How Did They Get Roscoe White To Lean Like That And Not Fall Over?

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Hey Rob, long time no see! Still slugging it out with all the trolls over at Dunc's forum? I miss that place like a molar with a big cavity in it LOL.

Hi Robert. Good to see you here. I still post there for a few reasons. First of all, Duncan has been gracious with me posting my series (415 installments in one of them so far) as some other sites wouldn't let me post it. I won't post it here because I am sure everyone knows the case well. Doing it has taught me so much that I didn't know even after many years of study.

Secondly, I use it as a testing ground for things that I am studying. If his group of WC supporters can't shoot it down then it has some merit IMO.

Thirdly, it keeps me sharp on the case. If we all agree on things I tend to learn things at a slower rate. They can get rough and a few of them go too far, but most are okay. They have their beliefs and I have mine.

The difference is that I am open to changing mine if supporting evidence is presented.

Thanks for the welcome.

It's good to see you posting here, Rob. I miss your fiery "take no prisoners" approach to debating.

Thanks, but I have mellowed somewhat as I got to the point of realizing that I was just giving the WC supporters what they wanted, and it wasn't me. I am pretty mellow by nature.

[Paul Trejo]

So, Marina's testimony is central to the whole theory of the BYP. Let's review it please. This is from WC Volume 5, page 403

---- BEGIN EXTRACT OF MARINA OSWALD TESTIMONY -- June 11, 1964 --------------------

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you examine the cameras of your husband and tell us which one took the pictures that showed your husband with the rifle and the pistol, as you will recall? The pictures I am asking you about are Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B which you recall are the ones that you said in your prior testimony you took yourself.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. With one of these cameras.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is the first and last time in my life I ever took a photograph and it was done with this gray camera.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Rankin, the Commission exhibit numbers of the two cameras, one is Commission Exhibit No. 136 and one is Commission Exhibit No. 750.

Mr. MCKENZIE. And the gray camera she is referring to, Mr. Rankin, for the purpose of the record is Commission Exhibit No. 750, isn’t that right, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That is the gray camera you just said you took pictures with, is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. The other camera also belonged to Lee but I don’t use it.

---- END EXTRACT OF MARINA OSWALD TESTIMONY -- June 11, 1964 --------------------

It is clear from WC Exhibits that CE-750 is the Imperial Reflex camera. Who challenges this, and why?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 20, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Just note that the Imperial Reflex camera was never shown to be LHO's camera. During Marina Oswald's initial testimony in February 1964 she said that LHO owned two cameras - a Russian one and an American one, but the American one was not the Imperial Reflex camera.

This camera was never discovered by the DPD during their two searches of the Paine residence. It was allegedly found by Ruth Paine in the beginning of December, and instead of giving it to the police she instead gave it to Robert Oswald.

The camera was not operable at the time of discovery. In fact,it was only used twice supposedly to take the BYPs and the alleged surveillance photos of Walker's house.

The Imperial Reflex camera was difficult to use so the idea that Marina could use it effectively when she had no experience with cameras also stretches the bounds of reasonability IMO.

She initially said that the photographs were taken in late February, but then changed it to late March. She initially said that she took just one photo, but then changed it to two. But she also said that she burned one additional photo. Then it was two that she burned. But then it was just one again. This would mean that she really took three photos as the one burned was a different pose, but she never said that she took three photos.

IMO no one should rely on Marina for anything in this area.

I rely on everything Marina said under oath -- however, Marina herself admitted that she knew very little -- mainly what Lee told her, and he was often an unreliable source.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera -- even granting your one-sided observations and suspicion about Ruth Paine -- photographic experts at the very least concluded that the BYP were made with the Imperial Reflex camera -- to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Marina claimed ignorance about cameras as she claimed ignorance about rifles and guns. In the early 1960's, that was common for females. Very little of USA life was co-ed in the early 1960's -- it was very much like the 1950's until JFK was assassinated.

Do you wish to review Marina's testimony about the Imperial Reflex in this thread, Rob? I believe it is defensible. IMHO, Oswald used both the cheap Imperial Reflex camera as well as the expensive, sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall to create at least four different BYP's himself -- deliberately -- for plausible deniability.

He used the assistance of Roscoe White for this purpose.

After having done this back in March 1963, when LHO was confronted on November 23, 1963 with one of the BYP by Captain Will Fritz, LHO predictably said, "That photo is a Fake! It is my face stuck on somebody else's body! I know a lot about photography and I can prove that!"

