Backyard pictures

[Martin White]

I know the backyard pictures were examined during the HCSA, resulting in the panel that was tested (and flunked) by Eisenberg. Does anyone know if Eisenberg came to any conclusions on the pictures himself?

Has there been any further professional examination of the pictures since then?

One of the things that is noticeable when comparing the Oswald pictures to the recreation by the DPD, featuring a DPD officer in the same pose as Oswald, is the differences in photographic quality.

Is this explainable simply by differences in film and/or camera quality? If the DPD were looking to recreate the original pictures, you'd think they'd use the same (or similar) camera and film, wouldn't you?

Perhaps more intriguingly, has anyone ever recreated pictures with

1. that odd angular, leaning pose
   
2. the (seemingly) anomalous shadows - straight down under the nose, but longer and at 11 o'clock from the body?
   

[Craig Lamson]

I know the backyard pictures were examined during the HCSA, resulting in the panel that was tested (and flunked) by Eisenberg. Does anyone know if Eisenberg came to any conclusions on the pictures himself?

Has there been any further professional examination of the pictures since then?

One of the things that is noticeable when comparing the Oswald pictures to the recreation by the DPD, featuring a DPD officer in the same pose as Oswald, is the differences in photographic quality.

Is this explainable simply by differences in film and/or camera quality? If the DPD were looking to recreate the original pictures, you'd think they'd use the same (or similar) camera and film, wouldn't you?

Perhaps more intriguingly, has anyone ever recreated pictures with

1. that odd angular, leaning pose
   
2. the (seemingly) anomalous shadows - straight down under the nose, but longer and at 11 o'clock from the body?
   

1, Good question, but all I've heard of is Eisendrath questioning the Photogrammetry

and I can't find anything that says he was well versed in arena. Nor have I read or heard that he thought the panel was wrong about the BYP.

Lets get real. I frequent a number of pro photography forums filled with top notch composite image creators. Its not uncommon at all fro the method of the work to be missed by all the members simply because there are multiple ways to produce any given composite image.

All of this is just another ct strawman. They can't discredit the work of the panel so instead they try and discredit the panel.

Two ...image quality. Making comparison based on internet images of unknown origin is risky at best. Can you tell the generations for these images for starters?

Finally, recreations...they are impossible.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Martin White]

Every copy of the backyard pics I've ever seen is noticeably inferior in terms of quality compared to the reenactments by the DPD. Now, that is probably explainable due to different cameras and/or film. I don't think it's due to internet scans.

Jim will comment on this, but as far as I am aware, Eisenberg's examination of the panel was before they verified the backyard pics, so its not a question of discrediting the panel, as (at that point) it could have gone either way.

I don't want to put words in your mouth Craig, and maybe I've misinterpreted you, but it appears that you're saying that the pictures have been verified by a panel of experts, but experts often can't detect fakery anyway. I'll be happy to ackknowledge if I've misunderstood.

[Martin White]

Another thing I wanted to ask you Craig. What's your view of Groden's work on the contrast build up across the chin?

Also Jack White's analysis of the wrist compared to Roscoe White is interesting.

[Craig Lamson]

Every copy of the backyard pics I've ever seen is noticeably inferior in terms of quality compared to the reenactments by the DPD. Now, that is probably explainable due to different cameras and/or film. I don't think it's due to internet scans.

Jim will comment on this, but as far as I am aware, Eisenberg's examination of the panel was before they verified the backyard pics, so its not a question of discrediting the panel, as (at that point) it could have gone either way.

I don't want to put words in your mouth Craig, and maybe I've misinterpreted you, but it appears that you're saying that the pictures have been verified by a panel of experts, but experts often can't detect fakery anyway. I'll be happy to ackknowledge if I've misunderstood.

I suggest you review the work of the panel and decide for yourself what they did. What they did NOT do is correctly identify the method used to create a set of images. If have this correct and quite frankly the information is pretty hard to find without a trip to the Archives, the method they missed as using a LIFE SIZED CUTOUT PHOTO of a person in a real scene.

They identified it this image as "fake" but failed to note the exact method of creation. Again, nothing the least bit sinister and pretty common even among well established compositing experts today.

So I ask you, what part of the panels work on the BY photos has found to be incorrect?

[Paul Baker]

Hi Martin,

Consider these questions:

1. If the backyard photos were faked, why were multiple versions made, when only one would be required to incriminate Oswald? i.e. Why did the forgers deliberately increase the odds of their handiwork being exposed?
   
2. How did the forgers ensure that two of the photographs can be viewed stereoscopically without any evidence of fakery being visible? This is nigh on impossible.
   
