How Did They Get Roscoe White To Lean Like That And Not Fall Over?

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

I found a better version of Figure RIT 4.1 in the HSCA report, page 182. It shows that the bottom two squares did really stand out from the brick wall and therefore, cannot be used for any pincushion analysis. Naturally, a small pincushion effect is present also in the picture below, however, it is not that strong as indicated with your blue lines which wrongly copy the bottom rectangles. In contrast to the bottom squares, which appear to be framed, the top square is mounted flat and fixated in the corners with pieces of tape. This square reveals an optical problem of this particular camera which appears to have been overlooked for so many years. As I am constructing the 3D model of the doorway, I can now trust rather my model in terms of the vertical lines than the pictures from this camera - the program does not know about any imperfections of this particular Imperial camera.

This picture is very useful. It shows that the vertical lines in the bottom part, especially in the centre of the picture, were straight. The problem is the right upper quadrant, especially the part which is occupied by the right top part of the square. It causes the vertical line to fall rightwards, and maybe the horizontal lines downwards.

To convince you that Oswald's camera distorted the pictures especially in the upper right quadrant, I am posting a family picture made by Lee Oswald. There are no guiding lines here, however, I hope you can extend the edges of the top square into the family picture (I have aligned the left edge of the top square with the brick column in the upper picture). The brick column is straight, however, the windows grills further to the right and the right wall fall towards the right. Please, note the leftward orientation of the window in the left part of the family picture, exactly as in CE133A.

I hope I have answered your queries. I am posting below the updated alignements of RIT 4.1. and the three backyard pictures.

That's a good find Andrej.

I see now that we're not dealing with a posterboard, but rather with a large wall. And the "curled papers" are really large posters that are set on the floor and leaning against the wall. As you remarked, this is a problem for pincushion analysis because the leaning posters introduce a large amount of perspective distortion. It is difficult to distinguish between the perspective distortion and the pincushion distortion. What this means is that I can't draw vertical lines at the bottom showing that the vertical lines in the BYPs must also diverge like they do at the top if you accept that the optical distortions in this photo represents the distortions in the BYPs.

In short, there is nothing I can do with this photo.

However, as it turns out that's a moot point. Because after studying carefully the family photo you presented, I became convinced that asymmetrical distortion was occurring. It's not supposed to occur given the symmetrical way lens elements are manufactured. But when I saw in the home photo all kinds of asymmetrical distortions (for example pincushioning on the right outside wall and roof-line, but straight angles in other areas) I concluded that significant asymmetrical distortions were indeed occurring.

I checked further and discovered that the lens for this camera is made out of plastic. BINGO! I knew I had found the problem.

Glass lenses are ground and polished in a way that maintains symmetry. Plastic lenses, I'm sure, are not ground at all. They are made by casting or injection molding. The shape is determined by the mold, which was made in some machine shop. Machine shops don't necessarily use cutting techniques designed to make a mold radially symmetrical.

So, as of now I believe that the angles we see in the BYPs are due to imperfections in the plastic lens. Not keystoning. I could change my mind if a photo from the same camera surfaces that doesn't have the same optical foot print as the other photos. But right now I'm satisfied with this conclusion.

Sandy:

thanks for summarising the issue. Your posts on lens distortions and other photographic problems were very educative. I am glad we found agreement in the problem of divergent vertical lines. Let us see where this thread will lead us further.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Paul Trejo]

...I checked further and discovered that the lens for this camera is made out of plastic. BINGO! I knew I had found the problem.

Glass lenses are ground and polished in a way that maintains symmetry. Plastic lenses, I'm sure, are not ground at all. They are made by casting or injection molding. The shape is determined by the mold, which was made in some machine shop. Machine shops don't necessarily use cutting techniques designed to make a mold radially symmetrical.

So, as of now I believe that the angles we see in the BYPs are due to imperfections in the plastic lens. Not keystoning. I could change my mind if a photo from the same camera surfaces that doesn't have the same optical foot print as the other photos. But right now I'm satisfied with this conclusion.

