Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Backyard Photographs


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does anyone still believe the backyard photographs were faked?

If so that necessarily means that Marina lied before the WC, of course.

But if they are genuine, it means Oswald lied to his interrogators. Now why would he do so when he knew his wife would authenticate them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does anyone still believe the backyard photographs were faked?

If so that necessarily means that Marina lied before the WC, of course.

But if they are genuine, it means Oswald lied to his interrogators. Now why would he do so when he knew his wife would authenticate them?

"Still believe?". Why would anyone change their belief? I really don't understand why you post much of the stuff you do.

Marnia was under the gun, looking at deportation and who knows what else, so she said whatever they wanted her to say. This is sooooo old TG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On two separate occasions Marina told me, "I took the backyard photos, but the pictures you see to-day are not the ones I took."

If her husband posed for the pictures as she claims, then the only difference between 'what she took' and 'what you see to-day' are the facial features. Since 'what you see to-day' is the face of Lee Harvey Oswald, one may conclude that what she was saying amounted to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was not her husband.; and when Lee Harvey Oswald denied having posed for any such pictures, he too was telling us precisely the same thing.

The question also arises as to why a picture of her husband would be faked to look like a picture of her husband?

Further, Marina told me, " I was a woman with two husbands ". The implication being that her husband had two very different sides to his personality. I take her at her word, and assuming that the'Two Oswalds' theory is correct, then the husband Marina married in Russia was not the one who accompanied her when they arrived at the Fort Worth airport aboard Delta Flight 850 from New York via Atlanta....Otherwise what was Robert Oswald doing meeting two complete strangers and their infant daughter? ....And how did the seven suitcases in the family's possession when they disembarked from the SS Maasdam on June 13 ,1962, become two when they deplaned in Texas ?

Author Jim Marrs describes it best as follows:

Crossfire: A Whirlwind Romance

When the Oswald's arrived in New York, they had seven suitcases. When they left by plane, they only had five. Asked about the dwindling number, Oswald stated he had sent them ahead by rail. However, when the couple arrived in Fort Worth, Robert stated they had only two suitcases. The lost baggage may have something to do with their flight to Texas, which, although many direct flights were available, went by way of Atlanta. Atlanta was the home of Natasha Davison, the mother of Captain Davison, the U.S. attaché with intelligence connections who had met with the Oswalds in Moscow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed wrote: "Marina told me, 'I was a woman with two husbands '."

Robert Webster told someone I know and trust that he "was married to Marina Oswald."

The "when," "where," "why," and "for how long" questions were not posed by my friend, a health care worker who once dealt professionally with Webster, and who possesses only the most rudimentary knowledge of the JFK case.

The exchange occured many (if pressed to guess, I'd say at least 15 - 20) years ago. I have not spoken with the source since 2002.

FWIW

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On two separate occasions Marina told me, "I took the backyard photos, but the pictures you see to-day are not the ones I took."

If her husband posed for the pictures as she claims, then the only difference between 'what she took' and 'what you see to-day' are the facial features. Since 'what you see to-day' is the face of Lee Harvey Oswald, one may conclude that what she was saying amounted to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was not her husband.; and when Lee Harvey Oswald denied having posed for any such pictures, he too was telling us precisely the same thing.

The question also arises as to why a picture of her husband would be faked to look like a picture of her husband?

Further, Marina told me, " I was a woman with two husbands ". The implication being that her husband had two very different sides to his personality. I take her at her word, and assuming that the'Two Oswalds' theory is correct, then the husband Marina married in Russia was not the one who accompanied her when they arrived at the Fort Worth airport aboard Delta Flight 850 from New York via Atlanta....Otherwise what was Robert Oswald doing meeting two complete strangers and their infant daughter? ....And how did the seven suitcases in the family's possession when they disembarked from the SS Maasdam on June 13 ,1962, become two when they deplaned in Texas ?

Author Jim Marrs describes it best as follows:

Crossfire: A Whirlwind Romance

When the Oswald's arrived in New York, they had seven suitcases. When they left by plane, they only had five. Asked about the dwindling number, Oswald stated he had sent them ahead by rail. However, when the couple arrived in Fort Worth, Robert stated they had only two suitcases. The lost baggage may have something to do with their flight to Texas, which, although many direct flights were available, went by way of Atlanta. Atlanta was the home of Natasha Davison, the mother of Captain Davison, the U.S. attaché with intelligence connections who had met with the Oswalds in Moscow.