In other words, LHO had immediate plausible deniability -- and he had rehearsed that little speech for six months! Every word he said there was true!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Rob:

Marina’s testimony raises serious doubts because of the points you mentioned. It will be difficult to find out the full truth about these pictures which had damned Oswald, but also Marina, so much. Mrs. Marina Porter is alive and there is still a small chance to learn more details about these pictures from her. Actually, Marina has admitted taking the pictures because Lee asked her to do so:

There is a woman’s handwritten note in perfect Russian “Ochotnik za faschistam, hoi-ha-ha!” on the back of one of the backyard pictures. It is very likely that it was actually her note. If so, that would indicate her good knowledge of the pictures. If it is true that she has destroyed one of the pictures right on the 23^rd or 24^th of November, then she understood very well how damaging these pictures were both for Lee and herself as the one who potentially assisted the President’s assassin. The pictures not only show Mr. Oswald as a potential political aggressor, they also pointed to his association with the infamous rifle. Marina was in a difficult position and had tried to tune down her role in taking the pictures by only reluctantly admitting taking one, then two pictures after being shown the other picture. She might have admitted taking more pictures during her WC testimonies if additional pictures would be submitted to her. Thus, she clearly revealed as little as possible about the backyard pictures. It is true that she did not present herself as a very trustworthy witness, however, her situation was such that this little what is in her testimonies may still be the minimum truth she was willing to concede. Her interviews (links above) suggest she indeed took the pictures, and maybe more than two.

I have tried to check the likelihood of the pictures being taken on March 31. The shadows cast by the man’s figure in CE133A would match Sunday, March 31, for the period between 11.30 and 12.00, very likely 11.37. It is a very indirect yet at least some empirical support for the possibility that the pictures were taken by Marina on Sunday morning when Lee was at home and not at work.

Lee’s denial of the pictures may have had also the purpose to protect Marina as the pictures made her a potential accessory to the fact. His denial and his accusation of DPD involvement in these pictures were maybe also his big mistakes comparable to exclaiming he was a patsy or trying to call his cut out in North Carolina. The right people had realised he would not take the blame and that he knew about them.

Andrej,

It was determined years ago that the writing on the De Mohrenschildt copy was not written by either LHO or Marina.

A key point is that even the FBI expert assigned to this area wouldn't say that the rifle seen in the BYP's is the same one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

IMO those photos don't show guilt because even if they were real, and they aren't, they were taken nearly 8 months prior to the assassination. Also, there is no evidence showing that LHO ever ordered CE 139.

[Paul Trejo]

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

I do recognize, Rob, that you're not new to this topic. The opinions of CTers varies widely -- and always did. The data is enormous and the fact that the US Government has chosen to withhold thousands of JFK documents from the American people is a guarantee that dozens of conflicting theories would emerge as a result.

It's like taking a long list of large numbers, and then covering one of the numbers up, and then asking people to add up the numbers. With one of the large numbers covered up, people will either walk away, or take a guess based on the numbers they can see. The results will vary widely.

So -- I realize that there are other alternatives to my theory. That's why I like to engage others who are well-read on the topic.

I choose to believe Marina Oswald -- you choose to disbelieve her. I choose to believe Ruth Paine. I gather you choose to disbelieve her.

That says little about the witnesses, IMHO, and everything about the Warren Commission decision to withhold thousands of pages of evidence from American historians, jurists, journalists and intellectuals.

Even the HSCA was unable to extract those withheld documents from the US Government. Our best hope today, IMHO, is the JFK Records Act, signed by former President GWH Bush in 1992, authorizing final release of these JFK documents on Thursday 26 October 2017.

In any case -- until then our best resource remains the Warren Commission volumes -- with all its faults. The HSCA documents were published 15 years after the JFK tragedy -- and that is just too long to wait to trace a warm lead on any murder case.

The biggest error of the HSCA, as I read it, was their failure to see the importance of General Walker in so many Warren Commission testimonies.

In any case, the BYP is directly tied to the Walker shooting. That is why Roscoe White is so important -- because he also figures into the Walker shooting, because the BYP were taken only a few weeks before the Walker shooting, when the Walker house photographs were taken, and the Alek J. Hidell fake ID was made, and the famous weapons were purchased. They go together.

For any CT which claims that the Walker shooting was bogus, and that LHO had nothing to do with it -- I am curious why people bother to claim that General Walker's shooting any ANYTHING to do with the JFK shooting. ANYTHING. Otherwise, it was only General Walker himself who claimed a connection.

I believe historians are missing the General Walker connection -- and the BYP are the key to the LHO's connection to the Walker shooting.

