Backyard Photo Observation

[Ray Mitcham]

In the three BYP, note that the perspective of the items in the background, the fence, to the left of him,  the stair post shadows and the position of the fence posts to the right of him,  immediately behind  "Oswald" does not change at all. If the three photos had been taken at different times, as per Marina's testimony, this would not have happened. She would have had to have been in exactly the same place.

[Tony Krome]

18 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

Yes, I can see that clearly now in the above photo. Tricky buggers.

[Tony Krome]

7 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

In the three BYP, note that the perspective of the items in the background, the fence, to the left of him,  the stair post shadows and the position of the fence posts to the right of him,  immediately behind  "Oswald" does not change at all. If the three photos had been taken at different times, as per Marina's testimony, this would not have happened. She would have had to have been in exactly the same place.

I've also been thinking about what height the camera must have been at for the BYPs. Mr. Josephs has pointed out that the type of camera allegedly used had to be at chest height. Marina was what 5'3" ? The camera would be have to be way below that.

[John Butler]

This is an excellent comparison. It is not quite the same in both photos indicating time has passed at 214 Neeley Street.  You can see the weathering of the steps in the later photo.  The figures are in slightly different positions.

I accept as a fact that Tony Krome has skillfully demonstrated that the BYP in question was taken in September rather than March of 1963.

Can this be used in a wider context?  What follows is at best circumstantial speculation.  Or, it might be true reasoning.  Consider the following disparate events.  Or, are they random occurrences?

 

1. From Spartacus International:  White joined the Dallas Police Force in September, 1963. Soon afterwards, his wife Geneva White, claimed that she overheard her husband and Jack Ruby plotting the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (Roscoe White is alleged to have made the BYPs)

2. Roscoe White’s wife ended up with BYP 133-C.  Statement of Jan. 5, 1977 to the HSCA.

3. Roscoe White was a Marine at Atsugi Naval Base at the same time as LHO.  Maybe he was trained there. 

4. LEE HARVEY OSWALD  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm "Oct. 15, 1963 Dallas Oswald Hired by Roy Truly at Texas School Book Depository Oct. 16, 1963 Dallas Oswald begins work at Depository"

5. The "Three Furies" that Brought Kennedy to Oswald http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt "In late September the White House announced a two-day trip to Texas on November 21-22.  On October 4, during a visit with Kennedy in Washington, Connally formally acquiesed to the trip but suggested that one fund-raiser would suffice and would raise as much money as four."

6.     From Wikipedia-  Mexico

Marina's friend Ruth Paine transported Marina and her child by car from New Orleans to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, near Dallas, on September 23, 1963.^[102][120] Oswald stayed in New Orleans at least two more days to collect a $33 unemployment check. It is uncertain when he left New Orleans; he is next known to have boarded a bus in Houston on September 26—bound for the Mexican border, rather than Dallas—and to have told other bus passengers that he planned to travel to Cuba via Mexico.^[121][122] He arrived in Mexico City on September 27, where he applied for a transit visa at the Cuban Embassy,^[123] claiming he wanted to visit Cuba on his way to the Soviet Union. The Cuban embassy officials insisted Oswald would need Soviet approval, but he was unable to get prompt co-operation from the Soviet embassy

1. From Wikipedia:  Marina's friend Ruth Paine transported Marina and her child by car from New Orleans to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, near Dallas, on September 23, 1963.^[102][120] Oswald stayed in New Orleans at least two more days to collect a $33 unemployment check 

2. From Wikipedia:  Ruth Paine said that her neighbor told her, on October 14, that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository, where her neighbor's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked

3. From Wikipedia:  Oswald rented a room there for $8 a week, beginning October 14, 1963, under the name O.H. Lee The building is approximately 2 miles from the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald began working on October 16.

One could probably list more of these.  The two sources for this info may be considered unreliable by some but, the facts can be verified elsewhere. 

From No. 7 Oswald rented a room two days before the obtained the job at the TSBD.  He was certain of employment.

