Backyard Photographs

[Ed O'Hagan]

John,

I happened to visit the JFK Lancer site and read your inquiry re Marina Oswald. I talked with her on six different occasions by telephone about five years ago. On two of those occasions she called me from a telephone-booth. Each time I called her at her home in Rockwall, Texas, she informed me that her telephone line was being tapped. Based on personal experience, I have not the least difficulty in accepting that it was indeed the case.

Originally Marina's cleverly worded statement to me was, "I had believed in the beginning that Lee had killed Kennedy". The 'cleverly' bit was that she avoided, and consistently avoided in all of our subsequent conversations, using the words 'my husband'. It was always 'Lee this' and 'Lee that' and "Now I know that Lee was innocent."

She explained to me how she had learned for the very first time that 'Lee' had not shot Kennedy, as follows:

"Jim Garrison asked me to come to see him. All the way going down to New Orleans in the car with Ken ( her second husband, Ken Porter) I was so angry. I believed that Lee had killed Kennedy, and over and over again I was telling Ken what I thought of Garrison for dragging us through the whole thing again. However, within 15 minutes after meeting Garrison in his office and listening to what he had to tell me, I was crying on his shoulder, and I knew that Lee was innocent."

Well that's her story, and it's absolutely factually correct. However, what Marina fails to relate is that she knew all along that 'Lee' Harvey Oswald(LHO) had not shot JFK, since LHO was not her husband, and that it was her husband, whom she also deliberately and misleadingly refers to as being 'Lee', who was directly involved in the assassination as one of the shooters.

Doppelganging the word 'Lee' has served her well... and the reason she was 'crying' on Garrison's shoulder was that she suddenly realized that Garrison apppeared to have the evidence to show that LHO had not shot JFK. It was both expedient and politically correct at that moment in time for her to have had her "mind changed" by Garrison.

LHO was not Marina's husband? How do I know that? Marina unwittingly told me, and indeed LHO was saying precisely just that, when he denied having posed for the backyard picture shown to him by Fritz. It can be deduced from the following question which I put to Marina:

Question: 'Marina, who took the backyard pictures?"

Answer: "I did , but the pictures you see to-day are not the ones I took of Lee."

Here, once again, Marina was being factually correct, while at the same time using the word 'Lee' both to conceal and mislead.

Prior to telling me what she certainly knew to be the truth of the matter concerning the backyard pictures... which very cleverly confirmed both LHO's insistence (together with a host of subsequent CT researchers' conclusions) that the pictures had been 'doctored' by means of the image of his face having been superimposed... Marina had described in detail everything about how the picture came to be taken and how "Lee' had insisted in holding the newspaper, etc., etc.

In point of fact, Marina had described in detail to me everything that was identically depicted in " the pictures you see to-day" In other words, although she did not realize it, she was telling me that the only thing that was different in the picture she took of HER HUSBAND to the one Fritz had shown to LHO, was the image of LHO's face, and which he had claimed had been superimposed.

Additionally, why would LHO have risked denying having posed for Marina, if he had actually known that she was the one who had taken the pictures (and the only way he could have known that was by actually having posed for her ), since he would have realized that his denial could not have been sustained. All that they would had to do was to call-in Marina and bring LHO face-to- face with her, and his denial would have been rendered obsolete in very short order.

The most nonsensical aspect of the whole scenario is to inquire of Marina as to why her pictures of her husband would have been were altered/changed/ substituted, so that everything in the backyard, including her description of 'Lee's' depiction and posture, would look precisely the same as she had described it?

Simply put, it all comes down to the question: " Marina, are you saying that they took the picture of your husband, and then superimposed his face over his face ?" .....

Hope this is helpful.

John, I am very much impressed with your website. Just excellent! I have already signed up.

Ed O'Hagan

Edited May 4, 2004 by eohagan

[Lee Forman]

Hello Ed.

Can't fathom your logic. I don't see how Marina's replies in any way can be used to assert that she was married to another individual other than the arrested LHO, or provide substance to the claim that she in fact even took the infamous backyard photos.

Can you get her to join the forum? As per everything that I have read regarding Marina, her credibility is highly suspect. Is it true that she has the authority to release LHO's W2s? What's preventing her from doing that - threat of deportation?

