O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie

[Cliff Varnell]

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

The HSCA found evidence of shoddiness in the preparation of the autopsy photos.

From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as

scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case

gone to trial, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious

to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus

of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the

prosecution.

"Deficiencies as scientific documentation"..."difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features"..."these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence"..."the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution."

Edited January 16, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Martin White]

PB: You might be wrong about that, yes.

Nothing typifies Baker more than this ignorant reply.

Before I digest the latest xxxx shower from Jimbo, I'd just like to point out that I misinterpreted Martin's words. I thought you were referring explicitly to the BYP, Martin; i.e. that the HSCA panel knew they were faked but said otherwise.

Paul.

No, I didn't mean that they knew the BYP were fake and said otherwise. I meant that - as Jim said - they had been given photos that they knew were faked, but couldn't detect the alteration. Jim explained it better than I did.

The point being that they couldn't detect fakery in a photo that had DEFINITELY been faked. Which undermines the credibility of their claims of authenticity for the BYP.

[Paul Baker]

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

He "might be", but he is not.

He's actually quite correct.

~Sigh~

I realise the whole concept of admitting when you've made a mistake is completely alien to the likes of you and Jimbo, but as I've already pointed out, I misinterpreted Martin's words.

[Paul Baker]

I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

You might be wrong about that, yes.

He "might be", but he is not.

He's actually quite correct.

~Sigh~

I realise the whole concept of admitting when you've made a mistake is completely alien to the likes of you and Jimbo, but as I've already pointed out, I misinterpreted Martin's words.

I realise that alternative solutions to issues and the whole concept of curiosity are alien to you, but I had a reply box up on my PC for about 15 minutes before I actually wrote and sent my message.

If I had seen Jim's comprehensive reply [that has probably already been deleted from your brain] I wouldn't have posted.

I have edited my original response accordingly.

What a gent, thank you.

It hasn't been deleted from my brain. Life just gets in the way of things sometimes.

[Paul Baker]

MW: I might be wrong on this, but didn't the HSCA's photographic panel fail to find evidence of alteration in photos that they knew were faked?

[... waffle obliterated for clarity ...]

Well, EIsendrath went ahead and gave each panel member a photograph he had faked in some way. He told them IN ADVANCE that the photo had been faked. Their job was to explain to him 1.) What had been done to the picture, and 2.) How it had been faked.

The result was this:Not one of the panel got either question right. Not one.

Eisendrath went to HSCA consul Mickey Goldsmith with the disheartening results. Knowing full well that this would rob the panel of any credibility it could have, he suggested destroying the report. Well, of course, this got back to Blakey. He decided not to destroy it but to classify it. Therefore, when the HSCA report came out in 1979, all that was in it was the analysis saying the BYP were real. Not the test showing that none of these guys could figure out how a picture was faked even though they knew it was.

[... waffle obliterated for clarity ...]

Geez, Paulie, first the NAA and now this. And you didn't know about either?

What kind of researcher are you? Not a very good one.

Jim,

I can only find scant references to this so-called "Report on Fake Photography Project", but I can't find the report itself (Googling '"Report on Fake Photography Project" Eisendrath' for example, returns two results which ultimately originate from you). But reading the HSCA Photographic Panel Report, it's clear that several sophisticated analytical techniques were used to examine the backyard photographs. It's not clear to me whether Eisendrath's forgeries were subjected to the same level of examination by the panel, though I would tend to doubt it.

In any case, the fact that two of the photos can be viewed stereoscopically with no indication of fakery strongly suggests that they are authentic, given that it is almost impossible to achieve this effect with composite forgeries. Regardless of any doubt you attempt to cast on the expertise of the HSCA photographic panel, Jim, the effect is present in the extant photos for all to see. In addition, two supporting facts remain which are not affected by the study. Firstly, that Marina admitted to taking the pictures, and secondly, that Oswald signed the back of one of them.

One has to ask an important question. Why did those who had a vested interest in framing Oswald decide to produce more than one forgery? This would only increase their chances of detection, which is something I'd assume they'd want to avoid. It would make more sense to produce a single photograph, since one is all that's required to implicate Oswald. Additional and near identical copies don't augment anything; they are therefore pointless. Yet as far as you're concerned, "they" went to all the trouble of producing multiple versions, whist ensuring that two of them are viewable stereoscopically without revealing evidence of forgery (which is, as I've already mentioned, nigh on impossible). Answer that one, Jim.

Jim, please try to get this through your cantankerous skull: NAA is a very reliable and accurate analytical technique. Your statement that 'there's no real science to it' carries zero weight. As a researcher you're dubious, but you're clearly no scientist at all.

Paul.

[Martin White]

Paul,

I accept your points above regarding the photos, but how then does a version of the backyard picture emerge within the files of the Dallas PD with just a ghostly figure (i.e. no Oswald) in it?

One of the things that Jack White pointed out, that I did agree with, was that a background comparison of two of the photos showed an identical background, something that would be extremely difficult without using a tripod.

Also, I would view any evidence from Marina Oswald with extreme caution.

Did the origins of that picture ever get resolved?