Sandy:

thanks for summarising the issue. Your posts on lens distortions and other photographic problems were very educative. I am glad we found agreement in the problem of divergent vertical lines. Let us see where this thread will lead us further.

This is indeed historical progress -- this thread has shown that Jack White's 1995 analysis of the "keystoning" in the BYP can be improved with an analysis of the Imperial Reflex lens itself.

Kudos to Andrej and Sandy, and also to Tommy who started this thread in the first place, stragetically worded.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Also, if we have a consensus on the issue of the apparent "keystoning" of the BYP's, then the next theme within this thread by Tommy Graves is Tommy's specific naming of Roscoe White as the body-double of LHO in the BYP.

Why would anybody say that the BYP body-double is Roscoe White? Again, it is because of the work of Jack White in the 1990's. According to Jack White, the chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance all belong to Roscoe White -- judging from Marine photographs of Roscoe White.

This is significant when we consider that Roscoe's son, Ricky White, and his wife, Geneva White-Dees, both claimed that Roscoe confessed to them that he, Roscoe, was one of the shooters at JFK as well as at J.D. Tippit on 11/22/1963.

If Roscoe White actually is the body-double in LHO's BYP's, and if he is also one of the JFK and Tippit shooters, then we have a unique clue in the JFK conspiracy which has barely been explored in the past 20 years.

Why has this been neglected? IMHO it is because of the (unsubstantiated) theory that the BYP's were created by the US Government to frame LHO for the murder of JFK. Most people have been looking over there instead of over here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Tommy -- may I ask you?

When you started this thread earlier this month, were you being sarcastic when you named Roscoe White as the body-double of Lee Harvey Oswald's BYP?

Or have you accepted Jack White's 1995 claim that Roscoe White was indeed the body-double of Oswald's BYP?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy -- may I ask you?

When you started this thread earlier this month, were you being sarcastic when you named Roscoe White as the body-double of Lee Harvey Oswald's BYP?

Or have you accepted Jack White's 1995 claim that Roscoe White was indeed the body-double of Oswald's BYP?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

Based on Jack White's photographic interpretations of the BYP's and my overall impression that the photos are fake, I'm reasonably sure that Oswald's head, from the lips up, was pasted onto White's body. I kinda like your idea that White posed (for Oswald) to help Oswald create some plausibly-deniable photographs so that Oswald could say "That's not me. Someone pasted my head on someone else's body," if necessary.

If this theory is correct, then Oswald did a good job of creating photos that looked real but not too real, fake, but not too fake.

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that I believe General Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the assassination.

-- Tommy

Edited September 30, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Paul,

Based on Jack White's photographic interpretations of the BYP's and my overall impression that the photos are fake, I'm reasonably sure that Oswald's head, from the lips up, was pasted onto White's body. I kinda like your idea that White posed (for Oswald) to help Oswald create some plausibly-deniable photographs so that Oswald could say "That's not me. Someone pasted my head on someone else's body," if necessary.

If this theory is correct, then Oswald did a good job of creating photos that looked real but not too real, fake, but not too fake.

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that I believe General Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the assassination.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Yes, I think there was a double reason for Roscoe White to pose for LHO in the Backyard Photographs.

The first reason was that Roscoe was a strident Anticommunist, and in this period, March 1963, Roscoe believed that LHO was also a strident Anticommunist. In this context, LHO would have convinced Roscoe that LHO intended to use these photographs to infiltrate the Communist Party and then wreak havoc upon them. So, in addition to helping LHO promote a plausible deniability, Roscoe would support LHO's plans to infiltrate the Communist Party.

We get confirmation for this from Volkmar Schmidt, whose story is confirmed by George DeMohrenschildt. It was in late February 1963, at one of the many Dallas parties for young oil engineers at Everett Glover's house, where the Oswalds would appear as honored guests, courtesy of George DeMohrenschildt.