- Some research theorizes that there is a suspect for the individual that provided the 10:00am shadow 'body' for the 12:00pm shadow pasted 'face' [a scar on the right arm]. This may in fact have also been the research work of Jack White. I can't find it at the moment.

- There are 3 photos, unless you believe the one sent to Marguerite that she allegedly destroyed was a number 4 - a picture depicting LHO holding the Mannlicher Carcano carbine up over his head.

- The 3rd photo, another 10:00am shadow body with a 12:00pm shadow pasted face, but in a different position than the first 2 photos, was released on 1973, and was in found to be in the possession of Geneva Dees, Roscoe White's widow. Roscoe was a photographic technician for the Dallas Police Department [Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, Viking press, NY, Copyright 1993, page 170].

- The DeMohrenschildt photo has come under fire as it was of better quality and larger than the photos reputed to have come from Oswald's Imperial Reflex. The other 2 photos were originally investigated and confirmed to have come from the Imperial [aperture and backplane?].

- Jack White has done sufficient analysis to conclude that the 3 backyard photos were all from the same original picture - used as a template, and simply tilted at different angles on the enlarger.

- Ira David Wood III, Assassination Chronology, published in "Murder in Dealey Plaza," James H. Fetzer, Catfeet Press, Chicago, Copyright 2000, page 104, states that on 11/22/63, at around 4:00pm in the afternoon, a Robert Hester, "commercial photographer in Dallas, is called from home to process assassination related photographs of Oswald holding a rifle and pistol, sees an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of those pictures and one of the backyard photos he process shows no figure in the pictures. This claim is corroborated by Hester's wife."

- Marina's original claim to having taken the photos, as pointed out by Groden, [Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, Viking press, NY, Copyright 1993, page 170], said she was standing by the steps when she took the photos. All three extant photos show the steps at left.

Here's a more likely scenario: Marina took 'no' backyard photos, maybe ever. Or, if she did, it was not the set of photos we all know well today. The FBI in collusion with the Dallas Police Department [possibly Roscoe] gained access to the backyard, created the template [probably the afternoon of November 22, 1963], and the alleged 'backyard photos' were created and released to ensure LHO's guilt, and Marina was coerced and manipulated into her original, and subsequent, false statements.

Let's not forget, the 'exhaustive' search conducted of the Paines garage on 11/22/63 turned up no photos. They weren't 'discovered' until later the following day.

- lee

[Ian Griggs]

Lee,

In an article entitled "Firearms, Photographs and Lee Harvey Oswald" jointly written by Melanie Swift and myself and published in The Assassination Chronicles Vol. 1, Issue 1 (March 30, 1995), we list and describe five 'backyard photographs'. The fifth is the one of Oswald holding a rifle above his head which Marina carried around in her shoe before destroying it by tearing it up, burning it and then flushing it down the loo. I believe I am correct in saying that until Marina confirmed to me that this was a 'backyard photograph' that fact was not known. We had been wondering if it had been a photo taken of Oswald in Russia.

This article may have found its way on to John Kelin's 'Fair Play' internet site.

IAN

[Wim Dankbaar]

Can't fathom your logic.  I don't see how Marina's replies in any way can be used to assert that she was married to another individual other than the arrested LHO, or provide substance to the claim that she in fact even took the infamous backyard photos. 

I agree a 100%

Wim

[Ed O'Hagan]

John,

Although no direct reference will be found to the backyard photographs in this post, nonetheless it is fundamentally important to understanding what was outlined in the opening post of the thread. Eventually it may be possible for others to imagine themselves in the role of Marina's husband, and so come to understand why it was he became so cold towards her... what was going on at Neeley St...why Marguerite was not welcome, etc. .... and then why the photographs were taken and LHO's face superimposed.

Please note that in the 'Harvey and Lee' thread we read:

"John's theory goes a bit like this: "Harvey" spoke Russian, may have been the decent of a Hungarian Immigrant, was softspoken in manner and was the Patsy who was captured and executed. "Lee" was more of an athletic build, a hard drinker and was most likely taller? "Lee" would have been the marine, "Harvey" would have been the emigree to Moscow. Witnesses attest that their knowledge of this 'individual' differed, as some who knew him said he preferred to be called "Harvey" while the other would have started a fistfight if you were to have used this middle name."

