DO WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE?

[Craig Lamson]

My claim is VERY CLEAR.

That was a yes or no question Jack, are you afraid to answer in print?

[Terry Adams]

"Can we agree that Lee Oswald was impersonated (by phone and in person) in Mexico City?" (Lee Farley) With JEH, himself, saying that it was not Oswald, I believe it is safe to say he was being impersonated. Yes, we can agree.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Terry Adams

[Jack White]

"Can we agree that Lee Oswald was impersonated (by phone and in person) in Mexico City?" (Lee Farley) With JEH, himself, saying that it was not Oswald, I believe it is safe to say he was being impersonated. Yes, we can agree.

To learn about the two Oswalds, read Harvey & Lee by John Armstrong.

[Martin Hinrichs]

 I must beg forgiveness. I hit edit rather than reply...and mistakenly erased your post Stephen. Please excuse the mistake...Here it is Sorry again! Very sorry....

As you said, there are other possibilities. I don't know if we can be sure that he didn't use the photos to sell himself. As I noted, he appears to have done that at least once (although, I believe the photo no longer exists.) And he seemed to have been selling himself in New Orleans later in the year.

I don't think there's a consensus that we can stop looking at pieces of evidence and look only at the big picture.

Mexico City? I can accept that he might have been impersonated, but there is other evidence which, if genuine, suggests that it was the real Oswald.

 

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

WIKIPEDIA HAS ALREADY ADDED FARID TO THEIR OSWALD PAGE: "These photos, widely recognized as some of the most significant evidence against Oswald, have been subjected to rigorous analysis.[149] A panel of twenty-two photographic experts consulted by the HSCA examined the photographs and answered twenty-one points of contention raised by critics.[150] The panel concluded the photographs were genuine.[151] Marina Oswald has always maintained she took the photos herself, and the 1963 de Mohrenschildt print with Oswald's own signature clearly indicate they existed before the assassination. Despite such evidence, however some critics continue to contest the authenticity of the photographs.[152] After digitally analyzing the photograph of Oswald holding the rifle and paper, Dartmouth College computer scientist Hany Farid published his findings[153] concluding that "the photo almost certainly was not altered."[154] Check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald [152] provides a link to Jack White's HSCA 1977-78 testimony about the photos.

Just a little sidenote here.

Kathy Becket convinced me to contact Hany Farid instead of just accusing him to do fakes.

So i did.

Our email conversation began almost 3 months ago.

Hany answered pretty quick in the beginning and i was always utmost respectful. Never harsh.

As time goes by and my questions become more detailed, the more glutinous and slow it turned out from his side.

I often repeatet my questions til i got an answer. I was patient and did not repeat the questions too rapid.

I gave him often 2 weeks to answer til i repeated again.

The last question (it was an image request) he denied. He says it takes too much time.

I know as a 3D expert it would take not more than 5 minutes.

So i thanked him for our conversation and asked for permission to make this conversation public.

He did not respond. So i repeated again after 3 weeks...kindly.

I received a simple and dry "NO".

Our conversation has ended at January 20, 2010.

I would love to share our conversation, but i'am not allowed.

Just in case you doubt it, ask Hany Farid by himself.

farid@cs.darmouth.edu

Edited March 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

It's just proof the DPD were involved. The assumption is that Oswald was not.

I think the purpose of the genuine photos were not understood by Oswald at the time they were taken. They're stupid. Oswald was not stupid. So, he must have had a purpose for them.

He was a bit player in something much bigger than himself but was led to think otherwise. His participation, whatever it was backfired on him. He was indeed the cheated one (patsy), used and spat out.

There is no need for the pgotos to be false.

What is of interest is what they show in relation to the time they were taken and what Oswald did or didn't do then, not months later.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Speaking of stupidity, in view of the multiple proofs that these photos are faked, this has to be one of the dumbest even on this subject.

It's just proof the DPD were involved. The assumption is that Oswald was not.

I think the purpose of the genuine photos were not understood by Oswald at the time they were taken. They're stupid. Oswald was not stupid. So, he must have had a purpose for them.

He was a bit player in something much bigger than himself but was led to think otherwise. His participation, whatever it was backfired on him. He was indeed the cheated one (patsy), used and spat out.

There is no need for the pgotos to be false.

What is of interest is what they show in relation to the time they were taken and what Oswald did or didn't do then, not months later.

[John Dolva]

Jim, you've already stated I'm not to be listened to.

Imo it's your stupidity in the whole matter, in fact in most things, that needs highlighting.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I was being deliberately provocative, but there are so many proofs that these photos

are faked that no reasonable person could deny it. Farid is a fake, but I have assumed

you are not. The matter is of great importance. Consider the words of Robert Blakey,

now a professor of law at Notre Dame but who served as Chief Counsel to the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its reinvestigation of the deaths of

JFK and of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1977-78. Speaking to the committee about these

very photographs, Blakey stated, “If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they

were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince

a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility

that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy."

