My four videos now free online...

[JL Allen]

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? From “The Assassin's Wife and the Quaker Woman Who Took Her In,” by Thomas Mallon:

Someone knocked on the door. Ruth answered it and was confronted by a group of law-enforcement officers, including men from the Dallas County sheriff's department. She thought that they were there to serve papers in connection with her divorce, until one of them announced that Lee was in custody, charged with shooting a policeman. When the officers said they wanted to come in, she managed to ask if they had a warrant. They assured her they could get one right away. "That's O.K.," she told them. "We're all upset. Come on in."

Ruth thought that "they'd come in and sit on my sofa and talk to me." Instead, "six guys spread out all over the house right away, like water." They asked whether Lee owned a gun, and Ruth said no. She translated the question to Marina, using the Russian word for "long gun" because that was the only one she knew. Yes, Marina responded, to Ruth's astonishment, Lee did have a gun. Marina then led the way to the garage. No mention had yet been made of the President; only of a murdered patrolman. But Ruth now understood what this was really about.

When I asked her, nearly forty years later, to reconstruct what happened in the garage, Ruth groaned, before saying that Marina "showed this blanket roll, which was on the floor. The officer picked it up, folded it over his arm. It was empty. He didn't even have to open it. You could see it was empty. That was when I had this feeling, My God, it could have been Lee — that he came out last night, that the gun had been there. . . . That was probably the worst moment."

Ruth Paine did say that she met 6 officers at the front door - but officers testified that 3 went to front door and 3 went to the back. Officer Adamcik testified that he and the other two officers at the back door had to wait 3 or 4 minutes to be allowed entry at the back. He also testified that Officer Rose came in from the garage with the blanket shortly after he had come into the house. Officer Stovall said that Rose went out to the garage with Ruth Paine and Marina and returned shortly with the blanket. Ruth Paine - at the end of your posting - says that Rose picks up the blanket and hangs it over his arm shortly after being led to it's location in the garage. This is the 1st trip out to the garage to see the blanket - after which, it is brought into the house. However, Michael Paine has a completely different story to tell about the blanket in the garage. Everyone agrees that Michael Paine showed up at the house later than everyone else - maybe 15 or 20 minutes later. From the tesimony of Stovall and Adamcik - it sounds like that may have been too late to even witness the discovery and removal of the blanket from the garage.

Mr. Liebeler: Now, you mentioned before that after you arrived home you went into the garage when the police officers went into your garage. Was there any indication to you at that time that the garage had been previously searched by the police or anyone else?

Mr. Paine: This I don’t remember very well. But, as I remember, this was not the first time we had gone in there. I think, perhaps, they had gone into - I don’t remember, but I don’t think it was the first time they had gone in.

Mr. Liebeler: You said, when you did go into the garage, however, that the blanket was still there in the garage?

Mr. Paine: I think it was. I think it was still there.

(Even Paine himself was not sure if the blanket was still there!)

Mr. Liebeler: Tell us to the best of your recollection, what was said in respect of the blanket, and the search of the garage, as you say. Before you answer that question, let me ask you, did your wife go with you into the garage with the police officers?

Mr. Paine: I think they were further in in the garage. I think I stayed - the band saw is fairly close to - there is an overhead door to the garage, and close to the under edge of that when it is pulled up. In other words, it is fairly close to outside in the garage, and I think I stayed somewhat near the door entering the garage, which is the inside end of the garage.

Mr. Liebeler: And your wife was with the police officers further in.

Mr. Paine: Yes, I think she was.

Mr. Liebeler: Was Marina Oswald there?

Mr. Paine: Failure of recollection, I would say, yes. But, it is a very fuzzy recollection.

Mr. Liebeler: Can you tell us where the blanket was found?

Mr. Paine: It doesn’t really make sense as to why they would still leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket which was in exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been, underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it back there. He may have asked me at that time, “Did you know what was in this?”

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember that?

