JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why would LHO switch fingers for his ring while posing?
http://reopenkennedycase/the-backyard-photos-ring-transposition
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
The ring can be seen on Oswald's RIGHT ring finger in 133A and 133B. But on his LEFT ring finger in 133C.
Regarding 133C, look for the ring on the other hand to confirm the finding. It's not there.
This is yet one more discrepancy indicating the photos are fake.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Marina Oswald; Early 1990s (Via Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed", Page 106 [footnote])
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
From her HSCA testimony, it is painfully obvious that Marina didn't have the slightest idea how to use the Imperial Reflex camera that supposedly took the backyard photos.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So what? Lee told her what to do and what button to press, and she did it. No big deal.
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
Hogwash! The Imperial Reflex was a view camera, meaning you had to hold it at roughly waist level and look down into the large, rectangular view finder to see the subject. Even then, the view was an inverted mirror image. Pretty unforgettable, but Marina testified she held it up to her eye.
If I took a picture with that weird camera of my wife with a pistol and holding a rifle and commie literature, I’d remember the camera. And so would you in a similar situation.
MICHAEL CLARK SAID:
David Von Pein sez “the Warren Commission figured it all out!, There’s nothing to see here!”
It is more like “The CIA told her what to do and what button NOT to press, and she didn't. It’s a very big deal.”
I fixed it for you, David Von Pein!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good job, Michael. Just keep ignoring what Marina herself said....
"...I took the pictures..."
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Marina's HSCA testimony (re: the backyard photos)(audio)....
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
David, do you think that Marina held the camera up at eye level? Or at waist level?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on.
MICHAEL CLARK SAID:
Right! Lol!
MICHAEL CLARK ALSO SAID:
Surely, David Von Pein, in your vast archive you have collected all of Marina’s changes, contradictions along with the refutations of her claims, all in one place; and you are going to share that with us here, right? Right!
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I believe that, when held upright, cameras take pictures in "landscape format." That is to say, the developed photo will be longer horizontally than vertically.
Yet the backyard photos are all in "portrait format." So Marina must have tilted the camera by 90 degrees in order to get those photos, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't know. I've never looked into it that deeply.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
How about just using your brain to figure it out?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Okay, she might have tilted the camera 90 degrees. Again---no big deal. (It's only a "big deal" to conspiracy theorists who are bent on finding "conspiracy" around every corner and in every Neely Street backyard.)
The long and short of it is....
Seeing as how Marina didn't know the first thing about how to take a picture with Lee's Imperial Reflex camera, she did whatever Lee told her to do in order to get the pictures to come out correctly. And when she was asked to recall the specific details of how she held the camera and how many photos she took, she just flat-out forgot. Yes, she did remember some of the details about the Backyard Photos session---such as the detail about how silly and "crazy" she thought Lee looked that day in his all-black outfit with his guns....
"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper." [1 H 15]
....But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO.
TOM HUME SAID:
Sandy,
I think the Imperial reflex used 620 film and yielded a square negative. CE133A and CE 133B were commercial square prints. 133C is not square because the negative went missing and what we were left with were rectangular prints (taller than they are wide) made on the Dallas Police Departments enlarger (133C-Dees, and 133C-Stovall). There is also the rectangular enlargement given to de Mohrenschildt (133A-de Mohrenschildt) that was enlarged from the square negative.
MICHAEL CLARK SAID:
You [Francois Carlier] let me know when you, like David Von Pein, are ready to have anything to say besides ... “but, but, but.... the Warren Commission sez....”.
FRANCOIS CARLIER SAID:
Pay attention, please!
David Von Pein didn't quote the Warren Commission, he quoted Marina Oswald. The wife of the assassin. The very person who took the pictures. And who has maintained throughout the years that she indeed took those pictures. She remembers that. Well, she may not remember exactly how she was holding the camera (I mean, come on!), but she does remember taking the pictures. That's important!
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
So Marina remembered the CONTENT of the photos, but remembered nothing about how and when she took the photos.
Oddly, that is how all of us here would testify if we PRETENDED to have taken those photos. In other words, we all know the content of the photos, but not how and when they were taken. Just like Marina.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Given the manner in which Lee Harvey was dressed (including the two guns he was outfitted with that day in their backyard), I would say that Marina remembering the CONTENT of the pictures more so than the number of pics, the date, and the exact details of how the camera worked, was perfectly reasonable and understandable.
Naturally, though, the conspiracy theorists have to add in a dash of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" where none has ever existed. That's to be expected, of course.
Also....
