The Backyard Photographs

[Jack White]

Well, then, Jack, please enlighten me.

Was every member of the HSCA photography panel part of the plot? How did they all get it wrong?

Believe me, I'd like to be convinced.

Yes, the photography panel was packed with "hired guns" by Blakey.

To be enlightened, watch my FREE VIDEOS at...

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html (watch FAKE first, then FACES)

Excuse the rest of the site, which is still under construction.

Jack

(If anyone wants to put these on YOUTUBE, feel free to do so.)

Edited September 25, 2007 by Jack White

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, Jack.

And Jack I just read (somewhere!) that a member of the HSCA photography panel admitted that photos could be faked that would escape even their detection (i.e. by experts).

[Tim Gratz]

Which leads me to another thought: if the man on the HSCA photographic panel admitted they would not (might not) be able to detect a sophisticated "doctored" photo, why didn't they just say that in the first place and save the taxpayers a bunch of money? Presumably if anyone did fake the photograph he was not an amateur.

[Don Bailey]

Which leads me to another thought: if the man on the HSCA photographic panel admitted they would not (might not) be able to detect a sophisticated "doctored" photo, why didn't they just say that in the first place and save the taxpayers a bunch of money? Presumably if anyone did fake the photograph he was not an amateur.

It sounds like he gave up after he knew that he was investigating the work of a high level CIA photographic expert?

[Steve Thomas]

Courtney,

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.

Welcome to a fellow Librarian.

Steve Thomas

[Tim Gratz]

I am sure we would all agree that should there be another investigation Marina certainly ought be a witness.

Query also what secrets she may have disclosed to her children?

If she wanted to clear Lee's reputation, she could come forward now. We can always hope.

[Jack White]

Has anyone looked a my FREE videos?

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Jack, I am half-way through the first one and it is very good and I thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Query re Blakey's comment that private parties could not fake the backyard photographs, do you agree or do you believe there were individuals (yourself included) with the expertise to fake them? (Of course, I'm not accusing you of faking them!)

By the way, I'm going to teach a class on the assassination at the community college next September and I will encourage the students to watch your video.

[Jack White]

Jack, I am half-way through the first one and it is very good and I thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Query re Blakey's comment that private parties could not fake the backyard photographs, do you agree or do you believe there were individuals (yourself included) with the expertise to fake them? (Of course, I'm not accusing you of faking them!)

By the way, I'm going to teach a class on the assassination at the community college next September and I will encourage the students to watch your video.

Cut-and-paste fakery was very common years ago. In 1943 I worked briefly as a sports writer

for the Fort Worth Press at age 17. Our photographer took a photo of the top high school

backfield all running toward the camera...but instead of the four guys being close together,

they were grouped two and two, with a big gap between. I cut the photo apart with an exacto

knife and took out the gap, so that the four guys were shoulder to shoulder. Cropped tight

and in newspaper screen, the fakery was not apparent...and the photo looked much better.

That was twenty years before JFK.

The secrets to a photo assemblage are...

...careful cutting

...sandpapering the back of the photo to reduce thickness

...blacking the cut edges

...careful retouching as needed

Over the years, I have done dozens of such photo alterations.

The backyard photos were done very clumsily. I could have done better under the right

conditions. But I have experience doing that; the average person could not do it.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

Peter wrote:

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.

You're joking right? They were not ever going to afford him his right to counsel. He did ask remember? (Lee Abt). The plan was to get rid of LHO was fast as possible. I have always believe it was Tippit's job to kill him on 11/22.

And even if he had by some miracle gotten an attorney how on earth could that person prevented LHO's death?

Lee knew about photography and when he saw the phony photos he said (allegedly) it was his head on someone else's body-exactly what we see when we examine them.

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

Has anyone looked a my FREE videos?

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always.

The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos.

(From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used discrete shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart with a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.)

Even that sputtering madness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders.

The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a population so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it.

It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped.

And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday.

The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt.

Ashton

Edited September 26, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Drago]

It's almost (cough) enough to make one suspect that, in terms of the "evidence," conflict and not resolution was the conspirators' goal.

Conflict with its attendant cognitive dissonance and polarizing qualities, that is.

How do the few control the many?

By keeping the many at each others' throats.

Charles

[Jack White]

Has anyone looked a my FREE videos?

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always.

The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos.

(From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used two [or, actually, three] different shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart from a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.)

Even that sputtering madeness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders.

The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a poplulation so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it.

It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped.

And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday.

The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt.

Ashton

Thanks for your comments, Ashton. The Paine connection to the photos is undeniable.

When the police first searched the Paine house, they did not find the pix. When they returned later, they

found them. How conveeeenient!

Jack

Edited September 26, 2007 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

Has anyone looked a my FREE videos?

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always.

The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos.

(From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used discrete shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart with a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.)

Even that sputtering madness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders.

The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a poplulation so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it.

It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped.

And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday.

The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt.

Ashton

Sadly White's keystone work was a failure. I suggest that anyone who wants to check it out simply load the images into Photoshop and see if you can skew, twist or bend the all the different backgrounds to a common fit. Its not possible due to the fact that parrallex and perspective makes changes to each background that cannot be corrected when trying to align the images.

As for the close position between frame, I suspect you have not taken enough frames with a camera with a waist level viewfinder. The very act of using such viewfinder forces the user to near the same postion with each frame. It's not as hard as you think.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Ashton Gray]

Has anyone looked a my FREE videos?

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always.

The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos.

(From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used discrete shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart with a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.)

Even that sputtering madness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders.

The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a poplulation so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it.

It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped.

And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday.

The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt.

Ashton

Sadly White's keystone work was a failure. I suggest that anyone who wants to check it out simply load the images into Photoshop and see if you can skew, twist or bend the all the different backgrounds to a common fit. Its not possible due to the fact that parrallex and perspective makes changes to each background that cannot be corrected when trying to align the images.

As for the close position between frame, I suspect you have not taken enough frames with a camera with a waist level viewfinder. The very act of using such viewfinder forces the user to near the same postion with each frame. It's not as hard as you think.

At least he spelled my name right.

No, wait... Oh, yeah: I did that.

Heh! And there for a minute I thought the boy got something right.

Ashton