Mr. Paine: And that is why I think they asked me, it may have been as early as that, whether it was a rifle. “Do you think it could have been a rifle?” I don’t remember how it was posed, but I probably answered when it was suggested, it was a rifle, because there they had already learned from Marina that he had had a rifle, and it had been, perhaps, learned it had been in that blanket.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you know they had previously asked Marina about that?

Mr. Paine: No; but I think - I’m just telling you my impressions here, very fuzzy impressions.

Mr. Liebeler: Go ahead.

Mr. Paine: My impression was that they asked me if I knew what was in this blanket, or he asked me, and then he asked me if it could be a rifle, and I probably responded , yes. It didn’t take long once the rifle was suggested as the object to fit this puzzle together, this puzzle of the pieces that I had been trying to assemble in the package.

Mr. Liebeler: What else happened?

Mr. Paine: We went out of the garage. I don’t think he took the blanket then even.

“Also found at Mrs. Paine's garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker's house.”

The main players who discovered the “backyard photo” evidence (Rose, Stovall, Adamcik) all testified to the WC that there were 2 negatives found at the same time as the two photographs, 133-A and 133-B. There was also no mention of any negative being found which was any different from any photo found - in other words - no “third” pose. There is official documentation showing that Rose submitted TWO negatives as evidence at 4:30 p.m. on 11/23/63.

Someone knocked on the door. Ruth answered it and was confronted by a group of law-enforcement officers, including men from the Dallas County sheriff's department. She thought that they were there to serve papers in connection with her divorce, until one of them announced that Lee was in custody, charged with shooting a policeman. When the officers said they wanted to come in, she managed to ask if they had a warrant. They assured her they could get one right away. "That's O.K.," she told them. "We're all upset. Come on in."

Ruth testified that the 6 officers (Dallas and Irving) all came to the front door. The officers say that 3 went to the front door and 3 went to the back door. Adamcik, at the back door, says he waited 3 or 4 minutes to be admitted to the house (after the others).

On page 188 in Vol. VII of Stovall’s testimony he states that when Ruth Paine greeted the officers at the front door, she said, “Yes; You are here about this mess that’s on television.”

On page 191 of his testimony in Vol. VII, Mr. Ball questions Stovall again regarding Mrs. Paine’s statements upon their arrival - “Now, when you first went in, did Ruth Paine say anything about expecting you, or something of that sort?”

Stovall replies, “Yes sir; when we first came to the door and knocked on the door, she came to the door and she says, and we identified ourselves, she said “I have been expecting you. You are here about this mess that’s on television,” and the “mess that’s on television” at the time she was talking about was when they were talking about the President’s murder.”

But in Ruth Paine’s testimony in Vol. III on page 78, she is asked by Mr. Jenner, “The police arrived and what occurred?”

Mrs. Paine responds, “I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff’s office and the Dallas Police office, showed me at least one package or two. I was very surprised.”

Mr. Jenner: Did you say anything?

Mrs. Paine: I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation, “We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer.” This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day’s events…”

So... was Ruth Paine expecting the police to show up regarding “this mess on the television” - or, was she speechless with a dropping jaw - from the sheer shock of the initial realization of Oswald’s possible involvement? These recollections are 180 degrees apart. It must be one way or the other.

“She stated on the 22nd that he owned a rifle. On that same afternoon, they find the incriminating photos in a box when they sweep through the Paine’s garage.”

They did not find the photos on the 22nd. On the 22nd, even though Ruth Paine directed the police to where the Oswald belongings were located in her garage - the police ignored and avoided them - preferring instead to gather up the Paine’s belongings, that day. It wasn’t until Saturday afternoon, November 23rd, that Rose and McCabe and Stovall and Adamcik, etc. made the discovery of the photographs and negatives. There were supposedly other investigations at the Paine’s home by other agencies between the two Dallas Police searches - yet nobody ever recovered the Oswald belongings until Saturday afternoon - and, from the late afternoon to the evening of the 22nd - the home stood empty as everyone at the Paine home was driven to the Dallas station. At one point just before their hasty departure, a ranking Dallas policeman declares that they had wasted enough time at the Paine residence and everyone piles into the cars and head back to Dallas without nearly performing the kind of search which might reap any important evidence. It would all be left behind.

