The Backyard Photos
David Von Pein
Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on
December 16, 2009 (the program is linked above). During the last few
minutes of the interview, the subject of the backyard photos came up,
with both DiEugenio and Fetzer (predictably) claiming that the
pictures are frauds, and claiming that the recent study done by a
Dartmouth professor is all wet.
It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for
these conspiracy clowns to finally admit that the backyard pictures of
Lee Harvey Oswald are genuine, unaltered photographs?
Firstly, of course, there was the investigation of this matter done
way back in 1964 by the Warren Commission (see the Warren Report,
beginning at page 592, linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0308b.htm
During his work for the Warren Commission, photographic expert Lyndal
Shaneyfelt of the FBI concluded beyond all doubt that the negative to
the backyard photo known as CE133-B (which is a negative that was
recovered from Ruth Paine's garage along with two of the backyard
photos themselves, CE133-A and CE133-B) was positively a negative that
came from Lee Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera to the
exclusion of all other cameras ever made.
Therefore, CE133-B is NOT A FAKED, FORGED, FRAUDULENT, or COMPOSITE
photograph. Period.
And if CE133-B is not a fake or a composite photo (and it certainly
isn't), then NONE of the other backyard photos depicting Lee Oswald
with a rifle and a revolver and two newspapers are fakes either.
Or do some conspiracists actually want to believe that only SOME of
the existing backyard pictures are forgeries, while one of them is the
real deal and genuine? Such a strange belief, of course, is just
downright silly.
In addition to Shaneyfelt's determination regarding the negative to
CE133-B having positively been taken with Oswald's very own camera,
there is, of course, the testimony of the person who admitted to
having taken the backyard photos--Marina Oswald.
Marina has said on multiple occasions that she positively remembers
taking pictures of her husband, Lee, while Lee was dressed all in
black and was holding a rifle and some newspapers. As recently as
November 30, 2000, Marina told a researcher (Vincent Bugliosi) that
she had, indeed, taken the backyard photos herself.
Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
CBS-TV in 1967 for the June '67 CBS four-part special "A CBS NEWS
INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT".
During the photo re-creation, a man went to the location where Marina
Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas)
to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.
On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Neely Street
backyard.
The end result of the photo re-enactment was that the shadows that
appear in the 1967 photo were EXACTLY THE SAME as they appear in the
1963 Oswald backyard photographs, right down to the ANGLED body shadow
and the STRAIGHT nose shadow.
The 3/31/67 photo reconstruction, which was an actual AT THE NEELY
STREET SITE test (not just a test done on paper or on a computer),
verifies beyond all possible doubt that the shadow patterns exhibited
in the 1963 Oswald backyard photos are perfectly consistent with
shadows that exist in a photo that was taken in 1967 for comparison
purposes.
Do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the 1967 CBS photo
(which contains the exact same shadow pattern as the LHO photos) is a
fake and a fraud too? If not, then how can conspiracists continue to
cry "foul" when it comes to one of their favorite gripes--the so-
called "shadow problems" with the LHO backyard photos?
Mr. DiEugenio and Prof. Fetzer should watch the video linked below. It
forever debunks the conspiracists who continue to insist that the
backyard pictures are phonies based on any kind of "shadow" anomalies
or discrepancies.
I apologize for the poor quality of this 1967 video excerpt, but my
only source material for this CBS program is not very good. But even
though the picture quality of this clip is fuzzy, the conclusions
about the backyard photos that are revealed in this video segment are
quite clear and persuasive:
http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html
IN SUMMARY:
In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
"backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
to trump the known facts.
David Von Pein
December 22, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-viewpoint.html
davidemerling
> http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jim%20die...
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/045b.+BACKYARD+PHOTO+O...
>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
> mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> "backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
> with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
> that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
> world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
> to trump the known facts.
>
> David Von Pein
> December 22, 2009
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
>
Your razor sharp logic (as usual) does not resonate with those who do
not respect (or understand) such logic. It's almost comical to hear
these critics continue to assert that these photos are not authentic.
I'm almost embarrassed for them as they continue their completely
unprovable rant on the backyard photos. I feel like just screaming,
"C'mon - give it up, already!"
1. If they were fakes, I'm wondering why the conspirators thought it
necessary to make MULTIPLE fakes. This only gives the investigators
MULTIPLE opportunities to find evidence of forgery. If the purpose was
to link Oswald with the rifle (as if there was not plenty of other
evidence that accomplished the same thing), you would think that ONE
photo would have sufficed.
2. These photos (and negative) have been examined using technology
that was not available back in the early 60's. It's unfathomable to
believe that today's modern technology in the area of photographic
analysis could be defeated by whatever technology existed in they
early 60's.
3. They have to believe that Marina was a liar on this issue. Why
would she lie about this? What would it serve?
4. How can they continue to deny the work of all these committees and
experts who continually assert that the photos are genuine and
unaltered?
5. Why haven't these critics done the most obvious thing? That is ...
create a similar fake (with the benefit of today's technology) and
submit them to a photographic expert and challenge him to prove that
it is fake. A better test would be to submit several photos with only
*some* of them being fake and challenge the expert to determine which
are fakes and which are not. To my knowledge, this has never been
done. The FACT of the matter is that it could NOT be done - especially
with three photographs.
