Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Hume

Members
  • Content Count

    598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tom Hume

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,557 profile views
  1. Tom Hume

    More from the past on BYP

    Marina claimed to remember taking a picture, and later claimed that she may have taken more than one. This does not necessarily mean that Marina took CE133A, CE133B, and, 133C, it does not necessarily follow that Marina took what we know as the Backyard Photos. This will make sense to those familiar with my hypothesis. There were originally four Backyard Photos and they were a creation of Lee Oswald and his crew. They are a complex puzzle created at least partially for our benefit.
  2. Tom Hume

    More from the past on BYP

    Sandy, I think the Imperial reflex used 620 film and yielded a square negative. CE133A and CE 133B were commercial square prints. 133C is not square because the negative went missing and what we were left with were rectangular prints (taller than they are wide) made on the Dallas Police Departments enlarger (133C-Dees, and 133C-Stovall). There is also the rectangular enlargement given to de Mohrenschildt (133A-de Mohrenschildt) that was enlarged from the square negative.
  3. Tom Hume

    Gene Wheaton

    Hey Michael, This might be easy. Google “Matt Ehling, Minnesota Filmmaker” and lots of stuff comes up. For starters, he founded “Public Record Media” (2375 University Ave W Suite 200, St. Paul MN, 55114 p 651-556-1381 f 651-641-8573): https://www.publicrecordmedia.org And here’s Matt Ehling’s production company, ETS Pictures: http://www.etspictures.com It’s just a suggestion, Michael, but why don’t you get a hold of this guy (I’d do it, but I’m shy).
  4. Tom Hume

    Gene Wheaton

    Maybe Bill Kelly’s last paragraph bears repeating: “In the meantime, we have yet to locate the Minnesota film maker who has hours of tapes of Wheaton giving more details on these affairs. If anyone has the time and inclination to track Matt Ehling down, we'd like to hear more from Mr. Wheaton, whose bonafides are established by all of the great names he provides, and a scenario he provides that rings true.” http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/
  5. Tom Hume

