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

[David Josephs]

I'm kinda surprised - introducing a photo of Lee standing in the same position as the BYP composite of Harvey leads to an interesting observation, imo...

The shadows fall in the same place at the same angle from the body for both images yet the nose shadow on Lee in the Philippines matches the body shadow while the nose shadow in the BYP does not...

Furthermore, when you take the 133-C image of Oswald and put it back into the ghosted image found at DPD you get a sense of how rotated the images really are...

How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?

Edited September 7, 2016 by David Josephs

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

How did they know to put Detective B. C. Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?

Excellent question, David.

Wild guess: Because Roscoe White kept that photo to secretly give to the authorities if the others went missing, but showed it to Detective Brown's boss sometime between 11/22/63 and 11/29/63 ?

Do you have something more complicated in mind?

-- Tommy

Edited September 8, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

"How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?"

Now THAT is a REALLY good question, Dave. How come you have to do all of the thinking around here?

Look! They fixed the gate after the assassination, and now it hangs straight!

[Andrej Stancak]

If this is the house on 214 West Neely where the backyard pictures have been taken then it should be possible to verify the shadow cast by the man in the discussed backyard photograph.

I now see from images available on internet that it might actually be this house:

The photographs were taken with the man standing with his back towards the dark brown wooden wall and the small white gate.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Ray Mitcham]

Do we have any active member who lives close to Dallas, who could take some photos/measurements?

[Ray Mitcham]

I'm kinda surprised - introducing a photo of Lee standing in the same position as the BYP composite of Harvey leads to an interesting observation, imo...

The shadows fall in the same place at the same angle from the body for both images yet the nose shadow on Lee in the Philippines matches the body shadow while the nose shadow in the BYP does not...

Furthermore, when you take the 133-C image of Oswald and put it back into the ghosted image found at DPD you get a sense of how rotated the images really are...

How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?

Great post, David.

Perhaps you should ask Hary Farid for his comments.

[Ray Mitcham]

Further to David's post. Comparison of nose shadow in both photos.

[Sandy Larsen]

Of course, the experts at the School of Photographic Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology, one of the truly premier schools in the country, were likewise duped by this cheesy fakery when they reported to the House Select Committee on Assassinations: https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html.

Lance,

Those so-called experts at the School of Photographic Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology were either not-too-bright or were fibbers. The backyard photo in question, here in this thread, has some anomalies that cannot be explained... unless one is capable of thinking outside the box and is a little clever.

Now, pay attention and follow along... this is not that hard to understand.

First, if you examine the Det. B.C. Brown photo carefully, you will discover that nearly every vertical line is plumb. That is to say, vertical. This confirms that the structures we see were indeed constructed square. Therefore, every non-zero angle we see among the vertical lines in this backyard photo must be explained.

I studied this photo carefully and what I discovered is that the vertical lines on the right side are all angled clockwise, whereas all those on the left are angled counterclockwise. (Relative to each other.)

How is that possible? Let's explore every potential source of distortion. Don't worry, there are only three: perspective, radial lens distortion, and lens imperfection.

Perspective

Perspective causes vertical lines to converge the further they are from the center of the lens. Thus the columns in this photo slope toward each other at their tops:

This is the effect perspective has on the photo. Because the further away something is, the smaller it looks. So the distances between the columns look smaller than they really are.

We can rule out perspective distortion right away. Because the tops of the vertical lines in the backyard photo don't converge.... they diverge!

Radial Lens Distortion

Lenses inherently exhibit a radial distortion. A lens cannot be made that doesn't do so.

A single element lens will either exhibit pincushion distortion or barrel distortion:

Radial distortion causes straight lines to bend. And, since lenses are symmetrical in shape, the distortion will be symmetrical as well. Radially symmetrical, to be specific. This means that the distortion will be the same all the way around any given circle. For example, whatever distortion is seen at 1" above center,will also be seen 1" below center. And 1" to the left and right of center. And at every other angle about center.