IMHO, even Roscoe White was willing to push LHO into the patsy role -- that's how ugly it became. General Walker himself found out that LHO was one of two shooters back in April, and he got revenge on the Kennedys and on LHO at one and the same time.

I believe the clues can be found in the Walker papers, still non-catalogued at UT Austin. Here's only one sample among many:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 20, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

This.

Rob, I agree with you 100%. If you are familiar with "real" trial testimony then the WC transcripts read like a prosecution wet dream.

Mark Lane tried to insert himself into the process but was disparaged at every turn by the hard-line WC'ers. It's in the WC Executive Session transcripts FWIW.

[Thomas Graves]

Just note that the Imperial Reflex camera was never shown to be LHO's camera. During Marina Oswald's initial testimony in February 1964 she said that LHO owned two cameras - a Russian one and an American one, but the American one was not the Imperial Reflex camera.

This camera was never discovered by the DPD during their two searches of the Paine residence. It was allegedly found by Ruth Paine in the beginning of December, and instead of giving it to the police she instead gave it to Robert Oswald.

The camera was not operable at the time of discovery. In fact,it was only used twice supposedly to take the BYPs and the alleged surveillance photos of Walker's house.

The Imperial Reflex camera was difficult to use so the idea that Marina could use it effectively when she had no experience with cameras also stretches the bounds of reasonability IMO.

She initially said that the photographs were taken in late February, but then changed it to late March. She initially said that she took just one photo, but then changed it to two. But she also said that she burned one additional photo. Then it was two that she burned. But then it was just one again. This would mean that she really took three photos as the one burned was a different pose, but she never said that she took three photos.

IMO no one should rely on Marina for anything in this area.

I rely on everything Marina said under oath -- however, Marina herself admitted that she knew very little -- mainly what Lee told her, and he was often an unreliable source.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera -- even granting your one-sided observations and suspicion about Ruth Paine -- photographic experts at the very least concluded that the BYP were made with the Imperial Reflex camera -- to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Marina claimed ignorance about cameras as she claimed ignorance about rifles and guns. In the early 1960's, that was common for females. Very little of USA life was co-ed in the early 1960's -- it was very much like the 1950's until JFK was assassinated.

Do you wish to review Marina's testimony about the Imperial Reflex in this thread, Rob? I believe it is defensible. IMHO, Oswald used both the cheap Imperial Reflex camera as well as the expensive, sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall to create at least four different BYP's himself -- deliberately -- for plausible deniability.

He used the assistance of Roscoe White for this purpose.

After having done this back in March 1963, when LHO was confronted on November 23, 1963 with one of the BYP by Captain Will Fritz, LHO predictably said, "That photo is a Fake! It is my face stuck on somebody else's body! I know a lot about photography and I can prove that!"

In other words, LHO had immediate plausible deniability -- and he had rehearsed that little speech for six months! Every word he said there was true!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

Rob,

I don't know if Marina had a lawyer during her WC interrogations (I would imagine that she did), but her coming to the US from the USSR, a regime not known for ensuring fair judicial proceedings, might have put the fear of god into her regarding her WC testimony, and therefore might have caused her to be more truthful under that kind of questioning than she otherwise would have been.

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

[Chris Newton]

Dear Tommy,

I have a submission for this request but your inbox is full.

Could you please tell us why Oswald took photos of Roscoe White, holding a rifle and Communist newspapers, in Oswald's own back yard?

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Tommy,

I have a submission for this request but your inbox is full.

Could you please tell us why Oswald took photos of Roscoe White, holding a rifle and Communist newspapers, in Oswald's own back yard?

OK, Chris, I'll try to remedy that.

-- Tommy

Edit: OK, fire away.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

The House Select Commitee experts tested the Imperial camera allegedly used to shoot the backyard photographs. One of the tests carried out at RIT was the analysis of curvatures produced by the lens. The left panel is the HSCA exhibit FIGURE RIT 4.1 which can be downloaded as http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6figrit4ap188.jpg .

I have rectified the left vertical edge of the middle square which appears to be well mounted. This is illustrated in the right panel. Interestingly, the right vertical edge line is not parallel to the left one, instead it diverged rightwards creating an open angle towards the top of the picture. The horizontal lines were supposed to be orientated perpendicular to the left vertical edge, however, they rather show a decline towards the right of the image.

Could the optical features of the lens be the cause or at least a contributing factor in the divergence of the vertical lines (fence) in the right part od the backyard picture?

