More on the BYP

[James DiEugenio]

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf

More interesting comments and some new information concerning those very fishy photos.

This time by David Josephs.

Read it until the end, even the HSCA did not buy the chin business.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Some individual or group went to a lot of trouble to create the BYP. The individual or group made mistakes, or created the appearance of mistakes, but did a good enough job for government purposes. Which leads me to ask: [1] What was this individual or group incapable of doing or unwilling to do? [2] Who had the capability of fabricating the BYP?

I've also begun to wonder about Marina's W.C. testimony; in particular, about the fact that we have to take her translator's word for the veracity of the translation. Absent solid corroboration, I no longer trust the translation.

[David G. Healy]

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf

More interesting comments and some new information concerning those very fishy photos.

This time by David Josephs.

Read it until the end, even the HSCA did not buy the chin business.

yes.... excellent work, great article!

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Dave.

BTW, the appeal of this subject is phenomenal.

That last time I looked, of the top five articles at CTKA, Jeff Carter's has four of the five.

Now, David's article is starting to come on.

People never tire of this subject, simply because I think they know something is rotten with those pics.

Edited October 3, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

On 10/2/2015 at 4:16 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

Some individual or group went to a lot of trouble to create the BYP. The individual or group made mistakes, or created the appearance of mistakes, but did a good enough job for government purposes. Which leads me to ask: [1] What was this individual or group incapable of doing or unwilling to do? [2] Who had the capability of fabricating the BYP?

I've also begun to wonder about Marina's W.C. testimony; in particular, about the fact that we have to take her translator's word for the veracity of the translation. Absent solid corroboration, I no longer trust the translation.

From page 3 of this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/15298-mr-and-mrs-hesterwho-were-they/&

"During the massive shell game that was played with Zapruder's film before it was developed in Dallas. the other film was already in the air. Or, as I elsewhere suggested, it was being developed in either the Hester’s lab, or in a mobil film lab somewhere”. 

Marilyn Sitzman, Charles and Beatrice Hester were filmed by Abraham Zapruder shortly before the motorcade arrived…..the same Charles Hester owned “Commercial Photography”…….

A Robert and Pat Hester were part owners, along with Fritz and Helen Holland of a company called “The National Film Company”…… The daughter of Robert & Pat Hester, Vicky Mayne who worked in the lab, of TNFC, told Harrison Livingstone that they had actually developed numerous films and photographs, including photos taken of the President’s body at Parkland. ..upon which seeing, she threw up…She also mentioned that she helped develop the Zapruder film…."

Edited March 30, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Micah Mileto]

Is this picture provided by Peter Lemkin supposed to be a cop with big ol' sunglasses?

 

[David Josephs]

Micah,

That image had been floating around the internet a while...It's supposed to be one of the originals used to create the BYPs.  

It's also the 133-C pose which was not recovered until 1977.  then again, why would they need a print of this when all that was needed was the negative...  ??

 Look at the chin, carefully...  sadly Hemming adds his $.02 at this link - anytime he gets involved we have to question the offering.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilsonS.htm

(PS... thanks David & Jim...https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsBYP.pdf is the pdf directly - sometimes easier to navigate)

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs

[Michael Walton]

This is a well-thought-out article by Josephs.  I, too, have always believed the photos were faked and actually over done...hilariously. It's almost as if it wasn't enough to have him holding the rifle; he also had to have him with the pistol and the Communist papers too.

There is one thing I think that's interesting that I came across.  In 1967 a guy (Cappel I think his name is) recreated the BYP and he actually did a pretty good job.  I've combined the two here.  Please be patient as it may take a moment for these animated GIFs to load.

The first one I lined up the left post:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxUmhReFRHaU9UbEk

The next one I lined up the shadow under their noses:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxOE9RQy1CTHUxZEk

Surprisingly, the nose shadow may be debunked here as the '67 photo's shadow does look like it can fall right under the nose while the other shadows do not.

One other one and I've always thought Lee's head seemed a little too large on his body so I a slightly shrunk it here. What do you think?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxX3NxbUpWdGxHQ1U

[Jeff Carter]

The HSCA put a fair amount of resources into a photographic “authentication” panel which examined the backyard photos extensively (see HSCA Appendix VI), and yet they were unable to explain the third pose which appeared at the time of their deliberations. R.L. Studebaker, of the Dallas Police, was interviewed to supposedly clear this issue up. The Studebaker executive testimony, regarding handling of photographic evidence by the Dallas police, is now available online: 

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146602&search=Studebaker_October+5+1978#relPageId=2&tab=page

Studebaker’s testimony leaves most of the important questions unanswered, and the HSCA left it at that. If the photos are authentic, as the HSCA’s panel suggests, then this third pose is confounding as there is no accounting for it in the developed story of how these photos came to be, and no accounting for how it ended up with the DPD shortly after the assassination. If the photos were faked, then the twelve year silence regarding the existence of this third version strongly suggests the provenance of the faked photos was known by, at least, the Dallas PD - and possibly Secret Service and FBI as well.

