We’re done. Why we came. What we learned. Thank you all.

[Peter McGuire]

Hello, Mr. Jeffries,

To answer your first question, I think the backyard photos are probably genuine. I say “probably genuine” because this is a tangled mess of evidence.

The backyard photos are an obvious attempt to make the man look guilty, which seems to part of a process of framing the man for murder.

A lot of work has been done on this aspect of the matter. However, I don’t know how anyone can take even a quick glance at those pictures and not conclude that they are doctored photos. The heads do not match, but mostly common sense tells you nobody would produce pictures like those of themselves. I certainly do not care what Marina said at the time, and there is no chain of custody, like so many pieces of so called evidence in this case.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Peter Fokes]

The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo.

The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Methinks there were very few minds in doubt, Barb. The claim that Moorman was in the street was preposterous from the get go.

Nevertheless, bravo for the efforts of this group. Long after we have passed from the scene, others will be researching the "beast".

I've never had the patience to deal with obvious absurdities.

Thanks heavens a few do!

It will pay dividends in "time saved" for researchers venturing onto the trail in the future.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Thanks, Peter ... that those in the future won't have to waste time on absurdities

in the future is definitely part of the value of getting things like this taken care of ... and placed

where they can be found in the future.

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo.

The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Methinks there were very few minds in doubt, Barb. The claim that Moorman was in the street was preposterous from the get go.

Nevertheless, bravo for the efforts of this group. Long after we have passed from the scene, others will be researching the "beast".

I've never had the patience to deal with obvious absurdities.

Thanks heavens a few do!

It will pay dividends in "time saved" for researchers venturing onto the trail in the future.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[David G. Healy]

Thanks, Peter ... that those in the future won't have to waste time on absurdities

in the future is definitely part of the value of getting things like this taken care of ... and placed

where they can be found in the future.

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo.

The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Methinks there were very few minds in doubt, Barb. The claim that Moorman was in the street was preposterous from the get go.

Nevertheless, bravo for the efforts of this group. Long after we have passed from the scene, others will be researching the "beast".

I've never had the patience to deal with obvious absurdities.

Thanks heavens a few do!

It will pay dividends in "time saved" for researchers venturing onto the trail in the future.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

Frankly what ex-moderators from alt.assassination.jfk (Barb and Peter here) think about any JFK assassination related film-photo issue (with or without Dr. Josiah Thompson) is, how do I put this mildly, kinda like watching a play in ...the Lone Nut, Theater of the Deranged, choreography by .john McAdams... I'm not impressed!

Let me be the first to break the bad news to ya: selling the same old Lone Nut story to the same old crowd is what again? Yep, you guessed it. the same old story. Ya gotta stretch folks!

[Don Jeffries]

Hello, Mr. Jeffries,

To answer your first question, I think the backyard photos are probably genuine. I say “probably genuine” because this is a tangled mess of evidence.

The backyard photos are an obvious attempt to make the man look guilty, which seems to part of a process of framing the man for murder.

A lot of work has been done on this aspect of the matter. However, I don’t know how anyone can take even a quick glance at those pictures and not conclude that they are doctored photos. The heads do not match, but mostly common sense tells you nobody would produce pictures like those of themselves. I certainly do not care what Marina said at the time, and there is no chain of custody, like so many pieces of so called evidence in this case.

Thanks, Peter, for stating the simple truth. Those photos, like the single bullet theory, are so obviously fake that it insults the intelligence when one claims otherwise. As you note, why would anyone pose for such pictures? With all that commie literature thrown in for good measure? Talk about overkill!

It is disturbing to know that Josiah Thompson feels these photos are "probably genuine." Bill Miller certainly didn't feel this way the last time I saw him post on the subject; I hope he will acknowledge this here, which would put him in the interesting position of agreeing with Jack White and opposing Josiah. The fact that alleged "experts" have declared them genuine is meaningless. Since when does any conspiracy believer worth his salt believe such officially approved "experts?" The government has always been able to summon up supposedly renowned "experts" to support whatever case they're prosecuting. There are lots of "experts" that believe in the single bullet theory, the bunched up coat theory and the neuro-muscular "jet effect" to explain the backwards head snap, too.

I noted on this forum a while back that many credible researchers have now turned into a new kind of "neo-con"- the neo-conspiracy believer. Gary Mack would now probably be the king of this type of neo-con. On this forum, and certainly at Lancer, there has been a tendency over the past few years for believers in conspiracy to dismiss things like the backyard photos, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the Umbrella Man and even Oswald's innocence in the Tippit murder. There is no rational reason to do this; why give ground on these fundamental indications of conspiracy? Could there be a more visibly flawed piece of incriminating "evidence" than these ridiculous photos? Will more neo-cons start following Gary Mack's lead on the Basbushka Woman, and postulate that she wasn't even taking motion pictures that day, but a simple photograph, which she turned over to some convenient representative of Kodak and showed nothing?

The strong indication that the motorcade stopped, or at least slowed down dramatically just before the shooting, is now poo-pooed by non-alterationists because it a strong plank in the atlerationist platform. Again, no reason to give ground on this issue- either every one of those unconnected witnesses lied or imagined the same thing, or something like that happened. I was watching some of Mark Oakes' fine interview DVDs the other night, and even Bobby Hargis (who steadfastly maintains Oswald acted alone) was adamant about the motorcade stopping (can't remember if he said stopped or almost stopped, but he brought the subject up himself). Will all the medical testimony about the huge hole in the back of JFK's head gradually go the same way? Witness testimony has always been an important part of the conspiracy quotient in this case; that's probably one of the reasons I reacted so strongly to Duke Lane's attempted discreditation of Richard Carr and James Worrell.

