Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

byop-ghost-133-c.jpg

These two figures have different heights measured from the 2X4 section on the step support behind to the top of the figures heads.  Once you measure that you move beyond by pay grade.  You will next need to measure the distance from the figures to the post in question.  Just by eyesight the ghost figure seems closer to the 2 2 x 6s step support than the Oswald figure.  And, the ghost figure seems shorter.

The shadows in the two series of BYPs do not match.  You can easily see that with the step risers having different shadows.  This may indicate a different time of the year, or different season, and definitely a different time of the day.

I was looking at the uncropped Dallas cop photos and realized the camera was only 24 inches off the ground. The stair on the far lower left is the 2nd stair at around 22 inches and reveals the camera height. That causes some weird things like the roof line in 133 goes straight across but in the ghost image it drops down on the left side. Also knowing the camera height tells us that the shrub in front of the post is about 30 inches high, for whatever that is worth. Marina's camera was about 48 inches high so in 133 the shrub will appear about 10 inches lower. It will also appear more in front of the door in the background than the post because Marina was farther right. Still the only way I can see the shrub being missing is Marina's camera was much closer than the cop photos and is looking over the top of the shrub. although that does not add up when you consider her 4 foot camera height and the downward angle of the field of view. It is an interesting problem. Near the bottom of the post in 133a I see a shadow that matches the angle of the branch I think should be at that position after the higher camera position is taken into account.. But I can't see the rest of it so I don't know what to think.
 I found a unit of measure within the post next to Oswald. The width we see is about 4.5 inches width. A normal 4x4 is 3.25 inches but in the photo we see the from from an angle and we can see part of the side too. I duplicated the angle and found 4.25 visible. The post looks like 2 2x4's put together because there is a seam running the length of it.
 Regarding the cop image riser shadows they made no attempt to match the time of year or day. the sun was directly South for most of the photos but a flash or other lighting was used for some of the shots which also demonstrate that they took the images from only 24 inches off the ground. I wonder why, seriously not being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the opinion of the group that the ghost image was a shot of Det Brown  in which he was removed? I ask because I was a bit confused about the point of some posts. The cutout  is that of Oswald in 133c.  I assume they placed a cutout of his shape in one of the cop photos that shows the backyard with no one in the frame. So it would not matter where they place the cutout in terms of it's vertical or horizontal alignments. 

I noticed when they used the 133c image for the cutout they rotated it so Oswald is standing straight. But then the angled lines on each side  match how much Oswald was leaning in 133c. Anyone have a theory on what why they rotated Oswald and put in two lines to match the original lean of 133c?

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused as to what exactly is being analyzed. These photos were all taken at the same location, but at different times, at different positions, with different light conditions and different cameras, lenses and photographic stock. Whatever the cut-out represents, it was not used to create what we understand as the backyard photos, as those predate the cutout photo by at least a week if not many weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'm glad you are tackling this.  It is way past my pay grade.  The steps perspective is strange.  Why would a camera be at the height of 24 inches?  Was someone sitting or squatting to take the picture and why?

A 2 x 4 is 1 1/2 by 3 1/2.  I first thought the double board post was a 2 x 6.  2 x 4 is a better description since 2 x 4s are used in other posts.  A 4 x 4 is 3 1/2 by 3 1/2.  A 4 x 6 is 3 1/2 by 5 1/4.  None of the standard measures fit your last example 4 1/4.  Not much help here. 

There are wacky things in these photos.  I hope you can figure them out.

"Is it the opinion of the group that the ghost image was a shot of Det Brown  in which he was removed?"

I've got an opinion, more of a speculation, and I don't know how helpful it will be.  My believe is that Roscoe White was involved in the first set of BYPs.  He joined the Dallas police force in Sep. 1963.  He was assigned to the crime lab / identification bureau.  He would have access to their equipment and staff for help.  Mrs. Roscoe White later Dees had a copy of 133 C.  There was only one way for her to obtain that photo, Roscoe.  Or, maybe she could have obtained it from Jack Ruby.  Wasn't she a stripper for Jack Ruby at one time before marrying Roscoe.