Mr. Paine: Yes, plainclothesman, in black hats; one of them had one of those Texas hats. He collected all the useless stuff in our house, he went around and collected all the files of Ruth, and a drawer of cameras, mostly belonging to me. I tried to tell him one of the files contained our music, or something like that, and the more I suggested it, that he not bother taking those, the more insistent he was on taking those objects. So with the various boxes and piles of stuff, mostly our stuff, we got in the car and went off, and he was quite irked that we had wasted quite enough time around there, he said, and Ruth was irked, and everybody was irked by it. He wouldn’t let us be helpful, and thought we were - he became angry when we tried to be helpful or something that we would suggest that he should do.

“… and he was quite irked that we had wasted quite enough time around there”?

What a bunch of lazy nincompoops. They were sent to search and recover evidence pertaining to the assassin. By all accounts, they weren’t there that long. They had been shown by Ruth Paine where Oswald’s things were located in the garage - but, they ignored them and did not collect them. They began the search by driving all the way from Dallas out to Irving - and brought no search warrant. Adamcik said they brought no warrant because they didn’t know what they would find out there. Excuse me? Don’t you need to search first - and, then - find whatever it is you might find? By not taking a warrant - they risked notifying possible conspirators at this household which was suspected of at times harboring the suspected assassin of the American President - that they were soon to be under investigation - as soon as they drove back to Dallas - went before a judge and obtained the warrant - and drove back to Irving - probably an hour’s warning to prepare for the police search. Then, after they are admitted without a warrant - they don’t collect the suspected assassin’s belongings.

Marina stated that she took the photos.

Once again, Marina originally admitted to taking one picture - and believed that the talk of two pictures was about two prints of the same picture.

"I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses."

Oswald was confronted with one of the photos on the 23rd. Simple enough for ya?

Oswald actually saw both 133-A and 133-B. He repudiated their supposed authenticity and said that he, personally, would prove how they had been fabricated - through the pasting of his head onto another‘s body.. The next morning, he was dead in the basement.

[Antti Hynonen]

Jack White: Thank you for making the videos available.

As to the backyard photos, as I recall, there was at the least one more pose sent to one of the major media companies in NY?

Gary Mack provided me with this information some time ago. Further, I recall him saying that this pose included no weapons.

So that brings the total to how many different poses? And Marina stated she took one or two photos....hmmmm

Edited August 7, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Pat Speer]

The link didn't work for me. Is the site temporarily down?

Brendan, even if you want to believe the photos are authentic there's a problem. The tally is now 3 photos. The negatives to all 3 photos were at one point in the possession of the DPD. Only 1 negative was handed over to the WC. Someone in the DPD stole 2 of the negatives. 1 of the photos was not given to the Warren Commission in any form. Robert Studebaker admitted making copies of the photos for his fellow officers to the HSCA. There is nothing in the record, as far as can be ascertained, on what he did with these negatives. Was he the one who took them? Were they sold to a collector? Were they made to disappear because they weren't authentic?

Marina remembered taking one photo. Marina and Marguerite remembered seeing one photo, and destroying this photo. Then three photos appeared. How could this happen?

Well, Michael Paine, for one, admitted to seeing the photo. If he had told this to police on 11-23,and the police couldn't find the photo, might not they have been tempted to create one? This man (in the DPD's mind) killed one of their own, as well as the President. No way would they let him walk. They knew DA Wade would never question the photo. Richard Stovall, one of the detectives "finding" the photos, just so happened to be a close pal of J.D. Tippit's. It just also so happened to be that his brother was Robert Stovall (I've seen birth records indicating they're related but haven't had the gumption to call any of the Stovalls in Dallas, to confirm their relationship.). Robert Stovall was Oswald's boss at the company where Oswald admitted that he'd learned to fake photographs. Isn't that a juicy coincidence? Isn't it possible that there's more to this story than at first meets the eye?

