Forums
Forum Home > JFK > Backyard Photos | ||
---|---|---|
Administrator Posts: 729 |
I would like to know what other members think about the BYP's. I was going to ask this question on the Tippit thread but felt it may derail it and I felt it needed to probably exist on its own even though I'd like to relate it back to Tippit and the revolver supposedly belonging to Oswald I know its going to lead to an authentication debate so I will go on record as stating I really don't know. I thought first they were fake, then not so much, now just plain suspicion. I still am not 100% convinced it is Oswald in the photo. He doesn't look the same to me. If they are original than I'd like to know why Oswald decided to lark and who put him up to it. I don't believe Marina took the photos and I am not sure if they owned the Imperial Reflex either. I could be wrong on all counts and probably am but the revolver in the photos is what leads me back to the Tippit shooting. Is it the same one that I believed was planted on him at the theatre? If so it might indicate that the Tippit shooting is directly related to the Oswald frame up. I guess even if it is isn't the same revolver you could make a similar argument. In other words the BYP's have me stumped whether they are real or fake. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1411 |
I think they're fake, Paul. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Paul, I'm no photo analyst. I look at other evidence and I have to conclude they are fake. The only photo that Marina took of Oswald holding a weapon was taken in Minsk. If you look at the testimony of Marina and Marguerite you'll see that in the immediate aftermath of finding out Lee was arrested, Marina panicked about that photo being potentially damaging to her husband. She asked Marguerite what to do and Marguerite advised her to destroy it, which she duly did. If you think about this logically, it makes no sense that Marina would panick about a photo of Oswald taken in Minsk holding a shotgun he had sold before coming back to the US. If the BY photos existed at THAT time, those were the ones she needed to be concerned about. That she had no panic about them at all tells me that they just did not exist at that time. There was a third person involded in the discussion about the Minsk photo though. One Ruth Paine. And it was Ruth Paine's husband who told the cops that Oswald had lived at the Neely St apartment. To me, the technicalities of the photos are a side show. The above proves beyond doubt to me that they are fake. And who was instrumental in having them made. It is also the original reason I doubted Lee ever lived at that address... and there is even less physical evidence that he did, then exists for N. Beckley. In this case, we don't even have a scrap of paper with OH Lee written on it. We have the say-so of Marina and the Paines, the BYP, a photo of a kid on a balcony, the American Bakery payslip and a hand-written notation saying "Oswald" in the margin of an electicity account for the property. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
The testimony that blows the BY photos out of the water. Have also included and highlighted some other stuff that shows what a complete bitch Ruth Paine really was.
When did the BYP make their debut? Straight after the Minsk photo was safely destroyed (I previously said it was destroyed at Marguerite's suggestion - I should have said at (most likely) Ruth's/Life's suggestion.
6:00 - 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office
I know nowhere does Marguerite say the photo she saw was taken in Minsk, but Sylvia Meagher believed it was and it makes sense that it was inscribed to June with the raised arms in celebration of her birth. Marina initially only admitted taking one photo of Lee holding a rifle (it was actually a shotgun, but she also admitted not knowing the difference). The Minsk photo was that photo. | |
| ||
Member Posts: 333 |
Ever since reading the first edition of Anthony Summers’ book which my parents had decades ago I thought that the backyard photos were fake but the means of proving it remained annoyingly elusive. Many thanks for that beautifully simple and lucid argument, Greg, which renders a lot of head wrecking photo analysis redundant and which provides the proof that has long eluded me and many others that those photos are fake.
| |
| ||
Member Posts: 60 |
They're fakes. Oswald's mouth, nose and possibly the rest of his head has been pasted onto the body of someone else. You can see the join. There are discrepancies in the size of the head in relation to the body in different photographs and the posture of the body itself is all wrong. The rifle sling-mount is missing and the fingers are far too fat and stubby. Most noticeable of all is the chin. Michael Paine's? | |
| ||
Administrator Posts: 729 |
If we agree that the BYP's are fake then do we also have to agree that the revolver used as a prop in the photos links the Tippit shooting directly to the assassination and cover up? Especially if we also agree the DPD were trying to plant the revolver on Oswald at the theatre. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Gobam - thanks! Redfern - agree from eyeballing the photos with everything you say. Real photo analysts have even made similar observations - but those arguments have gotten us no where in 50 years. It comes down to duelling experts and ends in deadlock. My aim with every aspect of the case is to find new paths where old ones have failed. This does away with photo experts butting heads and getting us nowhere. Marguerite may be dead, but her testimony is still with us - as is Marina and RP - who both should be questioned under oath about these events Marguerite described. Such questioning (unfortunately unsurprisingly) never happened when it should have. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Paul, that sounds good on the face of it, though what i get from Marguerite's testimony on the faked photos is that there was no pre-planning of them. It was inspired by Marina producing the minsk photo. Since they were trying to pin Tippit on him as well as JFK, it made sense to include a pistol. | |
| ||
Administrator Posts: 729 |
