24-01-2015, 04:22 PM
David Josephs Wrote:From the HSCA analysis of the BYPs we learn that somehow prints directly from the negative are found for a 3rd pose - 133-C.
(362) The committee obtained an 8 x 10 print of an additional view of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different from CE 133-A or B. This photograph, a first generation print, * was given to the committee
on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneva Dees of Paris, Tex. According to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White, now deceased, while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. (150) The panel designated this recently discovered photograph as 133-C (Dees).
(364) Two additional first. generation prints, one of 133-Aand one of 133-C, where obtained from formerDallas Police Detective Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153)
CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the onlynegative recovered from the possession of the
Dallas Police Department ; consequently, it was the onlyoriginal negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no officialrecord explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commissionthe other original negative. (159)
(159) See ref. 127
(127) Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, September 1, 1963,15 Warren Commission hearings, 693 ; but see also Rose testimony, ref. 126(Dallas police found two negatives that showed Oswald holding a rifle in hishand, wearing a pistol at his hip) ; executive session testimony of R. L.Studebaker, October 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J .F.K .Document No. 014695); executive session testimony of John Grizzaffi, October 5,1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J .F.K. Document No. 014699) .
==============
Johnnie Grizzaffi was an associate of Lois Green and Beeny Binion.
GRIZZAFFI, JOHN MICHAEL
Owned American Liquors, 3228 Knox St., Dallas. When Marinaand Ken Porter bought Knox Street Pub, it was next-door to American Liquors andthey talked on Ameican Liquors' phone rather than the phone of Knox Street Pub.HSCA asked R.D. Matthews if he knew Grizzaffi. Matthews said, "Yes."Grizzaffi had Carousel Club pass #206. On Nov 7, 1946, "...local boy whohandles dope... trigger man." Friend of Jack Ruby. Had Carousel Club Pass#206. Marina Oswald stayed in Declan and Katya Ford's house at 6448 DunstonLane directly across street from Grizzaffi. Died Tues, Aug 17, 1993, at age 68.Survived by wife: Florence; sons and daughters-in-law: Luke and MargaretGrizzaffi; John and Judy Grizzaffi; brothers: Sam Grizzaffi and BonnieGrizzaffi; sister: Bessie Truneabe.
WC Vol 22, p. 503; CD 4, p. 483; CD 105, p. 81; CD 329, p.203; HSCA, Vol 9, pp. 517, 553-554, 1009; Dallas Morning News, Wed, Aug 18,1993, p. 32-A
Marina HSCA testimony:
Q. Did you meet living across the street I believe a Mr. Johnny Grizzaffi?
A. Oh, Yes.
Q. What can you tell us about Mr. Grizzaffi?
A. Well, not much. I don't know him that well but I was grateful, he gave me a whole can of salmon when I was expecting my son.
Q. What can you tell us about him? The way you said, "Oh, yes," you seem to have some recollection of him.
A. Well, I don't know his personal traits but, you know, being in their house and I can describe him physically . He was a family man and his business once upon a time was next door to my husband's business so I had occasion to
Q. That is your present husband?
A. Yes ; I had occasion to see him. He owned a liquor store.
Q. Did Mr. Grizzaffi ever discuss Jack Ruby with you?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Did you ever meet any of Mr. Grizzaffi's friends?
A. No ; I met his children and his wife. We were living across from each other.
I did not orignally want to delve into Mr. G here yet I had never seen his name before and wonder what it has to do with these negatives - he was a friend of PORTER, an associate of Ruby and was considered the #1 or 2 man in Dallas Gambling circles... His wife's name was Natasha.
(364) Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-Aand one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective Richard S.Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153)
CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the onlynegative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department ; consequently, it was the onlyoriginal negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no officialrecord explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commissionthe other original negative. (159)
[size=12](159) See ref. 127
(127) Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, September 1, 1963,15 Warren Commission hearings, 693 ; but see also Rose testimony, ref. 126(Dallas police found two negatives that showed Oswald holding a rifle in hishand, wearing a pistol at his hip) ; executive session testimony of R. L.Studebaker, October 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J .F.K .Document No. 014695); executive session testimony of John Grizzaffi, October 5,1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J .F.K. Document No. 014699) .
(I cannot find this testimony and this is the first time I've seen his name - can anyone steer me to this testimony? and why would it have anything to do with this?
There are no Exec Session transcripts for a Oct 5 meeting - although I did find that Angleton was deposed on this day)
===================
[/SIZE]
So White/Stovall decide to keep a negative and print(s) of a BYP pose without telling anyone... ??
Box 12, Folder 4
2. Photograph. Photograph of 214 W. Neely Street - back yard, negative number 91-001/141, 91-001/093, 91-001-140, and 91-001/089, (Photographic Image: Size 8" X 10"), 11/29/63. 00004081 12 pages 12 02 002 4081-001.gif 4081-002.gif
Box 12, Folder 4 1. Photograph. Photograph of 214 W. Neely Street - Detective B. G. Brown with rifle in back yard, negative number 91-001/144, 91-001/094, and 91-001/427, (Photographic Image: Size 8" X 10"), date unknown. 00004085 6 pages 12 04 001 4085-001.gif
The empty BYP taken on the 29th matches the Det Brown images whcih are undated.
Box 7, Folder 6 1. Photocopy of a Photograph, by an unknown author. Photocopies of photographs taken by DPD at 214 W. Neely Street, (Photocopy), date unknown. 00002174 3 pages 07 06 001 2174-001.gif 2174-002.gif 2174-003.gif
2174-003 is a strange version of the Oswald cutout as it appears that the cutout is laid upon another image and then photocopied - which will be part of my conclusion.
