Backyard Photos, invitation for Jack White.

[Paul Trejo]

On 5/3/2017 at 7:13 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

It can be logically inferred, from what you're saying, that Oswald intentionally posed unnaturally and uncomfortably like that so he could later claim the photo had been faked.

--  Tommy

 

Sandy,

A more likely explanation is that Oswald -- while working at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall in March 1963 -- made several reproductions of an original BYP, using different poses by somebody else (with a different chin) and then deliberately tilted the photograph during the several reproductions, in order to logically claim that the photos had been faked.

Oswald knew the photos had been faked because he himself had faked them.   Oswald faked the photos for Plausible Deniability.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

 

For Sandy, here is a photo of twenty-year-old John F Kennedy doing his Leaning Tower of Pisa imitation (Kennedy Library).

 

 

That ain't nothin'.

 

 

But seriously, how did Kennedy do that?

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

How did Kennedy do that?

 

Regarding JFK and the Tower of Pisa -- Fast shutter speed while he's slowly falling forward?

Edited May 10, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

How did Kennedy do that?

 

Regarding JFK and the Tower of Pisa -- Fast shutter speed while he's slowly falling forward?

Seems reasonable. Or with a movie camera from which the best frame could be taken.

In Michael Jackson's case:

 

 

[Tom Hume]

 

Deleted.

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

Does anyone happen to know if this photo of John F Kennedy was in general circulation in 1963?

It's also slightly interesting that Kennedy wore white and the Oswald figure wore black for their respective Leaning Tower of Pisa imitations. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

On 2/14/2017 at 7:02 AM, John Butler said:

To me Jack White is a mystery.  I don’t understand some of the things he said about various topics.  I don’t understand what he was doing with the Altgens photos or why late in life he revealed information about Dick Bothun. 

He was dead set that the Zapruder film was a fraud and offered many explanation why that was so.

In the Backyard Photos, if my memory serves me, he gave 15 or so explanations why the BYP were false.  The strange thing is he allowed himself and Robert Groden to be beat up at the HSCA hearings when discussing the BYP.

In my opinion Jack White hints at but does not fully explain the most devastating aspects of the BYP.  As I said he hints at the most fraudulent concept in the BYP but does not state it fully.  In other discussions of other photos he comes right out and bluntly and forcefully states why that photo is false using the same concept he should have used in describing the BYP.

John,

I have a theory about Jack White. .

When watching his video, FAKE: The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald (ca. 1990), I was astounded by his discovery that Roscoe White was the "chin," neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in LHO's Backyard Photographs.

I thought that Jack White was a genius, and I eagerly looked forward to his next video.

Yech!   I was stunned when this apparently brilliant mind suddenly destroyed his own credibility with his "Harvey and Lee" hypothesis.  The USSR had made two fake photos of Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in the USSR.  The first photo doubled the right side of Oswald's face, and the second photo doubled the left side of Oswald's face.  This produced two different photographs that vaguely looked like Oswald, but side by side they looked like different people.  (This is true of any face -- take your own photographs this way, and see.)  The USSR did this for plausible deniability, just in case Oswald became a political problem for them. 

Anyway -- Jack White suggested that "Harvey and Lee" really were two different people.  The theory was ridiculous in 1990, and it is even more ridiculous today as the science fiction series that it has become. 

WHY, I asked myself, did the brilliant Jack White step all over his original, brilliant work of showing the FAKE nature of the Backyard Photographs -- and reverse his credibility with this "Harvey and Lee" nonsense?  Worse -- Jack White began to attack the Zapruder film, twisting minor film irregularities into vast conspiracies.

WHY?   IMHO, the Roscoe White discovery was a genuine exposé of the Truth -- and the world wasn't ready for it.  (President GHW Bush had not yet signed the JFK Records Act).  Those in Dallas who were still at risk, put pressure on Jack White to destroy his own credibility -- and he caved in.

So, that's my theory.  Jack White's last act of genius was the Roscoe White theory of the BYP.  It was all downhill from there.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo
removed photo attachments to make Space

[Chris Bristow]

