Andrej Stancak

Robert: Things are more complicated than they seem. The new tourist picture you show presents a very different field of view compared to the original backyard picture. The focal lengths of the camera used in the new picture differed from that in the backyard picture. Therefore, the divergence of vertical lines will appear different in these two pictures. My post 40 shows another modern picture with a very similar field of view seen in the backyard picture - you can see the divergence of vertical lines very much alike in the backyard picture. Oswald's leaning is exactly the point which interests me because it appears to be a characteristic feature of his stance which I also see in the reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance. Oswald is leaning towards his back and right in the backyard picture, however, it does not mean that he would have to fall down. He would fall down only if the centre of mass of his body would be outside of the area delineated by his feet. One also needs to mind the rifle which displaces the centre of mass in opposite direction (towards the left and front), and Oswald's right arm which is flexed in front of the body and holds newspapers. The newspapers do not weigh much, however, the right arm does contribute to the stability of the stance. While it is quite easy to write a brief message to EF, it is more difficult and time consuming to build a 3D model of the Neeley Street house and the backyard and test it with different fields of view, to reconstruct Oswald's stance and to figure out qualitatively or quantitatively whether the location of the centre of mass would allow a stable stance or not. Thus, I basically do not have much to say until I am done with my analyses and understand this problem to the least detail. If you would like to figure out how it is possible to stand as Oswald did in this backyard picture, you would stand with your feet in parallel and about one foot apart, then rotate your right foot about 45 degrees outwards, and then lean back in such a way that the full of your body weight would rest on your stretched right leg. You continue leaning until you feel that your left foot touches the ground with only the front half of the foot. In this stance, your left knee would by very, very slightly bend to allow the left foot touching the ground with only its front part. The pose is a bit uncomfortable but one can hod it. To make it more realistic, one needs to also simulate the rifle in Oswald's left hand. It weighed 3.4 kg and it helped to oppose the displacement of the mass towards the right and back. However, it is not only the weight of the rifle but also its length which contributed to the stability of the pose. It is similar to tightrope walking in which either widely extended arms or a long stick held in walker's hands help to stabilise the pose. Oswald's pose did not need this much help as a tightrope walker's stance because his stance was much more stable. You really want that BYP to work, Andrej. Any particular reason? To learn the truth about this picture after 53 years, if it is possible at all. I am relatively new to the JFK assassination research and take nothing for granted. If I am wrong and this picture was geometrically impossible, I will let people know. I have almost no doubts that the heads in other two backyard pictures were altered, and maybe even the chin in this picture. However, the pose appears to me realistic. "Appears" is, however, not good enough.

Robert: Robert: Things are more complicated than they seem. The new tourist picture you show presents a very different field of view compared to the original backyard picture. The focal lengths of the camera used in the new picture differed from that in the backyard picture. Therefore, the divergence of vertical lines will appear different in these two pictures. My post 40 shows another modern picture with a very similar field of view seen in the backyard picture - you can see the divergence of vertical lines very much alike in the backyard picture. Oswald's leaning is exactly the point which interests me because it appears to be a characteristic feature of his stance which I also see in the reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance. Oswald is leaning towards his back and right in the backyard picture, however, it does not mean that he would have to fall down. He would fall down only if the centre of mass of his body would be outside of the area delineated by his feet. One also needs to mind the rifle which displaces the centre of mass in opposite direction (towards the left and front), and Oswald's right arm which is flexed in front of the body and holds newspapers. The newspapers do not weigh much, however, the right arm does contribute to the stability of the stance. While it is quite easy to write a brief message to EF, it is more difficult and time consuming to build a 3D model of the Neeley Street house and the backyard and test it with different fields of view, to reconstruct Oswald's stance and to figure out qualitatively or quantitatively whether the location of the centre of mass would allow a stable stance or not. Thus, I basically do not have much to say until I am done with my analyses and understand this problem to the least detail. If you would like to figure out how it is possible to stand as Oswald did in this backyard picture, you would stand with your feet in parallel and about one foot apart, then rotate your right foot about 45 degrees outwards, and then lean back in such a way that the full of your body weight would rest on your stretched right leg. You continue leaning until you feel that your left foot touches the ground with only the front half of the foot. In this stance, your left knee would by very, very slightly bend to allow the left foot touching the ground with only its front part. The pose is a bit uncomfortable but one can hod it. To make it more realistic, one needs to also simulate the rifle in Oswald's left hand. It weighed 3.4 kg and it helped to oppose the displacement of the mass towards the right and back. However, it is not only the weight of the rifle but also its length which contributed to the stability of the pose. It is similar to tightrope walking in which either widely extended arms or a long stick held in walker's hands help to stabilise the pose. Oswald's pose did not need this much help as a tightrope walker's stance because his stance was much more stable.

