John Butler

How many BYPs were there? 5? or a minimum of 5? 1. 133 A, B, and C 2. The Hesters said they saw a BYP without a figure the night of the assassination as film was being developed for the FBI. 3. Marina and Marquerite say they destroyed one showing Oswald holding a rifle over his head. That makes 5 mentioned in the record. Why didn't Marina recall the issue of making the BYPs and then search and destroy the rest including negatives and photo copies? Why stop at one? If, as some believe, Marina didn't take the BYPs then where did she get the copy showing Oswald with a rifle held over his head? When did she get it? What was her motivation in showing Marquerite just one photo and then the two destroying that photo? Let's assume she new about the whole set. Her testimony of just taking one photo didn't hold up and then changed to two. Would she have verified 5 photos if asked? The real questions in the BYPs incident is that how various people and entities obtained there copies of the BYPs. This is generally not discussed in the literature or very little. 1. How did Capt. Will Fritz obtain his copy of the BYPs before they were discovered the following day? Did it come from the FBI or the Dallas Crime Lab. 2. How did the FBI get their negatives to have developed by the Hesters on the night of the assassination? Was Agent Hosty or, some other agent monitoring Marina involved? 3. George de Mohrenschildt had a copy stored away and big surprise for him when it was found. Believable or not? Where did he get his copy to store away? And, more importantly when? 4. Mrs. Dees, formerly Mrs. Roscoe White, more than likely obtained her copy from Roscoe. This was 133-C that was hidden for 13 years. When and where did Roscoe get his copy. It had to have been during the time he was employed by the Dallas Police. He is my chief suspect for being the author or, at least one of the preparers of the BYPs. That means he would have had a chance to obtain a copy before the assassination or as some believe that the BYPs were not made until after the assassination he could have obtained one when they were made. The notion of the BYPs being made after the assassination does not fit well with the Equinox Theory based on the light and shadows in the BYPs. There are two times of the year to obtain the lighting in the BYPs, the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes. The second set of BYPs show different lighting patterns for Nov. 29, 1963. That is if they were even made on 11-29-53. 5. And, then there is Robert Oswald and the infamous Imperial Reflex that he either owned or LHO owned. Would Oswald, a camera buff, waste time on an Imperial Reflex camera when he had much better equipment. Can we trust Robert Oswald? Probably not based on the family get together attended by John Pic, LHO, and Robert Oswald. John Pic says he didn't recognize his brother but, probably kept quiet because Robert Oswald and others did.

Bart Kamp owns this issue. He has left very little for anyone else to say. Well, with the exception of the Lone Gunners. To me the key point on reality is what Baker says about the 2nd floor breakroom encounter in his 11-22-63 statement. Nothing! "A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket. s/ M. L. Baker" In fact, the whole 2nd floor story break room encounter is to cover up who the man on the 3rd or 4th floor was. No one knows even today!

Jeff, The King and King series of articles are very well done and very informative. My reference to the Nov. 29 Dallas Police reproduction photos as a second set of BYPs is just a convenience in separating the two. They are related but at the same time not the same. I don't buy Capt. Fritz explanation for their production. I don't buy the time period of their production, either. Fritz was a police captain in what has been called for the time the most corrupt police force in the United States. He didn't get to be a captain of a division by being a good boy. Can we take what he says as honest truth? According to Michael Payne there was a BYP at the Dallas Police on the night of the assassination. Many have said Fritz showed Oswald a BYP the night of the assassination. What do you think of the point I am trying to make that there is some connection between the people who had BYPs or something related in their possession directly after the assassination and in some cases years afterwards? Particularly, Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, George de Mohrenschidlt, the Paines, Roscoe White, the Dallas Police, the FBI, (maybe agent Hosty or at least the agents spoken of the Hesters).

Bart, Most young people in the US can not read anything cursive or hand writing. The practice of teaching cursive hand writing stopped in the 1990s or there abouts and students today are taught writing with block capitals. This is just another of many degradations of the American educational system.

