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

[David G. Healy]

On 9/25/2023 at 1:51 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

In Shayneyfelt's expert opinion, the backyard images were not composites. In the case of the 133B negative, specifically, he explained the steps that would have been required and concluded that it didn't seem at all possible. In fact, he felt certain "beyond reasonable doubt" that it couldn't have been done.

It's an interesting tactic to attempt to build a positive case (using Shaneyfelt of all people) for the images being composites when you don't even believe that it's Oswald's face in the images.

lmao.... perhaps the air in Denmark is a little thin these days, eh?

[Gil Jesus]

13 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Another way of saying that he wouldn't be able to describe to you what they depicted. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.

I never lose any sleep over your INTERPRETATIONS of what the witnesses MEANT because your interpretations are usually wrong.

As they are this time.

The document didn't say he couldn't describe them. It said he couldn't recall any of the photographs, even though he testified that, we all looked at it and said, "that looks like the rifle used in the assassination". ( 7 H 209 )

Adamcik's testimony is corroborated by Detective Henry Moore, who testified that, "we all looked and commented on it." ( 7 H 216 )

Like Adamcik, Moore later told the FBI that he, does not recall any particular photograph recovered from that address. ( CD 1066, pg. 255 )

This in spite of looking at the photograph Gus Rose found and commenting on it at the scene. Only a couple of months after their testimony and all of a sudden these two detectives could not "recall any particular photograph" ?

Their statements to the FBI had nothing to do with any description. They all looked at the photo. They all commented on the photo. They mentioned the rifle in the photo. They knew what the photo contained.

A couple of months later, they told the FBI that they didn't know anything about, "any particular photograph recovered from that address."

Sounds to me like they were trying to distance themselves from the discovery of the photographs.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:00 AM, Jean Ceulemans said:

1) there is indeed very little information on the negatives PS : when returned, "2 negatives" became "negative" (error in writing or did 1 negative just disappear... ?)

2) some said the pics were "found" on the 22nd... 

3) next, an envelope probably for the re-enactment negatives, but impossible to say for sure... but 4 different positions making it interesting (wouldn't it be nice if D was LHO holding the riffle above his head... Marguerite would be right... again... nope.. not happening

 

I see J.B. Hicks' name there on the CSSS document.

He testified for the Warren Commission.

How many questions did Commission counsel ask him about the "backyard" negatives he received ?

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I never lose any sleep over your INTERPRETATIONS of what the witnesses MEANT because your interpretations are usually wrong.

As they are this time.

The document didn't say he couldn't describe them. It said he couldn't recall any of the photographs, even though he testified that, we all looked at it and said, "that looks like the rifle used in the assassination". ( 7 H 209 )

Adamcik's testimony is corroborated by Detective Henry Moore, who testified that, "we all looked and commented on it." ( 7 H 216 )

Like Adamcik, Moore later told the FBI that he, does not recall any particular photograph recovered from that address. ( CD 1066, pg. 255 )

This in spite of looking at the photograph Gus Rose found and commenting on it at the scene. Only a couple of months after their testimony and all of a sudden these two detectives could not "recall any particular photograph" ?

Their statements to the FBI had nothing to do with any description. They all looked at the photo. They all commented on the photo. They mentioned the rifle in the photo. They knew what the photo contained.

A couple of months later, they told the FBI that they didn't know anything about, "any particular photograph recovered from that address."

Sounds to me like they were trying to distance themselves from the discovery of the photographs.

It would've been awfully nice of them to mention that there was an exception, but perhaps they knew that the FBI hadn't come to talk about the backyard photos. The FBI were acting on a request from the WC to investigate the matter of the Walker photo with the obliterated license plate. It's nicely summarized in CE 1351.

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:31 PM, Mark Ulrik said:

It would've been awfully nice of them to mention that there was an exception, but perhaps they knew that the FBI hadn't come to talk about the backyard photos. The FBI were acting on a request from the WC to investigate the matter of the Walker photo with the obliterated license plate. It's nicely summarized in CE 1351.

Indeed, when they were asked to be specific (on another date) they confirmed recalling the pictures.  In the files there are at least 4 or 5 statements of them having found these specific pitures (wich one nicked 133D I don't know... )  

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Mark Ulrik]

13 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

 

Yeah, shows the value of asking direct questions.

[Jean Ceulemans]

And there are a number of statements of the off. together, just a few here I'll show 

On the 47 pics, mentioned earlier in this topic, they were listed under a seperate inventory, they were shown to Maria pretty fast as well.   But there is no point in repeating that when some refuse to read that document in all it's details.  That's it for the BYP to me !

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

The FBI were acting on a request from the WC to investigate the matter of the Walker photo with the obliterated license plate. It's nicely summarized in CE 1351.

Doesn't matter what they were there for.

All that matters is what the witnesses said.

And once again, your interpretation is wrong.

The witnesses were not talking about the Walker photographs.

And the key phrase is "any particular photograph recovered from this residence".

Allow me to explain it to you.

"ANY" is a word depicting something all-inclusive.

That means ALL of the photographs.

If they had said that the detectives did, "not personally recall any of the photographs they were shown", that would be exclusive to the Walker pics because those were the pictures they were shown.

But they didn't say that.

They said that they did not recall, "any particular photograph recovered from this residence".

I don't understand how you can't grasp the meaning of any photograph from this residence.

In fact, they reported the witnesses' answers to viewing the Walker pics separately.

When the Walker photos are shown to them, they couldn't recall any of them as well.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

How about : What if the pictures were found on the 22nd, when Moore wasn't present. Would explain him denying having seen the pics... SIMPLE (or not ???).  Ofcourse that would make the 3 others look very bad as they have stated it in multiple reports it was the 23rd.... but Morre refused to play their game untill Fritz gave it a shot, and in the end Moore would sign.

The above is speculation on my part, but I already posted O'Leary (newsreporter saying he noticed these picture before the 23rd search (got no response on that so I let it go).  AND there was another statement indicating the same (the Hester couple I think it was, from National Film Co or something like that ???) that said (or their daughter ?) they developped those pictures in the night of 22nd-23rd.... Don't remember... shady...

Anyway, combine the above with the stealing of a 3rd picture (also see previous post, no reaction to that).  

So, why bother ?

This forum is supposed to be about working TOGETHER to find the truth, I do not consider a place to preach a religion... Not to mention the rude remarks by your friend Healy... pfffffttt.  I try to keep an open mind, but I see here that that is useless with some people.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Mark Ulrik]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The witnesses were not talking about the Walker photographs.

Those interviews were specifically about one particular Walker photo, not the backyard photos. On other occasions, before and after, they did talk about the backyard photos. Read JP's posts if you don't believe me.