Andrej,

The camera is exhibiting pincushion distortion, which is an inherent feature (i.e. not caused by a flaw) of all lens elements. (Though the distortion can be, and is, compensated for and minimized in most camera lenses.)

Pincushion/barrel distortion always results in curved lines. Since the BYP lines are not curved (they are only slanted), we know that their angles must be the result of either perspective or keystoning, NOT pincushion. And since the vertical lines in the BYP diverges at the top but not at the bottom, then we know that perspective isn't at play. (Because perspective distortion is always symmetrical about the lens's axis.) That leaves only keystoning as the cause of the angled lines.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

The House Select Commitee experts tested the Imperial camera allegedly used to shoot the backyard photographs. One of the tests carried out at RIT was the analysis of curvatures produced by the lens. The left panel is the HSCA exhibit FIGURE RIT 4.1 which can be downloaded as http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6figrit4ap188.jpg .

I have rectified the left vertical edge of the middle square which appears to be well mounted. This is illustrated in the right panel. Interestingly, the right vertical edge line is not parallel to the left one, instead it diverged rightwards creating an open angle towards the top of the picture. The horizontal lines were supposed to be orientated perpendicular to the left vertical edge, however, they rather show a decline towards the right of the image.

Could the optical features of the lens be the cause or at least a contributing factor in the divergence of the vertical lines (fence) in the right part od the backyard picture?

<snip>

Andrej,

The camera is exhibiting pincushion distortion, which is an inherent feature (i.e. not caused by a flaw) of all lens elements. (Though the distortion can be, and is, compensated for and minimized in most camera lenses.)

<snip>

Pincushion/barrel distortion always results in curved lines. Since the BYP lines are not curved (they are only slanted), we know that their angles must be the result of either perspective or keystoning, NOT pincushion. And since the vertical lines in the BYP diverges at the top but not at the bottom, then we know that perspective isn't at play. (Because perspective distortion is always symmetrical about the lens's axis.) That leaves only keystoning as the cause of the angled lines.

I thought this idea by Andrej was very good, and very challenging, and I had to think about it for awhile. I think Sandy is correct here.

My response is that if there was a built-in slant to the Imperial Reflex camera, then every single photograph taken by that camera would have had a slant. But that was not the case. We have photographs with and without the slant from this same camera.

Therefore, I again agree with Jack White -- LHO deliberately slanted CE133-A by lifting one side of the photograph before copying it again -- and he would do this for plausible deniability.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 21, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Could you please tell us why Oswald took photos of Roscoe White, holding a rifle and Communist newspapers, in Oswald's own back yard?

This is a great question in the context of this thread. If Roscoe White is truly the body-double in the BYP, as Jack White had argued back in 1995, then we are justified in asking the question -- why?

We should first remember that Roscoe White was not a Dallas Police Officer at this time. Roscoe's wife, Geneva, was working at the Carousel Club at the time. Also, Jack White has photographic evidence that LHO and Roscoe had known each other in the Marines, there in Atsugi, Japan.

According to Dr. Jeff Caufield, LHO was a right-winger, who hoped to be hired by some US Intelligence program as a double-agent, by pretending to be a Communist. Yet LHO never joined any Communist cell, nor ever had any Communist friends -- it was all by mail, leaving a deliberate paper trail. LHO always maintained plausible deniability.

IMHO, Roscoe White was impressed with LHO in the early part of 1963. LHO was trying to create a Communist persona by using fake ID (e.g. Alek J. Hidell) and we know that LHO sent one of his BYP to the Communist newspaper, The Militant, in early 1963 (yes, they finally admitted that they had one).

So, it seems to me that LHO and Roscoe White were getting along as pals in March 1963, and LHO was boasting to Roscoe that he was going to infiltrate the Communists by using photography -- by sending a BYP to The Militant newspaper.

However, to do this, LHO would have explained to Roscoe White, LHO needed plausible deniability, and sold him on the idea of the BYP, which would use the body of Roscoe White, and pasting the face of LHO over the body-double, so that LHO could later "prove" that the photo was a fake.

To start, he insisted that Marina take his own picture, dressed in all-black, holding his rifle and wearing his pistol, and holding Communist newspapers in his right hand. Marina remembers taking one and only one photo. That was all LHO needed at the start. And she would also remain ignorant of all of the rest of LHO's plans here. Marina saw no other poses. Marina never met Roscoe (who couldn't speak Russian).

So -- why would Roscoe pose for four more BYP photos? IMHO, because Roscoe was impressed with LHO's Anticommunist plans to infiltrate the Communists, that's why. Roscoe kept as a souvenir one of the BYP, which was found many years later.