I reposted this since I added several things to it. Reading through this list one can get a view of strange happenings around the BYPs. For instance, let us say that the saga of Lee and Marina creating these photos is true. Then Lee and Marina would be the creators, owners, and possessors of these photos. That leaves several questions unanswered. The questions concern how others obtained photo copies or negatives: 1. How did Capt. Fritz obtain his photo copy and confront LHO with it on the day of the assassination. Where did he get it? Which photo copy of the BYPs did he use? Negatives of 133-A and 133-B were found the next day at the Paine's garage by Dallas detectives. 2. How did George de Mohrenschildt get his photo copy of 133-A? Why did he hide it until 1967? What was his source for the photo? 3. Was Robert Oswald's camera really found by him in the Paine's garage on Dec. 8, 1963. Or, did he make that up since the Dallas Police thoroughly searched the garage earlier. His camera was used to make the photos or used to recopy the photos. 4. The FBI and Dallas Police had negatives that they developed with Robert Hester and his wife on the night of the assassination. Where did they obtain the negatives? Negatives of 133-A and 133-B were not found until 12 hours later at the Paine's garage. 5. Why was Marina Oswald unable to identify Lee's cameras? Why was she unable to identify the Imperial Reflex until June, 1964. 6. BYP 133-C was found in the possession of Mrs. Geneva Dees, formerly Mrs. Roscoe White. How did Roscoe obtain the photo? And, from where did he get it? 7. Why was the second set of BYPs really made? Were they made to help the Secret Service understand the assassination and plot? Were they really made on November 29, 1963? They do not match in specific characteristics the first set of BYPs. They are more amateuristc. 8. On the night of the assassination Marina Oswald shows to Marguerite Oswald an unknown BYP with Oswald holding a rifle over his head. They burn it and flush the ashes. Why didn't Marina burn any other photos or negatives that she supposedly took and was in possession of that night. Why wait for the Dallas Police to find those negatives? 9. What there a controlling cabal overseeing LHO and ultimately responsible for his framing? These questions suggest there may be a link between the principal characters mentioned here? Is there a link between the FBI, Dallas Police, George de Mohrenschildt, Captain Fritz, Lt. Day, Roscoe White, George de Mohrenschildt and his crowd, and Marina Oswald? Is Marina Oswald the key to understanding the BYPs? Most of these copies magically appear in the possession of others after the arrest of LHO. The sources must be those who were the possessors or others such as the Paines who were around the owners, Lee and Marina. That is if you believe the official story that Lee and Marina created the BYPs.

"Quick question ... when did the Bobby Brown / Backyard re-enactment Ghost photos etc first surface?" Still a good question that needs and answer. I can't find any info on that. Somebody out there should know.

Fritz didn't deliver on his promise. Either he couldn't deliver on his promise or giving up 133 C would have exposed the DPD as the source. He probably had no intention of delivering any BYP other than the first two. Roscoe probably kept one as insurance since that one , 133 C, was buried for years. Maybe he was just told that there were pictures that were taken while he was at Neeley Street. And, it could have been on 11-29-63 when pictures were taken but, not the second set of BYPs. I still think the second set of BYPs were made later. This includes the ghost photo of 133 C. I think 133 C remained with the DYP for years and was later used to make the second set of BYPs.. Anyway, one thing is for sure. We know the source of the original BYPs from what was said by Fritz at the WC. Lt. Day and the Identification Bureau / Crime Lab. That is where Roscoe White went when he joined the Dallas Police Force. It explains how Roscoe's wife ended up with 133 C but, not how George de Mohrrenchildt had his.