Excellent point Ray. Earlier I postulated a way that would achieve the perspective angles that we see in the photo. Not that I ever believed it was actually done (I believe I called it "silly"). And that was with Marina (or whoever) standing on a ladder and taking a picture with the camera's line-of-sight level. Then afterward cropping the print to eliminate the sky and trees on the its upper part. While it is true that that could be done to achieve the desired perspective (the vertical angles we see), as Ray points out it would also introduce undesirable elements to the photo. Such as showing the upper sides of the stairway steps rather than the undersides. Sandy: I wonder if you would you be willing to summarise point by point the findings and detailed arguments in Mr. White's videos. I am afraid that there is no written record and detailed description of Mr. White's work which makes any evaluation difficult. The summary of Mr. White's work should not contain any personal views on individual issues. Links to videos and time stamps for individual points would be useful too.

Sandy, this theory was first stated by photographer Jack White in his video series from 1995. His theory is convincing to me. In fact, it's brilliant. Not everything Jack White said was brilliant, but IMHO this was. Jack White's brilliant discovery of Roscoe White in the BYP can be found on YouTube. Here's one example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4] Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul: And what if there are mistakes in previous research which had been done with limited technical possibilities? Shall we repeat individual findings and calcify a potentially false conclusion? For instance, the divergence of vertical lines in the right part of the backyard image we discuss were deemed to be due to tilting the photographic plate during the positive process, however, we now see that the most likely explanation was that this was just an effect of perspective. It is a big difference to me to explain a feature of this picture as a natural phenomenon or an intentional manipulation, and a warning sign in the sense that the author might have errred. If he did, in what other aspects of his work could he also be in error?

Tom: I hope you stay around. Your work is understood by few because of the difficulty of the method, I read every message you publish. I am not sure which of the anagrams are really valid, however, the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald with other people planted surreptitious messages appears to be a modus oerandi which may apply not only to backyard pictures but to any Mr. Oswald's move which involved his self-incrimination (even to his presence in the doorway as Prayer Man). That idea of future exoneration using difficult to understand actions has been elaborated in your ICO solutions.

Ray: the perspective-corrected picture appears to be "narrow", and the man unusually lean and tall. I guess one pays for the perspective correction by an altered ratio of vertical and horizontal proportions. I was satisfied by rotating the image to adjust to vertical axis the post closest to Mr. Oswald (sorry, I see Mr. Oswald in this particular backyard picture). The perspective effect is a natural part of any photograph, however, it is true that if things such as stance are discussed, the man should stand in the best vertical pose possible.

Michael: people deserve respect even if they believe in something which may not be true. We have the right to discuss whether aspects of a published story are valid or not. I see no reason to write anything derogatory about the author, and wish Mrs. Baker well.