From the above it is clear, therefore, that it was he, 'Harvey', who defected to the U.S.S.R, he who married Marina, and he who subsequently returned to the United States with her and their infant daughter, June.

Crossfire: A Whirlwind Romance makes the following points:

-In Minsk around March 17, 1961, -Oswald attended a trade union dance at the Palace of Culture.There he met 19-year-old Marina Nikolaevna Prusakova. Marina was a member of the Komsomol, the communist Party's youth movement. Oswald was introduced to her as "Alik" and they danced. Marina said they spoke Russian and she believed "Alik" to be a Soviet citizen, but from the Baltic area - Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. However, she was greatly surprised to learn that he was an American named Lee Harvey Oswald.

-They married on April 30, 1961, less than six weeks after first meeting.

-Within a matter of days after their marriage, Oswald informed Marina of his desire to return to the United States.

-On July 8, 1961, Oswald flew to Moscow to retrieve his passport at the American Embassy, and it was promptly returned.

- June Lee Oswald - was born to Marina on February 15, 1962.

- On May 10, 1962 the Oswalds were informed by the American Embassy that everything was in order and that they should come to Moscow to sign the final papers.

- Around this time Marina noted a cooling in Oswald's attitude toward her. This increased after they left Russia.

-On May 24, 1962, the Oswalds arrived in Moscow.

- On June 1, Oswald signed a promissory note at the American Embassy for a loan of $435.71, to cover the cost of their journey to the United States. Later that same day, both Oswalds met with Captain Alex ( Alexi) Davison USN , the American Embassy doctoré.( N.B. The address of Davison's Russian-speaking mother, Natasha, - who lived in Atlanta, Ga. - was later to be found in Oswald's address book. Some time afterwards, Davison was identified as the contact man for U.S. intelligence operations involving a Soviet colonel who spied for the CIA). The couple with their infant daughter, June, boarded a train for Holland later that evening.

- -Arriving in Amsterdam, according to Marina, the Oswalds stayed in a private establishment recommended by someone in the American embassy in Moscow. While the official record shows they stayed there only one night, Marina stated that she recalled a three-day stay at the location. However, when questioned later by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, she reacted with quite some confusion about the matter . Nevertheless, she is on record as having stated that advanced arrangements had been made for them at this place and that their hosts spoke English. Author Jim Marrs observes that many researchers suspect that Oswald, and perhaps Marina, were "debriefed" by U.S. intelligence during their stopover in Amsterdam .

-On June 4. 1962, according to the Warren Commission Report (see below) , the Oswald family boarded the SS Maasdam at Rotterdam, and after 9 days at sea disembarked at Hoboken, New Jersey, on June 13. 1962. There they were met by Spas T. Raikin, a representative of the Traveler's Aid Society, which had been notified of the Oswalds' arrival by the State Department. Raikin helped the Oswald's through customs and then found them a place to stay overnight in New York. He later arranged contact with Lee's brother, Robert, who sent the couple $200 to pay for plane fare to Fort Worth, Texas.

N.B. Interesting fellow was Spas Raikin... According to BBC researcher and author Anthony Summers, Spas was also a highly placed official with an anti-communist émigré group with links to both the FBI and U.S. military intelligence as well as anti-communist groups in New Orleans, and occupied office space in the very building where, in the days ahead. Oswald's name was to be linked with CIA-backed anti-Castro activists.

(N.B. A Google search will produce websites aplenty related to Spas Raikin)

****************************************************************

For those who may wish to refer to the relevant section in Appendix 13 of the Warren Commission Report (WCR): Therein is stated as follows:

Oswald picked up his Soviet, exit visa on May 22; 801 at about this time, he also had an interview with an official of the MVD to obtain final clearance for his departure. 802 He wrote to Robert that he and his family would leave for Moscow on the following day and depart for England 10 to 14 days later. He expected to cross the Atlantic by ship, probably docking in New Orleans. Returning to a point which he had made in an earlier letter to his mother, he commented that he knew from the newspaper clippings what Robert had said about him when he left for Russia; he thought that Robert had talked too much at that time, and asked that Robert say nothing to the newspapers now. 803