Lee himself observed that it was his face pasted onto someone else's body. We have

proven he is correct in at least a half-dozen ways, including the block chin, the insert

line, the cut-off finger tips, and the height problem using the ruler. What is there you

do not understand? Or are you simply here to waste time with meaningless drivel?

Jim, you've already stated I'm not to be listened to.

Imo it's your stupidity in the whole matter, in fact in most things, that needs highlighting.

[Craig Lamson]

I was being deliberately provocative, but there are so many proofs that these photos

are faked that no reasonable person could deny it. Farid is a fake, but I have assumed

you are not. The matter is of great importance. Consider the words of Robert Blakey,

now a professor of law at Notre Dame but who served as Chief Counsel to the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its reinvestigation of the deaths of

JFK and of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1977-78. Speaking to the committee about these

very photographs, Blakey stated, “If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they

were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince

a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility

that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy."

Lee himself observed that it was his face pasted onto someone else's body. We have

proven he is correct in at least a half-dozen ways, including the block chin, the insert

line, the cut-off finger tips, and the height problem using the ruler. What is there you

do not understand? Or are you simply here to waste time with meaningless drivel?

Jim, you've already stated I'm not to be listened to.

Imo it's your stupidity in the whole matter, in fact in most things, that needs highlighting.

Height problem using the ruler? That one has bee thrashed.

Fingertips? Surely you guys are not pitching that silly thing now are you?

Block Chin? ROFLMAO! your need some better "photo experts"

Insert line? Weak OPINION.

You have nothing of substance left Jim...

[Len Colby]

 I must beg forgiveness. I hit edit rather than reply...and mistakenly erased your post Stephen. Please excuse the mistake...Here it is Sorry again! Very sorry....

As you said, there are other possibilities. I don't know if we can be sure that he didn't use the photos to sell himself. As I noted, he appears to have done that at least once (although, I believe the photo no longer exists.) And he seemed to have been selling himself in New Orleans later in the year.

I don't think there's a consensus that we can stop looking at pieces of evidence and look only at the big picture.

Mexico City? I can accept that he might have been impersonated, but there is other evidence which, if genuine, suggests that it was the real Oswald.

 

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

The summary is a bit confusing. If you just read the bottom of page 9 and 1st three lines of page 10 it sounds like LHO was asked about the photo during his 1st interview but if you read the next paragraph on page 10 you’ll see Fritz stated:

“At 6:00 p. m. I instructed the officers to bring Oswald back into the office, and in the presence of Jim Bookhout, Homicide officers, and Inspector Kelly, of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Pain's home. He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before.”

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

This is confirmed by Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley’s summary of the “Interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 23, 1963” which stated:

The interview was concluded about 1:10 p.m. and immediately thereafter members of the Homicide Division secured a search warrant and recovered Oswald's effects from the home of Mrs. Paine. Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the Millitant and "The Worker" in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on his right side. This photograph was enlarged by the Dallas Police Laboratories and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 p.m. that same evening.

On November 23, 1963, at 6:00 p.m., in the office of Captain Fritz, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department, I was present at an interview with Oswald. Also present were Captain Fritz, FBI Agent Jim Bookhout, and four officers from the Homicide Division. This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were seized as a result of the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Paine at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. When the photographs were presented to Oswald, he sneered at them saying that they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the police and apparently after they photographed him they superimposed on the photographs a rifle and put a gun in his pocket. he got into a long argument with Captain Fritz about his knowledge of photography and asked Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or whether the larger photograph was made from the smaller. He said at the proper time he would show that the photographs were fakes. Fritz told him that the smaller photograph was taken from his effects at the garage. Oswald became arrogant and refused to answer any further questions concerning the photographs and would not identify the photographs as being a photograph of himself. Captain Fritz displayed great patience and tenacity in attempting to secure from Oswald the location of what apparently is the backyard of tan address at which Oswald formerly lived, but it was apparent that Oswald, though slightly shaken by the evidence, had no intention of furnishing any information.

The interview was terminated at about 7:15 p.m.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=29106

Both of the above in copy and pastable HTML here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm

Perhaps Martin can propose o coherent scenario where LHO was asked about a planted photo before it was found.

Also Margaruite Oswald testified that she saw a similar photo that Saturday and told Marina to destroy it. IIRC she said that Marina told her she had taken it.

"Michael Paine testified that he was shown them on Friday 22nd November. How was this possible?"