I don't think anyone professional was involved with the BYPs. Certainly, no one who did that for a living. Jack has listed 15 things wrong with the photos. I listed one. You have listed another. There are too many errors in the photos for it to be a professional job. The CBS reproduction has to be a professional job to replicate the photo and the mistakes involved. Who else could have the facilities to manufacture a fake photo besides the Dallas Crime Lab? Ike Altgens' home base the Dallas Morning News had sophisticated photographic equipment and several other places in Dallas did also. The rifle has been described as manufactured evidence also. The pistol that killed Tippit was an automatic rather than a revolver. The DPD was notorious for framing people. Difference between an automatic and a pistol is practically no difference at all has evidence. Simply substitute a revolver. What shells? Change those also! I don't think Oswald had a pistol. I think one was taken to the Texas Theater. I don't think Oswald was to leave there alive. The pistol had a bent firing pin and was incapable of being fired. It was a throw down. Evidence that Oswald was a violent, insane killer. The pistol is justification for killing Oswald in the theater. However, the sassy rogue didn't cooperate and seized the pistol and then punched Officer McDonald and knocked him down. Other officers not in on the plan subdued Oswald. He lived. All that is speculation. But, it is just as worthy to consider as what we know about what happened there and later in the office of Captain Fritz. Who was in the theater that could bear witness to the tale? Where is the list of people in the theater? George De Mohrenschildt and Roscoe White had copies. How did they get those?

Jeff, It seems Robert Oswald is supposed to have picked up the camera on Dec. 8, 1963. And, given it to the FBI on Feb. 24, 1964.

Michael Connelly’s detective Harry Bosch could usually find the answer to the crime by consulting the “Murder Book”, the record of the investigation. One of the ways to tease that answer from the Murder Book was to make a timeline. Here’s my attempt at trying to make a timeline of the Backyard Photos. March 31, 1963: This is supposedly the date that Marina Oswald photographed Lee Harvey Oswald and the resultant photos became the Backyard Photos. This is now disputed by the idea that the BYPs could have been taken in Sep., 1963 at or around the equinox so that shadows would duplicate conditions in March of 63 to match other evidence such as the gun and rifle purchase. September 22, 1963: Or, close to the equinox date: Possible date for the filming of the BYPs by folks other than the Oswalds. October, 1963: Roscoe White joins the Dallas Police Force with the crime lab / identification bureau as a photographer. November 22, 1963: The day of the assassination of President Kennedy. November 22, 1963: This is the day that Robert Hester and wife say they saw and developed photos that were the BYPs. There was also a photo showing the back yard at 214 Neeley Street without figures in it. This photo has never surfaced. The Hesters claimed the FBI was aware of these photos and had them in their possession. November 22, 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald is shown a BYP by Captain Fritz of the Dallas force. LHO said it was not him and it was faked which he would be able to prove later. If he wasn’t under a death sentence that would have put him there. November 22, 1963: The night of the assassination Marguerite Oswald is shown a BYP of LHO holding a rifle over his head by Marina Oswald. The photo is burned and the ashes are flushed. November 23, 1963: The BYPs are found at the home of Michael and Ruth Payne a day after Capt. Fritz showed a BYP to Oswald. November 29, 1963: This is the earliest time the second set could be made. The second set of BYPs are allegedly made at this time. The scene of the backyard and other photos do not match the first set in shadows suggesting different years, different seasons, and definitely a different time of day. The shrub growth over time is different in size suggesting a time longer than months. November 29, 1963: Warren Commission established. December 6, 1963: Life Magazine publishes the Back Yard Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. December 8, 1963- Feb. 24, 1964: Robert Oswald said he obtained the Imperial Reflex camera at the Payne’s home on Dec. 8, 1963, This was after the authorities searched the home. Later he turned this into the authorities on Feb. 24, 1964. June, 1964: Marina Oswald identifies the Imperial Reflex camera as Lee's and as the one she used. September 24, 1964: Warren Commission Report presented to President Johnson. 1967: George de Mohrenchildt has a BYP photo in his possessions, a copy of 133-A. March 31, 1967: This reproduction photo was made by CBS in March of 1967. The shadows in this 1967 photo are a fair match for the shadows in the 1963 BYPs. However, the foliage of the shrubs in the two do not match suggesting the two photos were taken at different times of the year. This could only be accomplished by filming at the equinoxes or about a week close to the equinox. These are the two times of the year when lighting conditions match. September, 1976: House Select Committee on Assassinations formed. 1976: At the time of the HSCA hearings Roscoe White’s wife Geneva, later Mrs. Dees, had a photo 133-C she gave to the committee. She said it came from Roscoe and would be valuable in the future. 1977: The second set of BYPs surface with the Ghost Photo being made public. Mary La Fontaine said there were two photos of just the background of 214 Neeley Streets available and the backgrounds did not match. 1978: The HSCA declares the BYPs as authentic and not fake. Can you add to this list or correct inaccurate statements?