Now, what do we see in the backyard photo in terms of radial distortion? Well, the lines are straight. That doesn't fit the properties of radial distortion. Also, the longer lines that extend above and below the center of the lens are not radially symmetrical. If they were, they would have the opposite angle below the center of the lens as their angle above the center of the lens. If a line is angled clockwise up high, it should be angled counterclockwise down below. But that's not the case in the backyard photo.

Clearly, what we see is not due to radial lens distortion. It's ruled out.

Lens Imperfections

I include this only because a lens that isn't shaped correctly will distort the image. But I will rule it out immediately because it's simply inconceivable that the distortion would just happen to be just right to introduce angles into the lines, and yet keep them perfectly straight. Besides, I very much doubt that lenses were anywhere near that bad in the 1960s.

So what's the answer?

Actually, there is a way that the angles we see in those lines could have been introduced. Suppose Marina got up on a tall ladder and took a picture with the camera aimed level above her husband's head. This would introduce perspective distortion into the photo that matches what we see. Since the center of the lens is so far above the ground, the vertical lines would appear closer together near the ground than they do up high. Perfect!

Now, I don't know why Marina would do such a thing. And when the print was made, the top part would have to be cut off because it would show just trees and sky. But that would produce what we see in the photo.

Of course this is a silly notion. But it was a useful thought experiment for me. Because it helped me figure out how this particular backyard photo was made. It wasn't made with a ladder. It was made by taking a picture of the original picture of the backyard.

How the backyard photo was made?

First a picture of the backyard was taken and a print made. Then a picture of the print was made, but the print was tilted, with the top of the print closer to the camera than the bottom. Since the bottom of the print was further away from the lens, perspective caused the bottom of the vertical lines to appear closer together. And therefore the tops of the vertical lines to appear further apart. In other words, they diverge at the top. Just like what we see in the photo.

In short, the vertical lines in the backyard photo diverge at the top due to the perspective introduced when taking a picture of the original print.

But why would anybody take a picture of the picture? And change the angle of the original print when doing so?

Do I need to spell out the answer to the first question? Because taking a picture of a picture is part of the process used in altering pictures! As Oswald said, somebody pasted his face onto somebody else's body. His next sentence would have been, "and then they took a picture of that."

As for the second question, why would they change the angle of the second picture? That's a tough one. Is it because they were sloppy setting up their equipment? Maybe they had only one original and wanted to make multiple photos from it, each supposedly from a different angle. If it's the latter, the shadows in the background would be identical in every shot. So if the directions of Oswald's shadows is different, but not so the background shadows, that would be a dead giveaway.

But I don't know why anybody would want to do it that way. Not only would they have to paste the person's body on the photo, but also his shadow. What a hassle. Much easier just to take different shots with the Oswald impersonator changing his pose.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

When Tommy first introduced the guy on the left and called him Oswald, I thought he'd misspoken. Because he doesn't look anything like Oswald.

But then David called him LEE. Aha! Okay, that rings true. Yes, he does look like LEE. Not HARVEY.

Also, when Tommy first introduced him as Oswald (Harvey), I thought t myself, maybe the guy on the right is Oswald (Harvey) after all. I mean, look at the way they each stand. It's the same!

Having just thought again about this, it occurred to me that the actor in the backyard photos may actually have been LEE.

Does anybody else think this?

BTW, why do so many people believe the actor is Rosco White?

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

Thanks for your clear explanations of lens distortions and your view of how the vertical lines have been altered. The tilting of the photographic paper plate during the positive process ("keystoning" in Mr. White's video) could have been made as an additional safety latch if man's face would look too good and not show any obvious alterations. Once a manipulation such as impossible vertical lines would be proven the picture would not be admissible in the court.

However, I also found a relatively recent picture of the backyard which has quite successfully reproduced the backyard scene. The vertical lines in the right part of the image do diverge as in the backyard picture. A closer inspection of the contemporary scene shows that the two posts in the middle of the picture are actually further away from the gate and the brown wooden wall, and the gate and the wall as if run towards the camera. So, the perspective may be in play, and there can be a natural explanation of some pecularities seen in backyard pictures after all.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/john-f-kennedy-then-now-photos/2013/11/20/id/537800/

Edited September 8, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

Thanks for your clear explanations of lens distortions and your view of how the vertical lines have been altered. The tilting of the photographic paper plate during the positive process ("keystoning" in Mr. White's video) could have been made as an additional safety latch if man's face would look too good and not show any obvious alterations. Once a manipulation such as impossible vertical lines would be proven the picture would not be admissible in the court.

