Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Tommy,

The link that you provided leads to a few pages in a book entitled, The Missing Chapter: Lee Harvey Oswald in the Far East (2008) by Jack R. Swike.

The upshot of these pages is that Swike could not find any connection between LHO and Roscoe White in his "research." There was nothing to indicate how intensive or extensive his "research" may have been. He's just sharing his opinion -- which is fine -- but there's nothing scientific or particularly academic about it. It's just his opinion based on a cursory survey.

The urgent matter is how to explain the BYP in the possession of Geneva White -- Roscoe's wife. Nobody seems to bother with that.

As for that sensational screed from the National Enquirer or some other rag of a supermarket tabloid, you have shared a silly story that simply inserts the CIA into the Roscoe White saga -- just like most CIA-did-it CTers insert the CIA into every crevice they can find. It's useless nonsense.

No -- these flimsy accounts don't amount to anything. We need something solid. We had Ricky White -- the son of Roscoe White -- and we had Geneva White-Dees, his former wife, and they provided some solid clues for us. Then we dismissed them. That was a mistake, IMHO.

Unless somebody can produce something of some substance -- on the order of Jack White's photographs -- then we are little better off than we were in 1990. At least we have Jeff Caufield today.

By the way -- is that a lump on Roscoe White's right wrist? The photo is so blurry one can hardly tell...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tommy,

The link that you provided leads to a few pages in a book entitled, The Missing Chapter: Lee Harvey Oswald in the Far East (2008) by Jack R. Swike.

The upshot of these pages is that Swike could not find any connection between LHO and Roscoe White in his "research." There was nothing to indicate how intensive or extensive his "research" may have been. He's just sharing his opinion -- which is fine -- but there's nothing scientific or particularly academic about it. It's just his opinion based on a cursory survey.

The urgent matter is how to explain the BYP in the possession of Geneva White -- Roscoe's wife. Nobody seems to bother with that.

As for that sensational screed from the National Enquirer or some other rag of a supermarket tabloid, you have shared a silly story that simply inserts the CIA into the Roscoe White saga -- just like most CIA-did-it CTers insert the CIA into every crevice they can find. It's useless nonsense.

No -- these flimsy accounts don't amount to anything. We need something solid. We had Ricky White -- the son of Roscoe White -- and we had Geneva White-Dees, his former wife, and they provided some solid clues for us. Then we dismissed them. That was a mistake, IMHO.

Unless somebody can produce something of some substance -- on the order of Jack White's photographs -- then we are little better off than we were in 1990. At least we have Jeff Caufield today.

By the way -- is that a lump on Roscoe White's right wrist? The photo is so blurry one can hardly tell...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dearest Paul,

Two points:

1 ) FWIW, Larry Hancock thinks highly of Swike's book.

2 ) The only reason I posted the page from the supermarket tabloid, Globe Magazine, is because it has the only photo I can find that shows Roscoe's right wrist. So far.

BTW, It's fascinating the way you phrase your question, "Its that a lump on Roscoe's right wrist?"

Is what a lump on his wrist, Paul?

LOL

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dearest Paul,

Two points:

1 ) FWIW, Larry Hancock thinks highly of Swike's book.

2 ) The only reason I posted the page from the supermarket tabloid, Globe Magazine, is because it has the only photo I can find that shows Roscoe's right wrist. So far.

BTW, It's fascinating the way you phrase your question, "Its that a lump on Roscoe's right wrist?"

Is what a lump on his wrist, Paul?

LOL

-- Tommy :sun

Tommy,

(1) Although I greatly respect the work of Larry Hancock, I must note first of all that he hasn't solved the JFK murder mystery, yet, and we still differ on a few points here and there. Still, I agree with most of what Larry has written.

(1.1) Larry Hancock's skepticism over the willy-nilly blaming of every random CIA Agent for the JFK assassination has always been refreshing to me -- and IMHO we all owe him a debt for his clear, 21st century thinking. His role in assisting Bill Simpich (2014) has not gone unnoticed.

(1.2) Nevertheless, the work of Jack Swike must stand on its own. In the link that you provided, Tommy, there were no details or sources, just Swike's blanket statement -- he could find no connection, from what little he shared with us, between LHO and Roscoe.

(1.3) But LHO and Roscoe White had spent years in Japan in the Marines. Did Swike account for every day of every year? For everybody they knew? Not even close.