One young friend of George was Volkmar Schmidt, who was also a roommate there with Everett Glover. In a FRONTLINE video in the 1990's, found on YouTube today, Volkmar Schmidt admitted that LHO had become annoying to him and to George and others, by criticizing JFK for the Bay of Pigs.

Volkmar boasted that he knew a psychological process that could transfer LHO's bias against JFK into a bias against the radical, rightwing General Walker (who had only in January 1963 been released from prison, acquitted for his role in leading the racial riots at Ole Miss in late 1962). The group of young Dallas engineers gathered to watch this psychological process in a group spectacle.

Evidently the process lasted some hours, but at the end, LHO was completely brainwashed, and believed that General Walker was "as bad as Adolf Hitler," and if somebody had stopped him in time, the world could have been spared from World War Two.

It's not only from that FRONTLINE video that we get this story, or even from George DeMohrenschildt's manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1978). We also get this same story from a well-known, late member of this FORUM, namely, William Kelly. Here's his well-known link:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

We must reflect on this for a moment, however, because Volkmar also said that LHO's actual attempt on General Walker's life on April 10, 1963, was never intended by Volkmar or his young engineer friends.

Also, that notation on the back of DeMohrenschildt's BYP, which says in Russian, "Hunter of fascists, ha ha!" was likely in the handwriting of George DeMohrenschildt himself -- so it was an ironic notation, because LHO had actually missed. Incidentally, George used to call General Walker, "General Fokker," to LHO, to make him laugh.

I think that LHO must have decided that he would please his new, rich friends by this bizarre action. But LHO misread the signals. LHO had to get out of Dallas -- fast -- and that's when he ended up in the clutches of David Ferrie -- only two weeks later.

If this scenario is plausible, then Roscoe would have been sorely disappointed in LHO once he put two and two together. That could explain why Roscoe White appeared in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans at 544 Camp Street (according to Ron Lewis) and then joined the Dallas Police Department that following October.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Below are the three standard Backyard Photos. I submit that all three pictures were taken with the camera in “EXACTLY” the same position. The most likely explanation is that the camera was mounted on a tripod.

The notion that all three photos were taken from the same position is not readily apparent because both the Oswald figure and the features of the yard were sized differently by the person or persons that created them (see next post). This was either done by using an enlarger during the printing process, or possibly the camera-original prints were re-photographed to create the effect.

There is another difference as well, as photo #2 does not exhibit the “keystoning” effect of #1 and #3. More about this in my next post.

To prove to yourself that all three photos were taken from the exact same spot, you can study the left portion of each photo and notice that the perspective relationship between near and far objects does not change. For example, circled in green in the photos below is a black rectangle that is exactly the same in each photo. The black rectangle in the center photo appears to be larger only because this photo was enlarged.

Circled in red is a portion of a window on the house, and several feet closer to the camera lens is the stairway. Notice that what we see of this window is exactly the same in each photo, and that the window’s relationship to the features on the stairs is also exactly the same.

And one can do this sort of comparison with all of the near and far objects on the left side of the photos and find that the viewer’s perspective does not change. There is one exception, and that is the tree limbs and leaves in the upper left corner - they had moved slightly between shots, probably from the wind.

Tom

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

This is a continuation of the last post - they should be read together.

I have re-sized the three photos below. What I did was make all three of the posts next to the Oswald figure the same length, and then cropped the three photos to be the same size. This should make it easier to see that while the Oswald figures change, the background does not.

Since photo #2 did not exhibit the keystoning effect of #1 and #3, I displayed photo #2 on my 27 inch monitor and tilted the monitor 12 degrees. With my camera mounted on a tripod at the exact height of the center of the photo (four feet from the monitor), I took a picture with a 50mm lens.

