60th anniversary of the backyard photos

[Charles Blackmon]

Has anybody ever explained how the BYPs inexplicably turned up at the Paines on Saturday 11/23 while not being observed at this same location on 11/22 despite an exhaustive search by LE?

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Marina's word versus Lee's. Lee is infinitely more credible than Marina!  IMO

Oh sure.... the camera she didn't even know where the viewfinder was.

Another Marina lie. (Can't blame her though, given what she was put through.)

What.... you mean that faked autograph? LOL

Right. So, as usual, all the evidence is fake and every witness is a l**r, huh ? Seems like your answer for everything.

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Somewhere up above, Jack White is flapping his wings.

While down here the real world, Jack White's absurd photo "analysis" has, thankfully, been thoroughly debunked, but I wonder if the conspirators who operate the evil, modern-day Dealey Plaza surveillance system are wondering why Jack and John Costella never visit the area with their surveying equipment anymore?

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).

The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes.  During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast.  These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark.  In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints.  In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints.  The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.

The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.

When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.

Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.

To be fair, the HSCA panel also identified a few technical anomalies in the BYPs for which they had no explanation. The “fine lines” in the chin area are the classic example. The panel came up with four mutually exclusive possible explanations for those lines and admitted they had no idea what actually caused them. 

That is not proof of fakery, but it does suggest that the HSCA panel was biased. The panel did not investigate the possibility that the chin lines had an unnatural origin, even though they were unable to duplicate the lines in an unaltered photo. The lines were discovered through the panel’s digital enhancement process, and when they tried to reproduce the effect they could only find “similar, but less pronounced” lines in a genuine photo, which basically translates to “the reproduction effort failed”. This clearly caused some concern, because the panel decided to include three additional purely speculative explanations for the lines in their report in case the enhancement process theory was ever proven wrong. 

In other words, the HSCA report is not as conclusive as it claims to be, and only way to truly authenticate the photos would be to conduct a new examination with modern technology. 

I just complained about this in another thread, but a rarely mentioned and somewhat disturbing fact about the BYPs is that the “dull black envelope” in which the photos were allegedly discovered vanished and was never entered into evidence. That envelope should have been tested for fingerprints, traced to its supplier, and shown to the Paines and Marina to see if they recognized it. Instead, as far as I know, it disappeared in DPD custody and was never turned over to the FBI. There might be something I haven’t seen on this though, so if anyone knows what happened to the black BYP envelope let me know. 

[Tom Gram]

38 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Right. So, as usual, all the evidence is fake and every witness is a l**r, huh ? Seems like your answer for everything.

Oh come on. Even the WC realized that Marina’s testimony was full of contradictions and that she wasn’t a credible witness.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233350#relPageId=26

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Right. So, as usual, all the evidence is fake and every witness is a l**r, huh ? Seems like your answer for everything.

I don't believe all the evidence is fake, but I sure don't buy the official story about this evidence. Tom's pointing out that the HSCA experts did not really satisfactorily prove their authenticity just confirms for me that they are likely fake.  

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

While down here the real world, Jack White's absurd photo "analysis" has, thankfully, been thoroughly debunked, but I wonder if the conspirators who operate the evil, modern-day Dealey Plaza surveillance system are wondering why Jack and John Costella never visit the area with their surveying equipment anymore?

I don't remember everything Jack White said about his photo analysis. It seemed like there were enough posts to fill a book. While some of his ideas may have been shown to be wrong, I doubt he was "thoroughly debunked". 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I don't believe all the evidence is fake, but I sure don't buy the official story about this evidence. Tom's pointing out that the HSCA experts did not really satisfactorily prove their authenticity just confirms for me that they are likely fake.  

Red herring -- I don't believe HSCA ever claimed to "prove their authenticity".

They failed to find proof of inauthenticity or forgery. Not the same thing. 

In other words, the HSCA panel was not convinced by claims then popularly circulating, some of which continue to circulate, claiming evidence of forgery. Their finding was none of those claims proved forgery.

But the panel never claimed to have ruled out a very good forgery which they were not able to detect. I believe the panel explicitly said that was technically possible, not an excluded possibility on physical-examination grounds. (Tom would you say that is accurate description of the panel's finding?) 

When you (Tom) write, "The panel came up with four mutually exclusive possible explanations for those lines and admitted they had no idea what actually caused them ... That is not proof of fakery, but it does suggest that the HSCA panel was biased... In other words, the HSCA report is not as conclusive as it claims to be".

Whoah Tom, how is what you are saying different from what the HSCA panel said? You say "that is not proof of fakery" and the HSCA panel also said it was not proof of fakery. What's the difference?

The panel's only conclusive finding was finding no proof of fakery. Do you disagree with that conclusion on something else (since you are not disagreeing with that conclusion in this case)?

The only way you can disagree with that is to claim specific proof somewhere, but you're not doing that, are you?

(I hope I've got the HSCA panel's position described accurately. This is from memory.)

Edited April 3, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Jonathan Cohen]

50 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I don't remember everything Jack White said about his photo analysis. It seemed like there were enough posts to fill a book. While some of his ideas may have been shown to be wrong, I doubt he was "thoroughly debunked". 

