Jean Ceulemans Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said: That’s why I would like to see someone try to create fakes and see how successful they are. Faking in analog photography isn't really that hard. Yes, it's technical and you need to have the know-how, but it is not hocus-pocus, and when you spent enough time doing it (getting the smallest of details right) it's going to be very hard for someone to discover it. Unless... he has some original negatives... I a way (... I know it's not the same) you could compare it to learning how the use a fairly basic program like Photoshop, the basics take a couple of hours maximum. If you want to take it to the next level, you spent more time. In the late 1970's in my early teens I learned to develop "standard" analog pictures in a couple of hours (a couple of afternoons), including a few basic trics of the trade (like improving pictures that were under- of over- exposed). Certain special stuff, timing issues, types of paper, spec's of certain films, etc that came all a little later. Within a couple of months B/W analog photography held little secrets to me. I don't really do it anymore, untill some time ago when I bought a Cuera like LHO's Russian camera and I just had to try it... I have a friend who still is into the old stuff, prepped a film that we needed, and we had some fun experimenting with that old camera. It did have some issues, but old camera's all have issues... If you know them (takes some time) you can get it right and fix them but I didn't spent enough time with it later on. Back to the BYP's, I think if you look at the picture in Groden's "The Killing of a President", p.168, bottom, you will see a "not-so-bad" fake. It's clearly based on one of the Oswald BYP's (see the details in the picture, the bush on the right, etc. If he had spend some more time on some of the details it would have been a lot better and harder to judge (based on the picture printed in the book that is...). Parts of the fence were simply duplicated, exposing repeating in small details, giving away it's a fake. Anyway, I only wanted to say: yes the BYP's could be fake, BUT you really need the original negatives to 100% proove that... UNLESS some clear errors were made in the faking (like in the Groden one). Even to 100% proove you have a first gen print, you would need the original negative. BUT not all first gen prints are the same... you have the negative, and let's say you have some pics on paper X from store A, later you go to another store and I'm sure the result will be a little different... even using the same original negative... as it depends on the settings of the machine, or how it's done when manually. A short time of more or less exposing to the sensitive paper will shows differences in contrast etccc I have been looking at a lot of BYP's and most of them are touched up in one way or another (and pictures in magazines, newspapers, books... are always adjusted/tuned to the spec's, printing capabilities, type of paper, ink, etcccccc). I know they showed some BYP's to experts in the 1970's etc, but they were not told the pictures they had gotten were x gen prints, probably taken of a negative of a ... etc who knows... If you want a "good" fake : make a "somewhat lesser quality" picture of a "very good fake work" and destroy all the rest... So, IF the BYP's are fake, why did "they" leave the negatives lying around..., I simply don't get that part... it doesn't make sense... unless the negatives are created post... oops... Edited September 5 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said: Faking in analog photography isn't really that hard. Yes, it's technical and you need to have the know-how, but it is not hocus-pocus, and when you spent enough time doing it (getting the smallest of details right) it's going to be very hard for someone to discover it. Unless... he has some original negatives... I a way (... I know it's not the same) you could compare it to learning how the use a fairly basic program like Photoshop, the basics take a couple of hours maximum. If you want to take it to the next level, you spent more time. In the late 1970's in my early teens I learned to develop "standard" analog pictures in a couple of hours (a couple of afternoons), including a few basic trics of the trade (like improving pictures that were under- of over- exposed). Certain special stuff, timing issues, types of paper, spec's of certain films, etc that came all a little later. Within a couple of months B/W analog photography held little secrets to me. I don't really do it anymore, untill some time ago when I bought a Cuera like LHO's Russian camera and I just had to try it... I have a friend who still is into the old stuff, prepped a film that we needed, and we had some fun experimenting with that old camera. It did have some issues, but old camera's all have issues... If you know them (takes some