1978 Backyard Pictures

[Guest]

In 1978 these were still being presented as all the “original” versions in evidence, let's finish this... with those that are not shown here in the HSCA

**Picture removed to save space **

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Guest]

This, while :

1)    In the DPD archives were 2 prints of position 133 C (same developing style/print as 133 A Stovall), see attachment)

2)    In the DPD archives were a number of reenactment pictures in the style of 133-C, these had to be based on something, a negative or a pictures showing the same postions of the rifle and the newspapers, see attachment

So, DPD must have had - from early on - at least : 2 original (and different) negatives and 3 original (and different) pictures OR 3 negatives and 2 pictures (original = found at the Paine’s), displaying LHO in three different positions

When Dees/White was introduced in 1976 it was presented as the first of this "LHO-position"… while there was a negative and or prints already  in the DPD files.

ONLY showing 1 of 2 (they are pretty much identical

**Picture removed to save space **

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Guest]

"133-C Dees was deemed by the panel as a first-generation print, which would indicate the corresponding negative was also in possession of the Dallas Police. This negative is not in the record. The existence of this third pose, as a print or negative, is not accounted for anywhere in the official recounting of the investigation or the generated paperwork. However, when the Dallas Police and Secret Service photographed a recreation of the backyard photos on location a week after the assassination, the pose struck by the photographed officer was that seen in 133-C. Astonishingly, the House Select Committee expressed muted, at best, curiosity regarding this photo and the missing negatives."

The above from the excellent article by @Jeff Carter (thanks Greg Doudna for the link)

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

The 2 "Evidence 46" pictures are proof that DPD indeed had at least a negative (and had made prints),    they are in their archives today (I'd call them 133C(dpd)... :

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337630/m1/?q=oswald AND rifle AND backyard

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Matthew Koch]

This Documentary has some additional information on this subject.. 

 

[Guest]

Now, I can see people thinking 133C-dpd was a later copy of the 133C-dees

Nope...  even in Fritz' file I have only found 133A and 133B, but more important with the same writing "Evidence 46" and stamping

If someone has found other - early - references to 133C (prior to 133C-dees),  please let me know

PS : the handwriting somehow looks familiar, but I can not place it, it would have to be from someone in de DBP Bureau of Identification I guess, I could be mistaken of course

**Picture removed to save space **

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

This Documentary has some additional information on this subject.. 

 

Thanks, will look

[Guest]

133C dpd (higher quality print), so at least 3 different prints (probably a lot more) in the DPD archives, none of these made it to the WC/etc.   I don't have a clue why not....

**Picture removed to save space **

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Jeff Carter]

There is no reference to 133-C prior to the Dees copy, other than the recreation photo, which would be difficult to conceive as a coincidence. The Secret Service participated in the recreation so they also , with the DPD, knew of this photo in 1963. 

My speculation as to why this photo was effectively “disappeared” : it was the photo which was in DPD possession on the Friday night, and its removal from the record assisted the provenance established with the “discovery” of A and B the following afternoon.

[Charles Blackmon]

41 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

My speculation as to why this photo was effectively “disappeared” : it was the photo which was in DPD possession on the Friday night, and its removal from the record assisted the provenance established with the “discovery” of A and B the following afternoon.

That sounds about right.

[Guest]

I see, I do think the 3 different pictures A-B-C were still being duplicated at the same time IMO (given the identical markings on the back "Evidence 46").  The detailed top-description is different, but I think partially from the same "writer" in the ID-bureau / photolab.   

  

**Picture removed to save space **

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Denis Morissette]

 

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

There is no reference to 133-C prior to the Dees copy, other than the recreation photo, which would be difficult to conceive as a coincidence. The Secret Service participated in the recreation so they also , with the DPD, knew of this photo in 1963. 

My speculation as to why this photo was effectively “disappeared” : it was the photo which was in DPD possession on the Friday night, and its removal from the record assisted the provenance established with the “discovery” of A and B the following afternoon.

Really enjoyed the 5th part of the series on the BYP Jeff...  Thanks for the wonderful work.  
And for showing Michael Paine for who he was and will always be.

You feel the same about the 2nd negative? for which the HSCA is just plain stumped... but seems not to have done very much more about it.
Despite there been quite a few sources of the information

Maybe a different pose entirely, or maybe it had been tampered with so it needed to be gone...?
Does seem to help support that 3 photos were produced from one negative.  

And then what about when/how it was developed? Or are we to believe Oswald did that himself?

Maybe I missed that in your write-ups.

DJ

 

[Chris Bristow]

I have heard the 'Ghost Cutout' photos that show the near perfect outline of Oswald in 133c were found years later in with the contents from Roscoe Whites desk. I have also heard the official explanation was that White was tasked with testing Oswald's claim that the photos were faked by attempting to create a fake. Either way whoever made the cutout must have had other working copies of 133c to cutout Oswald and trace his shape into a background image.

[Jeff Carter]

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Really enjoyed the 5th part of the series on the BYP Jeff...  Thanks for the wonderful work.  
And for showing Michael Paine for who he was and will always be.

You feel the same about the 2nd negative? for which the HSCA is just plain stumped... but seems not to have done very much more about it.
Despite there been quite a few sources of the information

Maybe a different pose entirely, or maybe it had been tampered with so it needed to be gone...?
Does seem to help support that 3 photos were produced from one negative.  

And then what about when/how it was developed? Or are we to believe Oswald did that himself?

Maybe I missed that in your write-ups.

DJ

 

All I can say is clarification regarding the found negatives and other questions such as where did version C come from should have appeared in Studebaker’s executive testimony to the HSCA as he was the person best positioned to have first hand knowledge. But the HSCA interviewers did not ask the appropriate questions and therefore failed to clarify the issues raised by their own photographic panel. Their lack of curiosity revealed by the transcript is stunning. 

[Pat Speer]

This was an area of interest for me when I first joined the forum. I raised some points then that Gary Mack--who used to looky-loo on the forum, but who would not post--took offense with. He tried to bully me but reluctantly, after a number of emails, conceded defeat. 

My basic points (as I remember them) were as follows:

1. The official records indicate that two photos and one or two negatives were recovered by the DPD.

2. Two photos and one negative were turned over to the WC. 

3. As a blow-up for one of the photos was shown to Oswald, and as the negative for this photo was not found, it was assumed this negative was lost.

4. Defenders of the DPD insisted that this blow-up was taken from the full version of this photo, and that no negative was actually found of this photo, or lost.

5. A third photo was later brought forth by the widow of Roscoe White. This spurred the HSCA to investigate. Other copies of this same photo were discovered in the possession of a number of Dallas detectives. 

6. The HSCA photographic panel authenticated all three photos, and said they were first generation prints made from negatives. 

7. I acquired the HSCA testimony of Det. Studebaker, however, and he insisted he made numerous copies of the photos with a copy camera. He also said something which at the time I thought quite significant, and led me to donate this testimony to the Mary Ferrell site. He said he'd made copies of all the evidence photos, and gave them out as souvenirs to his fellow detectives, and even tried to sell a set to a local mob figure. (This made me wonder what other evidence had been sold off, and if the missing negatives had not in fact been sold off by corrupt employees in the DPD crime lab.)

8. My argument with Gary stemmed from my position that either the Dallas Police were lying about the use of a copy camera, or the HSCA photo panel was fooled and were not working with prints made directly from the negatives. If the latter was true, well, it meant that the HSCA photo panel had been discredited by the very men they were believed to be protecting, and that the photos had not, in fact, been authenticated. Gary tried to have it both ways--that the photos had been authenticated as first generation prints, and that the DPD did not misplace or allow to be stolen two of the three negatives. AS stated, he eventually realized he couldn't have it both ways. I think he opted to side with the DPD--men of integrity and all that--as opposed to the HSCA panel. But can't recall for sure. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Pat Speer