Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I need to do no such thing.  Ray and I have been at cross purposes for years on this issue and others.  He likes to prove that I am mistaken on this and other issues.  This is one of his milder emergences.  In actually, he is simply redirecting the conversation away from the topic at hand.

Are you Brian Doyle in disguise? Try answering my question. How do you disagree with what I said about the shadows? All you have to do is do what I and Michael have said,  is to  plant two poles in the ground and photograph the shadows. 

I will always be at cross purposes with a purveyor of false information. No matter which side they support.

It is not one of my "milder emergencies" (whatever that means)

Just stick to the proven facts, John. Shouldn't be too hard for a genius like yourself. .

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


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

I have tried to date the BYPs shown in the photo below based on the previous post.  I am not certain that my arrangement of the photos is correct based on the dates and the scenes in these photos.

byp-shrub-compare.jpg

My arrangement of the photos is based on the shrubs shown and the dates shown in the previous posts.  In my opinion the dates and the growth of the shrubs don't match.

1.  In the 1963 photo and the 1967 CBS repro there is no dead shrub or un-foliated shrub in front of the steps post.  In the 1963 Dallas Police photos there is a shrub there in front of the steps post. 

2.  The shrub behind the figures appear to be larger and therefore older then the shrub in the 1963 and 1967 photos. 

3.  The photo of Detective Brown in Nov. 1963 appears to have the shrub behind him smaller than the one with the ghost photo supposedly done at the same time.  Pruning on the same day you think? 

4.  The Nov. 29, Dallas Police Det. Brown photo has a foliated shrub behind him.  The CBS March, 1967 photo has no foliage.  This confirms the notion that the BYPs if taken in March should have no foliage for that shrub.

Care to comment?

 

John, on the left(133a) does show a couple branches but barley visible and and low. The Dallas cop photo(3) is taken from a position farther left and farther back and a little lower(You can see that in the uncropped versions). So the bush sits higher and more in front of the post in the Dallas cop image. The ghost photo is even lower than the Dallas cop image evidenced by the roof line in the background being much lower than 133a or Dallas cop images.
 The Bush in the background does seem higher when compared to the roof line in the background but not when compared to the post height. The roof line in the background is much lower than in 133a or the Dallas cop photo. 
 The lack of foliage in the bush and lack of shadows in the foreground grass make it likely they took the 67' photo in September and just never admitted it. It just would have caused more suspicion, and even if it was taken in September so what? I can't see any coverup being benefited by taking the shot in September. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

133-A, B, and C photos and the CBS 1967 photos do not have the tree branch and un-foliated shrub in them. 

BYPs-133-a-b-c-1.jpg

Once again 133 A, B, C should have these but, don't.  Camera angles and positions don't really appear to keep them from being shown in the original BYPs.

These 3 do with the exception of the tree branch in what could be a cropped ghost photo.

byp-det-brown-ghost-backyard-1.jpg

The CBS 1967 photo has been documented to March, 1967.  Because the shrub lacks foliage in the March, 1967 CBS photo it is thought that the original BYPs (133 A, B, and C) were not taken in March but rather September, 1963 on the Autumnal Equinox or reasonably close to it.  And, these photos were taken at some warmer time than in March when trees and shrubs had not foliated.

Well, the ringer is the CBS photo documented to March, 1967.  All the others have foliage indicating warmer months than March.  I can't remember from the time I was in Texas when things turned green and leaves popped out.  I just remember March and April was cold, wet, and miserable in the field for those months. 

byp-cbs-1967-repro.jpg

The point here is that the second set of BYPs are of a later date.  The shed or structure behind Det. Brown has the large bush one slate behind it. One slat over is a smaller bush.  The smaller bush is in front of the slat and one slat over from the larger bush.

In the CBS photo of 1967 the slat one over to the right from the larger bush does not have a bush in front of it.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further anomaly in the three backyard photos is the shadow of the power cables on the stairpost. The shadows appear to move down the posts about 6”, (133A to 1333C) . This would appear to be due to the change in the elevation of the sun. Perhaps someone could work out how long that would take.