6. The conspirators had to know that if Oswald was captured that he
would be confronted with these photos. If they are indeed fakes, then
Oswald would certainly say so. And he did! Which immediately puts a
microscope on those photos ... the LAST thing they would ever want.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
You may not realize it, but I have always said that the backyard photos
are genuine and the HSCA proved that.
But I am disturbed by you Pollyanna view of the world that no
conspiracies ever happen and that no one would ever have any reason to
do anything bad.
> 1. If they were fakes, I'm wondering why the conspirators thought it
> necessary to make MULTIPLE fakes. This only gives the investigators
> MULTIPLE opportunities to find evidence of forgery. If the purpose was
> to link Oswald with the rifle (as if there was not plenty of other
> evidence that accomplished the same thing), you would think that ONE
> photo would have sufficed.
>
There are two ways for a forger to approach the situation. First to
assume that only one photo is necessary as Oswald would naturally only
want to take one photo. This is simplistic and not a natural situation.
He should expect Oswald to take several photos, showing several poses,
and perhaps remembering to add things in later photographs. Maybe it's
because you don't have any real life experience in taking photos of
family, but it is quite typical to take three or four photos of the same
scene. Just as insurance that one does not come out, or to change the
pose to select the one which looks best.
Or a forger might want to take several photos to see which forgery comes
out best, throwing away the ones which are too obviously a forgery. Why
did LIFE bother to forge its copy of the backyard photo if you think it
is so obvious to everyone? Because they had a specific thing that they
wanted to change. They had mistakenly thought Oswald bought the rifle
without a scope so they thought they needed to remove the scope from the
picture. Likewise a forger might want to add a detail or remove a
detail, such as the model of the rifle, or the Communist newspapers to
link Oswald to a Communist plot. So there is plenty of motive. The
forger might also forget to destroy all the evidence of his forgery and
not realize that it may be discovered later, as happened to some famous
antiquities forgers in Israel.
For the second method, a forgery might need to start from scratch and
create the forgeries from a mock-up and paste Oswald's head onto a cop's
body. That is what Oswald was suggesting. But this runs into the problem
of Marina remembering that she took the photos. But of course she
remembered taking different photos which never appeared, so perhaps a
forger started with those and modified them to add or remove details.
If you think that people never create forgeries and that they are easily
detected then you're living in a fairy tale world.
> 2. These photos (and negative) have been examined using technology
> that was not available back in the early 60's. It's unfathomable to
> believe that today's modern technology in the area of photographic
> analysis could be defeated by whatever technology existed in they
> early 60's.
>
Maybe the forger would not care if the forgeries were detected 40 years
later. As long as they produced the results desired immediately.
It doesn't do the dead Oswald any good to be exonerated 40 years later.
> 3. They have to believe that Marina was a liar on this issue. Why
> would she lie about this? What would it serve?
>
Maybe just being merely mistaken and not lying would be enough. She took
some photos, but a forger might start with 2 known photos and create others.
> 4. How can they continue to deny the work of all these committees and
> experts who continually assert that the photos are genuine and
> unaltered?
>
Could be because the experts have lied to us so many times.
> 5. Why haven't these critics done the most obvious thing? That is ...
> create a similar fake (with the benefit of today's technology) and
> submit them to a photographic expert and challenge him to prove that
> it is fake. A better test would be to submit several photos with only
Why haven't the WC defenders done that? To prove how expert the experts
are at detecting forgeries?
> *some* of them being fake and challenge the expert to determine which
> are fakes and which are not. To my knowledge, this has never been
> done. The FACT of the matter is that it could NOT be done - especially
> with three photographs.
>
I believe some in the photographic panel such as Kirk have done similar
things.
> 6. The conspirators had to know that if Oswald was captured that he
> would be confronted with these photos. If they are indeed fakes, then
> Oswald would certainly say so. And he did! Which immediately puts a
> microscope on those photos ... the LAST thing they would ever want.
>
The conspirators had to know that Oswald would be dead within hours and
that they had the muscle to get away with anything they wanted to.
Everything had to be covered up because this was a Communist Conspiracy.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jim%20dieugenio%20re%20jim%20garrison.mp3
>
>
> Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on
> December 16, 2009 (the program is linked above). During the last few
> minutes of the interview, the subject of the backyard photos came up,
> with both DiEugenio and Fetzer (predictably) claiming that the
> pictures are frauds, and claiming that the recent study done by a
> Dartmouth professor is all wet.
>
> It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for
> these conspiracy clowns to finally admit that the backyard pictures of
> Lee Harvey Oswald are genuine, unaltered photographs?
>
> Firstly, of course, there was the investigation of this matter done
> way back in 1964 by the Warren Commission (see the Warren Report,
> beginning at page 592, linked below):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0308b.htm
>
Well, we can simply ignore the Warren Commission because we know it was
intended as a cover-up.