You need to get off your high horse and accept that some CTs, as paranoid as they may be, are better-informed than you on many of these topics. Slip out of attack mode. Slip into learn mode.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

The link didn't work for me. Is the site temporarily down?

Brendan, even if you want to believe the photos are authentic there's a problem. The tally is now 3 photos. The negatives to all 3 photos were at one point in the possession of the DPD. Only 1 negative was handed over to the WC. Someone in the DPD stole 2 of the negatives. 1 of the photos was not given to the Warren Commission in any form. Robert Studebaker admitted making copies of the photos for his fellow officers to the HSCA. There is nothing in the record, as far as can be ascertained, on what he did with these negatives. Was he the one who took them? Were they sold to a collector? Were they made to disappear because they weren't authentic?

Marina remembered taking one photo. Marina and Marguerite remembered seeing one photo, and destroying this photo. Then three photos appeared. How could this happen?

Well, Michael Paine, for one, admitted to seeing the photo. If he had told this to police on 11-23,and the police couldn't find the photo, might not they have been tempted to create one? This man (in the DPD's mind) killed one of their own, as well as the President. No way would they let him walk. They knew DA Wade would never question the photo. Richard Stovall, one of the detectives "finding" the photos, just so happened to be a close pal of J.D. Tippit's. It just also so happened to be that his brother was Robert Stovall (I've seen birth records indicating they're related but haven't had the gumption to call any of the Stovalls in Dallas, to confirm their relationship.). Robert Stovall was Oswald's boss at the company where Oswald admitted that he'd learned to fake photographs. Isn't that a juicy coincidence? Isn't it possible that there's more to this story than at first meets the eye?

You need to get off your high horse and accept that some CTs, as paranoid as they may be, are better-informed than you on many of these topics. Slip out of attack mode. Slip into learn mode.

Pat...look at the end of the link you tried.

Did it say .htm or .html?

If it said .htm then try adding an "l" at the end.

I believe the backyard photos were fabricated FAR IN ADVANCE.

I think Roscoe White participated in the fabrication.

Jack

Edited August 7, 2006 by Jack White

[James Richards]

Richard Stovall, one of the detectives "finding" the photos, just so happened to be a close pal of J.D. Tippit's. It just also so happened to be that his brother was Robert Stovall (I've seen birth records indicating they're related but haven't had the gumption to call any of the Stovalls in Dallas, to confirm their relationship.). Robert Stovall was Oswald's boss at the company where Oswald admitted that he'd learned to fake photographs. (Pat Speer)

Hi Pat,

The Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was Tolbert F. Stovall. Robert L. Stovall was his son who was elected President of the company in 1960. I once did some checking into this family and couldn't find a reference to Richard. Robert Stovall had two sisters but that was all I could find.

One interesting thing did pop up though, and that is a man by the name of Lewis Grinnan Jr. formed a development company in the early 1960's to construct low-rise apartments. Robert L. Stovall was a partner of this company. Lewis Grinnan Jr. was the brother of Joseph Grinnan.

FWIW.

James

Edited August 8, 2006 by James Richards

[Brendan Slattery]

HSCA:

4. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the

various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence

of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical

considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI

established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs

did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the

committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already

autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192)

Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his

signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been

faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to

Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be

the assassination weapon), and newspapers.

(438) While such access without Oswalds knowledge would

theoretically have been possible, it is regarded as unlikely.

Moreover, a fundamental question is whether a sophisticated

conspirator would expose himself to unnecessary risks of

detection by making three fake photographs, when just one would

suffice. Using stereoscopic analysis, any inconsistent evidence

of fakery would be detected, as literally floating in the image

space of the photograph.