Isn't this interesting. If what Robert Hester and wife says is true this helps narrow down the timing of when the BYPs were made. Remember, in this thread is discussed the two times the BYPs could be made are at the spring and fall equinoxes. Chris Bristow has suggested the photos could have been made in a period of about 5 days before or after the equinoxes. If these photos were made in Sept. then they were being held to see who would become the Patsy. Holding these photo negatives from March doesn't seem to be as sensible. If the BYPs were developed on the night of the assassination then the planners hadn't really decided on a firm candidate for the Patsy. Or, barring unfortunate circumstances, the Patsy had been decided but, not confirmed. And, that would not happen until the day of the assassination. The Patsy Pool so to speak was probably the floor laying crew on the 6th floor. Particularly, Bill Shelley. there is a photo of Shelley staring down the double barrels of a shotgun help by a Dallas policemen. My take on that photo is that is an unsubtle way of saying watch what you say, Bill. LHO, Chauncey Holt, and Bill Shelley are in a photo together on the street in New Orleans. Some argue Shelley is not the person there. But, I believe it is Shelley in the photo. I call this photo the 3 Patsy photo. Fritz must have just received a copy to confront Oswald with on Friday, the 22nd. They also needed copies to take to the Paynes for discovery on Saturday. This type of reasoning is totally different than the general accepted story of Oswald and Marina taking pictures in March, 1963. Is it true? Its beginning to look like it.

There is a shed or some structure behind the shrub in both sets of BYPs. I used a red line to mark the distance from the top of the structure to the shrub in all of the photos. As you can see the 1963 photo and the 1967 photo relate in how big the shrub was. In the 1967 photo the shrub in question appears to have been pruned or suffered some weather related damage. It should be 4 years taller. The two photos marked 1963? are related through the size of the shrub. They appear much larger as if more than just a few months have passed. Camera angles or camera elevation has nothing to do with their size as marked from the top of the structure to their topmost growth by a red line. This appears to be a slow growing shrub. I would say years have passed rather than months between the two sets of photos.

Tony,, Jack White was a true American patriot. I just wish I had started fooling around with JFFK research 20 years earlier so I could have communicated some of the things I think about to him and seen what he had to say. I almost always agree with Jack White. There are some things I puzzle over such as what he knew about Dick Bothun and his saying the Altgens photos were authentic. In his later years he was beginning to change his stance on those. Jack said: "By the way, at the time that these pictures were made, there is no grass on the ground in Dallas, and there are no leaves on the trees. The date of these pictures supposedly is March 29. I live in Texas, and I see the trees come out. It is usually late April before you have this amount of foliage on the grass, the bushes, and the trees." Since I read what Jack said it has jogged my memory of cold, wet, miserable, and leafless March in Central Texas in 1969. I hope my next post help clarifies the time period between the two sets of BYPs.