In addition, I believe the backyard pic shows a rifle with a scope. It's my understanding that the rifle was not shipped with a scope, and an "Oswald" had a scope fitted locally shortly before the assassination. What's your understanding of how the scope got onto the rifle?

Martin

[Paul Baker]

Paul,

I accept your points above regarding the photos, but how then does a version of the backyard picture emerge within the files of the Dallas PD with just a ghostly figure (i.e. no Oswald) in it?

If photographs have been found that just show just the background, I'd suggest they were taken to help establish the authenticity of the backyard photos (photogrammetric / shadow comparison, perhaps). I'm not sure about a copy that shows a ghostly image, can you point me in a particular direction?

One of the things that Jack White pointed out, that I did agree with, was that a background comparison of two of the photos showed an identical background, something that would be extremely difficult without using a tripod.

Personally I disregard Jack White's so-called "studies" out of hand. If not all of them, the vast majority have been debunked with relative ease in the past by people that know what they're talking about. If he wasn't mistaken on this, I'd assume he was comparing two identical images.

Also, I would view any evidence from Marina Oswald with extreme caution.

Why would she admit to taking those photos, and therefore implicate her husband, if she didn't? Some might argue that she was told to say that or face deportation or some other threat, but as far as I know she's never recanted her statement and I'm sure that if any threat was made, it's no longer applicable. It's been established that the pictures are genuine, so someone took them, and Marina is the most likely (if not the only) candidate for that task.

In addition, I believe the backyard pic shows a rifle with a scope. It's my understanding that the rifle was not shipped with a scope, and an "Oswald" had a scope fitted locally shortly before the assassination. What's your understanding of how the scope got onto the rifle?

Martin

This is something that Jimbo would harp on about as if it's important. If the rifle didn't come with a scope, but it had one when it was found, then the odds are that Oswald acquired one and fitted it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Paul Baker

[Martin White]

Regarding Marina's testimony, I meant "treat with extreme caution" as it has been contradictory on several items. I can't recall any specific instances offhand, but there's been a few instances where there have been at least two versions, and whatever the truth of the matter, they can't all be correct.

Do you dismiss the Ryder account of the scope being fitted by an Oswald? I don't see how the presence or absence of the scope can be described as unimportant? Although I guess it fits in the same category as the ammunition clip. Not provided with the rifle but no evidence as to how they came to be on the rifle.

This thread's been OT for so long now, it's almost embarrassing to suggest this now, but maybe we should start another thread for these topics?

[Craig Lamson]

Paul,

I accept your points above regarding the photos, but how then does a version of the backyard picture emerge within the files of the Dallas PD with just a ghostly figure (i.e. no Oswald) in it?

One of the things that Jack White pointed out, that I did agree with, was that a background comparison of two of the photos showed an identical background, something that would be extremely difficult without using a tripod.

Martin

Actually they don't and White nor anyone I have ever seen could make the backgrounds of the backyard photos match. Period. I've extended the challenge many times.

Take the backyard photos into Photoshop or some other similar program and adjust them so the backgrounds match. Use any method you see fit. White claimed ( but never proved) he could make the photos match by tilting the enlarging easel. Photoshop allows the same thing digitally.

Please show us the matching backgrounds.

I've tried many times and failed. Maybe you will have better luck.

BTW, take a really good look at the background of the DPD ghost image and tell me what you see.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Martin White]

Hi Craig,

I explained myself badly (which I appear to be making a habit of!) so I apologise. I have not seen the background comparison (although maybe it's on YouTube somewhere - I will have to look) but I meant I agreed with the principle that IF (and I grant it may be a big IF) the backgrounds are the same in two photos, that it would indicate something odd.

I used to agree with the shadow analysis of the backyard pictures - that is the shadow under the nose compared to the shadow cast by the body - but after some of Jack's later claims regarding shadows (referring to the Zapruder film) I realised two things: that Jack's claims were not unimpeachible and that shadow angle analysis is not necessarily as easy/straightforward as it might appear.

I should clarify that I have the utmost respect for Jack's motivations, and his dedication (and time spent) working on this case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

Paul - the picture looks like this one:

I say "like this one" as I'm not sure if this is the actual image, but it's representative of what I was referring to.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

A far different date as to when the image was exposed compared the the extant BY photos.

[Martin White]

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

A far different date as to when the image was exposed compared the the extant BY photos.

You mean foliage and the like? Yes, that's a good point. Still doesn't explain the presence of the photo though?

[Craig Lamson]

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

A far different date as to when the image was exposed compared the the extant BY photos.

You mean foliage and the like? Yes, that's a good point. Still doesn't explain the presence of the photo though?

Whats to explain? And why does it matter?

[Martin White]

If the backyard pics are totally legitimate, and there's no more to them than Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the weapons, I don't see where (or why) a template photo that is partway through manipulation enters the evidence base.

If Marina's explanation is the full story, then this "ghost" photo shouldn't exist?

Isn't its very existence odd?

[Craig Lamson]

If the backyard pics are totally legitimate, and there's no more to them than Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the weapons, I don't see where (or why) a template photo that is partway through manipulation enters the evidence base.

If Marina's explanation is the full story, then this "ghost" photo shouldn't exist?

Isn't its very existence odd?

Again why should it not exist? Can there be legitimate reasons WHY it does exist that are not conspiratorial?