I have been trying to sort out the issue of the shadow below Oswald's nose. I have a few observations and questions. 
    First, while the shadow does fall on the center of the lips and face it does not mean that the shadow is vertical. Oswald is actually looking slightly off to his left, about three degrees. Because of this his nose is not lined up directly over his lips. A line running from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow shows about 7 degrees of angle. 
 If we consider his head tilt at 4 degrees which cancels 4 degrees of shadow angle, and the 3 degrees leftward rotation of his face, which also cancels the shadow angle we can account for 14 degrees of shadow  We can say the shadow below the nose verifies 14 degrees angle between the line of sight of the camera and the Sun. 
  If 14 degrees is correct then the shadow on the ground should show the full 14 degrees angle when compared to Marina's line of sight. However the shadow on the ground appears to be around 40 degrees off Marina's line of sight(Taking into account Oswald's amont of lean in 133a,b,c). But the 40 degrees visible is the result of distortion by the angle of view. So if anyone has any information on photogrammetry results of 133a I would really appreciate it.
   Short of having Marina's exact location/angle I can make some basic observations  and place an upper limit on the actual angle. As an example, an angle of 15 degrees will appear as approx 40 degrees when photographed from 9 feet. The farther you move away the wider the angle becomes. So I am making an assumption that Marina had to be be at least 9 feet away.  I took some sample photos to come to this assumption.This means that the 40 degree angle we see is really no greater than APPROX 15 degrees. If Marina was farther away it was even less.
 The first implication is that the 15 degrees accounted for by the position of the nose shadow is consistent and sufficient to account for the shadow angle on the ground at the time the photo was taken.
 The second implication involves Marina's line of sight which together with the angle of the shadow gives the azimuth and time of day. I found Marina's line of sight to be about 27 degrees North of East. Adding 15 degrees of shadow angle makes a shadow angle correspond to an azimuth of 228 or shadow angle of 42. That puts the time of the photos at around 4:05pm March 31st 63'. 
Based on my assumption that Marina could be no closer than 9 feet from Oswald, the real shadow could be no greater than 15 degrees and so the time could be no earlier that 4:05pm(considering a 15min error possibility).
  In order to get a good line of sight for Marina I used modern photos that still retain markers in the yard to approximate camera position. These later photos, taken after the house next door was torn down, allows you to see a house 1/2 block East on the NorthEast corner Elsbeth st. It is still there on google maps and allows for a very accurate line of sight for Marina.

I tried to verify the 15 degree shadow on the ground a separate way. To do this I had to make an assumption that the pickets on the fence are 3 inches wide. I based it on the posts that holds up the platform at the top of the stairs being 4x4's. (4x4'sactually measure 3.25 x 3.25). If anyone has input on what the size the pickets or posts are I would love to know. 
 I made an estimate of the shadows angle using 2 measurement. First, the  elevation of the Sun at 4:20pm of 52 degrees which resulted in shadow of 53 inches. Second, the position of the shadow at the 3rd picket and Oswald's head lining up above the 5th picket allowed for an estimate of the deviation from object to shadow. Using both those measurements the shadow angle came out to approx 13 degrees. If I change the width of the picket to 4 inches the result grows to 18 degrees.

  So what I conclude from this inquiry is that it would be impossible for Marina to be any closer than 9 feet and get the shot we see. If this is the case then the shadow on the ground can be no more than 16 degrees off of her line of sight. This means the nose shadow or lack of it can be accounted for by the 7 degrees of measured angle, the head tilt of 4 degrees and rotation off the line of sight at 3 degrees. It also puts the time of the photos to around 4:20pm.
    One issue I can't address is that in 133b his head is tilted 4 degrees more than 133a. It is measurable after you rotate the two images to match. But 133b is not clear enough to see if the angle at the lips is 4 degrees less than 133a.  I am open to input but as of now it seems the shadow under the nose may be a false issue. 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

Chris Barstow,

Thanks for bringing this topic up again.  It was a lot of fun to re-read through this topic.  Almost everyone seems to be in basic agreement that the BYP's are essentially fake.  And, they do that in myriad ways.  It is really interesting to see what people have seen in these photos as being out of kilter with reality.

I work on the principle that if there is one instance of fakery found in a photo then it can't be used realistically for any purpose.  I violate that principle all the time to make a point about something I want to point out.  So, I might use the BYP's to point out something about the shadows around the TSBD in the Prayer Man photos.

To me the 3 conflicting shadows found in the BYP's are enough to say fake.  Even if you remove one, the shadow under the Oswald figure's nose, then there are still two conflicting shadows. 

I think I probably made a mistake in using a long-winded artistic example to explain why I thought the BYP's were fake.  It probably turned people off to the explanation of the 3 conflicting shadow problem that followed.

I never answered Paul Trejo above.  There is a Harvey (Oswald double) and a Lee (the original Lee Harvey Oswald).  This can be proved by one simple little facial / head trait.  Harvey had earlobes and Lee didn't have earlobes.  Jack White was essentially correct in his analysis of Harvey and Lee.  But, like a lot of other things he never hammered down a concept.  He left wiggle room for others to make their claims.  This is discussed in depth in the following article:

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/05/05/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald-the-oswald-project-part-i/

I have proven over time that Altgens 5, Altgens 6, and Altgens 7 were photo edited, hence fakes.  Why Jack didn't see the fakery in these photos is a mystery to me.  Maybe, he was protecting Dick Bothun and Ike Altgens for some reason.  I can't imagine why he would protect Ike Altgens by saying he things he said over time.  I have recently added to the article on Altgens 7 fakery.  You can find this at:

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/04/01/mass-perjury-at-the-triple-underpass/

   

Edited July 14, 2018 by John Butler

[Jeff Carter]

Hi Chris

Thanks for your work. Am I right in summarizing that the shadow anomalies are in fact consistent with the existing conditions (positions), and therefore not “anomalies”?

