Jump to content

Backyard pictures


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

HSCA Photo Panel Report.

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer determined among other things how the subject would best be centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to a drugstore for printing. Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary of the panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views. After studying the reports, Thomson deferred to the panel's conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery. He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination of copies of the photographs rather than the original material. Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photograph. The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of Defense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these photographs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated that he had performed no scientific tests on the photographs and had spent less than an hour examining the "very poor copies" that were submitted to him. (194)

Craig, thanks for this quotation from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) report of 1979.

This report makes the claim that Malcolm Thomson reversed his opinion, and that John Pickard reversed his opinion. It does not provide direct quotations for these experts, but speaks for them; in any case I will waive that point for the moment. You have supplied official evidence, and I thank you for your contribution.

I will note, however, that Robert Blakey, who took control of the HSCA in 1977, was very sensitive to the Backyard photographs, and he seemed to move heaven and earth to draw attention away from Lee Harvey Oswald and onto Mafia figures like Johnny Roselli, Charles Nicoletti, Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello.

Mafia involvement in the JFK assassination seems to be Blakey's obsession, and regarding the Backyard photographs, Blakey said:

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.” (Robert Blakey, 1978)

However, for the sake of argument, I will suspend my suspicions about these HSCA claims that Thomson and Pickard reversed their opinions, and I will assume, arguendo, that the HSCA was telling the truth about them.

Given that, I am intrigued about using Adobe Photoshop to get my own hands on these photographs. To my naked eye, the head on CE-133A looks too big for its body when compared with CE-133B. But optical illusions can be tricky, so I want to quantify my observations.

My main problem today is obtaining an appropriate reproduction of the photographs, CE-133A, 133A-DeMohrenschilt, CE-133B and 133C-Dees in digital format. When I go to the official Warren Commission Exhibits, for example, they offer only JPEG a couple inches long.

What's the best online source for a reproduction of these photos, Craig?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Best backyard image I've found on the web...

http://www.oswaldsgh...ard photo_1.jpg

The others not so much....just do a google and sort though them to find the best. Or order copies from the Archives.

Craig, thanks for the image of CE-133A, which is 5,283 pixels high and 4,234 pixels wide.

However, no surprise, but one image is useless when one wishes to compare two pictures.

I made a lengthy search of Google and other online resources, and cannot find any corresponding quality for CE-133B (or 133C-Dees, or CE-133A(DeM)).

Nor does my local University library have official quality facsimiles of these famous photos available. As a last resort I've asked NARA about their holdings -- no answer yet.

I need to be very careful about the copies -- I want to ensure that any facsimiles are exactly the same proportion as the originals.

I erroneously assumed that accurate copies of these photographs would be widely and easily available, having been in the public domain since 1964, with all the JFK interest over the decades, and the advances of the computer age.

What a surprise to learn that verification of the source photographs is still an issue. So, I'm still working this...

Thanks,

---Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, If you're serious about this and it means so much to your hypotheses then you'll find many postings that explain the processes to use. Once you've figured it out then further disussions can go on. . You're never going to find exactly matching pics. You'll just have to make do. You'll also find it's enough in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, If you're serious about this and it means so much to your hypotheses then you'll find many postings that explain the processes to use. Once you've figured it out then further disussions can go on. . You're never going to find exactly matching pics. You'll just have to make do. You'll also find it's enough in the end.

John, yes, I'm serious about it, and yes, it means a lot to my hypothesis, namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald himself made the fake Backyard Photographs at his workplace at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall in late March, 1963.

The HSCA rejection of the argumens of Thompson and Pickard (claiming that they retracted their assertions) seemed a bit strained, so I want to see with my own eyes if Pickard's findings (especially) were true and correct.

Groden claimed Pickard made colored transparencies of the heads, and that their overlay was "exact" (which was far more than one hour's work). For years I just accepted Groden's word. Now I want to see it with my own eyes.

One of the arguments of the HSCA arose from the problem of the sophistication of the fakery -- they admitted such fakes were possible, but they also doubted that anybody except the very wealthy had access to the kinds of equipment needed to make such 'flawless' fakes. Yet the HSCA did not consider the possibility that Oswald himself made these fakes at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall, which had such sophisticated equipment that they did work for the Federal Government.

My theory is a compromise between those who insist that the CIA (or fill in the blank) created these fakes, and those who believe it was impossible for anybody to create these fakes. My theory absolves the CIA of the fakes, and poses a probability that Jagger-Chiles-Stovall had the right equipment.

But first, I must get my hands on some reliable facsimiles of the Backyard photographs.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Paul, If you're serious about this and it means so much to your hypotheses then you'll find many postings that explain the processes to use. Once you've figured it out then further disussions can go on. . You're never going to find exactly matching pics. You'll just have to make do. You'll also find it's enough in the end.

So, John, NARA finally replied to me and invited me to purchase high quality reproductions of CE-133B and CE-133C for $20 each. That's expensive but I do want to repeat Major John Pickard's experiment. I'll post them to my web site at www.pet880.com soon after they arrive.

Best regards,

--Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's great Paul. If you need help with image editing programs there are plenty of tips around. If you are not used to it then it can take time. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need any help on any matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the URL of the Youtube video of Jack White where he goes into detail about the backyard photos, with especially the easel tilting that he discovered to make the photos perspective on the bottom?