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against

fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of

photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite

clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer

determined among other things how the subject would best be

centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite

marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints

were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store

photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated

conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to

a drugstore for printing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, common sense has never been a Buff strong point. "But .. but .. Oswald's signature is fake too!" Suuure it is. Take your ball and go home, gents.

[Pat Speer]

Richard Stovall, one of the detectives "finding" the photos, just so happened to be a close pal of J.D. Tippit's. It just also so happened to be that his brother was Robert Stovall (I've seen birth records indicating they're related but haven't had the gumption to call any of the Stovalls in Dallas, to confirm their relationship.). Robert Stovall was Oswald's boss at the company where Oswald admitted that he'd learned to fake photographs. (Pat Speer)

Hi Pat,

The Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was Tolbert F. Stovall. Robert L. Stovall was his son who was elected President of the company in 1960. I once did some checking into this family and couldn't find a reference to Richard. Robert Stovall had two sisters but that was all I could find.

One interesting thing did pop up though, and that is a man by the name of Lewis Grinnan Jr. formed a development company in the early 1960's to construct low-rise apartments. Robert L. Stovall was a partner of this company. Lewis Grinnan Jr. was the brother of Joseph Grinnan.

FWIW.

James

Thanks, James. Sounds like I finally got my answer on that little annoying question. One of the things that made me think they were brothers was that the only male Stovall born in Dallas in the year Richard Stovall said he was born, was the son of a Robert Stovall. Since the Robert Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was born a few years ahead of Richard, I assumed he was the first born, and had received his father's name. If I remember correctly, I think I found that Robert Stovall had a son named Richard--who I figured was named after his uncle. Even if they weren't brothers, I'd suspect they were related in some way, Dallas wasn't that big a town in 1963 and Stovall is not a common name.

[James Richards]

Thanks, James. Sounds like I finally got my answer on that little annoying question. One of the things that made me think they were brothers was that the only male Stovall born in Dallas in the year Richard Stovall said he was born, was the son of a Robert Stovall. Since the Robert Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was born a few years ahead of Richard, I assumed he was the first born, and had received his father's name. If I remember correctly, I think I found that Robert Stovall had a son named Richard--who I figured was named after his uncle. Even if they weren't brothers, I'd suspect they were related in some way, Dallas wasn't that big a town in 1963 and Stovall is not a common name. (Pat Speer)

Pat,

Richard and Robert may indeed be related somehow. I have not ruled out the possibility.

You are correct that Stovall is not a common name. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Mayor of Fort Worth was one R.M. Stovall. In 1975, he was honored with a testimonial dinner. The chairman of the dinner event and also a political contributor, was a H.E. Chiles Jr. I have not been able to find out if either of these men are related to the founders of Jaggers Chiles Stovall.

James

[Jack White]

Thanks, James. Sounds like I finally got my answer on that little annoying question. One of the things that made me think they were brothers was that the only male Stovall born in Dallas in the year Richard Stovall said he was born, was the son of a Robert Stovall. Since the Robert Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was born a few years ahead of Richard, I assumed he was the first born, and had received his father's name. If I remember correctly, I think I found that Robert Stovall had a son named Richard--who I figured was named after his uncle. Even if they weren't brothers, I'd suspect they were related in some way, Dallas wasn't that big a town in 1963 and Stovall is not a common name. (Pat Speer)

Pat,

Richard and Robert may indeed be related somehow. I have not ruled out the possibility.

You are correct that Stovall is not a common name. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Mayor of Fort Worth was one R.M. Stovall. In 1975, he was honored with a testimonial dinner. The chairman of the dinner event and also a political contributor, was a H.E. Chiles Jr. I have not been able to find out if either of these men are related to the founders of Jaggers Chiles Stovall.

James

Sharky Stovall owned a Fort Worth office supply company. Eddie Chiles was a rich

oilman (The Western Company) and one time owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Eddie was very active in Republican party politics.