After the HSCA photo panel finished their report, the consensus of the consulted experts - from both sides of the debate - was that the only viable location of forgery in the BYP was the possible superimposition of Oswald’s face on someone else’s body (which, everyone conceded, could be done by a skilled forger with high-end equipment). If you are saying the shadows line up and are consistent, then this would make such a superimposition much less likely due to the coincident of an unrelated Oswald face matching the light conditions.

[John Butler]

Sorry Gentlemen,

The BYP’s as an issue is dead.  The photos are fakes.  There is no way you can get around that.  You can ignore it if you choose.  You can find someone of like mind to continue the argument with if you want.

It is inescapable that there are 3 light sources inducing shadows in the BYP’s that are not consistent with each other or anything else. 

The sun produces shadows by shining on objects.  The resulting shadows move directly off from the light source, in this case the sun. 

You can not have 3 suns in a normal and real photo.  The photo from Life Magazine will demonstrate this with red arrows that point out 3 different directions that shadows in the BYP’s move.

 

A brief summary of the directions of 3 conflicting shadows in the Life BYP.

1. Shadow no. 1 moves from picture left to picture right.

2. Shadow no. 2 moves downward from the Oswald figure’s nose to mouth.  A different direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 3.

3. Shadow no. 3 moves from picture right to picture left.  This is the opposite direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 2.

The BYP’s are fakes and point out that the man everyone knows as Lee Harvey Oswald was being set up as a Patsy.  As far as I am concerned the issue needs no further discussion and nothing extra added to understand that this is a dead issue or if you like case closed.    

You can continue the argument if you wish.

Edited August 1, 2018 by John Butler

[David Von Pein]

50 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The BYP’s as an issue is dead.  The photos are fakes. 

There's nothing "phony" about the shadows in the backyard pictures----as demonstrated by CBS News in 1967....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html

Edited July 14, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

26 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

There's nothing "phony" about the shadows in the backyard pictures----as demonstrated by CBS News in 1967....

I had no idea that CBS was fighting off the fact of photo fakery with regard to the BYP’s as far back as 1967.

Thanks David Von Pein.

[David Von Pein]

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I had no idea that CBS was fighting off the fact of photo fakery with regard to the BYP’s as far back as 1967.

Yes. And PROVING that the different shadow angles are NORMAL for a photo taken in the backyard of 214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas, on March 31st at noontime.

And yet there are still CTers arguing that the shadows "prove fakery", even with that huge blow-up of the CBS News 3/31/67 photo staring them in the face via the above-linked video. (I guess they must ALSO think the 3/31/67 CBS picture is fake too.)

 

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks David Von Pein.

S'alright.

[Chris Bristow]

On July 14, 2018 at 2:45 PM, John Butler said:

Sorry Gentlemen,

The BYP’s as an issue is dead.  The photos are fakes.  There is no way you can get around that.  You can ignore it if you choose.  You can find someone of like mind to continue the argument with if you want.

It is inescapable that there are 3 light sources inducing shadows in the BYP’s that are not consistent with each other or anything else. 

The sun produces shadows by shining on objects.  The resulting shadows move directly off from the light source, in this case the sun. 

You can not have 3 suns in a normal and real photo.  The photo from Life Magazine will demonstrate this with red arrows that point out 3 different directions that shadows in the BYP’s move.

A brief summary of the directions of 3 conflicting shadows in the Life BYP.

1. Shadow no. 1 moves from picture left to picture right.

2. Shadow no. 2 moves downward from the Oswald figure’s nose to mouth.  A different direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 3.

3. Shadow no. 3 moves from picture right to picture left.  This is the opposite direction from Shadow no. 1 and Shadow no. 2.

The BYP’s are fakes and point out that the man everyone knows as Lee Harvey Oswald was being set up as a Patsy.  As far as I am concerned the issue needs no further discussion and nothing extra added to understand that this is a dead issue or if you like case closed.    

You can continue the argument if you wish.

Well John I did not say they are real. I am only saying the nose shadow is as it should be.I really do not mean to be offensive but you are very much mistaken when you say all shadows should have the same angle is not true. Shadows do move directly off objects like you say and angled objects create angled shadows that move directly off it. The attached photo shows several different angles, the rear is horizontal, the side vertical and the pole has an angled shadow. Secondly uneven ground will change the apparent shadow angle too. Third thing is you perspective, you may notice in the Z film that poles to the right of the Sun have a shadow that(From Z's perspective) lean to the right. But poles on the left of the Sun lean to the left(from Z's position.  

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Chris Bristow