The HSCA really dropped the ball on this one.

[Michael Walton]

Good  point Jeff. But  can  you  comment  on  my GIFs? Just  wanted  to  get  your  thoughts.

[Jeff Carter]

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Good  point Jeff. But  can  you  comment  on  my GIFs? Just  wanted  to  get  your  thoughts.

I wonder when exactly the 1967 recreation was made. I am referring to the bush behind the figure - it looks like winter (or it is dead). 

There’s an obvious difference between the growth of the bush behind the Oswald figure in the original BYP, and that same bush in the DPD recreation dated to late November 1963. I don’t know anything about plants in the Dallas region, but a comparison between the growth of the two might help locate when the original BYP were taken (i.e. in the spring or in the summer).

That HSCA panel applied photogrammetry science big time examining shadows and sun angles etc, but at the end of the day everyone had to admit that a skilled forger with good equipment could swap an Oswald face onto another’s body. That’s why the BYP had to be approached in terms of their provenance, and that’s where the HSCA came up short.

[Tom Hume]

I'll hazard a comment, Michael: Nice GIFs and well presented. You wrote: “In 1967 a guy (Cappel I think his name is) recreated the BYP and he actually did a pretty good job.”

 

This leaves me wanting to know more about “Cappel” (or whatever his name is).

 

While I’m here, I’ll comment some more.

 

I’m pursuing the hypothesis that the BYP are a puzzle, just one of many, created by Oswald and his small band of good-guys. They called themselves “ICO” (“Igor”, “Case”, “Oswald”, and they had at least one civilian recruit, Wesley Frazier).

 

According to this hypothesis, the BYP puzzle was created in response to Oswald’s assignment (by Ferrie, Banister, Phillips, Hoover, et al) to buy a mail order rifle and revolver and have his picture taken with these (Oswald’s patsy bona fides). Oswald and company then produced a set of photos (possibly four in all) that were designed around naturally occurring anagrams that could reveal ICO’s stunt, a 3-D image of Wesley Frazier’s body with Lee Oswald’s head attached.

 

There are several puzzling anomalies in the set of pictures, one being Oswald’s tilt. When CE133A and 133C are straightened, Oswald is swaying 4 degrees to his right. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 “LHO SWAY REVEALED”

As others have done, Michael pointed out that Oswald’s head looks too large. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 

“O, A VERY SWELL HEAD”

 

My hypothesis suggests that Lee’s head was pasted on Wesley Frazier’s body. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 

“L HEAD OVERLAY WES”

 

and,

 

“H LAD OVER WESLEY”

 

And it’s Lee’s head which bears the “V” shaped shadow. “Lee Harvey Oswald anagrams to:

 

“LEE RELAY ‘V’ SHADOW”

 

And it’s Wesley brandishing the rifle. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 

“WESLEY HAVE A L ROD”

 

And it’s Wesley’s body in CE133A and 133C that has a half of a letter “O” visible on the fence near Wesley’s left knee. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 

WES RELAY HALVED “O”

 

I think that the “V” shadow and the “halved ‘O’” are the alignment points for properly sizing CE133A and 133C. When these two photos are properly sized and aligned, and rotated 88 degrees to the right, we get a 3-D set, a 3-D view of Lee’s back yard, Wesley’s body with four arms, and a dandy view of Oswald’s head in 3-D. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to:

 

“LAYER WES HALVED ‘O’”

 

and, 

 

“LAYER LEE ‘V’ SHADOW”

 

And another anagram of “Lee Harvey Oswald” combines the two above:

 

“LAYER WES ‘O’, L HEAD ‘V’”

 

I believe this stereoscopic image was taken with Oswald’s tripod-mounted Stereo Realist camera, which was rotated 88 degrees to the right (Marina’s one picture was just for show). The 3-D image was meant to be viewed with a “Stereoscope”, a common item even today, that requires a pair of square images mounted on a 7 inch card. 

 

(Note: The number “88”, and its factors ((1, 2, 4, 11, 22, 44, 88)) are very important in the ICO puzzle system. For example, “Historic Diary” anagrams to “Richard’s ’88’ Toy”, and there are “88” puzzles in the diary, “44” in quotation marks, and “44” in parentheses. The label on the “Undeliverable Package” contains “44” letters. “A HIDELL” when translated to numbers equals “44”, etc.)