3. How was Oswald coerced into signing the back of one of the photos?
   
4. Why did one copy (the signed copy) surface in 1977, 13-and-a-half years after the assassination? Wouldn't those people that wanted to incriminate Oswald do what was required to ensure that particular copy was 'discovered' during the Warren Commission investigation?
   
5. Why did Marina admit to taking the photos if they were in fact faked?
   

Now couple these questions with the studies undertaken on the photographs and negatives, which have failed to unconver any evidence of tampering.

What conclusion do you reach?

I think they're genuine. I'd bet my house on it.

Paul.

[Martin White]

Hi Martin,

Consider these questions:

1. If the backyard photos were faked, why were multiple versions made, when only one would be required to incriminate Oswald? i.e. Why did the forgers deliberately increase the odds of their handiwork being exposed?
   
2. How did the forgers ensure that two of the photographs can be viewed stereoscopically without any evidence of fakery being visible? This is nigh on impossible.
   
3. How was Oswald coerced into signing the back of one of the photos?
   
4. Why did one copy (the signed copy) surface in 1977, 13-and-a-half years after the assassination? Wouldn't those people that wanted to incriminate Oswald do what was required to ensure that particular copy was 'discovered' during the Warren Commission investigation?
   
5. Why did Marina admit to taking the photos if they were in fact faked?
   

Now couple these questions with the studies undertaken on the photographs and negatives, which have failed to unconver any evidence of tampering.

What conclusion do you reach?

I think they're genuine. I'd bet my house on it.

Paul.

Hi Paul,

Like I said in another thread, I would take anything Marina said with great caution. Her testimony was very inconsistent at best. We can only speculate as to the reasons why, be it duress or whatever. But her testimony wouldn't have been admissable in court either.

It may be (and I admit I'm speculating) that the signed copy - which if I'm correct was with George DeM - was withheld till 1977 because of DeM's connections?

As for the lack of detection of fakery, well that depends who you talk to. Groden has "proved" that they're faked. I'm happy to bow to Craig Lamson's superior knowledge of photography, but if he's correct that it's not uncommon for fakery to be "missed" by observers, then that's hardly a ringing endorsement for authenticity.

I don't see how it's possible to build an argument which says "we've tested the photos & negatives and conclude that they're authentic" when the team examining them couldn't find forgery in an image they knew had been forged, and a photographic expert says forgery is often missed by those looking for it?

The multiple pictures question is a good one. You're right, it would theoretically increase their chances of detection. However, as I said above, if detection is difficult if not impossible, then maybe they were just that confident they'd never be scrutinised? What was it Dulles said? "No one will read the report"?

I'm sure the people that switched CE399 for a MC bullet never thought they'd be scrutinised either, but that's another thread. :-)

It would appear to me that if photographic forgery is at one end of the difficulty spectrum, handwriting forgery is probably at the other end. I'd only go 50/50 (at best) that the handwriting is authentic.

Jim D feels Oswald never ordered the rifle. I haven't seen all of that evidence yet so I have no opinion on that point. But if he didn't then it's over for the backyard pics.

If they're genuine, I'd love someone to show me how that nose/body shadow thing works. I remain open minded about that. If someone could show me a genuine instance of that shadow configuration, that'd be great.

You asked me what conclusions I reach. Well, "conclusions" has an air of finality and immutability to it, and I remain open minded. My overally impression at the moment leans towards them being fakes.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Martin White

[Martin White]

Also, if you rotate the image anti-clockwise by about 2 degrees, which is what is required to make the stair posts vertical, Oswald's stance looks even more bizarre than normal.

And is that a ring on the third finger of the right hand in this image?

http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald's%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

[Paul Baker]

Like I said in another thread, I would take anything Marina said with great caution. Her testimony was very inconsistent at best. We can only speculate as to the reasons why, be it duress or whatever. But her testimony wouldn't have been admissable in court either.

Ok, but I still don't understand what would motivate her to say she took the pictures (thereby confirming their authenticity and implicating her husband) if she didn't.

It may be (and I admit I'm speculating) that the signed copy - which if I'm correct was with George DeM - was withheld till 1977 because of DeM's connections?

As for the lack of detection of fakery, well that depends who you talk to. Groden has "proved" that they're faked. I'm happy to bow to Craig Lamson's superior knowledge of photography, but if he's correct that it's not uncommon for fakery to be "missed" by observers, then that's hardly a ringing endorsement for authenticity.

I don't see how it's possible to build an argument which says "we've tested the photos & negatives and conclude that they're authentic" when the team examining them couldn't find forgery in an image they knew had been forged, and a photographic expert says forgery is often missed by those looking for it?

It would appear to me that if photographic forgery is at one end of the difficulty spectrum, handwriting forgery is probably at the other end. I'd only go 50/50 (at best) that the handwriting is authentic.