The Oswalds arrived in Moscow by May 24 804 and on that date filled out various documents at the American Embassy; 805 Marina was given her American visa.806 Final arrangements for their emigration were made with Soviet officials. 807 On June 1, Oswald signed a promissory note at the Embassy for a repatriation loan of $435.71.808 He and his family boarded a train for Holland,809 which passed through Minsk that night.810 They crossed the Soviet frontier at Brest on June 2. Two days later, they departed from Holland on the SS Maasdam. 811 Onboard ship, the Oswalds stayed by themselves; Marina testified that she did not often go on deck because she was poorly dressed and Oswald was ashamed of her.812

Probably while he was on board the Maasdam Oswald wrote some notes on ship stationery, which appear to be a summary of what he thought he had learned by living under both the capitalist and Communist systems. The notes reflect his unhappy and deepening feeling of disillusionment with both the Soviet Union and the United States. Oswald observed that although reform groups may oppose the government in power, they always declare that they are for their people and their country, and he asked what "would happen if somebody was to stand up and say he was utterly opposed not, only to the governments, but to the people, too the entire land and complete foundations" of his society. He condemned existing political groups and proposed the formation of a third choice between communism and capitalism. neither of which was acceptable to him. "I have lived," he said, under both systems I have sought the answers and although it would

Page 713

be very easy to dupe myself into believing one system is better than the other, I know they are not." In these notes, he acknowledged that his "Red Cross" subsidy had been paid by the Soviet Government rather than the international organization, and said, "I shall never sell myself intentionlly, or unintentionlly to anyone again." (Commission Exhibit No. 25, p. 273.) It was probably also onboard ship that Oswald wrote two sets of answers to questions which he anticipated about his decision to go to Russia. and later to return to the United States. Although the sets of answers are somewhat similar, but the tone of one is apologetic, while the other suggests that Oswald went to Russia to study the Soviet system, but remained a loyal American and owed no apologies.814

The Maasdam landed at Hoboken, N.J., on June 13.815 The Oswalds were met by Spas T. Raikin, a representative of the Traveler's Aid Society, which had been contacted by the Department of State; Raikin had the impression that Oswald was trying to avoid meeting anyone. He told Raikin that he had only $63 and had no plans either for that night or for travel to Fort Worth, and accepted the society's help, according to Raikin, "with confidence and appreciation."816 They passed through the immigration office without incident,817 and Raikin helped them through customs.818

The society referred the Oswalds to the New York City Department of Welfare, which helped them find a room at the Times Square Hotel.819 Oswald told both Raikin and representatives of the welfare department that he had been a marine stationed at the American Embassy in Moscow, had married a Russian girl, renounced his citizenship, and worked in Minsk; he soon found out, he said, that the Russian propaganda was inaccurate but had not been able to obtain an exit visa for his wife and child for more than 2 years. He said also that he had paid the travel expenses himself.820

The welfare department called Robert Oswald's home in Fort Worth. His wife answered and said that they would help. She contacted her husband who sent $200 immediately.821 Oswald refused to accept the money and insisted that the department itself should pay the fare to Texas; he threatened that they would go as far as they could on $63 and rely on local authorities to get them the rest of the way. In the end he accepted the money.822 On the afternoon of June 14, the Oswalds left New York by plane for Fort Worth.823

FORT WORTH, DALLAS, NEW ORLEANS

Oswald had originally indicated that he and his family would stay with his mother in Vernon, Tex.824 His decision to stay with Robert Oswald in Fort Worth apparently had been prompted by his brother's invitation in a letter to him in Russia.825 Oswald listed only his brother as a relative on an "Intake Interview" form which he prepared for the New York Department of Welfare.826

Page 714

Robert took his wife and children to Love Field, the Dallas airport, to meet Lee and Marina and their baby, June Lee.827 He testified that the most noticeable change in his brother's appearance was that he had become rather bald; he seemed also to be somewhat thinner than he had been in 1959. Robert thought that his brother had picked up "something of an accent" but, except for these changes was "the same boy" whom he had known before.828 Lee commented on the absence of newspaper reporters and seemed to Robert to be disappointed that none had appeared.829 Later on, Lee was anxious to avoid publicity.830

Robert drove the Oswalds to his home at 7313 Davenport Street.831 For a few days, Lee seemed tense,832 but the brothers got along well,833 and to Robert it was "more or less ... [as if Lee] had not been to Russia"; they were "just together again.