On two separate occasions Marina told me, "I took the backyard photos, but the pictures you see to-day are not the ones I took."

If her husband posed for the pictures as she claims, then the only difference between 'what she took' and 'what you see to-day' are the facial features. Since 'what you see to-day' is the face of Lee Harvey Oswald, one may conclude that what she was saying amounted to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was not her husband.; and when Lee Harvey Oswald denied having posed for any such pictures, he too was telling us precisely the same thing.

The question also arises as to why a picture of her husband would be faked to look like a picture of her husband?

Further, Marina told me, " I was a woman with two husbands ". The implication being that her husband had two very different sides to his personality. I take her at her word, and assuming that the'Two Oswalds' theory is correct, then the husband Marina married in Russia was not the one who accompanied her when they arrived at the Fort Worth airport aboard Delta Flight 850 from New York via Atlanta....Otherwise what was Robert Oswald doing meeting two complete strangers and their infant daughter? ....And how did the seven suitcases in the family's possession when they disembarked from the SS Maasdam on June 13 ,1962, become two when they deplaned in Texas ?

Author Jim Marrs describes it best as follows:

Crossfire: A Whirlwind Romance

When the Oswald's arrived in New York, they had seven suitcases. When they left by plane, they only had five. Asked about the dwindling number, Oswald stated he had sent them ahead by rail. However, when the couple arrived in Fort Worth, Robert stated they had only two suitcases. The lost baggage may have something to do with their flight to Texas, which, although many direct flights were available, went by way of Atlanta. Atlanta was the home of Natasha Davison, the mother of Captain Davison, the U.S. attaché with intelligence connections who had met with the Oswalds in Moscow.

Careful reading of HARVEY&LEE reveals the inference regarding the Paine residence

that LEE was there on weekdays and HARVEY was there on weekends only. This

accounts for Marina's oft-repeated statement...I HAD TWO HUSBANDS.

Since the non-driver HARVEY was at the TSBD and N.Beckley on weekdays, the

numerous references to the driving LEE's many appearances on weekdays driving

THE PAINE STATION WAGON, it must be inferred that BOTH men lived with Marina.

Check Armstrong's research.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always believed the backyard photos were fake. Marina changed her story so many times and yes, I believe that Oswald was telling the truth about the photos.

Ed wrote: "Marina told me, 'I was a woman with two husbands '."

Robert Webster told someone I know and trust that he "was married to Marina Oswald."

Well, that certainly puts a new spin on things. I'd never heard that before! Interesting.

To be honest, I took that comment (about her having two husbands) to mean that Lee could be duplicitous--due to his activities and his personality. I can't comment on Mr. Armstrong's research and book fairly as I've never read the material, but I'll admit to being curious.

Overall, I think Marina was under a lot of pressure by the authorities to say what they wanted her to say. I do, however, also believe that she has chosen (probably to spare herself and her children) to keep many things about Lee under wraps. I can't say I blame her, but I do wish that someday she would come clean about everything--including the backyard photos and the Walker shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always believed the backyard photos were fake. Marina changed her story so many times and yes, I believe that Oswald was telling the truth about the photos....

....To be honest, I took that comment (about her having two husbands) to mean that Lee could be duplicitous--due to his activities and his personality. I can't comment on Mr. Armstrong's research and book fairly as I've never read the material, but I'll admit to being curious.

Overall, I think Marina was under a lot of pressure by the authorities to say what they wanted her to say. I do, however, also believe that she has chosen (probably to spare herself and her children) to keep many things about Lee under wraps. I can't say I blame her, but I do wish that someday she would come clean about everything--including the backyard photos and the Walker shooting.

Courtney, I'm glad to see you participating in the discussions and I enjoy reading your posts. Certainly, many Forum members can identify with the obsession you feel to study President Kennedy's assassination. Your training and education in history help give you a solid perspective.

The archives of this Forum contain a lot of discussions about John Armstrong's research. Perhaps the library where you work would be willing to order a copy of Harvey & Lee. As you know, Jack White has done important research on the backyard photos and the many Oswald photos and he probably knows John Armstrong better than anyone on this Forum. Jack often urges people to study Armstrong's work. Then one can make up their own mind as to the importance of Armstrong's research in a very critical area - the life(s) of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As you mentioned in your bio, you were very young when you saw Oliver Stone's JFK and you have been obsessed ever since then. I could not help thinking that many members here were of a similar age when the President was gunned down in Dallas, and many of us have harbored that obsession to find the truth ever since.

