A question for the LNers regarding the Backyard Photographs

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Pat, it might be relevant to your photos but as I recall Tom Alyea claimed that Studebaker actually took two sets of crime scene photos, at least the box area; he maintained that Studebaker moved boxes during the process and could never recreate it exactly as Alyea had seen.  Therefore the boxes from the second set of photos, taken on Saturday, are not truly representative of the "snipers nest".   Interestingly that might explain why the DPD objected to printing everybody in the building and looking for prints other than Oswalds....Studebakers prints might have been all over.   In any event the idea of two sets of photos with the second done the following day and presented officially as "first day" evidence is pretty damming if true.

Chapter 4d at patspeer.com is almost entirely devoted to the sniper's nest boxes. It's a bit of a blur now but I think my presentation on this at Lancer got Deb and Sherry so excited Deb addressed the crowd and told them they needed to pay close attention to it because it was a big step forward. 

In any event, the official story holds that the boxes by the window were photographed on the 22nd, but that these photographs did not show Box D (the seat box) nor the empty space in the corner (where the bag was supposedly found). The boxes were then moved around while being dusted by Studebaker. The DPD then took more photos on the 25th of a reconstructed sniper's nest. After being delivered to the FBI, the boxes were tested with silver nitrate. Numerous prints were discovered that couldn't be linked to Oswald. Months later, after prodding by the WC, all but one of these unidentified prints were identified as belonging to Studebaker and an FBI agent involved in the transport of the boxes. That's the official story. 

I discovered that there was a lot more to the story, however.

For one, the DPD's early paperwork makes a number of references to a thumbprint found on Box D, the supposed seat box. This print was never identified and soon disappeared from the record. It seems possible, then, that someone smudged this print on purpose to hide that someone other than Oswald had handled the box. 

For two, the FBI took some sniper's nest photos on the 23rd, without the assistance of the DPD. These photos proved that Box A--the lone box on which Oswald's prints would later be discovered--was now missing. When the DPD rebuilt the sniper's nest on the 25th, moreover, they put another box in its place, and added a scar to this box to make It look like Box A. The official story holds that all the boxes remained in the sniper's nest till the 25th. This is a lie. 

But it gets worse. When the DPD provided the FBI with photos of the sniper's nest, they provided photos of the re-built sniper's nest without telling them. From looking at the photos, however, the FBI realized something was amiss. It was then and only then that the DPD admitted these photos were of a re-built sniper's nest.

This re-built sniper's nest was a fraud, moreover, Not only was the Box A in the photo not the original Box A, the stack in the window was placed about 8 inches to the west of the stack photographed on the 22nd. Even worse, a stack of four boxes just north of this stack was removed entirely, and without explanation. This served to misrepresent the amount of room in the nest, and make Oswald's supposed feat more believable. 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Mark Ulrik]

I suspect Studebaker's print was just more "contrasty". Notice how the number on the tape stands out, while the circled dent is close to indiscernible.

[Gil Jesus]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

It is possible the swelling on Oswald's left eye caused some blurred vision. If he closed that eye it would be better. Just a thought. 

Or maybe he just glanced at it. But I'm not talking about what he perceived, I'm talking about what he knew. If the photos were real and he recognized the photo he was shown and he knew he was wearing a holster when it was taken, why didn't he say that they superimposed a rifle and a gun-in-a-holster instead of a gun in his pocket ? 

This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

6 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

Perhaps the effect he was hoping for.

[Guest]

For other newbies like me, here's a link to the different BY photo's in one view (easy the compare size diff. etc)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99805#relPageId=1

I'm attaching a small version of that page because EF forum size restrictions

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
Pictures removed to save space

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I suspect Studebaker's print was just more "contrasty". Notice how the number on the tape stands out, while the circled dent is close to indiscernible.

Nope. I fiddled with the contrast on the original photos for hours and nothing remotely like Studebaker's images appeared. A change in contrast would increase the contrast over the entire image, while the contrast in Studebaker's images were only increased in certain areas. I once had a photographer girlfriend. We spent hours in the dark room together. She showed me how one could dodge and burn photos in the development stage to lighten certain areas and darken others. Studebaker's images were altered in the development stage. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Richard Price]

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Studebaker's images were altered in the development stage.

I am certainly no expert of the photography aspects of the case, but I agree with you on the "dodge and burn" procedure.  I learned this in a college class on black & white photography years ago.  I think I have seen evidence of this process on some of the other pictures in this case.  It can be done to ehnance parts of a picture OR to decrease clarity, although this is seldom what the developer is trying for.

[Pete Mellor]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I once had a photographer girlfriend. We spent hours in the dark room together.

but nothing developed in that relationship eh Pat?

[Pat Speer]

22 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

but nothing developed in that relationship eh Pat?

I set it up and you hit it. We should go on the road.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

but nothing developed in that relationship eh Pat?

LOL 😃

[Chris Bristow]

11 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Or maybe he just glanced at it. But I'm not talking about what he perceived, I'm talking about what he knew. If the photos were real and he recognized the photo he was shown and he knew he was wearing a holster when it was taken, why didn't he say that they superimposed a rifle and a gun-in-a-holster instead of a gun in his pocket ? 

This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

That's a very good point. I didn't recognize that before.

[Guest]

Anyone knows where this one came from ?

I.M.O. it's at least "based on"made out of" the "original" series (note the size of the bushes in the background), but LHO is "wiped out".   It is not from the later reconstructions, etc  So I'm guessing it's based on one of the series, but if it isn't....  well....

This one is from Groden's book, but he doesn't give a reference to where he got it.... (in his book he just says it's part of his collection)

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

This one is from the later reconstruction (showing it here just to compare to the first, from the DPD archive/Texas Hist.)

So where did the first (in previous post) come from ???

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Sean Coleman]

55 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Anyone knows where this one came from ?

I.M.O. it's at least "based on"made out of" the "original" series (note the size of the bushes in the background), but LHO is "wiped out".   It is not from the later reconstructions, etc  So I'm guessing it's based on one of the series, but if it isn't....  well....

This one is from Groden's book, but he doesn't give a reference to where he got it....

 

Groden’s (empty) pic identical to LHO BYP?

note burlap sack(?) and cardboard(?) sheet.

And shadows. Ha conspiracy exposed.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Anyone knows where this one came from ?

I.M.O. it's at least "based on"made out of" the "original" series (note the size of the bushes in the background), but LHO is "wiped out".   It is not from the later reconstructions, etc  So I'm guessing it's based on one of the series, but if it isn't....  well....

This one is from Groden's book, but he doesn't give a reference to where he got it....

Intriguing, but needs to be approached with caution considering Groden tried to pass off a fake autopsy photo as genuine in the same book ...