Ruth Paine remembers the Assassination

[Jack Trojan]

Bad shot. Slightly blurred all over. No one in his right mind believes the Roscoe White story.

Are you commenting as a qualified photo analyst? Didn't think so.

Roscoe White was an expert in the darkroom. He joined the DPD Oct 7, 1963, where he was employed in the photo section of the Crime Lab. It was the HSCA that claimed a previously undocumented back yard photo of Oswald was found with Roscoe's widow. She told them Roscoe said it would be very valuable some day. So why wasn't this photo (CE-133c) not admitted into evidence with the rest of them? And what happened to all the negatives? The HSCA only recovered 1 negative of the BYPs, CE-749. And why did the DPD do a re-enactment of CE-133c and then make a cutout of it?



There is no good reason to be doing re-enactments and creating darkroom cutouts of photos that were never admitted into evidence. Explain that one if you are in your right mind.

You think that would make a superior negative? CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

LOL. Superior negative? Last of the shots? Held the camera steadier? Don't embarrass yourself.

LOL! How do you expect anything to match if you don't have parts of Oswald's body that are the same distance to the camera in the two photos compared? In fact, there may not even be parts of his body the same distance to the camera in any two of the photos. The backgrounds aren't necessarily the same distance to the camera in the shots.

Since Oswald was standing within a step or 2 of the same spot in both photos, and his image size on the prints was the same on both negatives, the camera was the same distance from Oswald in both shots. Besides, do you even know how that would distort Oswald's image w.r.t. distances from the camera between CE-133a & c, or do you want me to tell you?

Camera tilt is doing a number on the perspective which in turn distorts proportions of common elements in each picture. Using a tripod or fixed camera position is the most-reliable way to get consistent shots.

You can easily measure the camera tilt from the prints, which puts Oswald's head a few degrees higher in the frame for CE-133c. This slight tilt would be negligent if you were comparing 2 photos shot with the same lens. Instead, the superior quality of the lens that took the "in focus" money shot (CE-133a) was evident compared to all the rest. As a matter of fact the spherical aberration for CE-133b,c,d,etc. all match up to each other perfectly even though there were some tilt differences between them. Check and mate.

Same lens. Differing camera angles and subject positions/posture, and even slightly-differing camera positions.

As if you would know. LOL.

ps. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion with you about this stuff if you'd take that chip off your shoulder and stop attacking everything I post merely because you are a LNer and you consider me the enemy.

[Jerry Freeman]

  CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

I must have asked umpty-seven times...If that was a legitimate roll of film--What ever happened to the rest of it?

[Jerry Organ]

Are you commenting as a qualified photo analyst? Didn't think so.

Roscoe White was an expert in the darkroom. He joined the DPD Oct 7, 1963, where he was employed in the photo section of the Crime Lab. It was the HSCA that claimed a previously undocumented back yard photo of Oswald was found with Roscoe's widow. She told them Roscoe said it would be very valuable some day. 

That's good. But she didn't say anything about Roscoe sending his boys back to take the money shot probably with Lee's Minox spy camera.

So why wasn't this photo (CE-133c) not admitted into evidence with the rest of them? And what happened to all the negatives? The HSCA only recovered 1 negative of the BYPs, CE-749.

I don't know why it wasn't placed into evidence but White wasn't the only one who had the 133-C pose photo. The DPD Crime Lab would make extra copies of some photos and keep them as a memento. Are you claiming the DPD destroyed some of the negatives or would accept as a reason they just weren't found?

And why did the DPD do a re-enactment of CE-133c and then make a cutout of it?

It's not a "cutout" but a paper shape attached to a photo of a vacant backyard. The backyard reenactment was requested by the Secret Service. Apparently to demonstrate where the BY photos were originally taken.

There is no good reason to be doing re-enactments and creating darkroom cutouts of photos that were never admitted into evidence. Explain that one if you are in your right mind.