The first set of BYPs may not be that related to the second set of BYPs (backyard scene, Det. Brown, and the Ghost scene).  The first set which some of the materials may still have been in the crime lab inspired the second set. 

If you believe Det. Brown or not this info might be helpful.  I don't believe this story.  I think the second set was made for use with the HSCA years after the first set was made.  They would be useful for the official story.  This is a bit far fetched depending on the image of Det. Brown and his age at the time.

It's a wild idea but one I have been speculating about based on this:

Just Don’t Cut Me Out

taken from
BOBBY BROWN AND “OSWALD’S GHOST(S)”
by John J. Johnson [Nov. 1997]

The “cutout” had been made by Dallas police officer Bobby Brown, who claims it was done at the direction of the Secret Service several days after the assassination. Brown offers an innocent explanation, claiming that the Secret Service wanted a reenactment of the backyard photos to demonstrate where an how they had been made. He says that Forrest Sorrels of the Dallas Secret Service had called Captain Fritz and requested that someone from the Crime Lab go to the Neely residence.

Brown and Fritz, together with some Dallas detectives and a couple of Secret Service agents, went to the house and made the photos.

Brown was selected to pose because he was the youngest of the men present He was given a rifle that Fritz had in his car and the Secret Service instructed him which hand should hold the rifle, how he should stand, how he was to hold the newspapers, etc. Brown claims that he later cut his figure from the photo because he did not want to be identified with it.

I asked Bobby very specifically what would possess him to cut out his silhouette from the reenacted photographs. He was adamant to me that he only wanted to take himself out of the photograph since it was the background that was the subject, and not himself. He said that he did this entirely on his own, and that no one told him to do so. He said he cut his image out of a developed photograph and placed a white piece of paper behind it and re-photographed the reenactment.

Brown later offered another version of how the ghost photo was made, this time with Oswald being cut out of the picture. He says that, after he posed for the reenactment, the FBI brought the 133-C photo to him at the Dallas crime lab and Brown cut Oswald out of the picture. He then photographed the 133-C print against a white background to make the matte.

What is interesting about the photo in question is that the pose selected by the Secret Service for Brown does not match the two photos the Warren Commission was aware of (known as 133-A and 133-B). The photo of Oswald in the new pose (HSCA F180, now known as 133-C) was discovered after the silhouette was found in the Dallas Police archives and twelve years after the first two backyard photos were made public

This matted photograph, one of two photos showing the same “ghost” against two slightly different backgrounds, which was discovered by Mary La Fontaine in the Dallas Police files, combines a silhouette of Lee Harvey Oswald taken from 133-C with the backyard at 214 Neely Street as it appeared on Friday, November 29. Although the Secret Service and Dallas Police obviously had a copy of 133-C at the time of the reenactment, the photo disappeared from 1963 to 1975, only to turn up when produced by none other than the widow of Dallas Police Officer Roscoe White.

I find any of this hard to believe much of the above.  The photo, 133 C, turns up in 1975 with Roscoe's wife.  Mary La Fontaine has two ghost photos with different backgrounds.  When did these turn up?  1963? 1975?  Or, sometime in between?

If so then the second set of BYPs were made sometime between Nov. 1963 and 1975.  Question:  Is the picture of Det. Brown right for 1963 or later.  That will answer the question when the second set of BYPs were made.  Anyone have photo evidence of Brown in 1963 or later?

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

************************************

To all those who have who have been following this thread and have contributed their views, allow me present the following;

 

This thread began with the premise that the BYPs and the CBS March 1967 recreation photo do not match seasonally, noting a shrub and ground underfoot.

This from Jack White [HSCA];

By the way, at the time that these pictures were made, there is no grass on the ground in Dallas, and there are no leaves on the trees. The date of these pictures supposedly is March 29. I live in Texas, and I see the trees come out. It is usually late April before you have this amount of foliage on the grass, the bushes, and the trees.

On page 1 of this thread, the following was contributed by Chris Bristow;

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.