>
> During his work for the Warren Commission, photographic expert Lyndal
> Shaneyfelt of the FBI concluded beyond all doubt that the negative to
> the backyard photo known as CE133-B (which is a negative that was
> recovered from Ruth Paine's garage along with two of the backyard
> photos themselves, CE133-A and CE133-B) was positively a negative that
> came from Lee Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera to the
> exclusion of all other cameras ever made.
>
> Therefore, CE133-B is NOT A FAKED, FORGED, FRAUDULENT, or COMPOSITE
> photograph. Period.
>
> And if CE133-B is not a fake or a composite photo (and it certainly
> isn't), then NONE of the other backyard photos depicting Lee Oswald
> with a rifle and a revolver and two newspapers are fakes either.
>
How does that follow logically? A forger presents three paintings to be
sold. One is genuine and the other two are forgeries. So you are
claiming that if the expert says one is genuine that means the other two
must also be genuine?
> Or do some conspiracists actually want to believe that only SOME of
> the existing backyard pictures are forgeries, while one of them is the
> real deal and genuine? Such a strange belief, of course, is just
> downright silly.
>
A forger might need to start with one genuine photo to then use to
create the forgeries to add or remove details, like LIFE did.
Whatca got against the HSCA study?
> In addition to Shaneyfelt's determination regarding the negative to
> CE133-B having positively been taken with Oswald's very own camera,
> there is, of course, the testimony of the person who admitted to
> having taken the backyard photos--Marina Oswald.
>
Sure, the forgery taken by the real camera.
The camera which was in police custody at the time.
> Marina has said on multiple occasions that she positively remembers
> taking pictures of her husband, Lee, while Lee was dressed all in
> black and was holding a rifle and some newspapers. As recently as
> November 30, 2000, Marina told a researcher (Vincent Bugliosi) that
> she had, indeed, taken the backyard photos herself.
>
Yes, and she remembered taking at least one pose which has never
surfaced and she remembers destroying one.
> Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
> CBS-TV in 1967 for the June '67 CBS four-part special "A CBS NEWS
> INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT".
>
Not much better.
> During the photo re-creation, a man went to the location where Marina
> Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas)
> to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.
>
> On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
> day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
> LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Neely Street
> backyard.
>
Were the conditions that day EXACTLY the same? Why bother trying to pick
the exact same date and time if A) you can't prove the exact date and time
they were originally taken and B) the exact same date and time do not
match the original conditions 100%?
> The end result of the photo re-enactment was that the shadows that
> appear in the 1967 photo were EXACTLY THE SAME as they appear in the
> 1963 Oswald backyard photographs, right down to the ANGLED body shadow
> and the STRAIGHT nose shadow.
>
> The 3/31/67 photo reconstruction, which was an actual AT THE NEELY
> STREET SITE test (not just a test done on paper or on a computer),
> verifies beyond all possible doubt that the shadow patterns exhibited
> in the 1963 Oswald backyard photos are perfectly consistent with
> shadows that exist in a photo that was taken in 1967 for comparison
> purposes.
>
Consistent. A nice trick used by experts to try to make us think there
is a 100% match.
> Do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the 1967 CBS photo
> (which contains the exact same shadow pattern as the LHO photos) is a
> fake and a fraud too? If not, then how can conspiracists continue to
> cry "foul" when it comes to one of their favorite gripes--the so-
> called "shadow problems" with the LHO backyard photos?
>
Well, we know that CBS always lies so why bother trusting them on
anything?
slats
9019-715...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> Your razor sharp logic (as usual) does not resonate with those who do
> not respect (or understand) such logic. It's almost comical to hear
> these critics continue to assert that these photos are not authentic.
> I'm almost embarrassed for them as they continue their completely
> unprovable rant on the backyard photos. I feel like just screaming,
> "C'mon - give it up, already!"
No, they will never give up. Why? Because Kennedy's death didn't fit "the
narrative." As James Piereson put it so succinctly, "If Kennedy had been
killed by a right winger with the same evidence that condemned Oswald,
there never would have been any talk about conspiracies. It would have fit
neatly into the moral framework of 1950s and '60s-style liberalism. And
the liberals would have been off and running with it, and no one would
have talked about conspiracies."
The Dutchman
Tony, you're commissioning a cannonball to kill a mosquito. It's OK,
though. It's not taxpayer's money you're spending.
WhiskyJoe
> It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF
> OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for these
> conspiracy clowns to finally admit that
> the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey
> Oswald are genuine, unaltered
> photographs?
Hello David. Convincing DiEugenio and
Fetzer that the photographs are genuine
is easier than you might think.
You simply get your self a checkerboard,
then add a grain of rice to the first
square, then two grains to the second,
four to the third and keep doubling for
each square. By the time you have filled
in all sixty four squares, DiEugenio and
Fetzer will have become convinced in the
meantime.
Or, you can simply try making logical
arguments to both of them, but that
would take forever.
David Von Pein
>>> "We know that CBS always lies[,] so why bother trusting them on
anything?" <<<
Above, we are treated to our daily "LOL Moment", courtesy of Tony Marsh.
Simply hilarious, that Anthony is.