The silhouette photo was found in the DPD files many years later, long after they could have destroyed it. It has no purpose as a means to artificially create the already-existing Backyard Photos, and was probably a failed attempt at making an explanatory prop.

LOL. Superior negative?

You claimed Oswald's Minox camera was used for the 133-A "money shot", supposedly because it was superior in quality. How can a Minox negative be superior to the film used in the Imperial Reflex?

• Minox                 5/16 x 7/16 in
• Imperial Reflex    2 1/4 x 2 1/4 in

Last of the shots? Held the camera steadier? Don't embarrass yourself.

Shadow analysis proved that 133-A was the last of the three Backyard Photos known to exist. 133-C was the first.

Since Oswald was standing within a step or 2 of the same spot in both photos, and his image size on the prints was the same on both negatives, the camera was the same distance from Oswald in both shots. Besides, do you even know how that would distort Oswald's image w.r.t. distances from the camera between CE-133a & c, or do you want me to tell you?

133-C (from print; negative cropped; has greatest amount of background)

133-B (from negative, uncropped; has slightly-less background than 133-C)

133-A (print, with negative frame edge markings; has least amount of background)

Anyone can see that the camera moves forward from "C" to "A". Has to mean the picture-taker moved.

Also the depth of field improves as the photos progress, with Oswald becoming more in focus as the distance between him and the camera lessens. The closer a camera is to a subject, the better resolution the subject displays in the picture. 133-A is superior in quality because it is the photo where Oswald is both closest to the camera and is best positioned relative to the camera's depth of field.

You can easily measure the camera tilt from the prints, which puts Oswald's head a few degrees higher in the frame for CE-133c. This slight tilt would be negligent if you were comparing 2 photos shot with the same lens. Instead, the superior quality of the lens that took the "in focus" money shot (CE-133a) was evident compared to all the rest. As a matter of fact the spherical aberration for CE-133b,c,d,etc. all match up to each other perfectly even though there were some tilt differences between them. Check and mate.

As if you would know. LOL.

ps. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion with you about this stuff if you'd take that chip off your shoulder and stop attacking everything I post merely because you are a LNer and you consider me the enemy.

Can't we both call ourselves truth-seekers? For me, it has led to the LN theory.

[Bill Chapman]

Bad shot. Slightly blurred all over. No one in his right mind believes the Roscoe White story.

You think that would make a superior negative? CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

LOL! How do you expect anything to match if you don't have parts of Oswald's body that are the same distance to the camera in the two photos compared? In fact, there may not even be parts of his body the same distance to the camera in any two of the photos. The backgrounds aren't necessarily the same distance to the camera in the shots.

Camera tilt is doing a number on the perspective which in turn distorts proportions of common elements in each picture. Using a tripod or fixed camera position is the most-reliable way to get consistent shots.

Same lens. Differing camera angles and subject positions/posture, and even slightly-differing camera positions.

I remember something about somebody (George deM?) showing Marina the proper way to hold the camera at some point. And somebody said the guy that did the cutout had nothing to do at some point and was just screwing around.

And this should inform serious onlookers:

[Richard Smith]

One thing for certain is that Paine was one of Oswald's handlers. So anything she did/said must be looked at with that in mind. As far as Oswald's poverty level was concerned, that's what the "False Defector" program was all about. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent selected to be the pasty in the Big Event for Plan B just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for Plan A. Since Oswald was officially off the grid the CIA could disavow him.

You guys must think the CIA were a bunch of amateurs that couldn't pull off a coup. But that was their biz and they were pretty good at it up until the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, which got Dulles fired and JFK declared war on them. We all know who prevailed.

Oswald was extracted from the fake defector program to be the patsy, otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald gets a job at the TSBD 3 weeks before Nov 22rd and the motorcade route gets re-routed down Elm, plus a thousand other "coincidences" that made the Big Event viable. It is much easier to accept the truth that this was a coup d'etat and Oswald was the patsy than he was a LNer with the luck of the Irish.

