Jump to content

Backyard pictures


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

Gentlemen, I could not have said it better, thank you!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're most welcome, Terry. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legs and stance look odd in CE-133 a, b, and c. Later photographic chicanery aside, is it possible a taller, slimmer man is contorting to appear shorter?

Also, as I have mentioned before - is there any other photograph of Oswald showing his legs in a similar pose? I doubt it, even absent the "falling over" aspect.

David, IMHO, the fakery in the creation of the Backyard photographs has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The main question to address now should be "who" created those fakes. That must be established before we address the problem of "why" or the problem of confederates or models.

IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald created those fakes, and he did so using equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (JCS). I believe this is exactly why Oswald was fired from JCS. The dates of the fakes seems to match up exactly to the date of his firing.

I once read that Oswald creeped out one of his co-workers at JCS by using his hand as a make-believe-gun, pointing his finger at his co-worker and whispering, 'pow!'

That would not be exceptionally creepy as an act all by itself, but if this was combined with Oswald's being loose and free with his Backyard photos there at the workplace of JCS, that would be way too creepy to tolerate.

I would like to ask the managers at JCS why Oswald was fired. I would like to look at Oswald's personnel file, and view any complaints about any obsession with guns.

We know, also, that fragments from cardboard cutouts of the Backyard photographs were found at the DPD station. Where did those come from? IMHO, they came from the managers at JCS, trying to be helpful in showing Oswald's darker side.

All that said, I want to emphasize that I am not a "lone nut" theorist. I reject the Warren Commission conclusion of a "lone gunman." I believe Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy, and I believe he was a confused young man who was easily manipulated. I believe he had no idea that he was being made into the patsy of the conspiracy. I believe he had many names he could have shared with the police and with the press in his last two days on earth, but he trusted his fellow conspirators.

Oswald trusted his accomplices, but they didn't trust him. Why? Because Oswald was a big-mouth. This was made plain in the Warren Commission testimony of George De Mohrenschildt. To understand the Backyards photographs, IMHO, we must regard them as one more example of Oswald's lack of discretion and his inability to keep secrets.

Marina only needed to take one photograph. Oswald dressed all in black so that his "double" could easily dress the same way. Oswald planned the entire Backyard photograph controversy, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are just times that I question whether that's the body of the Dallas-arrested Oswald in the picture. I'll admit that, as reported by Will Fritz, Oswald seemed pretty cool about the pictures, as if he had foreknowledge.

David, there's a good chance that it isn't the body of Oswald in those pictures. There was a reason that Oswald wore black when he asked Marina to snap his photo.

In my theory, Oswald had accomplices. Not just one or two, but many. When Oswald went out to shoot ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963, he wasn't alone. There were probably two others (according to the single eye-witness that night).

When Oswald went out taking photographs of ex-General Walker's house, he was never alone -- he had at least one other person with him, and they traveled by car. It's also possible that Oswald sent out flunkies to snap photographs of Walker's house, and they brought them back to Oswald, who developed the film.

Oswald's accomplices were probably young and slender, like he was. They would probably dress in black and pose for the shots if he asked them. Oswald's accomplices probably had their own cars and their own rifles.

Yet the most economical explanation to the Backyard photographs is that Marina snapped one photo (to get the face) and then Oswald snapped at least two more (for different poses) using one accomplice dressed in black. Then Oswald himself made many "fotoshop" style variations on these photographs using sophisticated photography equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall, where he worked.

It also makes sense to me that since Oswald was fired from JCS about this time, that the logical reason he was fired was that he was not discreet about using company equipment for personal use.

We don't have to imagine any long-term CIA plot for any of this. Oswald's whole life and fate would have been so different if he had just resisted the temptation to please Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt by killing ex-General Edwin Walker.

Actually, however, George De Mohrenschildt, who was a rich opportunist and not truly politically motivated, only wanted to prove he could control Oswald like a puppet. He didn't want to enter politics in 1963. He wanted to go to Haiti and get rich in the oil business.

So, when Oswald actually tried to kill Walker (but missed) it made a big stink in Dallas for several days in all the newspapers and on the radio and television. Three days later, on 13 April 1964, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt visited the Oswald's late at night, worried to death that Oswald might have been the shooter -- fighting with each other over the mess they might have made, and how this might ruin their oil contract in Haiti. Sure enough, they found the smoking gun in Oswald's house that night. They quickly left Dallas, and never saw the Oswalds ever again.