******************************************************************

From the above section in the WC, please note the following.

-It was Harvey, not Lee.who wrote to Robert Oswald and stated that he and his family expected to cross the Atlantic by ship, probably docking in New Orleans. Harvey was not Robert's brother...Lee was !

-to Robert it was "more or less ... [as if Lee] had not been to

Russia"; they were "just together again

There it is !... Harvey boarded the plane in New York with his wife, Marina, and infant daughter, June, but when the plane landed at Love Field in Fort Worth, apparently it was Robert's brother, Lee, and not Harvey, who came off the plane with Marina and her little daughter June. Indeed Marina was telling the truth (and once again misleadingly) when she chose later to observe on more than one occasion, " I was a woman with two 'husbands".

So where and when did Lee and Harvey trade places? For that we have to return to 'Crossfire' where Marrs relates roughly as follows:

Upon arrival in New York, the Oswalds had seven suitcases. but when they left by plane in Fort Worth , they had only five. When asked about the missing two pieces of luggage , Oswald stated that he had sent them ahead by rail. However, when the family arrived in Fort Worth, Robert was surprised to see that altogether they had only two suitcases.

Marrs speculated that the lost luggage may have had something to do with their flight to Texas, which, although many direct flights were available, went by way of Atlanta. However, recalling that Atlanta was the home of Natasha Davison, the mother of Captain Davison, the U.S. attaché with intelligence connections who had met with the Oswalds in Moscow, here is one possibility which might merit further consideration:

Aboard the SS Maasdam seven suitcases would have posed no problem, but going aboard the Delta Airlines Flight 810 via Atlanta to Fort Worth would have meant paying 'overweight ' charges for at least two of these cases, perhaps even three; and Harvey knew that he needed to hold onto the few dollars he had remaining . So that morning back at the motel, and prior to going aboard the aircraft, the Oswalds re-packed their belongings into five cases, and dumped the two smallest cases. Harvey's belongings ended up being re-packed into four cases , and Marina and June's belongings ended up in one case. In Atlanta Harvey departed with his four cases, Lee joined Marina and June, carrying a single case, and when they arrived at Love Field in Fort Worth. yes indeed, Robert would have seen not seven, not five, but only two cases..... And observe, if Robert had been a party to the deception, he never would have even considered drawning attention to the 'two suitcase' aspect.

N.B. In a statement to the Secret Service following the assassination, Marina had recounted a completely different version of their trip from Russia from that later attributed to her in the WCR Report. She claimed that they "then arrived in New York by air...stayed in some hotel in New York City for one day and then went by train to Texas." Obviously she had very good reason to prevaricate. Think about it.

Ed O'Hagan

[Michael Clark]

A good link/update for this thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/727-backyard-photos-invitation-for-jack-white/&page=1

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ed LeDoux]

 

[Chris Bristow]

On May 1, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Ed LeDoux said:

 

Recently I looked at the power line shadows on the post. The reason it moves differently is because the power lines are about 14 feet away and so the shadows move very fast. Based on the distance to the power lines the shadow should move about 6 inches over about 7 minutes.(that is from memory). If you take that 14 feet as the radius x 2 x 3.14 divided into 360 you get one foot of shadow movement for every 4 degrees change in elevation. The Sun's elevation was changing by one degree every 10 minutes so as I recall, the shadow on the post moved about 6 inches so the time elapse for 3 photos is about 5 minutes.  Also the telephone lines ran down the East side of the ally right next to the Neeley house. they have since been moved across the ally to the power pole. You can verify this because the pole in your Neeley house photo (on  the right side of the photo) is on the East side of the ally. One interesting thing I noticed is the shadow behind the post is only slightly visible so from that we can determine almost the exact azimuth as it relates to Marinas los. What is weird is Oswald is only 7 degrees to the right of the post( degrees based on a camera dist of 10 feet), yet his shadow extends at least 13 to 16 degrees out to the side(It measures as 40 degrees but a 16 degree angle from 10 feet distorts to 2 1/2 times what it really is. We should see a 7 degree difference plus one because the post shadow appearing to be one degree left of center. But we see way more than 8 degree. 
As far as Oswalds lean in 133 I find it impossible to duplicate. If you just try to align your right shin, knee and belt buckle(The center line of the body at the belt line) you will fall over. As long as you match the forward position of the right foot and match the hips which remain almost straight forward you will fall over.When people claim to duplicate the stance they tend to turn the foot(And therefore the knee) way out to the right. But Oswald's foot and hips are almost fully forward and if you match the hips and right foot you can't turn the knee out enough to make it work. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

Ha, Ha, Ha.  This is wonderful.  I had a good laugh at Mr. LeDoux's video.  Not, because he is wrong.  I got a really good laugh because he is right on!