If you can believe No. 4 LHO was not in Dallas, TX on the Autumnal Equinox.

I believe the decision to kill President Kennedy went into full force in the fall of 1962.  And, the decision to make Lee Harvey Oswald the Patsy was implemented in the fall of 1963 in September, 1963.  The decision may have been made earlier.  Whether or not these events are related they are the background of LHO and the eventual killing of President Kennedy by the alleged assassination Lee Harvey Oswald, The Patsy.    

Edited February 3, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I've also been thinking about what height the camera must have been at for the BYPs. Mr. Josephs has pointed out that the type of camera allegedly used had to be at chest height. Marina was what 5'3" ? The camera would be have to be way below that.

It was a top view so he held it at her chest and looked down into the viewfinder.

[Chris Bristow]

Regarding shadow movement the post shadow moves several inches because the shadow is about 25 feet long. The other shadows max out around 6 feet and so should move less than an inch. But you do see a slight movement.

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Let me know if you need any shadow comparison photos like the example below

 

Thanks, I have done so many comps of the shadows already I loose track of them. I have found that all the shadows are as they should be, even the nose shadow. The only thing I see wrong with 133a is the lean can't be reproduced if you are careful to match the angle of the foot and hip. Foot at about 45 degrees and the hip at no more than 20 degrees If you keep those angles correct and try to line up your right shin, knee under the belt buckle(location)  it is impossible to replicate the lean. I will post a new thead on it soon.

[Chris Bristow]

20 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

In the three BYP, note that the perspective of the items in the background, the fence, to the left of him,  the stair post shadows and the position of the fence posts to the right of him,  immediately behind  "Oswald" does not change at all. If the three photos had been taken at different times, as per Marina's testimony, this would not have happened. She would have had to have been in exactly the same place.

It is suspicious that all three photos match so well. I thought Jack White claimed that they were all the same background. But at the top of the post next to Oswald, on its right side, you can see where the roof of the house next store meets the post just below where the post meets the stairs. It is slightly different in all three photos. So it can't be the same background in all three images. 
 The horizontal position is an exact match. The story was that she did not know how to operate the camera so He walked over and advanced the film for her between shots. I guess it is possible that she stood in the same spot the whole time and that would explain the amazing alignment

[Ray Mitcham]

54 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

It is suspicious that all three photos match so well. I thought Jack White claimed that they were all the same background. But at the top of the post next to Oswald, on its right side, you can see where the roof of the house next store meets the post just below where the post meets the stairs. It is slightly different in all three photos. So it can't be the same background in all three images. 
 The horizontal position is an exact match. The story was that she did not know how to operate the camera so He walked over and advanced the film for her between shots. I guess it is possible that she stood in the same spot the whole time and that would explain the amazing alignment

I wondered about that Chris, However, using the same camera,  which didn't have a zoom feature, and standing in the same spot, how come "Oswald" in CE133B is closer to the camera than he is in the other two photos?

Edited February 4, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Steve Thomas]

On 2/1/2019 at 8:15 PM, Tony Krome said:

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?

 

Tony,

 

I always thought that the Oswald figure was superimposed on a background shot, and whoever did the superimposing (is that a real word?), did a sloppy job.

In your reproduction, the slots in the fence and the support posts for the stairs and the shed run pretty much straight up and down at 0 or 360 degree compass heading.

In the Oswald picture, the fence slats and support posts have a roughly 50 degree NE compass heading.

(Either that, or the contractor who built the shed and fencing needs to get another job.)

 

Steve Thomas

[Ray Mitcham]

18 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Tony,

 

I always thought that the Oswald figure was superimposed on a background shot, and whoever did the superimposing (is that a real word?), did a sloppy job.

In your reproduction, the slots in the fence and the support posts for the stairs and the shed run pretty much straight up and down at 0 or 360 degree compass heading.

In the Oswald picture, the fence slats and support posts have a roughly 50 degree NE compass heading.

(Either that, or the contractor who built the shed and fencing needs to get another job.)