But before they left -- on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963 George De Mohrenschildt told his friends Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the wanted shooter that all the newspapers, radio and TV news shows were all talking about. Mrs. Voshinin -- the true hero of the story -- waited until George left her house, and then she immediately called the FBI and told them what she heard.

So -- just as Walker always suspected all his life -- the FBI knew about Oswald on 14 April 1963, but they didn't jail him. However, they most likely did warn Edwin Walker about this stalker. And Edwin Walker, a leader of the Texas Minutemen, had a colleague in New Orleans -- Guy Banister, a leader of the Louisiana Minutemen. Together they planned a paramilitary revenge on Lee Harvey Oswald.

If not for the Walker shooting, Oswald might have matured and eventually been hired by the FBI or the CIA as a regular, salaried employee. But now, after showing what an immature brat he was, Oswald's chances for regular employment by the Government were shattered. He was once again on the street -- and more vulnerable than ever.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, the fakery in the creation of the Backyard photographs has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Paul,

You've attempted to negate some of the points in favour of the backyard photos being genuine by suggesting that Oswald himself faked them. However, your theory has no foundation because the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine. Not beyond reasonable doubt, rather beyond almost any doubt.

Your idea, imaginitive as it is, holds no water. It requires Lee to have been almost an untouchable expert in the field of photographic manipulation and analysis, which you happily and somewhat arbitrarily assume he must have been. Even if this Gigantic leap of faith is a safe one to make, it still wouldn't explain how he was able to manually alter two of the photographs such that they are stereoscopically viewable without giving any indication of forgery. That is virtually impossible. It's also unnecessary in your scenario and another question remains unanswered: Why take the time and efffort to produce multiple fakes?

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

You've attempted to negate some of the points in favour of the backyard photos being genuine by suggesting that Oswald himself faked them. However, your theory has no foundation because the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine. Not beyond reasonable doubt, rather beyond almost any doubt.

Your idea, imaginitive as it is, holds no water. It requires Lee to have been almost an untouchable expert in the field of photographic manipulation and analysis, which you happily and somewhat arbitrarily assume he must have been. Even if this Gigantic leap of faith is a safe one to make, it still wouldn't explain how he was able to manually alter two of the photographs such that they are stereoscopically viewable without giving any indication of forgery. That is virtually impossible. It's also unnecessary in your scenario and another question remains unanswered: Why take the time and efffort to produce multiple fakes?

Paul.

Paul B., a number of photographic experts have examined the Backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. I'm certainly not the first to make that statement.

The most convincing argument, IMHO, is that of the two best-known photographs (published by the Warren Commission) the heads on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension -- and yet the bodies aren't identical, i.e. one is slightly closer to the camera than the other. That's a photographic impossibility -- therefore at least one of the photographs is a fake.

That's scientific evidence, IMHO. Further, you claim that there isn't any indication of forgery, yet even before the face measurements were performed, critics had noted bumps in straight lines, and other evidence of re-touching, including a flat chin on Oswald's face (who had a pointed chin) which is strong evidence for pasting.

Yet your final question is the most relevant: why would anybody waste valuable time making multiple fakes?

My opinion involves my emerging psychological portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't regard him as a Communist zealot, or as a right-wing zealot, but as a frisky wannabe, always hoping to impress older men who might offer him a permanent career.

Oswald was a radar operator for the Marines, with a high security clearance. He was a capable code-breaker. Oswald spoke Russian because he had intelligence training. Oswald wanted to be a spy -- I believe that can be demonstrated with ease. Yet Oswald was also a loose cannon, a boaster, and had difficulty keeping secrets (which is one reason why he was never hired permanently by the FBI, CIA, ONI or anybody in his chosen field of intelligence).

So, in my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald made multiple fakes of his Backyard photo because he imagined that he was about to do something big, bold and history-making (i.e. kill ex-General Edwin Walker) and he had two desires: (1) to boast to his friends, including George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine; and (2) to have plausible deniability just in case these photographs ever fell into the hands of the Dallas Police.

That is something that a young, wannabe spy would naturally do.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul B., a number of photographic experts have examined the Backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. I'm certainly not the first to make that statement.

Paul T., my understanding is that the photographs have been proven to be genuine, beyond any shadow of doubt. The studies undertaken to reach that conclusion have been extensive. So quite how any photographic expert can read those studies, yet nevertheless reach the opposite conclusion baffles me. Presumably the experts you refer to used different techinques, whilst completely disregarding those opposing studies. Who are the experts you refer to and what techniques did they employ?