I think it was posted here some time ago and i can't seem to find it.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the URL of the Youtube video of Jack White where he goes into detail about the backyard photos, with especially the easel tilting that he discovered to make the photos perspective on the bottom?

I think it was posted here some time ago and i can't seem to find it.

Thanks.

Jerry, is it possible that you're referring to this Special Report video footage?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Paul, thank you.

That's a segment of the program. I found the url for the entire clip. This complete clip goes in to more detail about Jack's findings, including his experiment with tilting the easel which creates a keystone effect and subsequently matches the backgrounds.

very interesting program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Paul, thank you.

That's a segment of the program. I found the url for the entire clip. This complete clip goes in to more detail about Jack's findings, including his experiment with tilting the easel which creates a keystone effect and subsequently matches the backgrounds.

...

very interesting program

Yes, Jerry, very interesting. Although I'm not a photography expert, I'm impressed by Jack White's technical and objective approach.

However, I flatly disagree with his conclusion. Let me quote his conclusion verbatim here:

"If they are fakes, as I feel I have demonstrated, then who produced them? Why they were prodced is obvious enough -- to incriminate Oswald as the Presidential assassin. But who had the ability to produce such forgeries? It seems to me they must have been made prior to the assassination, and this means someone other than Oswald had prior knowledge of what was about to happen. It also seems reasonable to conclude that these fakes were produced in a sophisticated facility, with all of the equipment necessary for the techniques used." (Jack White)

Here Jack White is repeating the same concerns as HSCA attorney Robert Blakey. If somebody else besides Oswald created the Backyard Photographs, then we have absolute proof of a JFK conspiracy, and we further have solid evidence that the conspirators were wealthy enough to afford highly sophisticated photographic equipment. (This would suggest to many people that a government agency, like the CIA, was involved.)

Therefore, Robert Blakey and the HSCA, just like the Warren Commission, were very one-sided and firm about their denials that anybody else besides the Oswalds was involved in making these photographs with an amateur Imperial Reflex camera.

Thus the HSCA and the WC came into contradiction with the material evidence (according to Major John Pickard, and Detective Malcom Thompson and of course Jack White). Thus the controversy would not go away.

On his side, Blakey rightly argued that the copy owned by De Mohrenschildt had an expert-verified signature of Lee Harvey Oswald on its back. Further, DPD officer Roscoe White had his own version of the photograph -- in a third pose (other than the two poses in CE-133A and CE-133B found in Mrs. Paine's garage, along with one and only one negative). Also, The Militant newspaper eventually admitted that it had received a copy of CE-133B from Oswald himself. Finally, Michael Paine told Ray and Mary La Fontaine that Oswald showed him a Backyard Photograph back in March of 1963.

So there is plenty of evidence to show that Oswald was possessive about this photograph back in March, 1963. That is precisely why I disagree so sharply with Jack White's final conclusion. White was right to ask the first question -- if they are fakes, then who produced them? Yet White fails to consider the possibility that Oswald himself made the fakes.

White was too hasty when he concluded that the Backyard Photographs were made explicitly for the purpose of incriminating Oswald as the Presidential assassin. That is a leap of logic without much basis. White is merely admitting -- in his own mind -- that the very existence of the Backyard Photographs is enough evidence for him to conclude that Oswald was guilty of killing JFK. That is a serious miscalculation.

The only thing the Backyard Photographs might plausibly demonstrate is that Oswald was planning to shoot at ex-General Edwin Walker. But so what? Even if Oswald was in the party that tried to kill Walker on 10 April 1963 -- that is no proof at all that Oswald was JFK's shooter. That is a leap of logic.

So, White was wrong -- it is a leap of logic to presume that the Backyard Photographs were made explicitly to incriminate Oswald of the JFK assassination. It is quite possible and even probable that the Backyard Photographs were made by Oswald to boast to insiders about shooting ex-General Edwin Walker. And this is apparently what Oswald did.

Next, White correctly asks, "who had the ability to produce such forgeries before the assassination?" Yet he fails to consider the obvious answer -- that Lee Harvey Oswald -- who was working at a sophisticated photography company (Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall) had such sophisticated equipment ready-to-hand. Thus White made his second error -- he mistakenly concluded that "someone other than Oswald" made those fakes. That is another leap of logic.

White's technical work appears eminently reasonable and logical; while White's conclusions seem hasty and biased to me.

Now -- somebody might well ask -- why would Oswald go to the trouble to make these fakes only to deny to Will Fritz that he made them? Yet I think that question answers itself. Oswald make the fakes precisely so that he could deny that they were real. It's called plausible deniability.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Paul, thank you.

That's a segment of the program. I found the url for the entire clip. This complete clip goes in to more detail about Jack's findings, including his experiment with tilting the easel which creates a keystone effect and subsequently matches the backgrounds.

very interesting program

Have you ever seen the results of this easel tilting by Jack White? Or is this something you are just taking on faith.

The fact is the backgrounds cannot be made to match ...ever. And you don't need to take anyone's word for it. Put the images in a program like photoshop and try to make them match. Its impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White's technical work appears eminently reasonable and logical; while White's conclusions seem hasty and biased to me.

Only the photographically ignorant. He simply had no clue what

he was doing or how to do it. There is a plethora of material on the web that shows just how and why he got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. Yet may he rest in peace and look at the message not the messenger. A lot of people have affection for Jack the man. I generally found him polite and friendly, after our initial spat I got a degree of respect for him personally. Yet, I dispute much if not most of his photo analysis.

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...