Jump to content
The Education Forum

DO WE ALL AGREE THAT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE?


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

The square chin is a nonsense myth.

The reason for the square chin illusion is nothing more than dark shadow on his face.

All one needs to do is fill in the shadow areas to create the actual face as it would be seen without shadow, as I have did, and as can be seen below, to see what a load of garbage all of this square chin talk is.

OSW.gif

Tell us, Duncan...anatomically speaking, WHY are there shadows there? What you

have done is FLESH OUT his jawline to eliminate shadows. But in real life would

not the structure of the face fill out the shadows? You have provided a false jawline

to make the shadows disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The square chin is a nonsense myth.

The reason for the square chin illusion is nothing more than dark shadow on his face.

All one needs to do is fill in the shadow areas to create the actual face as it would be seen without shadow, as I have did, and as can be seen below, to see what a load of garbage all of this square chin talk is.

OSW.gif

Sorry Duncan but you erased important parts of the original photo.

Please don't mislead the public with your personal interpretion.

You've accused some others to mislead. Now you did it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

OK, Duncan. Given the totality of the evidence, are the photos fake? Was Lee right when he said it was his face pasted on someone else's body?

The square chin is a nonsense myth.

The reason for the square chin illusion is nothing more than dark shadow on his face.

All one needs to do is fill in the shadow areas to create the actual face as it would be seen without shadow, as I have did, and as can be seen below, to see what a load of garbage all of this square chin talk is.

OSW.gif

Sorry Duncan but you erased important parts of the original photo.

Please don't mislead the public with your personal interpretion.

You've accused some others to mislead. Now you did it too.

Martin,

You are accusing me of misleading people which is absolutely false.

If you read my post correctly, you will se that I have said that I filled out the shadow areas to complete the face.

QUOTE "All one needs to do is fill in the shadow areas to create the actual face as it would be seen without shadow, as I have did" I call that 100% honesty.

Duncan

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

It's exactly the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across four different photos taken at different times and with different poses. PLUS you can see the insert line, the cut-off finger tips, and other anomalies that Jack has pointed out. If the papers were at an angle, then their width/length would be less than if they were completely vertical. That would mean they would make him taller, not shorter! His height would then be more multiples of the internal ruler than it should have been. Which means that, if you were right, the argument would be stronger, not weaker. So your concern is misplaced. And Oswald's chin had a cleft! Even Duncan's visual plastic surgery can't change that. The photos are fake!

of all the photos of LHO that exist, do any of them resemble the "head" used in the backyard photos? If its actually his face, it had to have been lifted from somewhere. Maybe an old military photo?

The study done on the actual dimensions of The Militant newspaper in the LHO's hand, compared to his height, is very interesting. But can the measurements of the paper be accurate, since they are at an angle? This angle should be taken into consideration, or was it? Jack, was this your study?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

There has been a lot of messing with Oswald photographs, Duncan. He had a cleft in his chin. His chin was pointed. Let's use photos from his arrest, which do not run the risk of having been altered. Jack is the expert on this, but he (Oswald) looks different in many of the photos from the past. Surely you can find several following his arrest that show the cleft and that his chin was appreciably pointed. See Groden, SEARCH FOR LHO, page 95. I have asked if, given all the evidence, you think that these photos are genuine. I would appreciate knowing your conclusion about this.

Not only is it pointed, Jack, but it even has a cleft! I think Duncan lost his way on this one. He is too sophisticated to be unable to sort this out. Try a superposition of the real Oswald with the fake one and you will see that it's not his chin!

Far from it Jim, I'm showing you the way on this singular issue.

His chin is not pointed in the photographs shown below. Do you agree? or are these faked too?

chin.png

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is it pointed, Jack, but it even has a cleft! I think Duncan lost his way on this one. He is too sophisticated to be unable to sort this out. Try a superposition of the real Oswald with the fake one and you will see that it's not his chin!

Far from it Jim, I'm showing you the way on this singular issue.

His chin is not pointed in the photographs shown below. Do you agree? or are these faked too?

chin.png

Duncan...you have not studied all the photos. You show Lee, Harvey, and a composite, and do not

understand that none represent LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

Showing faked photos and claiming all are the same is misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I FOR ONE ON THIS FORUM BELEIVE THAT OZWALD WAS NEVER IN ANY OF THE BACKYARD PHOTOS. ALTHOUGH HIS LIKENESS APPEARED [ SOME PART OF HIS FACE ANYWAY} THE REST WAS SOMEONE ELSE.

IT HAPPENED LIKE LEE SAID . SOMEONE SET HIM UP. THOSE PEOPLE CALLED " they" .