 

Steve Thomas

Agreed Steve, seems who ever concocted that photo made a cock up, and they had to adjust tilt in order to make the lean acceptable. When corrected look at the ridiculous angle "Oswald" is supposedly standing in this adjusted photo.

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Tony Krome]

23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Tony,

 

I always thought that the Oswald figure was superimposed on a background shot, and whoever did the superimposing (is that a real word?), did a sloppy job.

In your reproduction, the slots in the fence and the support posts for the stairs and the shed run pretty much straight up and down at 0 or 360 degree compass heading.

In the Oswald picture, the fence slats and support posts have a roughly 50 degree NE compass heading.

(Either that, or the contractor who built the shed and fencing needs to get another job.)

 

Steve Thomas

Steve, since you read my very first topic, you will see that I am of the opinion that Oswald was probably not the ideal or prime patsy on the day. All the fabricated evidence seems rushed like it was done on the fly. Not just the ridiculous BYPs as you have mentioned, but hows the WW2 Italian rifle with a mis-aligned sight? Surely they could have been more convincing. Then their selected patsy yells out to the entire world that he's a patsy. Good grief!

[John Butler]

Jack White has been mentioned from time to time in the BYPs.

David G. Healey said:

"I'd be remiss if I didn't post this very short overview concerning the BYPhotos. The possible alteration study was performed by Jack White many years ago.

aside: even LHO said the BYP was a fake."

This a note on Jack I made several years ago on 15 things he found wrong with the BYPs.

Jack White and the backyard photos:

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

 

During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

Edited February 4, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Jack White also mentioned conflicting shadows but, he didn't explain what he meant.

I think I added to his list when I talked about conflicting shadow patterns being unnatural because they introduced conflicting light sources into the photos.  According to the story Marina took the BYPs in the afternoon on the same day.  This occurred in March at the 214 Neeley Street Address in Dallas, Tx.  So, there should be one light source for all of the BYPs or for any one of the group.

That's not the case:

1.  The step shadows move from the left of the photo towards the right of the photo.  The light source is coming from the left.

2.  The nose shadow moves straight down from the nose.  The light source is to the front and above.  The second light source.  This is also shown in highlights on the Oswald figure.

3.  The Oswald figures shadow moves from the right of the photo to the left of the photo.  This is the third light source coming from the right.  The three light sources capture 3 different time events in the photo.

The red arrows indicate the different directions of shadows in this photo.  This is not to be confused with converging shadows.

I believe the shadow patterns indicated that there are 3 different times captured in this photo.

Now there is a good probability that the BYPs were not taken in March, 1963 but, they were taken in September, 1963.

Tony Krome and Chris Bristow have convincingly demonstrated that the foliage or more correctly the lack of foliage in the 1967 CBS reproduction is the real condition of the shrub in the picture that was taken by CBS in March, 1967.  And, should be the condition of any photo taken in the backyard of the Neeley St. house in March.

Therefore, the shrub in the 1963 BYP should not have foliage in March.  It does and so it must have been taken at another time.  Chris Bristow has given two dates when this 1967 CBS photo reproduction could be taken and have the same shadow patterns as the 1963 BYP photo.  These are the equinoxes.  The sun has the same light pattern on those days as the sun rises directly in the east and travels directly west on both days. 

The foliage in the 1963 BYP argues that the photo was taken in September.  Chris Bristow also says it would be hard to determine a difference in the shadows in a period of about 5 days around the equinox date. 

That leaves a time period of about 5 days around the Vernal Equinox in September for the photos to be taken.  That time period could extend to 27 Sept. and Oswald was not in Dallas but, allegedly in Mexico or on his way there.  Ruth Paine had taken Marina from New Orleans to Dallas on the 26th of Sept.  On the Vernal Equinox they were both in New Orleans.

This is something new and important.  It needs to be looked at and verified and, not ignored.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by John Butler

[David Josephs]

 

Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR...

Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession...   which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer

 

How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977?

Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose...  yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position...  everything in the background is off...  So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images...

And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly...

thoughts?