Here then is an image from 11/29, a copy of the DPD cutout of Oswald done in 1963 (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337269/) and the 133-C photo discovered just before New Year's Day 1977
Not only is the real image of 133-c completely skewed off of the copy with the cutout - but I need someone to answer this:
How can Det Brown be put into this pose, or Oswald's shape cut out in this pose, when no one other than White/Stovall seems to have known about this pose until 1977?
The Evidence IS the Conspiracy IS the Evidence
Negative scratch marks in precisely the same location on all backyard photo materials provide evidence of fakery.
Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, and Dr. Ronald Francis of the Photographic Panel exposed a roll of film in the Imperial Reflex camera and studied the camera signature. They found distinctive marks with variations of minor details. (450) Further comparison of their negatives with CE 749, the original negative of CE 133B, showed sufficient similarities of signatures to establish an important point. (448) Namely the distinctive features of the Imperial Reflex camera signature remained essentially unchanged during fifteen years.
Documenting the variations of minor details was important for an unobvious reason. A camera being a machine has slight variations in its movements. For this reason a camera never exactly reproduces its signature. Likewise the same manufacturing machine produces cameras with slightly differing signatures. Without recognition of this omnipresent variability of machines, the basis for linking photographic materials to a particular camera collapses.
Analysis of the Imperial Reflex camera and all the backyard photographic materials by another HSCA group produced conflicting results. This group exposed rolls of film in the Imperial Reflex camera and after development examined frame edge markings and scratch marks. They found unchanging camera signatures. (391)
This result is shocking because careful examination of a roll of film by Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, and Dr. Ronald Francis showed considerable variations of camera signatures.(450) The implications of this being those who found unchanging camera signatures were careless in each and every repeat of their experiment.
More troublesome and consequential problems arise from the report of this group on their scratch mark analysis of all the backyard photographic materials. They found "scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph." (394)
The examined materials contained one original negative, several prints and enlargements of varying sizes. This assortment precluded a causal examination. Differences in sizes of these materials demanded a rigorous analysis. Under these circumstances failure to notice and report minor variations of camera signatures is inexcusable.
Either this group abused language and produced a misleading report with intention to deceive or they observed irrefutable evidence of fakery. In this latter case, forgers would have used a single signature of the Imperial Reflex camera to impress upon the backyard photo negatives that were produced by precision equipment.
This technique of forgery is tedious. They require many photographic, masking, and etching steps to produce a single forged signature. These complications could why the forgers took a shortcut and used the same forged signature for each backyard photograph.
Candid investigators could have detected this means of forgery by comparing variations of camera signatures on the backyard photo negatives with variations measured on their test negatives. They would find no evidence of this kind of forgery on backyard photo negatives whose signature variations were comparable with those of their test negatives. Only by finding significantly less or absence of signature variations on the backyard negatives could investigators conclude fakery by photographic impression of a common camera signature. Of course finding the missing negative of CE 133-A was a prerequisite for testing.
Measurement of signature variations from photographs is tedious. The negative scratch marks reside on a layer beneath a transparent protective coating. During handling this protective coating gets scratched. Separation of emulsion from negative scratch marks is one complication.
A high-powered microscope could focus upon the negative scratch marks and its short depth of focus would render emulsion marks invisible. However this technique requires precision three-axis positioning tables for both photographs.
Further the varying sizes of the backyard photos along with the dimensional instability of photographic paper (452) necessitated number crunching ability. Clearly solving these problems in 1978 required building a custom data acquisition and processing system.
Source: HSCA Photographic Panel Report
(391) In order to determine the pattern of these camera signatures the case of CE 750, Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, test photographs were made with it and then intentionally underexposed in development to show the frame edge markings better. (No special development method was necessary to bring out the camera scratch mark pattern.) (See fig. IV-26, JFK exhibit No. F-190). Each time the film was run through the camera, the camera signature created by the frame edge markings and scratch marks was found to be the same. (165)
(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis. Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints' white borders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph. (See figs. IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)
(448) When negatives that were exposed in the Oswald camera by the undersigned were compared with the negative of Oswald, similarities in the edge markings from irregularities in the film aperture and scratch patterns indicated that the negative of Oswald was exposed in the Oswald camera. In addition, variations in sharpness from the center to the edges, and pincushion distortion were similar on the original and comparison negatives.
(450) We had intended to make a quantitative comparison of the edge markings on the various photographs, as suggested by a panel member, by aligning parts of edge markings, measuring the displacement at fixed intervals and calculating the standard deviation. Careful examination of a roll of film we exposed in the Oswald camera revealed that while the distinctive marks appeared consistently on each frame of film, the straightness of the lines varied considerably-apparently due to slight buckling of the film. Instead, we made prints that compare pairs of edges on all four sides of the picture frame.
(452) There are two obvious discrepancies that we consider to be insignificant. (1) When one edge of the two images is aligned, there is a slight lack of parallelism on the other three edges. Since the two prints were made with two different enlargers, any deviation from exact parallelism of the negative and the easel on either enlarger, a not uncommon defect in enlargers, would produce this effect. (2) There is an obvious difference in the vertical to horizontal proportions of the two images. The dimensional stability of photographic paper during processing and drying is different in the direction of the paper grain as opposed to across the paper grain. The difference in proportions is consistent with expectations if the paper grain were oriented vertically on one print and horizontally on the other.