The most convincing argument, IMHO, is that of the two best-known photographs (published by the Warren Commission) the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension -- and yet the bodies aren't identical, i.e. one is slightly closer to the camera than the other. That's a photographic impossibility -- therefore at least one of the photographs is a fake.

You need to look more closely. Oswald's facial expression is different in each of those photos. In CE133-A he is wearing a smug grin. In CE133-B he isn't; his countenance is more akin to a frown. You don't even have to have high quality blow-ups to be able to see the difference. They are not identical.

So, in my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald made multiple fakes of his Backyard photo because he imagined that he was about to do something big, bold and history-making (i.e. kill ex-General Edwin Walker) and he had two desires: (1) to boast to his friends, including George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine; and (2) to have plausible deniability just in case these photographs ever fell into the hands of the Dallas Police.

If Lee could produce a convincing fake, I've no doubt he could have produced multiple copies of that fake in order to sate his desires. He didn't need to spend what would have presumably been an inordinate amount of time creating additional, different fakes. By doing that, he would have also increased his chances of being discovered.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

You've attempted to negate some of the points in favour of the backyard photos being genuine by suggesting that Oswald himself faked them. However, your theory has no foundation because the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine. Not beyond reasonable doubt, rather beyond almost any doubt.

Your idea, imaginitive as it is, holds no water. It requires Lee to have been almost an untouchable expert in the field of photographic manipulation and analysis, which you happily and somewhat arbitrarily assume he must have been. Even if this Gigantic leap of faith is a safe one to make, it still wouldn't explain how he was able to manually alter two of the photographs such that they are stereoscopically viewable without giving any indication of forgery. That is virtually impossible. It's also unnecessary in your scenario and another question remains unanswered: Why take the time and efffort to produce multiple fakes?

Paul.

Paul B., a number of photographic experts have examined the Backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. I'm certainly not the first to make that statement.

The most convincing argument, IMHO, is that of the two best-known photographs (published by the Warren Commission) the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension -- and yet the bodies aren't identical, i.e. one is slightly closer to the camera than the other. That's a photographic impossibility -- therefore at least one of the photographs is a fake.

That's scientific evidence, IMHO. Further, you claim that there isn't any indication of forgery, yet even before the face measurements were performed, critics had noted bumps in straight lines, and other evidence of re-touching, including a flat chin on Oswald's face (who had a pointed chin) which is strong evidence for pasting.

Yet your final question is the most relevant: why would anybody waste valuable time making multiple fakes?

My opinion involves my emerging psychological portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't regard him as a Communist zealot, or as a right-wing zealot, but as a frisky wannabe, always hoping to impress older men who might offer him a permanent career.

Oswald was a radar operator for the Marines, with a high security clearance. He was a capable code-breaker. Oswald spoke Russian because he had intelligence training. Oswald wanted to be a spy -- I believe that can be demonstrated with ease. Yet Oswald was also a loose cannon, a boaster, and had difficulty keeping secrets (which is one reason why he was never hired permanently by the FBI, CIA, ONI or anybody in his chosen field of intelligence).

So, in my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald made multiple fakes of his Backyard photo because he imagined that he was about to do something big, bold and history-making (i.e. kill ex-General Edwin Walker) and he had two desires: (1) to boast to his friends, including George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine; and (2) to have plausible deniability just in case these photographs ever fell into the hands of the Dallas Police.

That is something that a young, wannabe spy would naturally do.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Lets start with the easy one first.

What "photo experts" declared the photos fake?

Next. Please show us these 100% identical heads.

Finally you claim only one photo was taken of the backyard and uses as a background plate for the rest of the images. If you are correct you can make ALL the background plates match exactly. Please do so by any means you choose and post the results.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets start with the easy one first.

What "photo experts" declared the photos fake?

Next. Please show us these 100% identical heads.

Finally you claim only one photo was taken of the backyard and uses as a background plate for the rest of the images. If you are correct you can make ALL the background plates match exactly. Please do so by any means you choose and post the results.

Craig, it's surprising to receive these decades old questions again, but I'll oblige.

First, among the many photographic experts who concluded that the Backyard photos are fakes, I will name only three. First is Robert Groden, a US researcher who has amassed more photographic evidence than perhaps any JFK researcher. Secondly, Major John Pickard of the Canadian Department of Defense, and an expert in photoanalysis, concluded that the photographs were subject to pasting and re-touching. Third, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert publicly announced (1978, BBC television) that the photos were fakes.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. A few minutes of patient Googling would reveal a tons of web sites on this. Start with Wikipedia. Here's one web site with a decent summary: http://www.pimall.co...s/backyard.html

As for the photographs in question, of course I'm referring to Warren Commission Exhibits CE 133-A and CE 133-B which were found in the Paine garage, along with negatives. In those pictures, the poses are very different, but the heads are absolutely identical (where in CE 133-B the head is deliberately slanted to the right). Use a ruler compass yourself to measure it, or take advantage of the extensive work done by experts whose work is widely published.

Another photo, 133C-Dees , was found separately, and it has a completely different pose, but again the head is identical -- pasted on.

Honestly, I thought all this was common knowledge.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some food for thought, or fuel for the fire. Note the statement in this video that George DeMohrenschildt claimed that the last-found Oswald photo had been planted in his house, and the assertions that it is not Oswald's or Marina's handwriting on the back.

I do not claim that these are accurate statements. However, Jack White is still with us here, decrying the authenticity of the first-seen photos:

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some food for thought, or fuel for the fire. Note the statement in this video that George DeMohrenschildt claimed that the last-found Oswald photo had been planted in his house, and the assertions that it is not Oswald's or Marina's handwriting on the back.

I do not claim that these are accurate statements. However, Jack White is still with us here, decrying the authenticity of the first-seen photos:

David, thanks for posting that link to the 50 minute "Special Report" on the Backyard photographs, which emphasizes the extensive work of photographer Jack White on this topic.

As for the De Mohrenschildt comment in the report, it was not George himself who said that, but he was quoted out of context. In his own booklet, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (which is freely available on the Internet) George explains how he found the photograph, among the English records that Jeanne had lent to Marina so long ago.

The photo was there along with Oswald's signature (which was confirmed by handwriting analysts) and a Russian language remark, 'hunter of fascists, ha ha ha,' which De Mohrenshildt believed was written by Marina as a sarcastic memo.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets start with the easy one first.

What "photo experts" declared the photos fake?

Next. Please show us these 100% identical heads.

Finally you claim only one photo was taken of the backyard and uses as a background plate for the rest of the images. If you are correct you can make ALL the background plates match exactly. Please do so by any means you choose and post the results.

Craig, it's surprising to receive these decades old questions again, but I'll oblige.

First, among the many photographic experts who concluded that the Backyard photos are fakes, I will name only three. First is Robert Groden, a US researcher who has amassed more photographic evidence than perhaps any JFK researcher. Secondly, Major John Pickard of the Canadian Department of Defense, and an expert in photoanalysis, concluded that the photographs were subject to pasting and re-touching. Third, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert publicly announced (1978, BBC television) that the photos were fakes.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. A few minutes of patient Googling would reveal a tons of web sites on this. Start with Wikipedia. Here's one web site with a decent summary: http://www.pimall.co...s/backyard.html

As for the photographs in question, of course I'm referring to Warren Commission Exhibits CE 133-A and CE 133-B which were found in the Paine garage, along with negatives. In those pictures, the poses are very different, but the faces are absolutely identical (where in CE 133-B the head is deliberately slanted to the right). Use a ruler compass yourself to measure it, or take advantage of the extensive work done by experts whose work is widely published.

Another photo, 133C-Dees , was found separately, and it has a completely different pose, but again the face is identical -- pasted on.

Honestly, I thought all this was common knowledge.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Groden is not a "photo expert". Pickard refused to comment on the findings of the HSCA photo panel. Thompson AGREED with the panel. Wanna try again?

Heads. Just show us. Make then all match...just like the backgrounds you can't make match.

You really have not done the work, have you?

Untitled-1-10.gif

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groden is not a "photo expert". Pickard refused to comment on the findings of the HSCA photo panel. Thompson AGREED with the panel. Wanna try again?

Heads. Just show us. Make then all match...just like the backgrounds you can't make match.

You really have not done the work, have you?

Craig, while I never claimed to be a photography expert myself, I readily acknowledge that there are different opinions offered by experts.

I really like your moving heads picture -- but what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change.

Common sense should tell you (as it has told genuine photography experts) that it is a logical impossibility (as well as a photographic impossibility) for a person to stand closer to the camera in one photo, and yet have the heads remain the same SIZE in both photos.

You seem to be in denial of the empirical and logical evidence. You provided ample evidence yourself of my main point -- the SIZE of the heads don't change.

Thanks for your excellent graphics.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension ...

... what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change.

You seem to have changed your mind.

I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs?

By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either :)

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...