Citation, if true which is more likely a) Several months later Paine got confused OR they showed a forged photo to someone then only claimed to find it in his house the next day?

"The backyard photos are not listed on the Property Received by the FBI. Why not?"

I've seen this claim made few times but never with a link to a copy of the invoice,do you have one?

"It is claimed by Gus Rose that two negatives were found but only one was passed to the Warren Commission. Why?"

Rose could have been mistaken or someone could have kept the other as a souvenir,jusst as Roscoe White kept a photo and FBI agents kept personal items found at Ground Zero

"When the FBI did their reenactments of the photographs 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. "

Actually 133-c as its been labeled was found among the possessions of Roscoe White of the DPD.

[Jack White]

The summary is a bit confusing. If you just read the bottom of page 9 and 1st three lines of page 10 it sounds like LHO was asked about the photo during his 1st interview but if you read the next paragraph on page 10 you’ll see Fritz stated:

“At 6:00 p. m. I instructed the officers to bring Oswald back into the office, and in the presence of Jim Bookhout, Homicide officers, and Inspector Kelly, of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Pain's home. He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before.”

This is confirmed by Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley’s summary of the “Interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 23, 1963” which stated:

The interview was concluded about 1:10 p.m. and immediately thereafter members of the Homicide Division secured a search warrant and recovered Oswald's effects from the home of Mrs. Paine. Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the Millitant and "The Worker" in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on his right side. This photograph was enlarged by the Dallas Police Laboratories and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 p.m. that same evening.

On November 23, 1963, at 6:00 p.m., in the office of Captain Fritz, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department, I was present at an interview with Oswald. Also present were Captain Fritz, FBI Agent Jim Bookhout, and four officers from the Homicide Division. This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were seized as a result of the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Paine at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. When the photographs were presented to Oswald, he sneered at them saying that they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the police and apparently after they photographed him they superimposed on the photographs a rifle and put a gun in his pocket. he got into a long argument with Captain Fritz about his knowledge of photography and asked Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or whether the larger photograph was made from the smaller. He said at the proper time he would show that the photographs were fakes. Fritz told him that the smaller photograph was taken from his effects at the garage. Oswald became arrogant and refused to answer any further questions concerning the photographs and would not identify the photographs as being a photograph of himself. Captain Fritz displayed great patience and tenacity in attempting to secure from Oswald the location of what apparently is the backyard of tan address at which Oswald formerly lived, but it was apparent that Oswald, though slightly shaken by the evidence, had no intention of furnishing any information.

The interview was terminated at about 7:15 p.m.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=29106

Both of the above in copy and pastable HTML here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm

Perhaps Martin can propose o coherent scenario where LHO was asked about a planted photo before it was found.

Also Margaruite Oswald testified that she saw a similar photo that Saturday and told Marina to destroy it. IIRC she said that Marina told her she had taken it.

"Michael Paine testified that he was shown them on Friday 22nd November. How was this possible?"

Citation, if true which is more likely a) Several months later Paine got confused OR they showed a forged photo to someone then only claimed to find it in his house the next day?

"The backyard photos are not listed on the Property Received by the FBI. Why not?"

I've seen this claim made few times but never with a link to a copy of the invoice,do you have one?

"It is claimed by Gus Rose that two negatives were found but only one was passed to the Warren Commission. Why?"

Rose could have been mistaken or someone could have kept the other as a souvenir,jusst as Roscoe White kept a photo and FBI agents kept personal items found at Ground Zero

"When the FBI did their reenactments of the photographs 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. "

Actually 133-c as its been labeled was found among the possessions of Roscoe White of the DPD.

The Paine Garage evidence list is at:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H24_CE_2003.pdf

There is no listing for "2 photographs of Lee Oswald holding Trotsykite and Marxist newspapers and yielding rifle found on 6th floor of School Book Depository"

Paine got confused about lots of things Len. The most severe of which was his failure to know that the metal object that was in the blanket (and which he obviously felt in great detail) whilst unpacking when Marina moved in, was in fact a rifle. At least his father George Lyman Paine had some brains in the family when he told him over the phone that Oswald was being stitched up. Shame he didn't suspect his son as being part of it.

As far as the evidence going missing. You seem to want citations for claims on my side (Paine's claims that he was shown the photo on the night of the assassination) but enter the world of speculation on your own side of the argument. The negative for CE 133A was obviously in the DPD possession because they made the 8x10 enlargement from it. It's not like it was sideways swiped whilst the evidence was being collected and logged.

My error on the photo - you are correct - it was the Dees White and Stovall photographs CE133-C.