Without contradicting you in the least, this doesn't preclude development of a private medico-espionage industry devoted to the legend of assassination through cancer cell tramsmission. David: I agree that there were (and maybe still are?) devilish plans of intelligence agencies over the world to use biological vehicles to kill someone. Andrej, Chris: In the case of the Castro-kill industry of the 1960s, I meant the legend (as in con-job) of assassination through cancer cell transmission. Imagine a part-privatized medical assassination cabal - offshoot of the military industrial complex and ancestor of today's privatized warfare - that sucked in uncountable dollars from the fathomless black budget, for facility and personnel subsidization, R & D, and some field trials on humans, all based on the spurious concept of injecting political targets with live cancer cells and killing them. A spurious concept sworn to by a cabal of doctors and researchers. It's not far-fetched when measured by later espionage and biowarfare developments. I don't mean to beat this to death, but I had limited time to write my original post and want to be clear. This was the light bulb that went off over my head when I opened this thread this morning. I can't convince myself that such chicanery would have been beyond the pale for the cold war era. David: I agree with your description of how powerful forces in society, mostly private business and intelligence agencies, collaborated to develop secret weapons to kill their enemies. The case of the Russian journalist Litvinenko who was killed by a radiation capsule or drink by KGB can serve as an example. The problem is whether cancer cells can be used as a "bioweapon" as decsribed in the novel Me and Lee, or in general. Maybe a word by an oncologist would be more suitable than an opinion of an experimental neurophysiologist. Cancer is not contagious. If we care of someone suffering from lung cancer, we do not get infected with his/her cancer. Cancer cells, if injected into someone else's body, would be attacked by his/her own immune system and rapidly destroyed. The reason is that every cell in our body has a genetically unique marker (called major histocompatibility complex) which differs from a marker of a non-human species such as mouse, but also from markers in cells of other humans. The risk of being "infected" with cancer would be if for instance I am donated an organ of a person who has/had cancer. However, even here the likelihood of really developing cancer is very small (some 2 in 10000 transplants). Thus, cancer is a very serious desease which we fear and consider it to be a real evil. However, cancer as a bioweapon is just one of the least likely possibilities to kill a political enemy.

This is one of the few sensible posts in this entire thread. Good show, Ray! After all the scientific double talk, Ray simply rotates the photo to make everything plumb, and shows us why the photo has to be a fake. Oswald going down! Well, if perspective correction straightened all the lines as shown here, then the divergence of the lines in the original picture was due to perspective effects. Ray would not be able to straighten the lines with the perspective tool if part of the lines would be artificially tilted.

Robert: 1.9 degrees equalises the vertical posts which is the closest to man's right arm. I have selected that because it is nearest to the man and it therefore would have a very similar perspective factor as the man. A 5 degrees rotation would equalise the rightwards pointing edge of the tall fence in the right part of the image. That one is further to the back of the man in question and there is a good reason for thinking it may due to a natural effect of perspective (I have posted a recent backyard picture showing a similar angle for this object in one of previous posts in this thread). I see no reason to equalise relative to that distant line if it can be done to the one in proximity of Mr. Oswald's figure.

It's released. 145 pages. it's there on the link I provided. Pretty much all of it. Some redactions. Thanks, Chris, for pointing me again to the document which I did not know would exist.

I'm getting seasick studying the BYP tilted so far to the right. What's you flavour-of-the-week explanation today for everything tilting to the right, Andrej? C'mon, dazzle me with some scientific jargon. Robert: the comparison of Prayer Man's stance with that of the man in backyard photograph did not require any big science. The fact that the backyard picture is tilted by 1.9 degree does not prevent seeing that the hands are in very similar positions in both men, and that the right foot holds the body weight. I posted this one only to have all cases in which Oswald showed this peculiar habit on one place. As Paul wrote in a previous post, many people use to stand like this. So, it is not much, however, it aroused my interest, and it seems that quite a number of people are interested in the man's stance for various reasons. Let us see where it will lead.

Chris: Would you think we will see any of these materials released next year?

Without contradicting you in the least, this doesn't preclude development of a private medico-espionage industry devoted to the legend of assassination through cancer cell tramsmission. David: I agree that there were (and maybe still are?) devilish plans of intelligence agencies over the world to use biological vehicles to kill someone.

I am posting again the reconstruction of Prayer Man' s figure which also appeared in Prayer Man thread. The man's posture fits well with Prayer Man' in Darnell; I would like to show this part of work when complete, which entails realistic clothing and face, and fitting all the doorway occupants there.

I found two more pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald showing the style of his stance. This one is from New Orleans, Magazine Street house: And this one is from Minsk:

Paul, Apparently there is a photo of Oswald standing that way, below left. It doesn't look like Oswald to me, but they say it is. Okay, not exactly the same. The weight of the guy on the left appears to be on his rear foot, whereas the weight of the guy on the right appears to be a bit more equally divided between his two feet. Sandy: actually, the backyard man also supports his body with his right leg only; the left leg is unloaded and maybe the heel is not even touching the ground or just touch. I should be able to show my reconstruction soon. The picture on the left is a good example of Mr. Oswald's habit to rest primarily on his right leg while standing.