Please keep on posting and sharing your thoughts. The memory of President Kennedy needs young people like yourself to carry on the torch.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of Armstrong's research has been compacted here.

http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/

Absolutely fascinating theory!!! Enjoy!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of Armstrong's research has been compacted here.

http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/

Absolutely fascinating theory!!! Enjoy!!!

Thanks, Kathy.

But Armstrong presents no theories...just exhaustive research TIMELINES.

Using deductive reasoning, he separates the timelines into the birth LHO (Lee)

and the substitute LHO (Harvey). His only deduction in studying the historical

documented record is that IF THE RECORD IS NOT ABOUT LEE, IT THEREFORE

BY NECESSITY MUST BE HARVEY. He does not believe in the theory of imposters.

Call it a theory if you want; I call it brilliant research and deduction.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter wrote:

I don't think the BYP were faked, I KNOW they were faked

Oh, come on, Peter! How in God's green earth can you say such a thing?

Are you a photography expert?

Have you ever handled the photographs?

There is no way you can KNOW the photographs were faked!!

What it is, I think, is an article of FAITH. If LHO was innocent, presumably the photographs were fake and someone forced Marina to lie about taking them.

But what do you say about the HSCA photographic panel? As I recall they were all experts in photography and to a man they confirmed the photos were taken with Oswald's Imperial camera and had not been faked.

I am wavering a bit about whether Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or was a patsy. (Hold it, I am not slipping toward a LN perspective--there is no question in my mind there WAS a conspiracy. I think even if the photographs were legitimate, he could still be an innocent man but it is disturbing to me that he lied about the photos.

Of course, what Oswald should have done was shut up until he had obtained legal counsel. Who knows, had he obtained legal counsel on saturday maybe that counsel could have prevented his murder. Clearly there should have been a phalanx of DPD officers shielding Oswald, particularly with the threat that had been received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wavering a bit about whether Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or was a patsy.

Depending on one's perspective, one could say both statements are true.

If one uses this particular definition of the word patsy

2. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy. (from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. )

you could make a case that Oswald was a patsy, because he certainly "took the fall" for the murder of the President. However, if you believe Oswald was involved in some form with those who have been identified as conspirators, he was also involved in the conspiracy to kill the President. It all depends on Oswald's role with the conspirators and whether he was a willing participant (or not) in certain activities which later were used to "prove" him guilty.

Ultimately, I feel the question of the authenticity of the backyard photos is another one of those wedge issues in assassination studies/research. Along with the Walker shooting, the possible unreliability of the Zapruder film, and the autopsy and ballistics questions, the photos can be used to divide researchers and make them hostile to one another--when in reality, we should be banding together (despite our differences of opinion) in order to defeat the lies and propaganda put forth by the government and its shills--like Messrs. Bugliosi, Posner, Von Pein, and McAdams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courtney, a VERY good post, IMO.

It obviously hurts if the "assassination research community" is divided.

However, it may be inevitable that there are divisions. For instance, look ast the great divisions over Jim Garrison. Some seem to hold him as only slightly behind God and yet many others (including for instance David Lifton) see him as a fraud and a charlatan.

And while we should be united the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photos is an important one. I think I could make a case, with a reasonable scenario, that the photos were legitimate but nonetheless Oswald was the victim of a very sophisticated frame. But if that is the case it does mean that he lied to the DPD--a lie that seems strange since it could be so easily refuted. Did you know that when the police asked LHO about his various residences he omitted the house where those photos were taken?

The only other thing I would add is I think we should also have civility to people who disagree with our perspective of what happened. I have no doubt that in most cases their opinions are as sincerely held as ours are. And while I disagree with many of VB's arguments (well, I think he is correct in ruling out certain groups as conspirators and everyone would agree with him on that--for instance, those who think it insane to propose that Castro or the Soviets did it would find themselves in agreement with VB's chapters on those issues) I do note that VB devotes six or seven pages to IMO a very moving tribute to the slain president. I have read a lot of Mr. VonPein's writings and he is an intelligent and articulate advocate of the LN cause. I have never seen him "lie" about any piece of evidence. Prof McAdams site and Prof Rahn's contain good CT materials. And I think I remarked before that in several casses VB rightlly corrects misstatements made by Posner. In almost every case the LN advocates are patriotic Americans--and probably fans of JFK as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...