The 60th Anniversary of the Backyard Photographs in the JFK Assassination

[Tim Nickerson]

Puzzle Pieces: How Historians Work, Episode 1: “Today is the 60th Anniversary of the Backyard Photographs in the JFK Assassination

[John Iacoletti]

"holding the rifle he would later use to kill President Kennedy and the pistol he would use to murder Officer J.D. Tippit"

LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Reiman makes several factual errors in this podcast episode -- especially for a historian.

- There is no evidence whatsoever that the handgun in the backyard photos was involved in the Tippit murder

- No basis for the claim that Oswald developed the photos himself at his employer

- The Imperial Reflex camera was not found by police in the Paine garage.  Robert gave it to the FBI in February, 1964

- No basis for the claim that Oswald mailed a copy of the photograph to George DeMohrenschildt in April, 1963

- No basis for the claim that "hunter of fascists" was "almost certainly written by Marina".  In fact the HSCA excluded her.

- No basis for the claim that Oswald lied about just about everything during the interrogations.  This is the usual circular argument.

- No account of the interrogations says that Oswald claimed to be having lunch with Junior Jarman in the second floor lunchroom

- Falsely claims that the shots that killed Tippit were identified as having been fired by Oswald's pistol

- Incorrectly quotes Oswald as having said "young kids like to carry guns"

- Claims that the "gouge" in the backyard photos was discovered by "enhancements of the photos and negatives".  No negatives were involved.

- Falsely claims that it was an "identical gouge"

- Falsely claims that "critics" argue that it could have been due to an altered negative.  Again, no negatives were involved.

- Hany Farid was at Dartmouth, not Berkely when he did his study of the backyard photographs

- Refers to the "AARB" at one point, rather than the correct "ARRB"

[Michael Walton]

This is something I'm unfamiliar with - the "gouge." Can you explain or post a link? I Googled and nothing is coming up.

[John Iacoletti]

Referred to as a "notch" in the WC testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt (4H281):

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

And referred to as a "chip" in the HSCA testimony of Cecil Kirk (2HSCA429):

Mr. FITHIAN . Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

[Rick Plant]

Reiman makes several factual errors in this podcast episode -- especially for a historian.

- There is no evidence whatsoever that the handgun in the backyard photos was involved in the Tippit murder

- No basis for the claim that Oswald developed the photos himself at his employer

- The Imperial Reflex camera was not found by police in the Paine garage.  Robert gave it to the FBI in February, 1964

- No basis for the claim that Oswald mailed a copy of the photograph to George DeMohrenschildt in April, 1963

- No basis for the claim that "hunter of fascists" was "almost certainly written by Marina".  In fact the HSCA excluded her.

- No basis for the claim that Oswald lied about just about everything during the interrogations.  This is the usual circular argument.

- No account of the interrogations says that Oswald claimed to be having lunch with Junior Jarman in the second floor lunchroom

- Falsely claims that the shots that killed Tippit were identified as having been fired by Oswald's pistol

- Incorrectly quotes Oswald as having said "young kids like to carry guns"

- Claims that the "gouge" in the backyard photos was discovered by "enhancements of the photos and negatives".  No negatives were involved.

- Falsely claims that it was an "identical gouge"

- Falsely claims that "critics" argue that it could have been due to an altered negative.  Again, no negatives were involved.

- Hany Farid was at Dartmouth, not Berkely when he did his study of the backyard photographs

- Refers to the "AARB" at one point, rather than the correct "ARRB"

That's more like a ton of factual errors. No real historian should be making these many false claims.   

[Jack Trojan]

There were at least 6 backyard photos taken with at least 2 different cameras. Roscoe White developed all the photos but he noticed the shots taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera didn't resolve the print on the commie paper he was holding. So he decided to include a photo shot with a better lens, which was probably the Minox spy camera that was also found among Oswald's possessions. This 2nd camera's lens had much less spherical aberration outside the sweet spot, which helped to resolve the print on the paper but it grew Oswald's head a few hat sizes. Roscoe hoped no one would notice.

As a photogrammetrist, after having analyzed and compared CE 133A with CE 133BCD, I have concluded that CE 133A was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera because its level of distortion did not match the others. CE 133A is the smoking gun outlier.

http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/anim5.gif

Roscoe decided to publish CE 133A taken with the Minox camera, as the money shot, because it clearly resolved Oswald holding all the murder weapons and some commie lit linking him to the Kremlin (cough, cough).

Marina claimed she took 1 photo with the Imperial Reflex camera, later admitting it could have been 2, but she said nothing about a 2nd camera. At least 6 photos exist and some of them showed up at the darndest places, including an unregistered photo of CE 133C found in the possession of Roscoe White's widow. That's the photo that a cut-out was created from for some nefarious darkroom shenanigans, no doubt. Look away, nothing suspicious there. You LNers should be embarrassed if you thought the backyard photos were anything other than to sheep-dip Oswald to be the patsy for the big event. Who knows what the DPD and the SS were telling Oswald at the time, but every good coup needs a patsy.

Hmm..I guess Oswald wasn't such a lone nut after all. Fancy that. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are numerous indications of fraud that government-hired experts have never been able to explain away. In the case of the amazingly tiny differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, they've not even tried to explain them but have ignored them.

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view