tinted the POI in green. The pocket or white purse. best Martin

Sorry Duncan but you erased important parts of the original photo. Please don't mislead the public with your personal interpretion. You've accused some others to mislead. Now you did it too.