    More from the past on BYP

    Oswald had two rings, a wedding ring and a Marine Corps ring. I'm kind of interested in the watch (?) he's wearing in 133C and not wearing in CE133B. And that's one messed up left hand in CE133B.
  6. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Post deleted.
  7. Don't bawl me out yet, Paul, I'm kind-of poor so I ordered it from my local library. They have five copies and I'm now up to number one on their list.
  8. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Hi Jeff, You wrote “It should also be kept in mind that the Imperial Reflex camera is an extremely cheap low-end camera, and its evident flaws help the analysis to the extent it can be determined which images originated with that camera.” You’re the expert, but I’m going to take exception with this phrase, “…it can be determined which images originated with that camera.” I want to nitpick one word - “originated”. I believe that the Backyard Photos are a first-class photo forgery, and I agree that the Imperial Reflex was used, but only used in the very last stage. It’s my belief that the Backyard Photos were actually taken with Lee Oswald’s high-quality Stereo Realist camera mounted sideways on a tripod. I believe that a body double was used. And I believe that 3D images of Lee Oswald’s head were added to the 3D yard photos. Near the end of this process, the expertly doctored slides were projected on a screen, and rephotographed with the cheep Imperial Reflex. The 12 degrees of keystone could have been intentionally added at this time, or maybe done earlier. The final step was having prints made at a commercial film processing joint. There were at least two advantage to using this “cheep low-end camera” in the final stage. It blurred up the final prints a bit to help avoid detection, and the emulsion scratches on the prints and negatives would be compatible with the Imperial Reflex that was entered into evidence. I believe that those running Lee Oswald told him to buy some paper-trail laden firearms, and then have Marina take his picture brandishing them. I believe that the extant Backyard Photos were not taken by Marina, but were a clever creation of Oswald and his crew, created as just one of many absurd and enigmatic puzzle stunts for our benefit, and possibly for theirs. Tom Appendix: Below are CE133A and 133C rotated 88 degrees as intended for 3D viewing. Below are CE133A and 133C likewise rotated 88 degrees, but with the 12 degrees of keystone removed (explanation at a previous post on this thread). To view the 3D images, one needs to get a hold of good quality Stereoscope, and there are plenty of vintage examples out there. Ask your friends and relatives and you’ll surely come up with one (avoid the new cardboard ones you can buy on line for around $5.00). You will see Lee Oswald's backyard in stunning 3D, and Lee's 3D head jutting toward you in super 3D. Wesley's body will have four arms, but I have not yet found the significance of this, other than the fact that had both poses been the same, it would have been a dead give-away. With no photo-card in the cardholder of your Stereoscope, it’s possible to view the 3D Backyard Photos directly on you computer monitor with many of the Stereoscopes. For proper viewing, Oswald’s nose on the left photo, for example, should be very close to 3 inches from Oswald’s nose in the right photo. Do whatever you need to do to achieve this 3-inch relationship. If you find that you cannot get the Stereoscope close enough to your monitor to achieve a good focus, you will either need to cut off the cardholder stick (bad idea), or print out a 3 x 7 inch copy of the photo pair above. Another trick is to copy the photo pairs to a page of Microsoft Word or Apple Pages and you can resize them all you want. With Oswald's noses 3 inches apart right to left, you can view them directly on your monitor, or print out a hard copy.
  9. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Hi James, With my limited ability and equipment, my calculations will have to be approximate. I’ll use two methods. Method #1: In the picture below, I simply made five semitransparent copies of the papers and stacked them on top of each other. The top of the stack is level with the top of the Oswald figure’s head. If the papers are indeed 11 inches wide (tall in this case), then this stack of five papers is 55 inches tall. Now we have to make a judgement as to how far it is to the ground from the bottom semitransparent pair of papers. With the pair of papers on the left as a rough guide, I’m going to guess about 5 inches should be added to the 55 inch figure. 5 inches + 55 inches = 60 inches - an estimated height of 5 feet for the Oswald figure. Method #2: The “grab” feature on a Mac has a measuring counter, and measuring the left edge of the pair of papers yields the number “162”. Measuring the Oswald figure from the top of his head to the center of his right foot at the ground yields the number “867”. If the papers are in fact 11 inches wide (tall in this case), the approximate height of the Oswald figure using this method is 4 foot 11 inches. (867 divided by 162 equals 5.352. 5.352 times 11 inches equals 58.9 inches, or very close to 4 foot 11 inches) I think Method #2 might be more accurate, but with fuzzy images and other possible complications, uh…? Three possibilities: (1) The papers are not 11 inches wide but almost 13 inches. (2) The papers and the Oswald figure are way out of proportion with each other, and hence the photos are a hoax. (3) I’m not very good at this stuff. Tom Edit: The rough measurements above were, of course, done on CE133A. I just went through the same process with 133C, and assuming an 11 inch paper, the Oswald figure's height is 62 inches, or 5' 2" (in CE133B, the papers are indistinct and sort-of unmeasurable. Also, we cannot see the Oswald figure's feet. I'll pass on CE133B).
  10. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    CE133A CE133B 133C Hi Chris, Of the three Backyard Photos, only CE 133A and 133C display the keystone effect, CE 133B does not. Since the camera used appears to have been held about waist high, there should theoretically have been almost no keystone effect whatsoever, since the tallest structure we can see is only about 9 feet tall. However, the keystone we see in the two BYPs is backwards. In principle, the taller the structure, the more pronounced the keystone will be, and the parallel lines of a building will always converge toward the top (if one is shooting from below). Not so in the Backyard Photos, the parallel lines diverge toward the top! As I indicated earlier, I think the Backyard Photos are a complicated puzzle (part of a larger puzzle system) created by Oswald and his crew, and one of the clues to this particular puzzle appears to indicate that there are 12 degrees of keystone built into some of the photos and that this keystone should be removed as part of the puzzle’s solution. I’ll briefly talk about this in a moment. My first attempt at removing the keystone involved Affinity, Apple’s answer to Photoshop. I didn’t like this because of the possibility of introducing error. Jack White thought that the keystone was intentionally created in the darkroom by tilting the easel. I think so too, and I removed the keystone using pretty much the same method. Individually, I put CE 133A and 133C on my 27 inch iMac monitor tilted at exactly 12 degrees. From the same height as the center of the photo, I took photographs from across the room of CE 133A and 133C. Here they are after straitening: The explanation for where the 12 degree clue came from will have to be brief and I can’t prove or even argue any of this. This is a hypothesis and a work in progress. Here we go: There were four sets of 3D photos created by Lee Oswald and his crew, two sets of Backyard 3D Photos (four pictures in all), one set of Mexico City 3D visa application photos (2 pictures in all), and one set of DD Form 1173 3D photos (2 pictures in all). 8 pictures, 4 sets. There are only three sets of 3D photos extant, because the 3D mate to CE133B went missing. All three sets of 3D photos can be seen in the work-in-progress first post at the link below: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/ Lee Oswald and his crew were tangled up in the assassination and were trying to prevent it. Apparently five members in all, three of these were low-level spooks - Richard Case Nagell (Leader and chief puzzle maker), Igor Vladimirs Vaganov (puzzle maker and primary Oswald double), and Lee Harvey Oswald (Patsy with eyes wide open). Lee Oswald’s “HISTORIC DIARY” anagrams to “RICHARD’S ’88’ TOY”. (A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25) There are “88” puzzles in the Historic Diary, and the complete list can be found in my June 25, 2014 post at the link below: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/ As you can see from the Number/Letter key above, if one wanted to change the expression “3D” into numbers, it would be “33”. Since Oswald and his crew were making anagram puzzles that also made heavy use of this key, one might expect Historic Diary puzzle number “33” to yield some “3D” information in anagram form. This is in fact one of the major uses for the Historic Diary. If you check the list you’ll find that puzzle number “33” is: “THEY MAKE NOTES” Anagramming puzzle #33 above can yield at least two puzzle instructions: (1) “THE KEYSTONE, A 12” and, (2) “KEYSTONE THEM ‘0’” Following instructions, I’m going to remove the 12 degrees of keystone. There are other much more complicated instructions that indicate the puzzle solver should rotate the 3D photos 88 degrees to be viewed properly. Like I said, if you want to experience the 3D Oswald photos, take a look at my work in progress here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20276-the-oswald-code/ 3D Lee Harvey Oswalds - a metaphor Oswald was likely being impersonated because of instructions given by those framing him (Banister/Ferrie/Phillips/Hoover/etc.), but Oswald and his crew turned those impersonation assignments into full-blown Theatre of the Absurd. Maybe they thought that all of this could be used later to their advantage. Or maybe they thought their stunts would eventually be noticed by someone like us. I think that a good deal of what confounds and baffles us (and what has held the interest of some of us all these years) are all the enigmatic stunts pulled by the “ICO” crew (“ICO” stands for “Igor”, “Case”, and, “Oswald”) Tom
  11. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Yesterday John Butler wrote: “Sorry, I can't post a BYP with arrows showing the shadow directions. Were only allowed a 1000 MB and the.gif I posted takes up most of that.” What you need to do, John, is store your photos at a photo hosting website. Many of us used to use Photobucket but they now charge big bucks if you want to post your archived pictures to, say, a forum like this one. This is called "Third-party posting". But there are plenty of photo hosting websites that offer free third-party posting - I use postimage (easy to set up, simple to use, and free): https://postimages.org Park your pictures at one of these sites, and each photo will have a direct link associated with it that you can post. Once you copy the link to your post at EF you can see the picture immediately.
  12. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Post deleted.
  13. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Ray Mitcham wrote: “Tom, unfortunately you, like David and Butler, are wrong, See the above photo, I posted in reply to Michael. The sun wasn't low in the sky. it was produced early afternoon at a similar time that the BYPs were supposedly taken.” Yes, in the photo above we have two shadows that appear to be converging, and as Michael and David have pointed out, “appear” is the key word. If extended, the two shadows would appear to converge at the horizon, but If the terrain is flat and the sun is the light source, one could extend the shadows into the distance and they would remain (for all practical purposes) the same distance apart. This is easy to understand but harder to talk about - I think we all understand. And then Ray wrote this: “The only shadow which I consider to be wrong in them is the shadow of Oswald, which appears to go different ways in each photo. I consider all the other photos kosher.” Well, David Josephs’ point was that in CE 133A the post shadow and the Oswald figure’s shadow, if extended a couple of feet, would meet, would fully converge, would become one at about the fence line. A seeming impossibility if the sun was the light source. However, as I pointed out earlier, there’s a wrinkle. The Lee Oswald figure is not standing upright. He is swaying to his right (our left) several degrees. Ray, in your photo above, if you tilted the right pole to the left about 6 degrees, one could extend the shadows and they would in fact meet, they would in reality converge, and they would do so rather quickly. That may be, at least partially, what’s happening here in CE 133A. I’ve removed the 12 degrees of keystone error and straightened the photo. If we could re-shoot this picture at the same date and time in the Oswald back yard, with the Oswald figure teetering several degrees to his right (our left), the post shadow and the Oswald figure shadow would “actually” converge, and do so rather quickly. I am, however, totally open to the notion that the Oswald figure’s shadow is bogus, and that Oswald’s head was pasted on someone else’s body. I believe that Oswald was instructed by his handlers to have his picture taken with his guns. I believe that Oswald knew he was being set up and he and a few associates created the Backyard Photos as a large and complicated but solvable puzzle. Tom
  14. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    David Josephs asked: “Can anyone explain the ghost image insert and why the background of all the byps are skewed? It should be a perfect match” This sounds interesting, David, and I’d like to consider and maybe respond to your question but I’m confused (I'm 75 this year, and not getting any smarter). Could you please describe more thoroughly the problem as you see it, and your questions about it? Use lots of words if need be. Tom
  15. Tom Hume

    Backyard Photographs

    Okay Ray and Chris, you’ve convinced me. I forgot that the Oswald figure was about to fall over. Below is CE 133A with the 12 degrees of keystone removed, and the photo properly straightened: If we could now get the Oswald figure to loose the Tower of Pisa lean, his shadow would be much more congruent with that of the post. Below is a screenshot from the “Wrong Way Shadows” video posted by Ed LeDoux earlier on this thread. The Oswald model is standing erect, and one can now more accurately compare the two shadows under discussion. Tom
×