time) you can get it right and fix them but I didn't spent enough time with it later on. Back to the BYP's, I think if you look at the picture in Groden's "The Killing of a President", p.168, bottom, you will see a "not-so-bad" fake. It's clearly based on one of the Oswald BYP's (see the details in the picture, the bush on the right, etc. If he had spend some more time on some of the details it would have been a lot better and harder to judge (based on the picture printed in the book that is...). Parts of the fence were simply duplicated, exposing repeating in small details, giving away it's a fake. Anyway, I only wanted to say: yes the BYP's could be fake, BUT you really need the original negatives to 100% proove that... UNLESS some clear errors were made in the faking (like in the Groden one). Even to 100% proove you have a first gen print, you would need the original negative. BUT not all first gen prints are the same... you have the negative, and let's say you have some pics on paper X from store A, later you go to another store and I'm sure the result will be a little different... even using the same original negative... as it depends on the settings of the machine, or how it's done when manually. A short time of more or less exposing to the sensitive paper will shows differences in contrast etccc I have been looking at a lot of BYP's and most of them are touched up in one way or another (and pictures in magazines, newspapers, books... are always adjusted/tuned to the spec's, printing capabilities, type of paper, ink, etcccccc). I know they showed some BYP's to experts in the 1970's etc, but they were not told the pictures they had gotten were x gen prints, probably taken of a negative of a ... etc who knows... If you want a "good" fake : make a "somewhat lesser quality" picture of a "very good fake work" and destroy all the rest... So, IF the BYP's are fake, why did "they" leave the negatives lying around..., I simply don't get that part... it doesn't make sense... unless the negatives are created post... oops... I've suspect the BYP were staged, that is real, as part of the LHO biography build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: I've suspect the BYP were staged, that is real, as part of the LHO biography build. That´s indeed an option, and it is actually confirmed by what Rachel Oswald once said, that someone had requested to take those pictures. That statement (in an interview) went largely unnoticed I think. It´s in one of the interviews I recently all posted. Rachel in 1995 : "For example, right before the shooting someone asked my mother to take a picture of Lee holding a rifle" Where would she get that? She could have heard it from Marina, don´t know. Edited September 6 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted September 6 Author Share Posted September 6 7 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said: That´s indeed an option, and it actually confirms what one of Oswald´s daughters once said, that someone had requested to take those pictures. That statement (in an interview) went largely unnoticed I think. It´s in one of the interviews I recently all posted. She could have heard it from Marina, don´t know. Some people have observed that a true and knowledgable leftie would not have had the two newspapers that LHO held in one of the photos, as the papers were from opposing camps of Marxism. That makes me weary just reading about it; I can imagine the strained arguments and antipathy taking place, c. early 1960s, in some forlorn academic lounge with ugly couches in New Haven. But anyway, maybe that is what happened. LHO was staging the photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 Not sure you can stage this pose Ben…. image reversed for dramatic effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted September 6 Author Share Posted September 6 34 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said: Not sure you can stage this pose Ben…. image reversed for dramatic effect The Leaning Tower of Pizza is not faked! (Yes, I know it is "Pisa," but everyone says "pizza.") Try holding a heavy rifle in one arm. You might lean against the weight of the rifle. The photo sure looks faked. Like a three-dollar bill. But then, evidently much of the photo is "true," such as shadows. Those are the two newspapers in LHO's hand, read by lefties of the day, of the true but conflicting interpretations of Marxism. Some say that is a give-away LHO was not a true leftie. Maybe he was just spoofing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 7 hours ago, Sean Coleman said: Not sure you can stage this pose Ben…. image reversed for dramatic effect Unless the photo is a composite of several different elements, somebody struck that pose. I can understand replacing the face but why choose an elaborate cut and paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 Most people relax for a pic, I