Not being a medical doctor but being knowledgeable in medical physiology, the possibility of killing Mr. Castro by injecting some cancer cells cultured in mice appears to be a nonsense. The story, as I understand it, is that Mr. Castro's immunity would have to be weakened with initial X-ray doses else his immune system would immediately destroy the foreign cells. However, how would anyone explain to healthy Mr. Castro that he needs to take each day for a period of few weeks a hefty dose of X-rays to abolish his own immune system. For illustration: immunosuppression in leukemia patients receiving bone marrow grafts would require an X ray dose of 3400 rad with 200 rad per day. However, even people with high school education knew at that time that radiation in larger doses was harmful. The condition of transportation of cancer cells in a canister or a jar for days in hot weather conditions appears just as fantastic as burning out Mr. Castro's immune system with X rays. If living cells were to survive a lengthy transport they would need to be cooled to a low temperature (such as ovum or a sperm cell if it needs to be used for fertilisation in future). If not frozen, a living cell would survive and/or not alter their properties only if the medium is constantly monitored for pH (acidity), temperature and several other biochemical parameters. The idea of Lee transporting living cancer cells in an ordinary bag which he and Marina might have used for their grocery shoppings is just ridiculous. I cannot see how Mr. Castro's medical doctors (I assume he has more than one) would consent to a crime of slowly killing their patient. It is against humanity and against their promise to obey Hippocrate's oath not to harm their patients in the first instance. In the unlikely case that Mr. Castro's doctors were acting on behalf of CIA, there would be plenty opportunities to poison Castro at any time without this monstrous plan.

Paul: I think you may have visited Dallas just recently because both Google Maps and Google Earth show 214 West Neely on their Jnauary 2016 pictures. The three pictures allow to identify the yellow house as 214 West Neely. There are actually two appartments in the house, 212 and 214. The door to the right was 214, the appartment rented by Mr. Oswald.

Google Earth still does show 214 West Neely house, and it looks to me compatible with the yellow house. This location is what I need to know as this would allow me to conctruct the house and the backyard and place it exactly on the marked house via Google Earth flat map.

Well, Andrej, I've been to Dallas and looked for myself. This is a photograph of the Oswald's old address at 604 Elsbeth Street. This is not the house where the Back Yard Photograph was taken. This house is around the corner from the next Oswald address at 214 West Neely Street, at which the original Back Yard Photograph was taken. Also, the house that used to be there on 214 West Neely Street has been razed to the ground some years ago. It no longer exists. There is only an empty lot there, as of late last year, when I was in Dallas. The duplex on 604 Elsbeth Street is still there -- pretty much in the same shape. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul: thanks for your comment which, however, confuses me. I found the following building to be 602-604 Elsbeth: This should be the duplex mentioned in your message. It has been photographed by Mr. Holga in 2012, and it is in a pretty bad shape. http://www.mrholga.com/2013/03/602-604-elsbeth-lee-harvey-oswald-slept-here/ The picture of the house I posted, which house may not exist anymore, appears to be, according to a number of pictures available on internet, the 214 West Neely and it does contain the backyard, the small gate and the wooden wall. Thus, I would still believe that the light-colored house is 214 West Neely. This particular backyard photograph interests me in context of Prayer Man discussion. The stance of Prayer Man bears a striking similarity with the stance of Oswald in this picture: the right hand holds the full weight of the body, the right hand is above the left hand. I found at least two or three pictures of Mr. Oswald with a similar stance. Thus, Mr. Oswald had a habit to assume a specific stance across a variety of situations, which is a minor but still a useful detail supporting the view that Prayer Man and Mr. Oswald were one and the same person.