Lee is incorrect about the DPD "obviously in possession" of the 133A negative. The DPD MADE ITS OWN NEGATIVE BY COPYING

THE SMALL PRINT. Or at least that is the OFFICIAL version of the story. The more critical part of the story is that THE PHOTOS

WERE NOT FOUND IN THE FIRST SEARCH AT THE PAINE'S. On a second search, officers "found" (planted?) the two snapshots

and one negative.

[Martin Hinrichs]

The summary is a bit confusing. If you just read the bottom of page 9 and 1st three lines of page 10 it sounds like LHO was asked about the photo during his 1st interview but if you read the next paragraph on page 10 you’ll see Fritz stated:

“At 6:00 p. m. I instructed the officers to bring Oswald back into the office, and in the presence of Jim Bookhout, Homicide officers, and Inspector Kelly, of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Pain's home. He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before.”

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

This is confirmed by Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley’s summary of the “Interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 23, 1963” which stated:

The interview was concluded about 1:10 p.m. and immediately thereafter members of the Homicide Division secured a search warrant and recovered Oswald's effects from the home of Mrs. Paine. Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the Millitant and "The Worker" in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on his right side. This photograph was enlarged by the Dallas Police Laboratories and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 p.m. that same evening.

On November 23, 1963, at 6:00 p.m., in the office of Captain Fritz, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department, I was present at an interview with Oswald. Also present were Captain Fritz, FBI Agent Jim Bookhout, and four officers from the Homicide Division. This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were seized as a result of the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Paine at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. When the photographs were presented to Oswald, he sneered at them saying that they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the police and apparently after they photographed him they superimposed on the photographs a rifle and put a gun in his pocket. he got into a long argument with Captain Fritz about his knowledge of photography and asked Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or whether the larger photograph was made from the smaller. He said at the proper time he would show that the photographs were fakes. Fritz told him that the smaller photograph was taken from his effects at the garage. Oswald became arrogant and refused to answer any further questions concerning the photographs and would not identify the photographs as being a photograph of himself. Captain Fritz displayed great patience and tenacity in attempting to secure from Oswald the location of what apparently is the backyard of tan address at which Oswald formerly lived, but it was apparent that Oswald, though slightly shaken by the evidence, had no intention of furnishing any information.

The interview was terminated at about 7:15 p.m.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=29106

Both of the above in copy and pastable HTML here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm

Perhaps Martin can propose o coherent scenario where LHO was asked about a planted photo before it was found.

Also Margaruite Oswald testified that she saw a similar photo that Saturday and told Marina to destroy it. IIRC she said that Marina told her she had taken it.

"Michael Paine testified that he was shown them on Friday 22nd November. How was this possible?"

Citation, if true which is more likely a) Several months later Paine got confused OR they showed a forged photo to someone then only claimed to find it in his house the next day?

"The backyard photos are not listed on the Property Received by the FBI. Why not?"

I've seen this claim made few times but never with a link to a copy of the invoice,do you have one?

"It is claimed by Gus Rose that two negatives were found but only one was passed to the Warren Commission. Why?"

Rose could have been mistaken or someone could have kept the other as a souvenir,jusst as Roscoe White kept a photo and FBI agents kept personal items found at Ground Zero

"When the FBI did their reenactments of the photographs 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. "

Actually 133-c as its been labeled was found among the possessions of Roscoe White of the DPD.

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.

Perhaps Martin can propose o coherent scenario where LHO was asked about a planted photo before it was found.

Where? Most likely in the office of Captain Will Fritz. Between 12:35PM and 1:10PM.

The summary is a bit confusing.

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

Edited March 3, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin, quick question. Is the survival of only one negative significant to you? We currently have four different photos and only one negative. I know Rose claimed there were two negatives but only one was passed to the WC apparently. Has anyone on the forum seen the negative in the archives and for which photograph is it the negative of?

Lee

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

Edited March 3, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Len Colby]

The Paine Garage evidence list is at:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H24_CE_2003.pdf

There is no listing for "2 photographs of Lee Oswald holding Trotsykite and Marxist newspapers and yielding rifle found on 6th floor of School Book Depository"

Crap you could have given me a page number at least that's a 210 page document! Look on pg 154 closer to the bottom than the top is a listing for "Miscellaneous photographs and negs”

Paine got confused about lots of things Len. The most severe of which was his failure to know that the metal object that was in the blanket (and which he obviously felt in great detail) whilst unpacking when Marina moved in, was in fact a rifle. At least his father George Lyman Paine had some brains in the family when he told him over the phone that Oswald was being stitched up. Shame he didn't suspect his son as being part of it.

Please provide citations for the sections of testimony that assert these claims

As far as the evidence going missing. You seem to want citations for claims on my side (Paine's claims that he was shown the photo on the night of the assassination) but enter the world of speculation on your own side of the argument.

If you want citations for any of my claims all you have to do is ask