If we add 6 months to March 29th, we get September 29th. This date falls within the timeframe of when the landlord of Neely St stated that someone, unknown to him,  had accessed the property with a duplicate key. The landlord also stated the apartment had been vacant since May 31st, 1963.

At this point, lets look at the possibility that a series of photographs of the Neely St backyard were taken in September, 1963.

Mr. GENZMAN . Based on this analysis, what is your conclusion as to whether the figure is part of the background or whether it has been superimposed on the background?

Mr. WHITE . This is what led to my conclusion that the figures have been superimposed over the background. In other words, if it is impossible for a person to stand in that position in that back-ground, then the figure had to be photographed independently and then pasted, if you will, or superimposed photomechanically on a blank backyard photograph

There have been presentations in this thread regarding the shadows, both as far as time-lapse inconsistencies between the powerlines/staircase and Oswald's shadow. Also whether the shadows of the Oswald figure were added afterward.

This from Jack White [HSCA];

The ground shadows, in my estimation from having examined them closely, are airbrushed onto the back-ground with transparent watercolor over the existing grass.

I am sure members here have considered the scenario that if Oswald had broken his leg or had fallen ill in the days leading up to the assassination, all the extensive pre-assassination plans would have come to nought if there was not a choice of patsies on the day. So we may have blank photos of the Neely St backyard taken in September for incriminating purposes no matter who the patsy.

This from Jack White [HSCA];

They had with them a backyard photo with no person in it. They had a single ID-type photograph of the person we know as Lee Harvey Oswald. They had a couple of Communist newspapers. They had a pistol and they had a rifle. And just suppose that I am this art department that they have come to, I can visualize some-one saying to me "Here are these articles. I want them put together into a composite photograph. The person's face you have here, I want him to be holding the guns and the newspapers and then I want the figure superimposed on this background."

The familiar stance of Roscoe White and that he had a BYP in his possession, alludes to the possibility that his "figure" was contributed to the final BYPs.

Combine all of the above with the impression that a BYP was seen on Friday evening, 22nd, November or Saturday morning before the BYPs were officially found. Relevant witnesses were Will Fritz, Michael Paine & Jerry O’Leary

At the WC, Michael Paine was asked if the FBI had shown him a photo of the rifle. I'm sure the rifle photo in the question would have referred to a photo of the rifle post-assassination, not as in the BYPs. But Michael Paine went with a BYP photo that he had seen on Friday evening. So the FBI showed him a BYP.

We know the BYPs were discovered Saturday afternoon. What is the PERSON link between the FBI BYP FRIDAY evening photo and the Paine household on Saturday afternoon? Who was it that Maguerite Oswald said entered the garage around 2am Saturday morning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,,

Jack White was a true American patriot.  I just wish I had started fooling around with JFFK research 20 years earlier so I could have communicated some of the things I think about to him and seen what he had to say. 

I almost always agree with Jack White.  There are some things I puzzle over such as what he knew about Dick Bothun and his saying the Altgens photos were authentic.  In his later years he was beginning to change his stance on those.

Jack said:

"By the way, at the time that these pictures were made, there is no grass on the ground in Dallas, and there are no leaves on the trees. The date of these pictures supposedly is March 29. I live in Texas, and I see the trees come out. It is usually late April before you have this amount of foliage on the grass, the bushes, and the trees."

Since I read what Jack said it has jogged my memory of cold, wet, miserable, and leafless March in Central Texas in 1969.

I hope my next post help clarifies the time period between the two sets of BYPs.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

byp-shrub-growth-comparison-1.jpg

There is a shed or some structure behind the shrub in both sets of BYPs.  I used a red line to mark the distance from the top of the structure to the shrub in all of the photos.  As you can see the 1963 photo and the 1967 photo relate in how big the shrub was.  In the 1967 photo the shrub in question appears to have been pruned or suffered some weather related damage.  It should be 4 years taller. 

The two photos marked 1963? are related through the size of the shrub.  They appear much larger as if more than just a few months have passed.  Camera angles or camera elevation has nothing to do with their size as marked from the top of the structure to their topmost growth by a red line.

This appears to be a slow growing shrub.  I would say years have passed rather than months between the two sets of photos.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

I'm glad you are tackling this.  It is way past my pay grade.  The steps perspective is strange.  Why would a camera be at the height of 24 inches?  Was someone sitting or squatting to take the picture and why?

A 2 x 4 is 1 1/2 by 3 1/2.  I first thought the double board post was a 2 x 6.  2 x 4 is a better description since 2 x 4s are used in other posts.  A 4 x 4 is 3 1/2 by 3 1/2.  A 4 x 6 is 3 1/2 by 5 1/4.  None of the standard measures fit your last example 4 1/4.  Not much help here. 

There are wacky things in these photos.  I hope you can figure them out.

"Is it the opinion of the group that the ghost image was a shot of Det Brown  in which he was removed?"

I've got an opinion, more of a speculation, and I don't know how helpful it will be.  My believe is that Roscoe White was involved in the first set of BYPs.  He joined the Dallas police force in Sep. 1963.  He was assigned to the crime lab / identification bureau.  He would have access to their equipment and staff for help.  Mrs. Roscoe White later Dees had a copy of 133 C.  There was only one way for her to obtain that photo, Roscoe.  Or, maybe she could have obtained it from Jack Ruby.  Wasn't she a stripper for Jack Ruby at one time before marrying Roscoe.

The first set of BYPs may not be that related to the second set of BYPs (backyard scene, Det. Brown, and the Ghost scene).  The first set which some of the materials may still have been in the crime lab inspired the second set. 

If you believe Det. Brown or not this info might be helpful.  I don't believe this story.  I think the second set was made for use with the HSCA years after the first set was made.  They would be useful for the official story.  This is a bit far fetched depending on the image of Det. Brown and his age at the time.

It's a wild idea but one I have been speculating about based on this:

Just Don’t Cut Me Out

taken from
BOBBY BROWN AND “OSWALD’S GHOST(S)”
by John J. Johnson [Nov. 1997]

The “cutout” had been made by Dallas police officer Bobby Brown, who claims it was done at the direction of the Secret Service several days after the assassination. Brown offers an innocent explanation, claiming that the Secret Service wanted a reenactment of the backyard photos to demonstrate where an how they had been made. He says that Forrest Sorrels of the Dallas Secret Service had called Captain Fritz and requested that someone from the Crime Lab go to the Neely residence.

Brown and Fritz, together with some Dallas detectives and a couple of Secret Service agents, went to the house and made the photos.

Brown was selected to pose because he was the youngest of the men present He was given a rifle that Fritz had in his car and the Secret Service instructed him which hand should hold the rifle, how he should stand, how he was to hold the newspapers, etc. Brown claims that he later cut his figure from the photo because he did not want to be identified with it.

I asked Bobby very specifically what would possess him to cut out his silhouette from the reenacted photographs. He was adamant to me that he only wanted to take himself out of the photograph since it was the background that was the subject, and not himself. He said that he did this entirely on his own, and that no one told him to do so. He said he cut his image out of a developed photograph and placed a white piece of paper behind it and re-photographed the reenactment.

Brown later offered another version of how the ghost photo was made, this time with Oswald being cut out of the picture. He says that, after he posed for the reenactment, the FBI brought the 133-C photo to him at the Dallas crime lab and Brown cut Oswald out of the picture. He then photographed the 133-C print against a white background to make the matte.

What is interesting about the photo in question is that the pose selected by the Secret Service for Brown does not match the two photos the Warren Commission was aware of (known as 133-A and 133-B). The photo of Oswald in the new pose (HSCA F180, now known as 133-C) was discovered after the silhouette was found in the Dallas Police archives and twelve years after the first two backyard photos were made public

This matted photograph, one of two photos showing the same “ghost” against two slightly different backgrounds, which was discovered by Mary La Fontaine in the Dallas Police files, combines a silhouette of Lee Harvey Oswald taken from 133-C with the backyard at 214 Neely Street as it appeared on Friday, November 29. Although the Secret Service and Dallas Police obviously had a copy of 133-C at the time of the reenactment, the photo disappeared from 1963 to 1975, only to turn up when produced by none other than the widow of Dallas Police Officer Roscoe White.

I find any of this hard to believe much of the above.  The photo, 133 C, turns up in 1975 with Roscoe's wife.  Mary La Fontaine has two ghost photos with different backgrounds.  When did these turn up?  1963? 1975?  Or, sometime in between?

If so then the second set of BYPs were made sometime between Nov. 1963 and 1975.  Question:  Is the picture of Det. Brown right for 1963 or later.  That will answer the question when the second set of BYPs were made.  Anyone have photo evidence of Brown in 1963 or later?

 

The front and side of the post are each 3 1/4 but because each are viewed from an angle neither show the full 3 1/4. Together they add up to 4 1/4 inches. Since the post shadow falls almost directly behind the post you can assume the camera was viewing the post from the same angle as the azimuth which was around 223. So you can look at a 4x4 from the same angle and measure what you see.
 Another thing I don't get is Brown said he cut himself from the image but the cutout is not his silhouette but Oswald's in 133c.
The rest of it is still a mystery to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at Neeley St with the Google Earth time slider. Some years it was green by February and other years there were no leaves in march. September was very green in one image. The green image in February of 2001 was before climate change started causing things to bloom early. Someone is going to have to look up the record for 1963 and see exactly when the bloom started that year.  Crap I have been dropping the 'r' from February for years!

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question ... when did the Bobby Brown / Backyard re-enactment Ghost photos etc first surface?

 

Share this post


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

byp-shrub-growth-comparison-1.jpg

There is a shed or some structure behind the shrub in both sets of BYPs.  I used a red line to mark the distance from the top of the structure to the shrub in all of the photos.  As you can see the 1963 photo and the 1967 photo relate in how big the shrub was.  In the 1967 photo the shrub in question appears to have been pruned or suffered some weather related damage.  It should be 4 years taller. 

The two photos marked 1963? are related through the size of the shrub.  They appear much larger as if more than just a few months have passed.  Camera angles or camera elevation has nothing to do with their size as marked from the top of the structure to their topmost growth by a red line.

This appears to be a slow growing shrub.  I would say years have passed rather than months between the two sets of photos.

Thanks for this comparison. The shrub from Nov 29 '63: "They appear much larger as if more than just a few months have passed."  Does this not make it more likely the original BYPs date back to the Spring. March-April '63? 

Share this post


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

Combine all of the above with the impression that a BYP was seen on Friday evening, 22nd, November or Saturday morning before the BYPs were officially found. Relevant witnesses were Will Fritz, Michael Paine & Jerry O’Leary

Add a few more witnesses to that list;

To further cloud this issue, two Dallas commercial photographic processors have told this author they saw copies of the backyard photo the night of the assassination — more than twelve hours before they were reported found in the Paine garage. 

Robert Hester, who was called from home on November 22, 1963, to help process assassination-related photographs for the FBI and Dallas Police at National Photo, said he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of these pictures and that one of the backyard photos he processed showed no figure in the picture. Hester's claim was corroborated by his wife, Patricia, who also helped process film on the day of the assassination. (Crossfire, pp. 451-452)

 

Share this post


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

Add a few more witnesses to that list;

To further cloud this issue, two Dallas commercial photographic processors have told this author they saw copies of the backyard photo the night of the assassination — more than twelve hours before they were reported found in the Paine garage. 

Robert Hester, who was called from home on November 22, 1963, to help process assassination-related photographs for the FBI and Dallas Police at National Photo, said he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of these pictures and that one of the backyard photos he processed showed no figure in the picture. Hester's claim was corroborated by his wife, Patricia, who also helped process film on the day of the assassination. (Crossfire, pp. 451-452)

 

and are these the same Hester's that found themselves on Elm Street during JFK's murder, right?

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

and are these the same Hester's that found themselves on Elm Street during JFK's murder, right?

I think the interviewer, Marrs, would have recognised them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

and are these the same Hester's that found themselves on Elm Street during JFK's murder, right?

Apparently the Hester in Dealey Plaza was Charles Hester, the guy who saw the photos was Robert.

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

×
×
  • Create New...