Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

JFK-ass-Oswald-backyd-Life-a.jpg

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 by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

HSCA%20photo%20display%20of%20133-A-B-C_

 

BYP%20with%20stand%20in%20in%20133-c%20p

 

133962474_Image3-Oswald-BYP-ghost-COPY-misalignment.thumb.jpg.034f024f272fe5918cce510699899dd1.jpg1317933406_Image1-BYPghostimagessidebysideshowingrotationofOswald.thumb.jpg.46c1ea60f58412be5db31cc4941093f3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 1:27 AM, 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.

The first person who said that "Neely St" was not an actual residence of the Oswalds was . . . "Oswald" himself, according to Will Fritz on page 12 of his report. Fritz earlier wrote on the bottom of page nine that "Oswald was very evasive about this location".

Note that Neely was the cross street on Beckley where cabdriver William Whaley dropped off "Oswald" after leaving the Greyhound Bus Station on 11/22/63. 214 W. Neely and 605 Elsbeth were but a three minute walk from each other, and "Oswald" supposedly lived at both in the first half of 1963. 

I believe he did live at Elsbeth, but there was something going on at Neely. Was it a CIA safehouse?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=12&tab=page

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
fix the link to the Fritz Interrogation Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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.

 

CE-133-A-lean.jpg

The fence sits at about 2 degree angle in reality. The Dallas police photos that replicated 133 are a good source for figuring out what the angle. Almost nothing in the photo is straight and it is not easy to figure out. Most agree that 2 degrees to the right is correct. So 133a should be rotated between 1 or   1 1/2 degrees left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo has different highlight aspects indicating a composite figure.  The brightness has been increased to show the highlights on the figure in a clearer manner.

oswald-byp-highlight-comparison.jpg

No. 1 concerns the highlights on the face.  These highlights are from a light source to the front and above.  This light also produces the shadow under the nose.

2.  Indicates the highlights on the shoulders.  They are not quite the same.  The highlights on the left should are bright with no shadows.  The highlights on the right side have shadows.  Which is particularly pronounce in no. 3 and no. 4.

3 and 4.  These are darker areas that should not be there in reference to the rest of the lighting of the Oswald figure.

3 and 6.  These areas show the brightly lit forearm and hand.  The area directly below the brightly lit right forearm is in dark shadow that goes down to the rifle stock.  The rifle stock has an incongruous area brightly lit at the top with deep shadow below.  The highlighted part of the stock is not in tune with the rest of the photo.  There is no shadow of the newspaper on the Oswald figure.

5.  Points to the legs.  They are lit from the front except the upper part of the right leg.

And,

3.  The brightly lit forearm with dark shirt shadow holding the newspaper may indicate this is from another photo pasted into this photo.

3 and 4 versus 2 and 6 may indicate two sides of two photos of the figure pasted together.

With this kind of brightness the shadow of the Oswald figure looks painted.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

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?

 

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

The fence sits at about 2 degree angle in reality. The Dallas police photos that replicated 133 are a good source for figuring out what the angle. Almost nothing in the photo is straight and it is not easy to figure out. Most agree that 2 degrees to the right is correct. So 133a should be rotated between 1 or   1 1/2 degrees left.

      10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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.

 

CE-133-A-lean.jpg

I agree with Ray Mitcham on the "cock up".  There is more than one in the photo.  It shows that an amateur photo alterationist was at work.  My favorite candidate is Roscoe White.  He joined the Dallas force in Sep. 1963 in the Identification Bureau, I think that's so.   And, that may help explain Josephs question above on the ghost images.  Perhaps, photo material was left over at the Dallas Police Identification Bureau that was later found and used in a different context.

I know lots of folks disagree on Roscoe White as the author of the BYPs, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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?

133b is a larger image overall. everything is about 5% bigger. Here is a photo I shopped to add lower legs to 133b. The image is also rotated and adjusted for size. Still I can't see why he appears further forward in 133b yet his head and knees seem to be in the same place relative to the background. Still a mystery there.
 Once the lower legs are added you see the lower body shadow leans as much as 133a and c yet Oswald is not leaning. Strange. It also puts his feet way in front of the post yet his head and holster line up in the same places.


 

 

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

133962474_Image3-Oswald-BYP-ghost-COPY-misalignment.thumb.jpg.034f024f272fe5918cce510699899dd1.jpg

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

762949527_BYPwithstandinin133-cpose-shadowsbetraythefakedimage.thumb.jpg.54fab7b6fe5226c2232100e8bf37d143.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

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?

 

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

Posts of the day!

This 133-C is the key. They get Marina to admit to 2 photos;

Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

So first she says one, then two, and if asked again today, she would have to say three ... unless another one surfaces

Why did 133-C "disappear indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

133962474_Image3-Oswald-BYP-ghost-COPY-misalignment.thumb.jpg.034f024f272fe5918cce510699899dd1.jpg

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

762949527_BYPwithstandinin133-cpose-shadowsbetraythefakedimage.thumb.jpg.54fab7b6fe5226c2232100e8bf37d143.jpg

Sorry Joseph I misread your post and confused it with a similar but different argument. you were not saying the shadows should be parallel. 
Oswald is leaning and that adds 7 more degrees if he is leaning at 8 degrees. So we should see less convergence. I have reproduced all this in photographic experiments. The camera angle  distorts the actual shadow angle too. 
 
 I think the reason the ghost image seems more skewed is because when you overlay 133c you have to rotate right because Oswald was leaning left and the ghost image was not leaning.
 Looking at the Dallas cop image I believe the light source is a camera flash not the Sun. One clue is the cops shadow goes all the way up the picket fence and beyond the top of it.
 
 So the reason the shadow of the post and Oswald seem to diverge is due to his lean and the camera angle from Marinas chest to the shadow on the ground. That camera angle will cause shadows to lean more however that is not true when the shadow is vertical, then it just shrinks down vertically. But Oswald's shadow starts out at around 18 degrees away from vertical. This means Oswald's shadow will distort greatly while the post shadow which is near vertical will distort much less. This is why the two shadows appear to diverge.

 

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

hi David - I really don't know what to make of the cut-out image because we don't know when it was created or for exactly what purpose. Again, the HSCA totally dropped the ball when it interviewed Studebaker and failed to address important and relevant details such as the cut-out image and 133-C. It is all the more glaring as a failure when considered against the considerable effort they made examining other aspects of the BYPs, most specifically their "authenticity."

But, logically, if the cut-out image was used to assist with faking the backyard photos, then this strongly suggests the fakery was a project within the Dallas Police Dept, presumably located in their photo department. My issues with that: how did the DPD know Oswald lived at Neely St address? how did they find date-specific copies of The Militant and The Worker, or even know of Oswald's subscriptions? where did the rifle come from and how did they choose it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is often asked how could the Dallas cops be aware of the pose shown if the photo did not surface till years later. Well I think it was Roscoes wife who found the photo. If that is true it explains the issue. Roscoe was around when the photos were taken so they could have easily had access to it and so known the pose at that time

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

×