Since the left side of the three photos contain the most perspective between near and far objects, study that area and I think you’ll conclude that all three pictures were taken with the camera lens absolutely stationary, and I don't mean within an inch or two, I mean absolutely stationary. This would be next to impossible to do with a hand-held camera.

Tom

Edited October 7, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

To prove to yourself that all three photos were taken from the exact same spot, you can study the left portion of each photo and notice that the perspective relationship between near and far objects does not change.

Hey Tom,

That's very clever. Is the idea original with you, or was it something Jack White observed?

Surely some important things can be learned from this. Does anybody know if the Imperial Reflex had a tripod attachment? If not, were there other ways commonly used back then to attach a camera to a tripod?

If it can be determined that all the photos came from one shot, that would of course prove the photos are fake. But you say the leaves move in one photo. So it proves only that a tripod likely was used, and perhaps that the camera wasn't the Imperial Reflex. But if it wasn't the Imperial Reflex, the question arises as to why the distortion matches (roughly) the distortion in that home photo.

[Sandy Larsen]

Are you sure some leaves or limbs move from photo to photo, Tom? I don't see any changes. Different brightness levels can make soft edges seem to move a little, and I wonder if that is what you see changing.

[Sandy Larsen]

I carefully compared the shadows of the staircase on the wall of the house, and they are also identical. So if the photos are separate, they had to have been taken within a relatively short period of time.

Compare the shadows of Oswald between the two photos below. One has the head part of the shadow rising up the picket fence. People say that this shows that the photo was taken later in the day, but that's not necessarily the case. It could be that Oswald was just closer to the fence in that photo.

HOWEVER...

Since it has been established that the photos were taken at close to the same time, the shadows must be consistent between the two photos. Now, note that the rifle in the left photo is being held at about the same angle as the newspapers in the right photo. Admittedly the rifle is at a bit greater angle from vertical, but not by much. Now compare the shadows of those two objects. The shadow from the rifle is almost horizontal, whereas the shadow from the newspapers is MUCH closer to vertical. The angles of the shadows are inconsistent, and therefore the shadows are fake. (At least one of them, anyway.) Which means the Oswalds are fake.

That's all you need to prove that the photos are fake. (Or at least some of them are.) And that means, for all intents and purposes, one can consider that only one photo of the background was taken.

The only question remaining is whether or not Oswald's head was stuck onto somebody else's body. Is there a proof for that that is this simple?

If anybody finds errors in my thinking, please let me know. (I'd rather have egg on my face than believe something that is wrong.)

Edited October 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

[Thomas Graves]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Great work, guys!

Now for a little shocker regarding the body Oswald's face was was pasted onto,

I am no longer convinced that it was Roscoe White.

The Marine with the bump on his wrist in this May, 1959, photo seems to have larger ears and a bigger chin than Roscoe did.

-- Tommy

Edited October 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Great work, guys!

Now for a little shocker regarding the body Oswald's face was was pasted onto,

I am no longer convinced that it was Roscoe White.

The Marine with the bump on his wrist in this May, 1959, photo seems to have larger ears and a bigger chin than Roscoe did.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I thought it was established that the marine in the photo is Roscoe. Am I wrong about that?

BTW, it seems to me that the marine has a thicker body than what we see in the photos. The BYP body looks like Oswald's to me. Not saying it is Oswald's, just that it looks like his. Skinny.

[Sandy Larsen]

While it is possible that the single photo taken had an "Oswald" in it (that is, not just the background), that would have been a stupid thing for those photographic genius's to do. Because to put a new body and head in, they'd have to first erase the original one. It would have been much smarter for them to have taken a photo of the background without an "Oswald," make copies of that, and then add an "Oswald" (and its shadow) to each one.

Though I suppose I may be foolish in thinking these guys did it the more logical, least time-consuming way.

But wait, there's more. They'd have to take an extra photo of the background so they could recreate the stuff behind Oswald. And if they did that, they might as well use that photo for the background.

Okay, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I believe that only one photo was taken, and it had no "Oswald" in it.