However, I also found a relatively recent picture of the backyard which has quite successfully reproduced the backyard scene. The vertical lines in the right part of the image do diverge as in the backyard picture. A closer inspection of the contemporary scene shows that the two posts in the middle of the picture are actually further away from the gate and the brown wooden wall, and the gate and the wall as if run towards the camera. So, the perspective may be in play, and there can be a natural explanation of some pecularities seen in backyard pictures after all.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/john-f-kennedy-then-now-photos/2013/11/20/id/537800/

Andrej,

It is my belief that the person who took this modern picture aimed his camera at the upper stair landing, or possibly above that. He later trimmed the print it get what we see here.

It is my belief the the stairway post nearest us is tilted as shown... in reality. It is not plumb. BTW, it is not the original post.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

If this is the house on 214 West Neely where the backyard pictures have been taken then it should be possible to verify the shadow cast by the man in the discussed backyard photograph.

I now see from images available on internet that it might actually be this house:

The photographs were taken with the man standing with his back towards the dark brown wooden wall and the small white gate.

Well, Andrej, I've been to Dallas and looked for myself.

This is a photograph of the Oswald's old address at 604 Elsbeth Street. This is not the house where the Back Yard Photograph was taken.

This house is around the corner from the next Oswald address at 214 West Neely Street, at which the original Back Yard Photograph was taken.

Also, the house that used to be there on 214 West Neely Street has been razed to the ground some years ago. It no longer exists. There is only an empty lot there, as of late last year, when I was in Dallas.

The duplex on 604 Elsbeth Street is still there -- pretty much in the same shape.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's another honest photo, a modern one:

Source

The camera is tilted slightly. I see a little barrel distortion.

It appears that the stairway has been replaced.

[Paul Trejo]

It seems to me that the Backyard Photographs are FAKE, and there is little need to keep going over the question. The question should be more fine-tuned, namely, WHO made the BYP, and WHERE, and WHY?

Marina Oswald's testimony is that she clicked on ONE and ONLY ONE of the BYPs. This was in March, 1963. Yet we have four different poses.

Also, photographer Jack White says that the BYP chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and backward stance all belong to Roscoe White.

EDIT: According to Jack White, the fact is that Roscoe White always stood like that.

Roscoe lived in Dallas, and knew Oswald in the Marines. Roscoe was also a rightist mercenary, like Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming and that lot. (In October 1963, Roscoe joined the Dallas Police Department.)

The one thing we can say about the BYP is that the camera used for the photo is a very cheap model, with very cheap film. It's almost pointless to talk about its flaws -- there are so many. For best comparison, we need the same model camera and the same type of film.

Yet insofar as it is a FAKE, we should try to determine WHO made it, WHERE and WHY.

My theory is that Oswald himself made it. Also, Oswald made it a Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which has very sophisticated camera equipment and Oswald worked there during the BYP period (and Oswald also made his Alek J. Hidell fake ID there).

That leaves WHY. I say that Oswald made four versions of the single BYP by using the help of Roscoe White, in the interest of some political intrigue. At the time, Oswald was mixing with George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. These three guys hated and despised General Walker. It seems to me that history is partly correct -- the BYP belongs to Oswald's anti-Walker period.

This suggests that Oswald would have made the BYP FAKES in order to have Plausible Deniability.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

Also, the house that used to be there on 214 West Neely Street has been razed to the ground some years ago. It no longer exists. There is only an empty lot there, as of late last year, when I was in Dallas.

So the modern photos we've look at might not even be the right house.

Doesn't really matter for my purposes though, as long as the structures are built square.

EDIT: Dimensions need to be the same too. So maybe it does matter.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen