Post by Gil Jesus on Sept 22, 2023 4:25:54 GMT -5
The First Generation Photos
The House Select Committee on Assassinations' Camera Panel examined six photographs and the CE 133-B negative to determine whether or not they were faked.
Those photographs were CE 133-A & B, found in the Paine garage, CE 133A/DeMohrenschildt, CE 133/Dees (also referred to as CE 133-C) and two photographs recovered from Dallas Police Detective Richard Stovall (CE 133-A / Stovall and CE 133-C / Stovall) (2 HSCA 350)
The Panel found that the 133-B negative had been produced by the Imperial Reflex Camera. It also found that the six photographs were all first-generation prints. (Ibid., pg. 351)
A first generation print is a print that is made from the original negative. All six photographs were made from their original negatives.
Processing Errors
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 [Lee Harvey] 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.
If the photographs were made from the original negatives, why did the 133-A and 133-C negatives disappear? Why weren't they part of the official record? The answer may lie in what those negatives would have revealed.
Real vs. Fakery
The Warren Commission's own photographic expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, testified that any composite photo would have required retouching traces of fakery on the negative. (4 H 288)
The House Select Committee's Photographic Panel could find "no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." (6 HSCA 146)
Researcher Michael Griffith wrote a good critique on the issue of the HSCA and the backyard photographs. It can be found here:
drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view[/font]
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, 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 Shaneyfelt, 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.
Even if the photographs were not composites, the evidence is not clear that the figure in the picture is the same Oswald arrested by Dallas Police.
"That Is Not Even My Face"
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 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)
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.
Another reason to believe that the man in the "backyard photographs" is not Oswald, has to do with the clothing he wore in the photos.
The black shirt and black pants that are depicted in the photographs were never located. They do not appear on any evidence list of items taken from Oswald's roominghouse or the Paine home.
What happened to them?
The House Select Committee on Assassinations' Camera Panel examined six photographs and the CE 133-B negative to determine whether or not they were faked.
Those photographs were CE 133-A & B, found in the Paine garage, CE 133A/DeMohrenschildt, CE 133/Dees (also referred to as CE 133-C) and two photographs recovered from Dallas Police Detective Richard Stovall (CE 133-A / Stovall and CE 133-C / Stovall) (2 HSCA 350)
The Panel found that the 133-B negative had been produced by the Imperial Reflex Camera. It also found that the six photographs were all first-generation prints. (Ibid., pg. 351)
A first generation print is a print that is made from the original negative. All six photographs were made from their original negatives.
Processing Errors
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 [Lee Harvey] 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.
If the photographs were made from the original negatives, why did the 133-A and 133-C negatives disappear? Why weren't they part of the official record? The answer may lie in what those negatives would have revealed.
Real vs. Fakery
The Warren Commission's own photographic expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, testified that any composite photo would have required retouching traces of fakery on the negative. (4 H 288)
The House Select Committee's Photographic Panel could find "no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." (6 HSCA 146)
Researcher Michael Griffith wrote a good critique on the issue of the HSCA and the backyard photographs. It can be found here:
drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view[/font]
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, 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 Shaneyfelt, 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.
Even if the photographs were not composites, the evidence is not clear that the figure in the picture is the same Oswald arrested by Dallas Police.
"That Is Not Even My Face"
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 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)
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.
Another reason to believe that the man in the "backyard photographs" is not Oswald, has to do with the clothing he wore in the photos.
The black shirt and black pants that are depicted in the photographs were never located. They do not appear on any evidence list of items taken from Oswald's roominghouse or the Paine home.
What happened to them?