JIM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of messing with Oswald photographs, Duncan. He had a cleft in his chin. His chin was pointed. Let's use photos from his arrest, which do not run the risk of having been altered. Jack is the expert on this, but he (Oswald) looks different in many of the photos from the past. Surely you can find several following his arrest that show the cleft and that his chin was appreciably pointed. See Groden, SEARCH FOR LHO, page 95. I have asked if, given all the evidence, you think that these photos are genuine. I would appreciate knowing your conclusion about this.

Here are a couple of post arrest photographs showing no pointed chin.

lo4.jpg

lo3.jpg

In answer to your question, I have never seen any proof in any presentation of the backyard photo's being faked.

Having said that, I have never had my hands on the originals and their negatives. Without those at any researcher's disaposal, it's impossible for anyone to come to any definitive conclusions.

.

post-667-1266965218_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of messing with Oswald photographs, Duncan. He had a cleft in his chin. His chin was pointed. Let's use photos from his arrest, which do not run the risk of having been altered. Jack is the expert on this, but he (Oswald) looks different in many of the photos from the past. Surely you can find several following his arrest that show the cleft and that his chin was appreciably pointed. See Groden, SEARCH FOR LHO, page 95. I have asked if, given all the evidence, you think that these photos are genuine. I would appreciate knowing your conclusion about this.

Here are a couple of post arrest photographs showing no pointed chin.

lo4.jpg

lo3.jpg

In answer to your question, I have never seen any proof in any presentation of the backyard photo's being faked.

Having said that, I have never had my hands on the originals and their negatives. Without those at any researcher's disaposal, it's impossible for anyone to come to any definitive conclusions.

.

Somehow the properties of light as they relate to interference with a solid object escapes you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings to the forum,

This is my first post here as I have just registered but I have lurked for sometime.

I have a question for the more astute in photography here regarding the backyard photo.

The camera that Marina used to take the photos, allegedly was Robert Oswald's Imperial Reflex. I have no recollection of the Imperial Reflex camera from the day but in viewing a picture of it from the internet I see that it came with a strap, and seeing the viewfinder, the only way one could use this to photograph was to look down into the viewfinder. The viewfinder allowed no alternate way of viewing the picture to be taken, like my Yashicamat Twin Lens Reflex did – you could optionally hold it up to eye level and view through the cut out in the viewfinder shade and line up the camera to view and shoot without optical aid, as well as looking down through the viewfinder and glass at something like waste level.

With the Imperial Reflex you hung it from the strap around your neck at somewhere between waist and chest level and just viewed the scene by looking down.

My first question is, how tall is Marina Oswald? I remember that Lee was supposed to be about 5” 9” so I wonder how much shorter she was?

With that in mind and using the Imperial Reflex as it is designed to be used, my second question is: just looking at Lee’s face in the photos, just isolate the face from other portions of the photos, and look just at the face. From looking at the photos that way, does it appear that they were taken from a height by a person shorter than Lee, from somewhere at waist height or slightly above?

It does not to me. It appears that the photos were taken with a camera from closer to the head level of Lee. I wonder if anyone else gets this impression.

I know that Marina seldom took photos, and it was understood that she had to stop and have Lee advance the film for her, because she didn’t understand how to and didn’t have the dexterity.

I also seem to remember reading that either at the Warren Commission interview with her, or some similar interview, she was asked when she took the pictures was she looking down or straight across. I believe her answer was – straight across. Possibly remembering from a time when she really did take some photos, with some other camera.

Was Marina trying to go along with things and tried to maintain that she took the photos, and not get into an area that she didn’t want to?

- Jerry Ellis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of messing with Oswald photographs, Duncan. He had a cleft in his chin. His chin was pointed. Let's use photos from his arrest, which do not run the risk of having been altered. Jack is the expert on this, but he (Oswald) looks different in many of the photos from the past. Surely you can find several following his arrest that show the cleft and that his chin was appreciably pointed. See Groden, SEARCH FOR LHO, page 95. I have asked if, given all the evidence, you think that these photos are genuine. I would appreciate knowing your conclusion about this.

Here are a couple of post arrest photographs showing no pointed chin.

lo4.jpg

lo3.jpg

In answer to your question, I have never seen any proof in any presentation of the backyard photo's being faked.

Having said that, I have never had my hands on the originals and their negatives. Without those at any researcher's disaposal, it's impossible for anyone to come to any definitive conclusions.

.

Somehow the properties of light as they relate to interference with a solid object escapes you?

I know all about how the sun casts shadows. Here is a study which I did many years ago.