don’t know that anyone could strike this pose, try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 (edited) 18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: I've suspect the BYP were staged, that is real, as part of the LHO biography build. Oswald placing himself for hours into the middle of downtown New Orleans in broad daylight on a busy weekday in August of 1963 passing out "Hands Off Cuba" flyers in perhaps the second most rabid and violently Castro hating city in the United States at that time ( behind only Miami ) was as irrationally self-incriminating as taking back yard pictures of himself with his rifle, pistol and holding up two commie newspapers. Which he made copies of, kept around and even gave away ( De Mohernschidts?) ! Oswald knew he was being photographed, filmed and being given media coverage while passing out his pro-Cuba flyers. He knew doing such a crazy thing in a place like New Orleans in August of 1963 ( like bullhorn promoting joining the U.S. Marine Corps in Berkeley, California's People Park in April of 1969 ) might very well incite some violent confrontation as it did with DRE head Carlos Bringeuir and his boys jumping him and slapping him around. Oswald milked his New Orleans Pro-Castro publicity stunt for all it was worth. He got filmed being arrested and even made it onto the local news airwaves debating Bringeuir! It's so obvious Oswald knew exactly what he was doing. He was building a pro-Castro background resume. Very publicly recorded. Whether Oswald did JFK ( on his own or as a conspirator or at all ) his public media coverage seeking New Orleans pro-Cuba flyer stunts, his Mexico City embassy hopping escapade and his commie mercenary backyard photo shtick ( and perhaps even his Edwin Walker pot shot shenanigan ) "forces" any intelligent person to consider the WC final finding scenario of Oswald as simply a lone nut who just impulsively seized upon the incredibly lucky chance moment of JFK's motorcade passing mere feet below him along with an equally lucky perfect shooting perch location with no connection at all to his laughably incriminating other actions just months prior to 11,22,1963 as ...well ... incongruously illogical crap. In my common sense contemplations anyways. Oh, and throw in Sylvia Odio's account of being introduced to Lee Oswald at her Dallas suburb apartment front door in September as well. She stated under oath she got a good look at him as did her sister Annie. Edited September 6 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 (edited) There are so many questions that will never get an answer, crazy Even very basic stuff like: - why couldn´t DPD provide the WC with the negative to 133A ? Where was it, who lost it? - why wasn´t 133C Dees/White or 133C Stovall handed over to the WC (they only surfaced in the 1970´s)? They were handed out to officers, and they simply had at least a bunch of copies in their file https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337630/ Funny thing in the numbering... as there was a mistake.., kinda like they didn´t even see there were 3 different versions/poses... When I looked into this stuff, at a certain point I simply stopped..., my list with questions like the above was so long that it was getting frustrated. All very basic stuff they screwed up... Edited September 6 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted Friday at 11:24 PM Author Share Posted Friday at 11:24 PM 5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Oswald placing himself for hours into the middle of downtown New Orleans in broad daylight on a busy weekday in August of 1963 passing out "Hands Off Cuba" flyers in perhaps the second most rabid and violently Castro hating city in the United States at that time ( behind only Miami ) was as irrationally self-incriminating as taking back yard pictures of himself with his rifle, pistol and holding up two commie newspapers. Which he made copies of, kept around and even gave away ( De Mohernschidts?) ! Oswald knew he was being photographed, filmed and being given media coverage while passing out his pro-Cuba flyers. He knew doing such a crazy thing in a place like New Orleans in August of 1963 ( like bullhorn promoting joining the U.S. Marine Corps in Berkeley, California's People Park in April of 1969 ) might very well incite some violent confrontation as it did with DRE head Carlos Bringeuir and his boys jumping him and slapping him around. Oswald milked his New Orleans Pro-Castro publicity stunt for all it was worth. He got filmed being arrested and even made it onto the local news airwaves debating Bringeuir! It's so obvious Oswald knew exactly what he was doing. He was building a pro-Castro background resume. Very publicly recorded. Whether Oswald did JFK ( on his own or as a conspirator or at all ) his public media coverage seeking New Orleans pro-Cuba flyer stunts, his Mexico City embassy hopping