The Backyard Photos

[Paul Kerrigan]

This is mostly for Jack White. How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

[Anthony Frank]

Were these supposed to be the pictures of Oswald holding the rifle?

[Paul Kerrigan]

Were these supposed to be the pictures of Oswald holding the rifle?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, the infamous "Backyard Photos." There are five of them I believe. Three show Oswald in different positions.

[Jack White]

This is mostly for Jack White.  How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Experts" of many kinds can be hired to haul out

mystical scientific mumbo-jumbo to dazzle and baffle

the layman. Grain structure analysis is meaningless

without knowing many other factors:

1. grain of original negative

2. grain of original print

3. if a composite, what size was the original

4. if a composite, was it printed slightly out of focus to eliminate grain

5. grain of copy negative

6. was copy shot slightly out of focus to diminish grain

7. number of generations of grain present

8. size of final photocopy print

9. grain of final print, etc.

Mr. Thirdeye...it is easy to pull wool over the eyes of those who

do not know the right questions to ask.

Jack White

[Paul Kerrigan]

This is mostly for Jack White.  How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Thirdeye...it is easy to pull wool over the eyes of those who

do not know the right questions to ask.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's why I asked you. I know very little about any aspect of photography.

[Anthony Frank]

I remember those photos. The picture of Oswald may be real but the rifle was superimposed on his image.

You can see that the proportions of the rifle are the same in each picture, but Oswald's proportions are different.

There are different pictures of Oswald taken from different distances, thus Oswald's proprotions are different, but the rifle remains the same in each picture.

Like if you stood next to a baseball bat and someone took a picture from 15 feet away, then took ano0ther picture from 30 feet away, the you and the bat would both appear smaller in the 30 feet picture.

But even though Oswald was farther away in one picture, the rifle proportions remain the same.

Edited July 8, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Reading about the photos is one thing. My wife and I tried that scenario on a walk in Beverly Hills circa 1995. There was no case where I could stand looking straight forward with a shadow under my nose straight down and a shadow behind my body at an angle as depicted in the best-known backyard photo. We did try twisting and turning different ways, and at different times of day to get a different angle of sun. Nothing was convincing. It would be interesting to see someone demonstrate that in public, in front of a crowd. It's a real eye-opener.

[Mark Wengler]

There is the ghost photo that showed up in the Dallas Police Archives.

Some say that is one of the steps to create a fake photo of Oswald holding a rifle.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

There is the ghost photo that showed up in the Dallas Police Archives.

Some say that is one of the steps to create a fake photo of Oswald holding a rifle.

I remember that unfinished photo - fascinating stuff! I suppose that since the military hadn't had a successful coup prior to 1963 (in the U.S.), they didn't have a good idea just how much evidence they would have to clean up. They did a much better job in the RFK case, excepting the coroner's report of the shot to the back of the head from 2 inches or so away. In M.L. King's case they apparently didn't have to have a close-up shooter, or maybe I just missed it. I do remember clearly that day in 1995 when we did the tests, and it gave me a chill that I won't forget, realizing from my in-person demo that the media who published it knew it was fake, and they knew that any number of people who examined it would see the fakery, and yet they published it anyway thinking they could actually get away with it. And nowdays guys like Posner and Bugliosi will look you right in the eye and tell you it's real. Wowee.

[David Josephs]

Hi Dale...

Some say that ghost image was made later to "see if it could be done"? Yet there are so many problems with the # of photos, the # of negatives, the reality that lines were found and that if the CIA can't create an "expert" composite... not too many could.

Cheers

DJ

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was.... I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.

Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph

Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.

Except, 2 NEGATIVES WERE RECOVERED... what happened to the negative for 133-A?

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

(399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,

there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph . This is because similar, although less

pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique

on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those

lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.

(400) Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the fine lines

were not observed in photo-optical photochemical enhancements or in

phase-contrast microscopic inspection of the chin area. In addition,

the lines are disconnected ; they do not cross the entire chin and are

extremely fine, roughly equal in width to the size of the grain clumps

in the emulsion .