However, to achieve this change in elevation, at the same time, the sun would have moved further West*, but the shadows of the stair post, and fence posts haven't changed. (If the elevation changed then so should the angle of the azimuth.)

 

Can anybody explain this?

 

 

 

*Before the resident pedants chime in, I know the sun doesn't actually move West, it's the Earth rotating towards the East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

A further anomaly in the three backyard photos is the shadow of the power cables on the stairpost.

I notice there's a clothesline up there too ... pegs as well ... this photo from Nov 29 63

file.php?id=299253

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The official claim is that the photos were discovered Saturday afternoon Nov 23 with Oswald's possessions, but two witnesses including Michael Paine saw a backyard photo in the possession of Dallas police on Friday night, Nov 22, and Captain Fritz refers to this photo in his notes around noon on Saturday, some hours before they were "found".

Jeff,

 

You can find a more thorough discussion of this 12:35 Saturday Interrogation here:

Fritz ADDED the part about the photos afterward...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18440-fritz-added-the-part-about-the-photos-afterward/

By cross-referencing the reports and testimony of the various people involved, I've come to believe that a deliberate attempt was made to go back into the Dallas Police Department's records and alter them in an attempt to hide this 12:35 Interview. What's weird is that I believe that this attempt was made after the Warren Report and it's 26 vols of Exhibits were published.

I don't understand what good it would have done at that point.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

byp-cbs-1967-det-brown-compare.jpg

I just noticed I had goofed.  And, rather badly.  If you look at the Det. Brown photo the smaller shrub is two slats over to the right from the larger shrub and not one.  In the CBS photo there is only one slat over to the right and there is no hint of a smaller bush.  Mea Maxima Culpa.

This should correct things said concerning the smaller and larger shrubs seen in the Det. Brown photo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While working on the above post, I noticed something that might be of interest to folks concerning with measuring heights in the back yard.  The support post on the steps behind the Oswald figure has a small 2 x 4 piece of wood as extra support.

byp-133-c-CBS-Det-Brown.jpg

I don't know if it would be worth while to compare the heights and distances from said post in these of the people in these 3 photos.

I don't think I have seen this feature mentioned before.  But, it might since there is a long history of analyzing the BYPs.

byp-shrub-compare.jpg

This second set of photos gives a greater variation of the height and distance of the figures in relation to that 2 x 4 section on the support post. 

It might be worth looking at by those who have the skills to deal with this type of measurement.  It might help people like Jake Sykes in their interests.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are some shifts between the vertical lines of the ghost image... I think that image was taken just prior to them taking Det Brown on the 29th

based on how the distance between the foreground stair post and rear post is seen in the Det Brown / Ghost image yet not in the 133 series

In each of the 133 series, the posts line up next to each other... IOW the camera is to the right from where the Det Brown image was taken... and the ghost image has the same exact spacing...

For those 2 posts to be in identical places while the size of Oswald and the angles change relative to the backgrounds - means to me the person was added based on the vertical lines we see in the ghost image..  See the gif below....  those look like guidelines to me since the ghost image background, outside these lines, does not match any of the 133 images...

Oswald%20Backyard%20photos%20-%20movemen

 

Skewed-GHOST-image-used-to-put-Oswald-in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Someone generally over-looked was a man who was also at the training camps and involved with the Sturgis crowd...  who looked a lot like Oswald...
Primary sources are a bit sketchy... yet I have it on decent authority that Mr. W here could have been involved in the creation of the BYPs...

 

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilsonS.htm  

Some researchers believe that a combination of Interpen members and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This included Wilson, James Arthur Lewis, Roy Hargraves, Edwin Collins, Gerry P. Hemming, David Morales, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Tony Cuesta, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Felipe Vidal Santiagoand William (Rip) Robertson.

Oswald%20and%20Wilson_zpsoamtojd4.jpg

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...