The Backyard Photo Paradox

[Jack Trojan]

My approach is to reverse engineer the Big Event since there is enough evidence for me to conclude this was a conspiracy and Oswald was the patsy. That is my starting premise and I work backwards to make the tale fit the evidence. A coup always happens from within, by those who have the motives and wherewithal to make it happen. Only the top men could have pulled this off and kept it a secret. But you only need a hand full of people to make it work if their marching orders come from the very top. Besides who would believe them if they spilled the beans? Perhaps those that tried are swimming with the fishes.

Why doesn't anyone believe E. Howard Hunt's confession, or James Files, or Roscoe White? Is it because Allen Dulles, James Angleton, J. Edgar Hoover, and Lyndon Johnson were saints and would never participate in a coup d'etat, unless the POTUS really had it coming? Richard Nixon thought they were animals capable of anything. He knew.

[Walt Cakebread]

Hi Pat, I'm excited about your post....  You've opened the door to discussing information that came from Rusty Livingston, who, as I'm sure you know was a Dallas PD detective who was assigned to the crime scene search team at the time of the coup d e'tat.   IOW....Rusty Livingston was right there on the scene and knew what was transpiring.   Rusty presented valuable information that he had purloined from the DPD to his nephew Gary Savage.   Savage published some of that information in a book entitled JFK First Day Evidence....

I'd like to discuss just one small piece of evidence that Rusty presented to Savage and Savage published it on page 247 of his book, JFK 1st Day Evidence.   On page 247 there is a precise diagram of the sixth floor that Rusty Livingston created on 11 / 22/63.

Focusing on the NW corner of the TSBD you'll notice that Rusty has drawn a precise position for the place the carcano was found.   That location is 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall and about 2 feet from the west wall.  This is exactly where the carcano was found ON THE FLOOR beneath the end of a wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.   But his is NOT the location nor the position that the official in situ photos show it to be.   The in situ photos show the rifle standing upright ( the butt plate vertical with the bolt up and the magazine down)  and jammed between boxes of books that are tight against the roof support pillar.  ( the support that is approximately 12 feet from the west wall and 13 feet from the north wall,in the NW corner of the sixth floor.   

The diagram that Rusty presented to Savage clearly shows that the official in situ photos made by the DPD are FAKES...They are NOT photos of the rifle that were taken before the rifle was picked up FROM THE FLOOR by Lt Day.

The in situ photos taken by the DPD,  show the rifle standing upright ( the butt plate vertical with the bolt up and the magazine down)  and jammed between boxes of books that are tight against the roof support pillar.  ( the support that is approximately 12 feet from the west wall and 13 feet from the north wall, in the NW corner of the sixth floor. ) 

The official instu photo that was created by the DPD was taken at night..... and the photo shows that the rifle is 13 feet from the north wall and 10 feet from the west wall.   Rusty Livingston' s diagram on page 247 places the rifle at 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall and about 2 feet from the west wall.  There was a window in the west wall directly to the west of the rifle and the sun was shinig in that window so the area was bathed in bright sunlight, and yet Deputy Boone didn't see the rifle until he moved a box from above and shined his flashlight down into the cavern where the rifle lay on the floor.

The crux of this information is the fact that the rifle was too far away from the E/W aisle at the top of the stars to allow Lee Oswald to reach across and place the rifle where Rusty has shown it to be.    That rifle was placed there BEFORE the shooting....

[Rick Plant]

What does "authentic" mean and who determined that? Unfortunately, a photo-analyst can't tell you whether you are looking at a picture of a picture that has been modified. So how can authenticity be established and what does it mean?

Roscoe White was the mastermind behind the BYPs. He had real darkroom skills and he was Photoshopping prints with film enlargers and taking pictures of edited prints. His wife Geneva even found an undocumented BYP in his garage after he died. This photo was designated CE 133-c and matched a cutout which was also found in Roscoe's possession.



As far as I'm concerned CE 133-c is the smoking gun proving Roscoe White was an integral part in Oswald's sheep-dipping. There is no other reason for Roscoe to have an undocumented BYP and a matching cutout from another shot of Oswald's backyard in his possession. Maybe a LNer can enlighten me.

Did you know that Roscoe White was in the same military division as Lee Harvey Oswald, the 1st Marine Air Wing? Roscoe's wife Geneva swears he and Oswald were friends.  He was also good friends with Jack Ruby. In the fall of 1963 Geneva worked for a few weeks as a hostess in Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. Roscoe even confessed to his involvement in the Big Event in his journal which his son Ricky claimed was confiscated by the FBI.

To prove the BYPs are all authentic, you need to examine their negatives, of which only 2 exist. But why were they cut from the reel? So you couldn't determine whether they came from the same  reel, of course.

Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.

[Jack Trojan]

Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

[Walt Cakebread]

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A  &  133c

[Jack Trojan]

Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A  &  133c

What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!

[Rick Plant]

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

Yes, I was replying to your previous post. 

There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.               

[Walt Cakebread]

What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!

Yes, I agree Mr T.... and I believe that 133c is the photo that Fritz displayed to Lee on Saturday 11/23/63.    And We know that the DPD were "experimenting" with 133c......   Someone 25-30 years ago made the point that the DPD had a BY photo that had the figure of " Lee Oswald " cut out of it .....and that photo was the one that had the figure in the pose seen in 133c.

The DPD explained that they had gone to the Neeley street address to take some photos and attempt to verify that that was the site where the BY photos ( CE 133A & B ) were taken.   At that time just days after the coup d e'tat, nobody knew about 133c, and yet the DPD used the pose of the figure in 133c.  Proof that the DPD had 133c  and were doing "something"  with it ( perhaps creating a photo that shows Lee Oswald with the alleged murder weapon)  The fact that Rusty Livingston had a copy of 133c verifies Ricky Whites ( Ricky was Roscoe Whites' son )claim that the DPD had 133c and created it to frame Lee Oswald.