(401) Three other possible causes for the lines are suggested

(402) (1) They could be due to the presence of very fine scratches

on the glass plate used to support the film while it was being scanned ;

(403) (2) They could have been introduced during the film drying

process. Particulate and dissolved material in the film wash water can

leave a so-called water stain on film. As the water evaporates, the

particulate and dissolved material is deposited on the emulsion,

usually in thin, irregularly shaped lines. The probability of the lines

being caused by very faint water stains is heightened by the observation

of very noticeable stains in the neck and ear area, as discussed

below.* These marks are found in the work of photographers who pay

inadequate attention to the washing and drying steps in the processing

of film ;

(404) (3) Changes in emulsion temperature during processing can

cause silver grains in the emulsion to clump together m fine linear

patterns, an effect known as reticulation.

(405) While subsequent generation prints of the backyard pictures

appear to show a line running across Oswald's chin, (174) this phenomenon

is not surprising because copy prints often have higher contrasts

than originals. If an object or an original photograph of the

object has a rather diffuse band that is dark at the center but becomes

progressively lighter at the edges, a photographic or printed ink copy

very often will show that band as a distinct line with sharp edges. In

generating a copy photograph, the photographic or printing process

may not be able to depict the entire tone range of the original object

or photograph . In that case, a range of lighter tones will all appear

as a single light tone and a range of darker tones will all appear as one

dark tone. It is in this way that a broad smooth tone scale becomes a

sharp transition from dark to light. This apparently happened in

copies of the Oswald photographs, causing the shadow across the chin

to appear to be a sharp line. Accordingly, no probative value can be

attributed to such materials.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

The irony is, I would have cleaned them up some, even if they were real. Ignoring the people who may have created these, I imagine there were a few people who saw these early on and said "WTF???" - or something similar. I know there were people who made much of the Minox camera they found, but no biggie - every photo hobbyist then wanted a Minox or had one - I had three. But I sure wouldn't hang out a sign saying "Spy for hire", especially if I were an ex-defector to the Soviet Union. This is so mind-boggling I catch myself laughing. I actually feel sorry for the Dallas police, having this craziness dumped on them just after the president is killed on their streets.

Edit: That's a really beautiful ghost overlay, BTW. Thanks.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Dale Thorn

[B. A. Copeland]

This is mostly for Jack White. How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

Honestly Paul, to a careful, specially trained eye and/or specialist in photography (as well as digital photography these days), I do not believe it was possible. They obviously (no sarcasm intended) tried very hard and failed ultimately. These days given the entire digital era, etc, it may be possible but then again, to the specialist who knows exactly what to look for, etc, perhaps it still is impossible ultimately.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

This is mostly for Jack White. How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

Honestly Paul, to a careful, specially trained eye and/or specialist in photography (as well as digital photography these days), I do not believe it was possible. They obviously (no sarcasm intended) tried very hard and failed ultimately. These days given the entire digital era, etc, it may be possible but then again, to the specialist who knows exactly what to look for, etc, perhaps it still is impossible ultimately.

Mostly when people work in Photoshop (for example), they try to use the quick-fix tools that offer Photoshop's own built-in intelligence, i.e. a "healing brush" or some such thing, which can more or less blend two discontinuous areas of the image to effectively erase the separation line as people have noted in Oswald's chin area. But there is a tool that's not generally used for that purpose because it involves more tedium and the potential for smearing, and that's the clone tool. By copying (cloning) pixels that are adjacent to the line or other artifact that needs to be erased, you're not creating "new" pixels which would be the analogy to creating new paint to restore an old painting etc. So if done carefully to avoid smearing, the line or artifact can truly seem to disappear. Depending on the amount of time and effort put into it, even the best experts might not be able to find the original defect with positive assurance.

Whether something like what I described could be done in 1963 - I think it's actually possible, but it would probably be a larger-scale operation like was done with films, to make a new film from the original with the applied edits. Then again, if I had to get a composite photo past a panel of real experts, I wouldn't use a square chin to represent someone like Oswald who had a narrower chin.