However -- once LHO was side-tracked by George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt to try to assassinate General Walker (whom they insisted was too far to the right), Roscoe was no longer impressed. In fact, he would run to the aid of General Walker.

Roscoe White would eventually join the team of General Walker to get revenge on LHO by helping to set up LHO as the Patsy for the JFK assassination. According to his son, Ricky White, Roscoe was one of the shooters at JFK that day, but also was one of the shooters of J.D. Tippit. For some strange reason, LHO continued to trust the plotters to rescue him from this mess "to come forward and give me legal assistance."

Jack Ruby was pulled into the plot only at the very last minute -- by the DPD rogues who were also supporting Roscoe White and General Walker, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 21, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

The House Select Commitee experts tested the Imperial camera allegedly used to shoot the backyard photographs. One of the tests carried out at RIT was the analysis of curvatures produced by the lens. The left panel is the HSCA exhibit FIGURE RIT 4.1 which can be downloaded as http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6figrit4ap188.jpg .

I have rectified the left vertical edge of the middle square which appears to be well mounted. This is illustrated in the right panel. Interestingly, the right vertical edge line is not parallel to the left one, instead it diverged rightwards creating an open angle towards the top of the picture. The horizontal lines were supposed to be orientated perpendicular to the left vertical edge, however, they rather show a decline towards the right of the image.

Could the optical features of the lens be the cause or at least a contributing factor in the divergence of the vertical lines (fence) in the right part od the backyard picture?

Andrej,

The camera is exhibiting pincushion distortion, which is an inherent feature (i.e. not caused by a flaw) of all lens elements. (Though the distortion can be, and is, compensated for and minimized in most camera lenses.)

oswald_camera_pincushion_distortion.jpg

Pincushion/barrel distortion always results in curved lines. Since the BYP lines are not curved (they are only slanted), we know that their angles must be the result of either perspective or keystoning, NOT pincushion. And since the vertical lines in the BYP diverges at the top but not at the bottom, then we know that perspective isn't at play. (Because perspective distortion is always symmetrical about the lens's axis.) That leaves only keystoning as the cause of the angled lines.

Sandy:

the backyard picture shows a pincushion effect as it should, however, this is a very minor change to the course of the vertical lines compared to the displacements we see in Figure RIT 4.1 of the HSCA. The picture below takes the vertical edge line of the fence in the right part of the backyard picture. I drew a blue dot line which runs in parallel with this edge line and touches it in the middle (left panel). The middle and the right panel show magnified views of the top and bottom part of the vertical fence line. The edge line deviates from the straight blue line as expected if pincushion is present: in both the top and bottom parts the edge line bends to run towards the right hand side. The size of pincushion is very small, and this was the reason that for practical purposes we have treated the vertical lines in the backyard picture as perfectly straight in previous posts. They are not straight though - a small pincushion effect is present. The small size of pincushion is logical because the lens used was a 35 mm one and the film frame was a square of 6x6 cm - this is a pretty wide-angle setup. Pincushion is usually seen in a telephoto type of lenses.

I would not agree with your pincushion drawing in the RIT 4.1 picture. The displacement seen in RIT 4.1 is dramatic and exceeds by a large margin the pincushion effect I show in the picture below. Please note how poorly is the bottom right square in RIT 4.1. mounted on the wall - it flips away from the wall and creates a curvature which you assimilated into your blue pincushion line. One can see even a shadow cast by the left edge of the square. So, there must be a different explanation for the rightwards running top square in RIT 4.1.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

The problem of Figure RIT 4.1., exhibits of the HSCA, can be understood from the picture below. It shows the lines extending the left and right edges of the top square. These lines create an angle opening upwards. And surprise, surprise: the same angle applies to the angle created by the rightwards falling vertical edge of the fence and the staircase vertical post next to Mr. Oswald.

Well, this match cannot be a coincidence. There are only two explanations for having these angles in a perfect match: 1) The Imperial camera had an optical problem, such as e.g., the mirror in the camera slightly misplaced relative to the axis of the lens (tilted) creating "keystoning" on every snap; therefore, RIT 4.1. and the backyard picture had to show identical anomaly, and actually this anomaly strengthens the authenticity of the backyard picture. 2) The RIT 4.1. was rigged to show an anomaly which exactly matched the alteration made in the backyard picture. Any preference?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

And here we go with CE 133B and RIT 4.1. - the same angle. The backyard picture was rotated to have the staircase post vertical.