Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part IV

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv

[Mark Ulrik]

Quote

The Camera Panel also found the CE 133-B negative had been improperly processed causing emulsion tears. ( ibid., Pg. 353 )

The panel also found the same emulsion tears on :

the CE 134 enlargement made by police and shown to Oswald ( HSCA Report, Vol VI, pg. 155 )

both of the 133-C photos, 133-C / Dees and 133-C / Stovall ( 2 HSCA 354 )

on 133-A Demohrenschildt ( HSCA Report, Vol VI, pg. 155 )

and on CE 133-A / Stovall. ( 2 HSCA 358 )

This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs.

A coincidence ? I don't believe so.

I believe that this indicates that the processing of the "backyard" photographs was done by one source.

I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. Doesn't it seem reasonable to have your negatives developed all in one batch?

Quote

But the Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.

By avoiding these measurements, the Panel's data is incomplete and as such, its conclusion is nullified [...]

Junk.

Quote

[...] which puts us back to square one and the question:

Is it possible that the photographs could have been faked without leaving a trace ?

Short answer: yes.

FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt [sic], testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )

He went on to explain how it could be done:

"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )

Realizing that he had just spilled the beans, he added that, "it just doesn't seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph" ( 4 H 289 ).

Too late. The cat was out of the bag. He had just testified that the photos could have been faked without leaving any trace.

Twisting words. He was explaining how difficult and unlikely it would have been.

Quote

Over the years, much attention has been given to the possibility that Oswald's face was pasted onto someone else's body.

This attention has resulted from Oswald's allegedly telling the Dallas Police exactly that during his interrogation. But according to Detective Gus [sic] Rose, who was present when Captain Fritz showed Oswald the blowup of CE 133-A, Oswald also said that, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face". ( 7 H 231 )

Wait, did "someone" create a clever composite (or three) or photograph a lookalike in the backyard? Even Oswald was confused.

Quote

I took a bunch of photographs purportedly of Oswald and put them all together. I was able to find that there were six versions of Oswald. The six versions are horizontal and the vertical columns are the photos that match those six versions.

As you can see, none of these six versions of Oswald match the Oswald in the backyard photographs. It may be that the "backyard Oswald" was a composite or just a look-alike.

More junk.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Mark Ulrik

[Jean Ceulemans]

Gil quote : "This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs."

It's not strictly a matter of processing errors (dust in the camera can also cause emulsion spots, among a buch of other causes like using dirty water , a fast drying proces, spots can be on the emulsion side or the other side of a negative, etcccc).  

If the emulsion on the negative has these spots, the pictures developped from these will ofcourse also show them, unless they were removed (there are a number things one can do to remove them or cover them up).

So... especially with the BYP pictures, it would be very unwise to remove the spots in developping the actual pictures, as they are proof that a certain picture was developped from a certain negative.  They simply need to show the same spots.   

 

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

4 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Gil quote : "This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs."

It's not strictly a matter of processing errors (dust in the camera can also cause emulsion spots, among a buch of other causes like using dirty water , a fast drying proces, spots can be on the emulsion side or the other side of a negative, etcccc).  

If the emulsion on the negative has these spots, the pictures developped from these will ofcourse also show them, unless they were removed (there are a number things one can do to remove them or cover them up).

So... especially with the BYP pictures, it would be very unwise to remove the spots in developping the actual pictures, as they are proof that a certain picture was developped from a certain negative.  They simply need to show the same spots.   

 

 

 

The photos recovered from Geneva Dees in 1976 and by the HSCA from Det. Richard Stovall in 1978 had the same processing errors as the photographs allegedly found in the Paine garage on November 23, 1963. Did Oswald give them these photos ?

[Mark Ulrik]

Just now, Gil Jesus said:

The photos recovered from Geneva Dees in 1976 and by the HSCA from Det. Richard Stovall in 1978 had the same processing errors as the photographs allegedly found in the Paine garage on November 23, 1963. Did Oswald give them these photos ?

I think they got them from Studebaker. So what?

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

 

Twisting words. He was explaining how difficult and unlikely it would have been.