escapade and his commie mercenary backyard photo shtick ( and perhaps even his Edwin Walker pot shot shenanigan ) "forces" any intelligent person to consider the WC final finding scenario of Oswald as simply a lone nut who just impulsively seized upon the incredibly lucky chance moment of JFK's motorcade passing mere feet below him along with an equally lucky perfect shooting perch location with no connection at all to his laughably incriminating other actions just months prior to 11,22,1963 as ...well ... incongruously illogical crap. In my common sense contemplations anyways. Oh, and throw in Sylvia Odio's account of being introduced to Lee Oswald at her Dallas suburb apartment front door in September as well. She stated under oath she got a good look at him as did her sister Annie. JB-- Verily, it sure looks like LHO was building a biography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted Friday at 11:46 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:46 PM 7 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: JB-- Verily, it sure looks like LHO was building a biography. Especially his New Orleans activity. The backyard pics thing ( if true ) was so incriminating ( holding the alleged JFK death rifle and Tippit death revolver in his hands? ) it is simply laughable. Oswald having his wife take these and then keeping them around is so beyond stupid. Makes more sense if this was purposeful. "Look at me! Holding the two murder weapons right in my own back yard months before 11,22,1963. You can convict me now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted Saturday at 12:49 AM Author Share Posted Saturday at 12:49 AM 49 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said: Especially his New Orleans activity. The backyard pics thing ( if true ) was so incriminating ( holding the alleged JFK death rifle and Tippit death revolver in his hands? ) it is simply laughable. Oswald having his wife take these and then keeping them around is so beyond stupid. Makes more sense if this was purposeful. "Look at me! Holding the two murder weapons right in my own back yard months before 11,22,1963. You can convict me now! The HSCA looked at the BYP and thought they were real. But then, Michael Baden and HSCA counsel Blakey thought Connally's relatively large scar on his back was due to a tumbling bullet. Even though there was a small round hole in the back of Connally's assassination-day shirt, and Connally's surgeon had told the WC he had debrided, or enlarged, the back wound in treatment. Both Baden and Blakey had advanced degrees from universities, but appeared sincere in their observations. The powers of self-delusion are infinite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted Saturday at 01:47 AM Share Posted Saturday at 01:47 AM 55 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: The HSCA looked at the BYP and thought they were real. But then, Michael Baden and HSCA counsel Blakey thought Connally's relatively large scar on his back was due to a tumbling bullet. Even though there was a small round hole in the back of Connally's assassination-day shirt, and Connally's surgeon had told the WC he had debrided, or enlarged, the back wound in treatment. Both Baden and Blakey had advanced degrees from universities, but appeared sincere in their observations. The powers of self-delusion are infinite? Or Connally was turned at an angle (as he said) when he was hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted Saturday at 02:03 AM Author Share Posted Saturday at 02:03 AM (edited) 16 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: Or Connally was turned at an angle (as he said) when he was hit. Connally's surgeon described the initial wound as "ovoid" and running north-south in Connally's body. Pretty much describing a shot from above and behind JBC, and not tumbling. JBC's wound is consistent with a shot from the TSBD or Dal-Tex building, that had not passed through any other bodies. Shaw (the surgeon), who had worked on literally hundreds and hundreds of wartime gunshots, thought the JBC wound was indicative of separate gunshot that struck JBC alone. Shaw was puzzled by JBC's wrist wound, entrance on the dorsal side of JBC's wrist (the wristwatch side) which suggested yet another projectile had penetrated JBC's wrist. It is nearly physically impossible for a bullet to pass through a man's chest from the rear, and then to strike and pass through the dorsal side of the man's wrist. Shaw actually questioned the wrist surgeon about the direction of the wound, but the wrist surgeon said cloth-threads in the wound and other indicators proved JBC had received a projectile from the dorsal side. JBC also described bullets entering the limo as if from "automatic rifles." Neither the WC or HSCA seemed able to resolve these issues. Edited Saturday at 02:04 AM by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now