Sandy: Thanks for your clear explanations of lens distortions and your view of how the vertical lines have been altered. The tilting of the photographic paper plate during the positive process ("keystoning" in Mr. White's video) could have been made as an additional safety latch if man's face would look too good and not show any obvious alterations. Once a manipulation such as impossible vertical lines would be proven the picture would not be admissible in the court. However, I also found a relatively recent picture of the backyard which has quite successfully reproduced the backyard scene. The vertical lines in the right part of the image do diverge as in the backyard picture. A closer inspection of the contemporary scene shows that the two posts in the middle of the picture are actually further away from the gate and the brown wooden wall, and the gate and the wall as if run towards the camera. So, the perspective may be in play, and there can be a natural explanation of some pecularities seen in backyard pictures after all. Source: http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/john-f-kennedy-then-now-photos/2013/11/20/id/537800/

If this is the house on 214 West Neely where the backyard pictures have been taken then it should be possible to verify the shadow cast by the man in the discussed backyard photograph. I now see from images available on internet that it might actually be this house: The photographs were taken with the man standing with his back towards the dark brown wooden wall and the small white gate.

It seems that almost all contributors to this thread agree that there was something wrong with the backyard pictures, the difference in views is more about how much and how. Here are three different scenarios of what had happened: Scenario 1: the pictures were created without Mr. Oswald's knowledge by having someone else to pose in the backyard of their previous house at Nealy Street. Mr. Oswald's head was mounted to this foreign body. Mrs. Marina did not take the pictures, she was pressed to admit it. The rifle used was never in Mr. Oswald's possession, and it might or might not be the same as the one found in the Depository. The backyard pictures were intended to paint Mr. Oswald as an aggressive leftist who might have killed a politician for ideological reasons. This has been carefully planned with the intention to use it as incriminating evidence in killing President Kennedy. This scenario has a variation: the backyard was photographed on a different occassion than the man. Therefore, it was neccesary to artifically copy man's picture onto the backyard scene, and also to replace his head with Mr. Oswald's head. Scenario 2: Mr. Oswald colluded in the preparation of the backyard pictures with his intelligence handlers to build his profile of a likely political assassin. He consented to this risky and compromising scenario under the condition that safety breaks would be implanted. For instance, it would be his figure and his head, however, his head would be tampered with as shown by Mr. Jack White's research. The rifle itself would be similar but not identical (e.g., the sling mount or the length would differ) with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor. Mr. Oswald knew what safety breaks were planted, and he was therefore confident during his interrogation about what has been manipulated, and that he would be able to prove a manipulation. This would make the backyard pictures worthless as forensic evidence. Scenario 2 would assume Mr. Oswald's full knowledge of the fact that a false image of himself is being created (distributing pro-Castro leaflets would be another expample of his active self-incrimination), and it also supposed a contact with his handlers. Mr. Oswald might or might not help with manipulations of backyard pictures, which might or might not be taken by Mrs. Marina. Scenario 3: Mr. Oswald made the pictures on his own because he himself and alone has been creating a picture of a potential political assassin. He did it as he was irresponsible and derranged, and he wanted to make himself attractive to some strange people or organisations. Mrs. Marina took the pictures, and she was experiencing a strong conflict during her testimonies for the Warren Commission because she was worsening Mr. Oswlad's image while she was admitting her role in this incriminating affair, which threatened to increase her vulnerability. Mrs. Marina attempted to at least reduce the number of pictures taken and reluctantly admitted two of them. Mr. Oswald was supposed to have the infamous rifle in his possession. The rifle was most likely given to him by his handlers (only an agency or organisation can arrange such a trap as a money order which never would be cashed in by seller), and Mr. Oswald might then produce the pictures on his own initiative. He would then add some safety breaks to the pictures by himself as in Scenario 2. However, the rifle would have to be identical with the one found on the 6th floor as it is unlikley that Mr. Oswlad had owned two similar Mannlicher Carcano rifles. In Scenarios 2 and 3, there would be no geometric problems with the backyard pictures as it would be Mr. Oswald who was photographed. Only details of his face and the rifle would be manipulated as safety breaks. The man's pose could have been perfectly fine as the pose itself was not a safety break. The man's pose could be a problem only in the variation of Scenario 1 in which the body of someone else would be pasted onto a blank backyard scene. What scenario would you pick?

Andrej, Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images. I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO. (When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.) -- Tommy Thomas: thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try. This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all... Andrej, His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter. -- Tommy And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground. Tommy: All right, whilst I will have some work to do with the model maybe you would let us know in the meantime what is this picture about: did someone just paste this man's body from a different picture violating the principles of geometry? Or would someone construct piece by piece the man and commit some mistakes?