If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63? Do you think Marguerite was lying in her testimony too [at 1 H 152]? ....
MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"
MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."
--------------------------------------------------------------
2015 E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:
Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
-------------------
Hey Dave,
Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY [Back Yard] photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?
[...]
What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.
I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.
What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. :)
Gary
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I'll bet Marina testified to taking only one picture because only one was shown to her during her coaching session.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Marina's memory has always been fuzzy when it comes to the precise number of backyard pictures she took of her husband. She just simply could not remember how many she took, and she couldn't remember the exact date she took them. Big freaking deal!
Of course, had she stopped to think really hard about this subject just a little bit more, she would have realized that she had to have taken a minimum of two photos, because she and Marguerite destroyed one of the pictures on 11/23/63. So she could have easily figured out that she took at least two.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
Hey that's right guys... where DID Marina get ahold of that photo that nobody ever saw??
LOL
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony. That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview:
(Should we now get bogged down into a silly conversation about "Imposter Marguerites"?)
JOHN BUTLER SAID:
We all know the photos are FAKES.
Jack White listed 15 things. I listed one. Ed Ledoux listed another. I believe Sandy Larsen listed problems. And, many others have pointed out things. What more do you want?
People like Von Pein and people like him will never accept that you are right. They have their beliefs and they are religiously applied.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In addition to Marina Oswald's decades-long insistence that she, herself, took the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, here's another good reason for "people like Von Pein" to disagree with the conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that the backyard photos are fakes:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
The full HSCA "Backyard Photographs" report begins here.
But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists. After all, those expert CTers know way more about the ins and outs of photographic interpretation than any of those 20 or so experts who were part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel, right?
Per the CTers, those 20 photo experts (as a unit) were all apparently either despicable liars or totally incompetent when it comes to their conclusions concerning not only the Backyard Photos, but they were also completely wrong when they said that President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner". (The same goes for the "Handwriting Experts" panel as well. According to many conspiracists, those handwriting guys got everything wrong too. Go figure.)
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
David,
Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.
I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or both.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And just think---there were TWENTY such "corrupt" and/or "stupid" so-called "photographic experts" working for the HSCA in 1978. That's a lot of corruption on just one panel. (And, remember, they were all "stupid"/"corrupt" when it comes to the autopsy pictures too.)
There was no end to the corruption (and/or stupidity) in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?
JOHN BUTLER SAID:
David Von Pein,
There are things that I do not find credible. Among these are the Warren Commission, the conclusions of the HSCA, and Marina Oswald, the double or triple agent.
This happened on Main Street in the AMIPA film shot by Robert Yeargan. I'm sure you can explain this some way:
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Explain what?
I haven't the slightest idea what you think it is that needs to be "explained" in this film clip.
Please enlighten me.
JOHN BUTLER SAID:
I have made some notes on a frame of the second back wound on Market [Main?] Street. I'm sure you will not understand or see what I am talking about. You won't or can't explain what's in the photo because it negates nearly everything you believe about how President Kennedy was assassinated.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Heaven help us! John Butler is actually suggesting (in his last post above) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back and head while the President's car was on Main Street!
Any idea, John, why JFK kept on smiling and waving for several more minutes (on Main, Houston, and Elm) AFTER he was struck by multiple bullets?
John, can you possibly be serious when you speak about such a preposterous theory? Or are you just a few months late with an April Fools gag? Either way, such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other).
JOHN BUTLER SAID:
David Von Pein,
I see that you are finally getting the picture and beginning to understand what I am saying. Actually, I am not saying this but, the AMIPA film and Jackie Kennedy's statements are: [Click Here]
[...]
From a Jackie Kennedy Interview:
Jackie says:
“All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out...”
Can you find for me that blue-grey building on Houston Street? On Elm Street?
You could find it in those days on Main Street just east of the Old Court House. That blue-grey building was torn down sometime later and a parking area was put there. This then changed into the Kennedy Monument.
Have you ever wondered why they put the Monument there?
You can make preposterous claims but, have you looked at the evidence?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'll repeat what I said earlier, John....
"Such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other)."
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I would like to ask, since I started this thread:
What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one hand to the other between poses for the BYP [Backyard Photos]?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination?
Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless.
Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious.
JOHN BUTLER SAID:
The point is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence.
Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing.
The main point of these posts is nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion.
If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. There are other parts on Houston Street and Main [Elm?] Street.
It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
This only goes to prove a very significant point....
I.E.:
A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.
Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.
David Von Pein
August 18-22, 2018
ALSO SEE:
