Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

I thought I'd throw up some of my old research;

The photos below are the Oswald backyard photo and the re-enactment backyard photo from 3/31/67

Years ago, I sent cropped photos of just the shrub seen to the right of the men, to several garden/nursery businesses in the Dallas area

They replied that couldn't identify the shrub from the photos, but suggested the shrub was possibly deciduous

IF the shrub was deciduous, it suggests that the two photos below, depict two different seasons

Also, the grass underfoot seems lush on one photo and somewhat barren on the other

Thoughts?

Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

Backyard-Photo-Recreation.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much time passed between the Oswald photo and the reenactment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

How much time passed between the Oswald photo and the reenactment?

Rich, the re-enactment photo was taken in March 1967, obviously to coincide with the alleged time frame of the Oswald photo.

There are some who believe that "Neely St" was not an actual residence of the Oswalds. Let's say in order to frame Oswald with incriminating photos, with both murder weapons, they decided to choose a place (preferably vacant) they could safely use with a man holding a rifle, then as Oswald suggested, superimpose his head.

Now, this could have occurred in November, 1963, immediately post assassination. So the shrub in the Oswald photo seems to show foliage whereas the photo known to be taken in March, seems to show the same shrub with no foliage.

This works IF the shrub is deciduous AND the nature of that shrub growing and losing foliage within the months I've mentioned.

If I was in Dallas, I would personally go to Neely St, look for the same type of shrub, and find out the characteristics of that shrub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

Your are right.  Nice photo.  The reproduction one.  Hadn't seen that before.

You've caught another aspect of fraud in the BYP.  I don't think anyone else has caught that.  You can add to your argument that they were taken on the same day and same season.  Which is impossible according to the shrubbery.

Look at the step shadows on the fence.  They are the same in both photos.  This says that they were taken at the same time of day and the same season for the sun to cast identical shadows in both photos.  This would be physically impossible given the difference in the shrub leaf situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The azimuth and elevation are very different when you compare the solstice of December with June, however the equinox of March and September are pretty much the same because the sun is in the same intermediate position. So it could have been September when that ridiculous photo was taken. There are also shadows from the trees in the Southwest corner that are creeping up on Oswald's leg from 133a to c. The shadow is also seen in the lower right corner of 133a. But the comp image looks like there are no shadows being cast and in the winter those trees are bare. That is nice because we can get a good look into the backyard using the google Earth time slider
 Rant time: It is ridiculous because they rotated it 3 degrees counterclockwise to make it look like he is leaning. If you rotate it to match the picket fence in 133 you find the guy is barely leaning at all. When this gets posted it is often accompanied by the claim that this guy was the same height as Oswald. But if you look at where the stairs line up with the roof of the house behind Oswald you see the camera was maybe 4 inches higher. The head of the guy in the photo sits at the same height as Oswald. So if the camera is higher and yet both men appear to be the same height when compared to the post behind their heads, then the guy in the comparison image has to be taller. End of rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Rich, the re-enactment photo was taken in March 1967, obviously to coincide with the alleged time frame of the Oswald photo.

There are some who believe that "Neely St" was not an actual residence of the Oswalds. Let's say in order to frame Oswald with incriminating photos, with both murder weapons, they decided to choose a place (preferably vacant) they could safely use with a man holding a rifle, then as Oswald suggested, superimpose his head.

Now, this could have occurred in November, 1963, immediately post assassination. So the shrub in the Oswald photo seems to show foliage whereas the photo known to be taken in March, seems to show the same shrub with no foliage.

This works IF the shrub is deciduous AND the nature of that shrub growing and losing foliage within the months I've mentioned.

If I was in Dallas, I would personally go to Neely St, look for the same type of shrub, and find out the characteristics of that shrub.

Tony,

Great observations.  Also, there is a large crack in the wooden planks on the right in one photo that doesn't appear in the re-enactment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is ridiculous because they rotated it 3 degrees counterclockwise to make it look like he is leaning."

Look at the timing of when CBS produced this photo that was shown within a TV documentary. A few months previously, Jim Garrison had started investigating the assassination. Time to put to rest some of the controversial aspects of the events of Nov 63. The backyard photo was one of them. The idea would have been to produce a slick reproduction that would appear convincing to the majority of viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

Good point.  I would never have thought that.  I just assumed they would be different due to different times of the year. 

"In late March and late September (at the "equinoxes"), the sun's path follows the celestial equator. It then rises directly east and sets directly west. The exact dates of the equinoxes vary from year to year, but are always near March 20 and September 22."

The photo shadows on the fence are identical or nearly identical in appearance without close measurement.  There does not seem to be any variation from 1963 to 1967. 

I commented to Tony that at different times they would be different.  It now seems they can be identical at the equinoxes.  But, if they were taken on spring / fall equinoxes then that may explain the discrepancy in foliage or lack of foliage.

For a semi-northerner such as myself, Texas has strange whether.  Just as an example, I left the Lousiville airport in January 1969 for Dallas, Texas.  In Ky. there was 14 inches of snow.  When I arrived in Dallas it was 95 degrees.  The next evening about sundown it was 35 degrees.  It was off and on cold until it turned hot.

I mention this so that it might be possible in a warm year for things to bloom early in Texas.  Ron Bulman is from the Dallas area.  He could make a better comment on when things leaf out. 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing.  CBS had to understand the problems and how to copy them in reproducing the BYPs. 

1.  The photo had to be taken on an equinox to get the step shadows right.  The time of day would have to be the same for the step shadows to be the same.

2.  Oswald and the other guy's shadow also has to be at the same time of day to be correct on either equinox.

3.  The problem is the steps shadow is a morning shadow and the figures shadow in an afternoon shadow.  There are two shadow patterns there.  Two sunlight directions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.  So, this is going to sound incredibly dumb but I'm going to just throw it out there.  Is it possible that the re-enactment photo was taken PRIOR to the LHO photo? I mean the bush in the LHO photo is so much larger.

Edited by Rich Pope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

Ok.  So, this is going to sound incredibly dumb but I'm going to just throw it out there.  Is it possible that the re-enactment photo was taken PRIOR to the LHO photo? I mean the bush in the LHO photo is so much larger.

An explanation for size difference would be along the lines of pruning over the years and lack of foliage in the March 67 photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Amazing.  CBS had to understand the problems and how to copy them in reproducing the BYPs. 

1.  The photo had to be taken on an equinox to get the step shadows right.  The time of day would have to be the same for the step shadows to be the same.

2.  Oswald and the other guy's shadow also has to be at the same time of day to be correct on either equinox.

3.  The problem is the steps shadow is a morning shadow and the figures shadow in an afternoon shadow.  There are two shadow patterns there.  Two sunlight directions. 

 

Yes had to be same day and time or the equinox. Maybe they could be a day off an a bit earlier.
The Sun was directly South at 1pm and the shadows would have landed directly North. Before 1pm the shadows would land just West of the steps they represent and after 1pm they would start to fall to the East. The post is below the 8th step and sits next to Oswald but the shadow of the 8th step lands by the picket fence where you can just see the post shadow connecting to the stairs. So the shadows fall Eastward in the right direction. Because the post shadow is hidden from Marina's view we know it represents an azimuth right around 223 based on her estimated position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

An explanation for size difference would be along the lines of pruning over the years and lack of foliage in the March 67 photo.

But there are more differences too.  Like behind LHO's right shoulder there is a tree or something behind the fence blocking the window and in the re-enactment it's not there and you can see the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the Neely St re-enactment for the mini-series 11.22.63.

I don't know if the production crew planted a similar shrub for the scene that was filmed in 2015 (is it stil there?)

What I have found out is this;

"In a panel at Sundance Film Festival, series writer Bridget Carpenter mentions that she and the cast were able to visit the Neely Street location in order to re-stage the famous photograph"

"for the final week of shooting, the cast and crew went to Dallas"

"In early October, the production moved to Dallas to film exterior locations"

Screen-Shot-2016-02-08-at-5.10.43-PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×