 

Great. So how unlikely would it have been? 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[Mark Ulrik]

Just now, Charles Blackmon said:

Great. So how unlikely would it have been? 

Beyond reasonable doubt, according to Shaneyfelt.

[Jean Ceulemans]

15 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

The photos recovered from Geneva Dees in 1976 and by the HSCA from Det. Richard Stovall in 1978 had the same processing errors as the photographs allegedly found in the Paine garage on November 23, 1963. Did Oswald give them these photos ?

If the original stabilzed negatives (first process) have certain emulsion spots, all the pictures developped (2nd process) from those will also show these spots. 

But, it is also possible emulsion spots were created in the 2nd process (and as such not visible on their negatives).

For forensic purposes one would never remove these spots (when duplicating pictures, etc)

[Gil Jesus]

17 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I think they got them from Studebaker. So what?

You think ? We're talking evidence here, not opinion.

So what ? Where did Studebaker get them from ?

Back in those days, you couldn't make copies of photographs without the negatives.

How did the Dallas Police make copies without the negatives ?

And if the copies were made using the negatives, where are the negatives of CE 133-A and CE 133-C ( Dees and Stovall ) today ?

The CE 133-C/Dees and CE 133-C/ Stovall were never reportedly found by the Dallas Police. According to your people ( the authorities ), only CE 133-A and CE 133-B were found in the Paine garage.

Where did this different photo with a different pose come from ?

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

If the original stabilzed negatives (first process) have certain emulsion spots, all the pictures developped (2nd process) from those will also show these spots. 

But, it is also possible emulsion spots were created in the 2nd process (and as such not visible on their negatives).

For forensic purposes one would never remove these spots (when duplicating pictures, etc)

How did these people come to possess these photos ?

[Mark Ulrik]

1 minute ago, Gil Jesus said:

You think ? We're talking evidence here, not opinion.

So what ? Where did Studebaker get them from ?

Back in those days, you couldn't make copies of photographs without the negatives.

How did the Dallas Police make copies without the negatives ?

And if the copies were made using the negatives, where are the negatives of CE 133-A and CE 133-C ( Dees and Stovall ) today ?

The CE 133-C/Dees and CE 133-C/ Stovall were never reportedly found by the Dallas Police. According to your people ( the authorities ), only CE 133-A and CE 133-B were found in the Paine garage.

Where did this different photo with a different pose come from ?

I'm sure a lot has been written about the missing negatives in this forum alone. Quite obviously, Studebaker must have had access to a couple of them at some point, but the emulsion tears were from the development process, and no one knows where Oswald had the negatives developed.

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Beyond reasonable doubt, according to Shaneyfelt.

Shaneyfelt explains how it can be done (obviously it can be done or he would not have detailed the process) but yet it is beyond reasonable doubt that it can't be done with the backyard photos? Thats B.S. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Back in those days, you couldn't make copies of photographs without the negatives.

Don't agree, in the 1960's one could reproduce photographs by making a picture of a picture.  As soon as film became commercially available people started making pictures of pictures in order to reproduce them, especially old pictures made with glass-plate-negatives (they were long gone).  My dad had some old family pictures reproduced by doing so, I still have those pictures (my dad was a photo-amateur, he had access to a friend's dark room).   That's what dragged me into photography.

And b.t.w. FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified to the same process :  "and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera"

[Mark Ulrik]

2 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Shaneyfelt explains how it can be done (obviously it can be done or he would not have detailed the process) but yet it is beyond reasonable doubt that it can't be done with the backyard photos? Thats B.S. 

Feel free to read his testimony. He walks us through the steps that would have been required to make a composite similar to CE 133B. He can't eliminate the theoretical possibility of undetectable forgery in the case of CE 133B, but finds it highly unlikely, based on his observations, experience, and expertise.

[Jean Ceulemans]

10 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Feel free to read his testimony. He walks us through the steps that would have been required to make a composite similar to CE 133B. He can't eliminate the theoretical possibility of undetectable forgery in the case of CE 133B, but finds it highly unlikely, based on his observations, experience, and expertise.

Absolutely, and adding to that:  the different poses, that's a lot more work, but also elevating the risk of making errors