Jack

[James Richards]

Sharky Stovall owned a Fort Worth office supply company. Eddie Chiles was a rich

oilman (The Western Company) and one time owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Eddie was very active in Republican party politics. (Jack White)

Thanks, Jack.

Do you know if these guys are related to the founders of Jaggers Chiles and Stovall?

Below is an image of Dallas cop, Richard Stovall.

James

[Jack White]

Sharky Stovall owned a Fort Worth office supply company. Eddie Chiles was a rich

oilman (The Western Company) and one time owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Eddie was very active in Republican party politics. (Jack White)

Thanks, Jack.

Do you know if these guys are related to the founders of Jaggers Chiles and Stovall?

Below is an image of Dallas cop, Richard Stovall.

James

Unlikely.

And you make a common misspelling. It is JaggArs, not JaggErs.

Fort Worth also had another prominent businessman of the 60s...George JAGGERS.

Jack

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Gee, BS can cut and paste. It's only a shame he refuses to consider the implications inherent in what he regurgitates.

HSCA:

4. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the

various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence

of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical

considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI

established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs

did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the

committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already

autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192)

Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his

signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been

faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to

Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be

the assassination weapon), and newspapers.

Not so, as anyone who can think for themselves would realize. "... the committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already autographed the back of one of the pictures." The committee determined no such thing; the committee assumed that it must have been true, because there was only this brief window in which it could have occurred, if the photo and the date on the rear were genuine.

The photo wasn't discovered by the DeMohrenschildts until years later, and only presented to the HSCA in 1977, and even then neither of the DeMohrenschildt's could account for its sudden emergence among their effects, packed in storage for the duration of their stay in Haiti. If we accept what the DeMohrenschildts claimed about the photo - that they hadn't discovered it until 1967 - then the window for fabricating the photo was substantially greater - by three or more years - than the ten day period to which the HSCA alluded. And with it, far greater time in which to fabricate the writing [which was done twice, written by an unknown hand] and signature.

When coupled with the notable differences between this and the other known "backyard photos" - different development equipment was used, different border frame was employed, far greater clarity was evident in the latter-emerging photo, suggesting the use of a different camera, or at least a different negative of superior quality - it appears that the matter is far from resolved by HSCA.

Moreover, even if one assumes that all the backyard photos were created at the same time, there is only one living person who could provide an approximate date of their creation, Marina Oswald. Given that she is cited by Harrison Livingstone as being shown those photos - and claiming "THESE AREN'T THE PICTURES I TOOK" - what is one to make of their provenance?

In one exposure, we clearly see "Oswald" wearing a ring that doesn't appear in the next exposure, taken only seconds or a minute earlier.

It might have been helpful had the Commission or HSCA been able to locate the items displayed in the photos that that were never found among Oswald's effects: the periodicals held by "Oswald," the watch and ring worn by "him," and the shirt "he" wore. The frugal Oswald seems to have disposed of these items by the time of his arrest on 11/22/63.

Uncited by BS' cut and paste is an admission he no doubt doesn't relish regurgitating, made by a member of the HSCA photo panel: "..."it is possible to make a false photograph that we would not be able to detect." Gee, no kidding.

Little wonder, given the obvious incompetence of those involved. For example, the HSCA photo panel stipulated that all of the photos they viewed and studied were first generation prints pulled directly from the Imperial Reflex negatives. Not so. A number of the photos supplied for their study came from the copy camera used by the DPD crime lab. So much for the infallibility of the HSCA photo panel. [i could go on and on with other such examples - inconsistent shadow patterns, anomalous similarities and differences between the photos and what they contain, etc. - but the key fact to which BS may wish to pay attention is that if one is to cite "expert conclusions" it would be helpful if they came from, you know, actual "experts."]

Speaking of which, here are three men who took great issue with the provenance of the backyard photos.

Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, whom I interviewed through the good offices of his son, whom I knew. Major Pickard expressed no reservation in declaring the backyard photos to be outright frauds, mostly for reasons I've not even mentioned above.