Instead of wasting your time on an Internet forum why don't you present your proof of Paine's involvement in the assassination to the authorities or make a Gomer Pyle-like citizen's arrest when she makes one of these appearance?  Surely you believe your own nonsense and aren't just spinning come compulsion driven conspiracy nonsense to pass the time.  Get back to us with the results.

[Richard Smith]

It was an opportunity that fell into his lap. And his plan of the surprise ambush was a good one.

Yes, many CTers suggest there must be some tidy, rational motive for a guy to take his rifle to work and assassinate the President.  As though that is the act of a normal person which must be explained with absolute certainty that we can all agree upon.  Oswald was clearly an angry malcontent.  That is the leitmotif of his entire life.  He hated authority and blamed society for his unhappiness.  He wanted to make his mark like many angry people with an act of violence.  He likely had no particular personal grievance against JFK.  As the President, JFK was a representative of American society who became a target of opportunity for a disgruntled nut who had already decided he was willing to sacrifice his own life to commit an act of violence. Oswald must have felt like he had won a golden ticket when he learned that JFK would be passing the TSBD in an open car.  Everything fell in place for him after that.  A happy guy to go out in a blaze of glory.  The fact that we are still discussing him 50 plus years later is a sign that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Ironically it is the CTers that are trying to rob him of his one successful act in life. 

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, many CTers suggest there must be some tidy, rational motive for a guy to take his rifle to work and assassinate the President.  As though that is the act of a normal person which must be explained with absolute certainty that we can all agree upon.  Oswald was clearly an angry malcontent.  That is the leitmotif of his entire life.  He hated authority and blamed society for his unhappiness.  He wanted to make his mark like many angry people with an act of violence.  He likely had no particular personal grievance against JFK.  As the President, JFK was a representative of American society who became a target of opportunity for a disgruntled nut who had already decided he was willing to sacrifice his own life to commit an act of violence. Oswald must have felt like he had won a golden ticket when he learned that JFK would be passing the TSBD in an open car.  Everything fell in place for him after that.  A happy guy to go out in a blaze of glory.  The fact that we are still discussing him 50 plus years later is a sign that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Ironically it is the CTers that are trying to rob him of his one successful act in life.

Cool story, bro.

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, many CTers suggest there must be some tidy, rational motive for a guy to take his rifle to work and assassinate the President.  As though that is the act of a normal person which must be explained with absolute certainty that we can all agree upon.  Oswald was clearly an angry malcontent.  That is the leitmotif of his entire life.  He hated authority and blamed society for his unhappiness.  He wanted to make his mark like many angry people with an act of violence.  He likely had no particular personal grievance against JFK.  As the President, JFK was a representative of American society who became a target of opportunity for a disgruntled nut who had already decided he was willing to sacrifice his own life to commit an act of violence. Oswald must have felt like he had won a golden ticket when he learned that JFK would be passing the TSBD in an open car.  Everything fell in place for him after that.  A happy guy to go out in a blaze of glory.  The fact that we are still discussing him 50 plus years later is a sign that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Ironically it is the CTers that are trying to rob him of his one successful act in life.

Richard and Bill,

If, as I suspect, all-around loser and self-proclaimed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald, disgusted as he was with life in America as well as in the USSR, assassinated President Kennedy on November 1963 in order to "accelerate The Dialectic" (and bring down both systems), I wonder if he could have envisioned that a mobbed-up, multi-billionaire, former KGB officer would be a de facto dictator of Russia today, and that his (Putin's) number one  "useful idiot," Donald Trump, would be the nominal president of The United States?

Ironically, what Oswald did gave rise to oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, some of it Kremlin-promulgated, that paved the way for the likes of far-left (Oliver Stone, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio) and far-right conspiracy-spewing ideologues (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones), and, as a result of their "works," the advent of Donald J. Trump as our president.

--  MWT