Then why create the signed forgery at all, if it was to be witheld? That makes no sense to me. And why, in addition to producing another fake that wasn't needed, did they go one step further and forge Oswald's writing and signature on the back? Again, it makes no sense. As for Groden, he has no expertise in the field of photography or photographic anaylsis. That's not me discrediting him - he's admitted as much himself.

The multiple pictures question is a good one. You're right, it would theoretically increase their chances of detection. However, as I said above, if detection is difficult if not impossible, then maybe they were just that confident they'd never be scrutinised? What was it Dulles said? "No one will read the report"?

Confidence is one thing, stupidity another. We're talking about the possible exposure of a conspiracy and cover-up in the assassination of JFK. So it's certainly the case that those behind any fakery would not want to increase their chances of exposure, however small they perceive that additional risk to be, do you agree? But for argument's sake, let's say they could produce convincing fakes, one after the other. Photographic comparison between copies could expose forgery (stereoscopic analysis, for example), without each copy being detected as a fake in its own right.

You've overlooked the stereoscopic analysis. How on earth did the forgers pull that off?

Jim D feels Oswald never ordered the rifle. I haven't seen all of that evidence yet so I have no opinion on that point. But if he didn't then it's over for the backyard pics.

Jim D believes a lot of crazy things, but that's a different thread

You asked me what conclusions I reach. Well, "conclusions" has an air of finality and immutability to it, and I remain open minded. My overally impression at the moment leans towards them being fakes.

No problem, but conclusions can be invalidated when evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Paul.

[John Dolva]

I don't think the backyard photos are fake.

I don't think that Oswald needed to have picked up or ordered the weapons or fired them at any time in order to pose with them in the BYP's.

I think there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that there is a conspiracy to cover that up.

[Martin White]

Ok, but I still don't understand what would motivate her to say she took the pictures (thereby confirming their authenticity and implicating her husband) if she didn't.

Threats of deportation if she didn't comply?

Then why create the signed forgery at all, if it was to be witheld? That makes no sense to me. And why, in addition to producing another fake that wasn't needed, did they go one step further and forge Oswald's writing and signature on the back?

The pictures were part of the WC investigation. If the pictures aren't authentic (note: IF) then we don't know when the signed picture was created. It could possibly be that it was felt that producing a signed copy for the HCSA might have been another brick in the wall? Just speculation, I know.

You've overlooked the stereoscopic analysis. How on earth did the forgers pull that off?

I have no skills or experience to comment on that. It's a valid point.

Jim D believes a lot of crazy things, but that's a different thread

I understand that you disagree with Jim, but his claims are usually well documented and footnoted. This make his claims not only possible but plausible, rather than "crazy". IMHO.

[Martin White]

Also I'm not convinced that these two pictures are of the same man.

[Michael Hogan]

Like I said in another thread, I would take anything Marina said with great caution. Her testimony was very inconsistent at best. We can only speculate as to the reasons why, be it duress or whatever. But her testimony wouldn't have been admissable in court either.

Ok, but I still don't understand what would motivate her to say she took the pictures (thereby confirming their authenticity and implicating her husband) if she didn't.

The Warren Commission had difficulty in understanding her motivations on a lot of issues.

http://books.google....d nixon&f=false

http://books.google....ly lied&f=false

As for Groden, he has no expertise in the field of photography or photographic anaylsis. That's not me discrediting him - he's admitted as much himself.

I'm not offering an opinion as to Groden's qualifications or lack thereof. I would just like to see Paul Baker's source for Groden's alleged admission.

It's probably in Bugliosi's book somewhere.

From Groden's sworn testimony for the Simpson trial:

Q: Now, as a result of your experience as you've described it, your actual work experience and also your work with the committee, and also the

independent work you have done over the years, have you come to be knowledgeable about the various methods there are to alter photographs?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you come to be knowledgeable about the indications or signs in examining the photograph, as to whether or not it has been altered?

A: Yes.

[Martin White]

Mike,

I think that Groden exchange from Simpson was with the defence lawyer, yes?

I seem to recall the prosecution lawyer's cross-examination yielding very different results. That basically he had no qualifications? By the way, that's not to say that he has no knowledge or skill, just that he's not qualified in the way that experts at trial are required.

Martin

[Michael Hogan]

Mike,

I think that Groden exchange from Simpson was with the defence lawyer, yes?

I seem to recall the prosecution lawyer's cross-examination yielding very different results. That basically he had no qualifications? By the way, that's not to say that he has no knowledge or skill, just that he's not qualified in the way that experts at trial are required.

Martin

Again, I'm not debating Groden's qualifications. I just wanted to see Paul's source.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden1.htm

To tell the truth, discussions about this stuff no longer interest me very much. It's been beaten to death.