 

I can’t say much more about the BYP or what appears to be a vast ICO puzzle system without getting into actual puzzle solving and introducing decoding keys (one simple key at bottom of post). Maybe someday I’ll get to a point where I can properly present my hypothesis, but for now it’s a work in progress. I’m not very good at puzzles, nor am I much interested in them. ICO’s puzzle system, however, got my attention because I strongly suspect these three guys actually did this, I suspect that there’s more too this than the ravings of a crazy old man (some may think that’s me).

 

Tom 

 

ICO’s common method for translating letters to numbers and vice versa:

 

(A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25) 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

 

19 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This is a well-thought-out article by Josephs.  I, too, have always believed the photos were faked and actually over done...hilariously. It's almost as if it wasn't enough to have him holding the rifle; he also had to have him with the pistol and the Communist papers too.

There is one thing I think that's interesting that I came across.  In 1967 a guy (Cappel I think his name is) recreated the BYP and he actually did a pretty good job.  I've combined the two here.  Please be patient as it may take a moment for these animated GIFs to load.

The first one I lined up the left post:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxUmhReFRHaU9UbEk

The next one I lined up the shadow under their noses:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxOE9RQy1CTHUxZEk

Surprisingly, the nose shadow may be debunked here as the '67 photo's shadow does look like it can fall right under the nose while the other shadows do not.

One other one and I've always thought Lee's head seemed a little too large on his body so I a slightly shrunk it here. What do you think?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxX3NxbUpWdGxHQ1U

Michael,

Your last gif, in which you shrink the head of LHO on the BYP, is brilliant.  It shows dramatically that the LHO head was pasted onto the body-double of the BYP.

However, you are mainly confirming the work done by Jack White back in the early days of this FORUM.  It has been established by everybody -- including Lee Harvey Oswald himself -- that a photo of his head was pasted onto somebody else's body.

What has not been established yet is WHO did this and WHAT EQUIPMENT was used, WHY and WHEN.

Naturally, the CIA-did-it theorists have their pat answer -- the CIA did not with CIA equipment to frame LHO for the JFK assassination.

But that doesn't account for the many sightings of the BYP before the JFK assassination -- or the possession of a new BYP by Geneva White, wife of DPD rookie, Roscoe White.

Or the sighting of the BYP by Michael Paine on April 2, 1963, as he told Dan Rather in 1993.

The one explanation that explains ALL OF THIS is the following:

• LHO did it himself, using the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall equipment; for fun and "plausible deniability." 
• It was made only a short time before (1) LHO was fired by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall; and (2) LHO tried to shoot General Walker at his Dallas home.
• Why in the world would LHO want to shoot General Walker?  Because of the Ole Miss riots, actually, and because George De Mohrenschildt hated General Walker, whom he and LHO called, "General Fokker."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 31, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jeff Carter]

hi Paul

Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP.

Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. 

And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Paul

Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP.

Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. 

And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.

Jeff,

Yes, I agree with you 99.99%.

My hesitation comes from the mood of the Warren Commission.  Ruth Paine was subjected to more than 5,000 questions.  The principal aim of these questions was to determine how far she might have been an accomplice to the JFK assassination. 

Was she a Communist?   If not, why was she so educated in Texas in 1963?   Why did she want to learn the Russian language?   Why did she want to take care of Marina Oswald?   What were all these Russian language magazines sent to her address in LHO's name?  Why was The Militant newspaper of the Communist Party in New York sent to her home address? 

Ruth Paine had to answer countless times that she was not a Communist.  It was fewer times for Michael Paine, but it was still palpable.

"What did you talk about with LHO," they pressed Michael Paine?  "Did you talk against General Walker?  What did you say?  What political meetings did you drive LHO to attend?   Which did you attend together?  Didn't some college students say that you bragged about having a Marine defector as a friend?"  

It was in the context of this witch-hunt that Michael Paine carefully maneuvered around testimony about LHO owning a gun stored at his garage.

Insofar as Michael Paine told Dan Rather in 1993 that he saw a BYP on April 2, 1963 (only 8 days before the Walker shooting), we must sternly ask why he didn't tell the WC about it.  The answer -- obviously -- is that the court would have seriously pinned Michael Paine to the mat for cavorting with a gun-toting Communist.  

And Michael knew it.

Yet MIcheal Paine did not perjure himself.  He was asked if he had any knowledge that LHO had guns.  His answer was "No," and that is actually the truth.  Just because Michael saw a photograph of LHO with guns, is certainly no proof that LHO himself owned the guns.

Why would Michael Paine stick his finger in the finger-trap like a child?  The heat was on.  The WC was looking for Communist Conspirators, in the worst way.   Michael Paine could feel it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 1, 2017 by Paul Trejo