I don't care what neo-cons believe; in my opinion, the backyard photos were childishly faked, a lot of inconvenient witnesses did die under questionable circumstances, Oswald didn't kill Tippit, the Umbrella Man was clearly acting suspiciously and did pump his umbrella up and down, officers Boone and Weitzman were not likely to be mistaken in the exact same way about finding a mauser on the sixth floor, Oswald does look like a different person in different photgraphs, Roger Craig's initial testimony was important and credible and he was in Capt. Fritz's office as he claimed, it has not been proven conclusively that Lovelady is the man in the doorway in the Altgens photograph and it may very well have been Oswald and it was not an "easy shot" as no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged feat under truly simulated conditions.

There- I've said it. Now I feel better.

[Peter McGuire]

Those photos, like the single bullet theory, are so obviously fake that it insults the intelligence when one claims otherwise. As you note, why would anyone pose for such pictures? With all that commie literature thrown in for good measure? Talk about overkill!

I don't care what neo-cons believe; in my opinion, the backyard photos were childishly faked, a lot of inconvenient witnesses did die under questionable circumstances, Oswald didn't kill Tippit, the Umbrella Man was clearly acting suspiciously and did pump his umbrella up and down, officers Boone and Weitzman were not likely to be mistaken in the exact same way about finding a mauser on the sixth floor, Oswald does look like a different person in different photgraphs, Roger Craig's initial testimony was important and credible and he was in Capt. Fritz's office as he claimed, it has not been proven conclusively that Lovelady is the man in the doorway in the Altgens photograph and it may very well have been Oswald and it was not an "easy shot" as no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged feat under truly simulated conditions.

Very well put. I could add more aspects of the case along these same lines but there is no reason to do so.

Remember;

The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may thereafter reject all of his testimony.

Have we been lied to on one point?

I rest my case.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Josiah Thompson]

Sorry, I'm not a true believer. As I said, I just see it as "a tangled mess of evidence." Someone asked me; I answered. So it goes!

Josiah Thompson

To answer your first question, I think the backyard photos are probably genuine. I say "probably genuine" because this is a tangled mess of evidence.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah, You just lost forever someone who got his real intro into the 'Case' in a big way with your first book with the statement above. The backyard photos are patently false; fakes; to set-up a patsy. Add to this, remember how the number of 'backyard photos' kept increasing. Well....there is yet another....and when it is released you and others will be exposed as either fools or tools. Without that new one 'the case is closed' on the BYP. I now know to disregard your 'wisdom' on this case completely from here on out - and its parts: Z-film, Moorman and all. Sorry. A real fatal blow there....but I've had you on my 'likely to cross-off-the-list' list. Done.

[Robert Walker]

A new study of the legitimacy of the backyard photos by Matrin Hinrichs can be found Here

And if we are going to stray into the backyard photographs, this study is very interesting indeed.

[Jack White]

A new study of the legitimacy of the backyard photos by Matrin Hinrichs can be found Here

And if we are going to stray into the backyard photographs, this study is very interesting indeed.

You may see my video study of the backyard photos here:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Jack

[Len Colby]

So why exactly would LHO's mom have perjured herself by falsely confessing to having committed a felony (destroying evidence i.e. an unseen "backyard photo") and implicate her son in the process?

[Jack White]

So why exactly would LHO's mom have perjured herself by falsely confessing to having committed a felony (destroying evidence i.e. an unseen "backyard photo") and implicate her son in the process?

WHICH LHO mom?

[Don Jeffries]

Kathy,

The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald.

Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement?

I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt?

Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos.

[Robert Walker]

So why exactly would LHO's mom have perjured herself by falsely confessing to having committed a felony (destroying evidence i.e. an unseen "backyard photo") and implicate her son in the process?

Who knows? We are talking about physical evidence here. The physical evidence has inconsistencies.

[Peter McGuire]

“President Griswold, members of the faculty and fellows, graduates and their families, ladies and gentlemen:

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the very deep honor that you have conferred upon me. As General de Gaulle occasionally acknowledges America to be the daughter of Europe, so I am pleased to come to Yale, the daughter of Harvard. It might be said now that I have the best of both worlds, a Harvard education and a Yale degree.

I am particularly glad to become a Yale man because as I think about my troubles, I find that a lot of them have come from other Yale men.”

This makes me wonder what President Kennedy would think about anyone, much less a Yale graduate, who is indecisive about whether or not some obviously faked photos are real or not.

[David G. Healy]

“President Griswold, members of the faculty and fellows, graduates and their families, ladies and gentlemen:

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the very deep honor that you have conferred upon me. As General de Gaulle occasionally acknowledges America to be the daughter of Europe, so I am pleased to come to Yale, the daughter of Harvard. It might be said now that I have the best of both worlds, a Harvard education and a Yale degree.

I am particularly glad to become a Yale man because as I think about my troubles, I find that a lot of them have come from other Yale men.”

This makes me wonder what President Kennedy would think about anyone, much less a Yale graduate, who is indecisive about whether or not some obviously faked photos are real or not.

you have a way with words, Sir!