Former Scotland Yard Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, whose own analysis led him to agree with Major Pickard.

Perhaps closer to home is Hershal Womack, a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, who was quoted in the February 9, 1992, the HOUSTON POST commenting on the "...variety [NOTE THE PLURAL] of alleged inconsistencies with the backyard pictures."

(438) While such access without Oswalds knowledge would

theoretically have been possible, it is regarded as unlikely.

Moreover, a fundamental question is whether a sophisticated

conspirator would expose himself to unnecessary risks of

detection by making three fake photographs, when just one would

suffice. Using stereoscopic analysis, any inconsistent evidence

of fakery would be detected, as literally floating in the image

space of the photograph.

It is laughable that a panel that couldn't distinguish between a camera original and a DPD copy camera duplicate would contend "fakery would be detected" by them. More laughable still is that somebody considers these charlatans the final word on anything.

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against

fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of

photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite

clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer

determined among other things how the subject would best be

centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite

marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints

were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store

photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated

conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to

a drugstore for printing.

Where does one begin?

As to "the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs progressed," we can only marvel at Marina's lightspeed improvement in a matter of only a minute or so. According to Marina, her husband would walk over between exposures to forward the film for her. Contradicting this is the nearly perfect stasis of the camera lens, suggesting the use of a tripod more than any hand-held photo verite technique Marina developed in the course of one, no two, no three, no four, no five, or however many shots she'll now admit to having taken.

As for the presence of graphite marks, and the suggestion that this means a lower priced drugstore or photo finishing shop, a few other details may have been helpful to the HSCA's case. It might have helped had FBI or DPD been able to locate such a store that recalled having developed those prints; their developing provenance remains undetermined. More helpful would have been for the staff at the hypothesized photo development company to have called police to report strange photos of a man wearing several weapons and holding up strange literature. More helpful still would have been that very phone call being placed about the time of the General Walker shooting in April, not long after these photos were allegedly developed commercially. Less helpful, but still damning, would have been a call soon after the assassination from any commercial photo establishment alleging that they had developed the Oswald photos. Nobody seemed to recognize the man, and nobody seemed to remember having developed the photos, despite one being a LIFE magazine cover later the same year. Odd gap there, one thinks.

Finally, there is the purported unlikelihood "that sophisticated conspirators would have given the end product doctoring efforts to a drugstore for printing." Agreed. But if LHO didn't covertly hand-develop the prints himself at JCS in the five days of work he had remaining after the photos were presumably taken, and it seems unlikely he used a commercial facility, we can only conclude these telltale graphite earmarks of frugality were concocted for the very purpose they were intended to serve: it was a quality affordable to a man made frugal of necessity. Had they wanted to, I'm sure they could have achieved far greater finished results using an expensive Hasselblad camera, with million dollar developing room gear, but that would have been an obvious indication of counterfeit provenance.

Let us also bear in mind, as I've repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the Imperial Rolex was used solely to take photos that would later implicate Oswald. No baby photos, no pics of family; just the "casing" photos of General Walker's home and the backyard photos, presumably taken not far apart. There is no known evidence that the Imperial Reflex camera was among the Oswalds' effects at any location prior to its purported discovery in early '64, and the concommitant realization that it might actually mean something that required it being given to authorities - who, oddly enough, were trying to locate that camera to determine the genesis of the backyard photos. Quite timely insertion of evidence, one marvels.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, common sense has never been a Buff strong point. "But .. but .. Oswald's signature is fake too!" Suuure it is. Take your ball and go home, gents.

"Common sense" is anything but common. You need not reprove the point with each post, but feel free to cut and paste some more.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Jack White]

RC-D:

"Let us also bear in mind, as I've repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the Imperial Rolex was used solely to take photos that would later implicate Oswald. No baby photos, no pics of family;"

I believe that the HSCA came up with several Imperial Reflex LHO family

pix they said were made in New Orleans; I would have to check to make

sure.