Thanks for your efforts, Greg. I just got to reading it all. As you know I've had issues getting past the homepage. I really didn't want to get into the technicalities and analysis of photography. I was more interested in how the photographs were staged and what they were meant to portray. It does make sense to include the pistol given the timetable you mentioned. That was the sense I was after in my OP so thanks again, mate. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Thanks Paul. On the access issue, is anyone else having any problems? Shoot me a PM or email. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Also note that nowhere does Marguerite describe any newspapers -- or a pistol. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1143 |
This is fascinating to me in that, as Greg said, the experts arguing over authentication for fifty years has not proved worthwhile so a different approach solved the question once and for all. I think this is similar to what we saw with Sean's dismantling of the opposition to PM. And IIRC it is the same sort of approach used by Lee Farley on a couple of different issues. Fifty years of experts battling experts on the technical issues can ALL be wiped away by the simple application of logistics. Is that totally brilliant or what!!? Perhaps every aspect of the case should be re-examined in this light. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--all right. Now, so the next morning the two representatives of the Life Magazine, Mr. Allen Grant and Mr. Tommy Thompson come by at 9 o'clock with a woman, Russian interpreter, a doctor somebody. I have not been able to find this woman. I have called the universities, thinking that she was a language teacher, and I--maybe you have her name. But she is very, very important to our story. And I do want to locate her, if possible. In 1965, Marguerite named Thompson and others as being part of the conspiracy. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60399&relPageId=70 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60399&relPageId=71 I think Marguerite was on to something... | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1403 |
For what it's worth, I say fake! Have waxed and waned on this for several years. And I really don't see an issue either way, fake or not. They are damming and extremely incriminating. And used oh so effectively by Time life magazine. For me it was the cincher. The world took one look at that photo and Oswald was as good as dead. But I am convinced they're fake not so much by the photo's themselves but swayed by the evidence Greg alludes to. Having said all that, I believe also, that the shadows in the photographs show quite clearly signs of forgery. Not the obvious ones, not the shadows on the face or the chin or the nose, the ones studied for over 50 years, but shadows on the ground from inanimate objects which do not relate in any way to the torso shadow. I am using my own photgraphic skill set to determine this, as I have filmed for over 37 years, and this plus the testimony of Marina and Mrs Oswald cries out FAKE! | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
Mick, I'll take your knowledge and opinion over just about all the experts in the past. Those on both sides of the argument were simple defending agendas, imo. With this, it goes beyond Marguerite's testimony (though I'd call that sufficient on its own). It is also the timing. A question that no one could really adequately address in the past was why it took until the evening of Saturday the 23rd for Fritz to confront Oswald with those photos. This explains it. First, Ruth and/or Life got the inspiration Friday evening from Marina's original (non-incriminating) photo. Then they had to make them. But ultimately, they couldn't be produced until Marina's photo was destroyed. While it was around, the whole thing could unravel. The one witness they could never tame, quiet, or intimidate was Marguerite. So they destroyed her credibility. She made it easy, because there was a touch of truth to some of the epithets. | |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1411 |
I haven't had time to read the entire thread yet, but I wanted to voice a suspicion I have concerning the Neely Street address. I think most people here know my feelings about Gerald Hill. As I have explained in my essays on Hill and Crafard, there is good reason to believe that Hill most likely was the unidentified cop who told Fritz about the 1026 North Beckley address. I think there is also good reason to believe that he was the DPD's source for the Neely Street address. Here's why:
Mr. BELIN. At any time up to the time you left, did you ever get any address on the suspect as to where he lived other than the statement of Captain Fritz that he had this address on Fifth Street somewhere in Irving?
Mr. HILL. Paul Bentley called off two addresses. One, as I recall, in Irving, and another one in Oak Cliff, when he was reading from information inside the suspect's billfold. But neither of these addresses was an address on 10th or on Beckley. As to exactly what they were, I don't recall, as I didn't see the identification.
Mr. BELIN. Would one of them have been an address on Neely Street?
Mr. HILL. It very possibly could be. In fact I believe it was.
| |
| ||
Moderator Posts: 1411 |
To clarify; I don't believe the fat cunt was being honest here. I think he only said this as a way of explaining how he allegedly learned about the address. | |
| ||
Member Posts: 44 |
Having studied the photos for years and been involved in numerous arguments with Warrenistas, I believe the photos are complete fakes. Marina said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos, It was a camera that was held at waist level. First she said she only took one photo, which became two, which then became three. She said that she didn't know how to wind the film on, so after each photo Oswald had to wind the film on, yet the three photos show that they were taken exactly from the same position, as the posts to the left and right rear of Oswald show. p.s. Congratulations on the layout of the new site. | |
| ||
Site Owner Posts: 2049 |
p.s. Congratulations on the layout of the new site. Thanks Ray! Just found this from Ian Griggs:
http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html I'm sorry - but she's a fuckin' lying bitch. if it was one of a series of BY photos taken in Neely St, why destroy only one? and that one being the LEAST incriminating since it was only the "rifle" being held up - no pistol - no commie papers, And why was this one inscribed to June? Why were the others produced only after this one was destroyed? How much of a numbat do you have to be to believe Marina? an actual numbat. Renowned as the dumbest marsupial not yet extinct.
| |
| ||
You must login to post.