(2) I very much appreciate your finding and posting that photo of Roscoe White which bares his right wrist. I'd seen it before, and this shows that more is still possible, IMHO.

(3) As for the lump that I see in the right wrist in that photo -- I wonder if you might have better photography tools than I have, and might be able to make a very, very clear blowup of that photo. I'd like to take a closer look, because that photo looks blurry to me.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:13 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Yes, the photos are quite amazing. I also think Tom's discovery of the stereoscopic effect to be quite amazing too. I'm waiting patiently for my stereoscopic viewer to arrive in the mail from Ebay.

While the stereoscopic effect might just be a fluke stemming from two photos being taken, one immediately after the other but from slightly different angles, I am intrigued by how Tom described Oswald's head, in stereoscopic view, as seeming to stand out closer to the photographer by what appeared to him to be close to a foot. ...

Robert,

It's been a few weeks since you've ordered your Stereoscopic viewer.   May we ask -- what was your conclusion with regard to Tom Hume's original proposal that Oswald's BYP were made with a combination of the Stereo-Realist camera and the Imperial Reflex -- that is, that LHO attempted to made a 3D effect with these?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Robert,

It's been a few weeks since you've ordered your Stereoscopic viewer.   May we ask -- what was your conclusion with regard to Tom Hume's original proposal that Oswald's BYP were made with a combination of the Stereo-Realist camera and the Imperial Reflex -- that is, that LHO attempted to made a 3D effect with these?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

A little humor:  "Cowboy Bob has decided that before he uses it, he's gonna go and finally have his eyes checked."

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Robert,

It's been a few weeks since you've ordered your Stereoscopic viewer.   May we ask -- what was your conclusion with regard to Tom Hume's original proposal that Oswald's BYP were made with a combination of the Stereo-Realist camera and the Imperial Reflex -- that is, that LHO attempted to made a 3D effect with these?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul

I just received my stereo viewer in the mail. By unfolding it, I thought I could view the BYP's directly from the screen. I was able to see LHO's body and head standing out in 3D but the background was out of focus. Also, with the viewer unfolded, the divider bar between the two images is not in place.

The only solution, I believe, is to print out the stereo images Tom posted, and view them directly in the viewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tip for Robert and others:

I had to cut the two photos apart. That allowed me to separate them as needed to see the 3D.

 

I got my viewer several days ago and have been mulling over what I saw. There is definitely 3D going on. I see it in Oswald's face and also in the background. It's hard  to tell in the body because the newspapers and rifles interfere.

Here's the problem: The stereoscopic effect could be due to a stereoscopic camera being used, or due to a single camera being used, where in one photo the camera was raised or lowered by a couple inches. I tried to figure out if there is a way to tell which of the two is the case, but couldn't. I set it aside and am planning to try again.

Another issue is that the faces were mostly like pasted on. Yet the depth of the head (the distance from the camera) looks correct. It is right above the body. If the face was indeed pasted in, it seems that it's apparent location due to the 3D affect would be random, and thus more likely to be wrong than right.

Another thing about the face... oddly, the 3D affect is apparent even though the two faces are quite different.

It's just weird that a photo that was assembled actually works so well in 3D.

Even though I couldn't see the 3D effect on the body, I did on the neck. Though I do want to double check that. If true, most likely the 3D effect is occurring on the body as well, if only it weren't interfered with by newspapers and rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sandy,  I have enjoyed your post on looking at the BYP's with a stereo viewer.  I would like to do this also.  I was a photographer for 40 years, and a little of my work was stereo.  I thought I would like to share a little information on stereo imaging.  To achieve a stereo image, two images need to be taken with a slight difference in the camera position left and right.  Most stereo cameras have two lenses that click at the same time, creating two images side by side.  Most stereo cameras have the two lenses 2 1/2" apart from each other.  You can also create stereo images with a camera with one lens, take the 1st picture, then move the camera 2 1/2" left or right, and then take the second image.  This conforms with how far are eyes are apart from each other, and this is why stereo works, as the brain interpolates the two images as if seen by two eyes.  Moving a camera up or down would not achieve this effect.  I recently acquired an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera, identical to the one Robert gave the FBI.  It does not have a tripod thread mount on the bottom.  IF the BYP were taken with an Imperial Reflex, a slight shift to the left or right between two pictures could achieve a stereo effect.  I think that is what you were seeing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...