Oh, he most surely was.. including many times right here on this forum, via Josiah Thompson's work quashing White's "Moorman in the street" nonsense, and on non-JFK sites such as Bad Astronomy, which destroyed White's "the moon landing was faked" claims.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Oh come on. Even the WC realized that Marina’s testimony was full of contradictions and that she wasn’t a credible witness.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233350#relPageId=26

I never said her testimony didn't have contradictions, but this can hardly be used to completely invalidate her claims that she took the photos. If she didn't, then who did? And if she didn't, then can you offer an explanation for the copy of the photo signed by Oswald and given to George DeMohrenschildt in April 1963?

[Charles Blackmon]

My eyes tell me fakery. The head size and position relative to the torso is bizarre. The leaning of the body without falling or showing signs of falling is equally bizarre.

In the absence of a true investigation using better tools than they had in 1978, none of these arguments that the photo is unaltered mean squat.

Even if these BY photos are genuine, it would just be more proof that Oswald was being sheep-dipped as a whacked out Communist sympathizer.

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

To be fair, the HSCA panel also identified a few technical anomalies in the BYPs for which they had no explanation. The “fine lines” in the chin area are the classic example. The panel came up with four mutually exclusive possible explanations for those lines and admitted they had no idea what actually caused them. 

That is not proof of fakery, but it does suggest that the HSCA panel was biased. The panel did not investigate the possibility that the chin lines had an unnatural origin, even though they were unable to duplicate the lines in an unaltered photo. The lines were discovered through the panel’s digital enhancement process, and when they tried to reproduce the effect they could only find “similar, but less pronounced” lines in a genuine photo, which basically translates to “the reproduction effort failed”. This clearly caused some concern, because the panel decided to include three additional purely speculative explanations for the lines in their report in case the enhancement process theory was ever proven wrong. 

In other words, the HSCA report is not as conclusive as it claims to be, and only way to truly authenticate the photos would be to conduct a new examination with modern technology. 

I just complained about this in another thread, but a rarely mentioned and somewhat disturbing fact about the BYPs is that the “dull black envelope” in which the photos were allegedly discovered vanished and was never entered into evidence. That envelope should have been tested for fingerprints, traced to its supplier, and shown to the Paines and Marina to see if they recognized it. Instead, as far as I know, it disappeared in DPD custody and was never turned over to the FBI. There might be something I haven’t seen on this though, so if anyone knows what happened to the black BYP envelope let me know. 

 

Again, 

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.

When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

The "fine lines in the chin" have nothing to do with anything, otherwise fakery involving these "fine lines" would have been detected when the photos were viewed using stereoscopic techniques.

 

[Michael Griffith]

My own modest offering on the subject:

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos

 

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Red herring -- I don't believe HSCA ever claimed to "prove their authenticity".

They failed to find proof of inauthenticity or forgery. Not the same thing. 

In other words, the HSCA panel was not convinced by claims then popularly circulating, some of which continue to circulate today, claiming evidence of forgery. Their finding was none of those claims proved forgery.

But the panel never claimed to have ruled out a very good forgery which they were not able to detect. I believe the panel explicitly said that was technically possible, not an excluded possibility on physical-examination grounds. I don't believe they denied that was possible. They just concluded they found no proof that was the case. (Tom would you say that is accurate description of the panel's finding?) 

When you (Tom) write, "The panel came up with four mutually exclusive possible explanations for those lines and admitted they had no idea what actually caused them ... That is not proof of fakery, but it does suggest that the HSCA panel was biased... In other words, the HSCA report is not as conclusive as it claims to be".

Whoah Tom, how is what you are saying different from what the HSCA panel said? You say "that is not proof of fakery" and HSCA panel also said it was not proof of fakery. What's the difference?

The panel's only conclusive finding was no proof of fakery. Do you disagree with that conclusion on something else (since you are not disagreeing with that conclusion in this case)? Where exactly are you differing from the HSCA panel in their conclusive finding of no specific proof of fakery?

The only way you can disagree with that is to claim specific proof somewhere, but you're not doing that, are you?

(I hope I've got the HSCA panel's position described accurately. This is from memory.)

Regarding the chin lines, the HSCA panel said:

Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph.

Their basis for that statement was that they found “similar, although less pronounced” lines on a genuine photograph, the lines didn’t show up using two other examination methods, and the lines were very fine and disconnected. The panel obviously wasn’t very confident in their analysis, because they also offered three additional completely speculative natural processes as alternate explanations. 

What the panel did not do is investigate the possibility that the lines were created by an unnatural process. That’s what I meant when I said the panel was biased. An objective panel would have looked at both natural and unnatural processes as potential sources, and evaluated probability based on the observed similarity of lines produced through each process with the lines in BYPs. 

According to the report, the panel only applied the enhancement process to a genuine photograph for comparison, and the results were inconclusive. It’s hard to find evidence of something without actually looking for it, so I think the panel overstated their case a bit. 

This is a questionable analogy, but it’s like if someone had a red bump on their skin that looked kind of like a pimple, but under a specific magnification technique the bump didn’t match the appearance of a pimple. The dermatologist then concludes that there is no evidence the bump is anything but a pimple, and provides four different explanations for how a pimple could have that appearance, without comparing the bump to any other potential sources of red bumps like bug bites using that same magnification technique. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Michael Crane]

There was a good speaker at a JFK conference that did a darn good job debunking the photos.It might have even been Michael.

Oswald in the backyard photos?  That dog won't hunt.