Here is another example of just how fake these photos are.  Jack White missed this.  I missed this. 

LeDoux has it right in this extra ammunition saying the BYP's are fake.  They are not only faked but, badly faked.

Edited August 10, 2018 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

The math is simple and proves the shadow on the post moves as it should. The telephone lines can be no closer that 14 feet and at that distance they should move just like we see in the 3 photos. If the lines are beyond 14 feet then the shadow would move even faster. The math does not lie and I think we have to accept that the power lines can be no closer than 14 feet and from that we know mathematically that the shadow would move 3 to 5 inches in only 10 minutes. 
 To find how many inches a shadow moves per degree of the Sun's  elevation you take the 14 feet x 2= the diameter x 3.14 to get the circumference then divide 360 degrees by the circumference and you get how many degrees equals 1 foot movement which is 360 / 88 = 3.9. That is one foot movement  for every 3.9 degree elevation change. The sun's elevation was decreasing by 1 or 1.6 degrees every 10 minutes. (can't remember my exact figures) so the shadow had to be moving at LEAST 3 to 5 inches up the post if the time between photos was up to ten minutes. So because the power lines can be no closer than 14 feet from the post the shadow would move no slower than 3 inches every ten minutes. 
 On another topic, I too have wondered  about the shadow you pointed out  recently as going in the wrong direction(It is the shadow leaning upward to the right that sits on the wall just beyond and below the landing at the top of the staircase). I think I know its origin now. It is the shadow of the South edge of the landing. I modeled it with a couple pieces of paper, one to represent the horizontal landing and the other to represent the vertical wall the shadow falls on. Once you get your light source at the right elevation and angle off or azimuth, you can reproduce the shadow and its angle exactly. Not saying these photos are real, just saying many of the theories don't hold water.

[Guest]

These are archived posts

 

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13242989-back-yard-photography.html

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13097955-backyard-photos.html

 

[David Josephs]

Bringing Mr O’Hagan and his original post full circle... sometimes believing one’s own eyes is sufficient 

We didn’t MAKE the two men appear differently, they just do...

if they were the same, the physical makeup of the features would not conflict in every comparison.  

The 1959 passport photo is the last image of Lee Oswald we have.... Lee in a white jacket holding a rifle and the same man in Russian, 2 years later...  thinner and shorter?

Below is evidence of the 2 men taking 2 different trips to Europe in Sept/Oct ‘59...

As to Marina and her “truthful testimony” related to the BYPs....   the camera is held chest high as one looks down at an inverted image, Marina testifies to this being the only time using a camera...  she didn’t or wouldn’t ID the camera she was handed correctly,  the 2 magazines represent competing factions and would usually not be subscribed to or read, philosophically, together....

The fact that Det Brown was positioned in the one pose no one sees until 1977, on 11/29/63 is a bit weird, especially since it was Stovall and Roscoe White who had these prints...

Finally, if the sun is behind and to the right of the camera, all shadows fall away from the lens and must fall in the same direction..

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1800-debunking-dartmouth/#entry9397

 

But the real problem is the ghost image compared to the real.. not sure why it squished.... but there obvious serious problems with those photos

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by David Josephs

[Ray Mitcham]

Not again, David. We've had this argument before. You are reading the shadows incorrectly. In the first photo, where you have added where you think the post shadow should be, you have it going entirely the wrong way. From the camera back to the sun, the sun shadows always "converge," not diverge, because they are parallel. Perspective makes them appear to converge. 

 

As in this photo.

 

 

p.s.doesn't mean that I don't think there are lots of faults with the BYPs.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Ray,

Deleted.

[John Butler]

Right on David Joseph.  Maybe, what you have provided will put an end to this foolish argument that the BYPs are authentic.  But, with people like Ray Meacham, I doubt it.