There are also some pics of the Robert Oswald family...which raises the

question...did the camera belong to ROBERT Oswald? He is the one who turned it

over to police.

Jack

Edited August 9, 2006 by Jack White

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

RC-D:

"Let us also bear in mind, as I've repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the Imperial Rolex was used solely to take photos that would later implicate Oswald. No baby photos, no pics of family;"

I believe that the HSCA came up with several Imperial Reflex LHO family

pix they said were made in New Orleans; I would have to check to make

sure.

Thanks for the clarification, Jack. I stand corrected. While the WC inexplicably failed to find any other Imperial Reflex shots among the 75 photos they located, the HSCA did, as you state. Sgt. Kirk testified that he went to the Archives specifically to locate such photos, and in doing so to specifically refute the contention that the Imperial Reflex camera had been used only to produce the photos that later implicated Oswald. Sgt. Kirk claimed to have found about two dozen such photos. From my brief scan of his testimony, though, it appears that only one such photo was entered into evidence, which I've appended below.

Being incorrigibly curious, however, I cannot help but wonder how the Archives obtained photos by the mid-'70s that weren't among the evidence holdings during the Warren Commission's tenure. Not that it need necessarily be conspiratorial; but if these baby/family pics weren't considered of evidentiary value by the FBI and DPD in '63-'64, at what subsequent point were they suddenly considered of sufficient evidentiary value that they were obtained and entrusted to the Archives? Perhaps it's only me, but any time evidence arises only after it becomes necessary to preserve the official verdict, only once it is sought, it is of questionable pedigree. This is as true of the Imperial Reflex camera itself, undiscovered until late February '64, [much like a certain Minox camera], as it is of the innocuous photos purportedly taken by that camera, undiscovered until the mid-'70s.

There are also some pics of the Robert Oswald family...which raises the

question...did the camera belong to ROBERT Oswald? He is the one who turned it

over to police.

The assertion is that he turned it over to FBI on Feb. 24/64, and that Marina identified it as her husband's property on the following day. However, there is no contemporaneous FBI report in the WC volumes of an interview with either Robert Oswald - who had already completed his WC testimony and was thus unable to verify to the WC he had delivered the camera to the Bureau - or Marina. What the Bureau instead provided were synopses of events regarding the camera, only when its sudden genesis was questioned. Again, I find suspect any evidence that seems to materialize only when it is specifically required to preserve the official verdict.

Jack

[JL Allen]

(439) Another important consideration mitigating against

fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of

photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite

clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer

determined among other things how the subject would best be

centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite

marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints

were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store

photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated

conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to

a drugstore for printing.

Where does one begin?

As to "the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs progressed," we can only marvel at Marina's lightspeed improvement in a matter of only a minute or so. According to Marina, her husband would walk over between exposures to forward the film for her. Contradicting this is the nearly perfect stasis of the camera lens, suggesting the use of a tripod more than any hand-held photo verite technique Marina developed in the course of one, no two, no three, no four, no five, or however many shots she'll now admit to having taken.

In the depiction of CE 133-C, the shadow of Oswald's head does indeed rise up the fence a considerable distance - indicating the trajectory of sunlight from a LOWER sun, earlier in the day - and, the FIRST photo taken of the series. But, within the very same photo, the shadows of the telephone wires cast upon the stairway support post at Oswald's left are measured at their lowest point on the post of the three photos in the series indicating a trajectory of sunlight descending from a steeper angle - from a HIGHER sun and LATER in the day - revealing CE 133-C to be the LAST photo taken of the series. This conflict cannot exist in an authentic photograph. I believe that this is evidence of someone attempting to "manage" the visual elements of the pictures - and, making a slight - but, extremely serious miscalculation in the process. A quick assumption/conclusion which was "backwards" - producing a glaring, incompatibility - completely unrealistic according to the laws of physics and mathematics.

Compare 133-C... B... A... see for yourself. (photo removed to recover posting space.)

Edited August 14, 2006 by JL Allen