Chris, I'm glad you are tackling this. It is way past my pay grade. The steps perspective is strange. Why would a camera be at the height of 24 inches? Was someone sitting or squatting to take the picture and why? A 2 x 4 is 1 1/2 by 3 1/2. I first thought the double board post was a 2 x 6. 2 x 4 is a better description since 2 x 4s are used in other posts. A 4 x 4 is 3 1/2 by 3 1/2. A 4 x 6 is 3 1/2 by 5 1/4. None of the standard measures fit your last example 4 1/4. Not much help here. There are wacky things in these photos. I hope you can figure them out. "Is it the opinion of the group that the ghost image was a shot of Det Brown in which he was removed?" I've got an opinion, more of a speculation, and I don't know how helpful it will be. My believe is that Roscoe White was involved in the first set of BYPs. He joined the Dallas police force in Sep. 1963. He was assigned to the crime lab / identification bureau. He would have access to their equipment and staff for help. Mrs. Roscoe White later Dees had a copy of 133 C. There was only one way for her to obtain that photo, Roscoe. Or, maybe she could have obtained it from Jack Ruby. Wasn't she a stripper for Jack Ruby at one time before marrying Roscoe. The first set of BYPs may not be that related to the second set of BYPs (backyard scene, Det. Brown, and the Ghost scene). The first set which some of the materials may still have been in the crime lab inspired the second set. If you believe Det. Brown or not this info might be helpful. I don't believe this story. I think the second set was made for use with the HSCA years after the first set was made. They would be useful for the official story. This is a bit far fetched depending on the image of Det. Brown and his age at the time. It's a wild idea but one I have been speculating about based on this: Just Don’t Cut Me Out taken from BOBBY BROWN AND “OSWALD’S GHOST(S)” by John J. Johnson [Nov. 1997] The “cutout” had been made by Dallas police officer Bobby Brown, who claims it was done at the direction of the Secret Service several days after the assassination. Brown offers an innocent explanation, claiming that the Secret Service wanted a reenactment of the backyard photos to demonstrate where an how they had been made. He says that Forrest Sorrels of the Dallas Secret Service had called Captain Fritz and requested that someone from the Crime Lab go to the Neely residence. Brown and Fritz, together with some Dallas detectives and a couple of Secret Service agents, went to the house and made the photos. Brown was selected to pose because he was the youngest of the men present He was given a rifle that Fritz had in his car and the Secret Service instructed him which hand should hold the rifle, how he should stand, how he was to hold the newspapers, etc. Brown claims that he later cut his figure from the photo because he did not want to be identified with it. I asked Bobby very specifically what would possess him to cut out his silhouette from the reenacted photographs. He was adamant to me that he only wanted to take himself out of the photograph since it was the background that was the subject, and not himself. He said that he did this entirely on his own, and that no one told him to do so. He said he cut his image out of a developed photograph and placed a white piece of paper behind it and re-photographed the reenactment. Brown later offered another version of how the ghost photo was made, this time with Oswald being cut out of the picture. He says that, after he posed for the reenactment, the FBI brought the 133-C photo to him at the Dallas crime lab and Brown cut Oswald out of the picture. He then photographed the 133-C print against a white background to make the matte. What is interesting about the photo in question is that the pose selected by the Secret Service for Brown does not match the two photos the Warren Commission was aware of (known as 133-A and 133-B). The photo of Oswald in the new pose (HSCA F180, now known as 133-C) was discovered after the silhouette was found in the Dallas Police archives and twelve years after the first two backyard photos were made public This matted photograph, one of two photos showing the same “ghost” against two slightly different backgrounds, which was discovered by Mary La Fontaine in the Dallas Police files, combines a silhouette of Lee Harvey Oswald taken from 133-C with the backyard at 214 Neely Street as it appeared on Friday, November 29. Although the Secret Service and Dallas Police obviously had a copy of 133-C at the time of the reenactment, the photo disappeared from 1963 to 1975, only to turn up when produced by none other than the widow of Dallas Police Officer Roscoe White. I find any of this hard to believe much of the above. The photo, 133 C, turns up in 1975 with Roscoe's wife. Mary La Fontaine has two ghost photos with different backgrounds. When did these turn up? 1963? 1975? Or, sometime in between? If so then the second set of BYPs were made sometime between Nov. 1963 and 1975. Question: Is the picture of Det. Brown right for 1963 or later. That will answer the question when the second set of BYPs were made. Anyone have photo evidence of Brown in 1963 or later?

These two figures have different heights measured from the 2X4 section on the step support behind to the top of the figures heads. Once you measure that you move beyond by pay grade. You will next need to measure the distance from the figures to the post in question. Just by eyesight the ghost figure seems closer to the 2 2 x 6s step support than the Oswald figure. And, the ghost figure seems shorter. The shadows in the two series of BYPs do not match. You can easily see that with the step risers having different shadows. This may indicate a different time of the year, or different season, and definitely a different time of the day.

I do. I think if one re-surveys witnesses in Dealey Plaza a good question to analyze is "Where was the President (presidential limousine) when you heard shots?" You might be surprised at some of the statements a lot of witnesses made. They are not in tune with the official story and a lot of conspiracy theories.

While working on the above post, I noticed something that might be of interest to folks concerning with measuring heights in the back yard. The support post on the steps behind the Oswald figure has a small 2 x 4 piece of wood as extra support. I don't know if it would be worth while to compare the heights and distances from said post in these of the people in these 3 photos. I don't think I have seen this feature mentioned before. But, it might since there is a long history of analyzing the BYPs. This second set of photos gives a greater variation of the height and distance of the figures in relation to that 2 x 4 section on the support post. It might be worth looking at by those who have the skills to deal with this type of measurement. It might help people like Jake Sykes in their interests.

I just noticed I had goofed. And, rather badly. If you look at the Det. Brown photo the smaller shrub is two slats over to the right from the larger shrub and not one. In the CBS photo there is only one slat over to the right and there is no hint of a smaller bush. Mea Maxima Culpa. This should correct things said concerning the smaller and larger shrubs seen in the Det. Brown photo.

Chris, 133-A, B, and C photos and the CBS 1967 photos do not have the tree branch and un-foliated shrub in them. Once again 133 A, B, C should have these but, don't. Camera angles and positions don't really appear to keep them from being shown in the original BYPs. These 3 do with the exception of the tree branch in what could be a cropped ghost photo. The CBS 1967 photo has been documented to March, 1967. Because the shrub lacks foliage in the March, 1967 CBS photo it is thought that the original BYPs (133 A, B, and C) were not taken in March but rather September, 1963 on the Autumnal Equinox or reasonably close to it. And, these photos were taken at some warmer time than in March when trees and shrubs had not foliated. Well, the ringer is the CBS photo documented to March, 1967. All the others have foliage indicating warmer months than March. I can't remember from the time I was in Texas when things turned green and leaves popped out. I just remember March and April was cold, wet, and miserable in the field for those months. The point here is that the second set of BYPs are of a later date. The shed or structure behind Det. Brown has the large bush one slate behind it. One slat over is a smaller bush. The smaller bush is in front of the slat and one slat over from the larger bush. In the CBS photo of 1967 the slat one over to the right from the larger bush does not have a bush in front of it.

Thanks Tony, I read "including" as extra. Don't know why. Perhaps reading to fast.

Jeff Carter says, "The claims by DPD officer Bobby Brown were made many years after the fact. There is no information to contradict what he says, but there is also no information to corroborate what he says. " So, does this mean I can take what he says as truth?

Yep. That's the story. However, it still doesn't give any information on why there is a dead shrub or un-foliated shrub and a tree limb in the 11-29-63 photos. Are you saying Michael Payne saw one of those? It would be interesting to know the other two witnesses.

Are you talking about 133-A and 133-B? They were made public. 133-C didn't surface until later. It is one of the photos around at the time. It was kept sub rosa from the public and others for years. Yet, Mrs. Roscoe White had one (133-C) in her possession for years. Any notion on how she obtained that? I'm not talking about those photos. I am comparing those photos to the ones allegedly taken on 11-29-63 that I have labelled 11-63?

I need to do no such thing. Ray and I have been at cross purposes for years on this issue and others. He likes to prove that I am mistaken on this and other issues. This is one of his milder emergences. In actually, he is simply redirecting the conversation away from the topic at hand.

Looking back at the 4 photo montage, I can see that I was not very clear so this may help on the tree branch protruding into the 11-63? photos, Those allegedly taken on 11-29-63.