I believe I showed this slide to the HSCA. It shows the shadow of the nose falling directly

beneath the nose. But the shadow of the CHIN falls SHARPLY TO THE MAN'S RIGHT. This

is just one of the major indications of fakery which is undeniable. For these shadows to be

correct, the sunlight must come from two different directions. This cannot be denied.

post-667-1266982557_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

What do you not understand? You cannot have exactly the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across different poses and different times. Oswald told Will Fritz that it was his face pasted on someone else's body. He was right.

The author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), Jim Marrs has long been persuaded that the backyard photos are indeed composites, just as Oswald asserted. When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald's face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.

35bgozc.jpg

The only difference that Marrs has detected is slight distortion of the mouth in one of the photos, which could have been done with retouching. In "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" (YouTube), Jack White has compared the thick neck and block chin of the figure with the narrow neck and pointed chin of Oswald. He also noticed a bump on the backyard figure's wrist (CE-133A) not on Oswald. A rookie with the Dallas Police Deparatment, Roscoe White, had a thick neck and a block chin, like the image in the photographs, and a similar bump on his wrist.

There has been a lot of messing with Oswald photographs, Duncan. He had a cleft in his chin. His chin was pointed. Let's use photos from his arrest, which do not run the risk of having been altered. Jack is the expert on this, but he (Oswald) looks different in many of the photos from the past. Surely you can find several following his arrest that show the cleft and that his chin was appreciably pointed. See Groden, SEARCH FOR LHO, page 95. I have asked if, given all the evidence, you think that these photos are genuine. I would appreciate knowing your conclusion about this.

Here are a couple of post arrest photographs showing no pointed chin.

lo4.jpg

lo3.jpg

In answer to your question, I have never seen any proof in any presentation of the backyard photo's being faked.

Having said that, I have never had my hands on the originals and their negatives. Without those at any researcher's disaposal, it's impossible for anyone to come to any definitive conclusions.

.

Somehow the properties of light as they relate to interference with a solid object escapes you?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings to the forum,

This is my first post here as I have just registered but I have lurked for sometime.

I have a question for the more astute in photography here regarding the backyard photo.

The camera that Marina used to take the photos, allegedly was Robert Oswald's Imperial Reflex. I have no recollection of the Imperial Reflex camera from the day but in viewing a picture of it from the internet I see that it came with a strap, and seeing the viewfinder, the only way one could use this to photograph was to look down into the viewfinder. The viewfinder allowed no alternate way of viewing the picture to be taken, like my Yashicamat Twin Lens Reflex did – you could optionally hold it up to eye level and view through the cut out in the viewfinder shade and line up the camera to view and shoot without optical aid, as well as looking down through the viewfinder and glass at something like waste level.

With the Imperial Reflex you hung it from the strap around your neck at somewhere between waist and chest level and just viewed the scene by looking down.

My first question is, how tall is Marina Oswald? I remember that Lee was supposed to be about 5” 9” so I wonder how much shorter she was?

With that in mind and using the Imperial Reflex as it is designed to be used, my second question is: just looking at Lee’s face in the photos, just isolate the face from other portions of the photos, and look just at the face. From looking at the photos that way, does it appear that they were taken from a height by a person shorter than Lee, from somewhere at waist height or slightly above?

It does not to me. It appears that the photos were taken with a camera from closer to the head level of Lee. I wonder if anyone else gets this impression.

I know that Marina seldom took photos, and it was understood that she had to stop and have Lee advance the film for her, because she didn’t understand how to and didn’t have the dexterity.

I also seem to remember reading that either at the Warren Commission interview with her, or some similar interview, she was asked when she took the pictures was she looking down or straight across. I believe her answer was – straight across. Possibly remembering from a time when she really did take some photos, with some other camera.

Was Marina trying to go along with things and tried to maintain that she took the photos, and not get into an area that she didn’t want to?

- Jerry Ellis

Jerry...welcome to the forum. I will try to answer all of your questions as soon as I have time, since

I am perhaps the leading expert on the backyard photos, having testified about them to the HSCA and

produced two videos about them

I suggest that you click this URL for FREE access to the videos:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

First select FAKE and look at it.

Then select THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and look at it.

You will find that most of your questions are answered by these two videos.

If you have other questions, please ask. But the videos will answer most things about the photos.

You are correct about your assumptions about the Imperial Reflex, as the video will explain in detail.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you not understand? You cannot have exactly the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across different poses and different times. Oswald told Will Fritz that it was his face pasted on someone else's body. He was right.

The author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), Jim Marrs has long been persuaded that the backyard photos are indeed composites, just as Oswald asserted. When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald's face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.

So you say, but just saying it does not make it true. Marrs says "near perfect". Nice swag. Sadly if they are not identical he loses. He loses.

And why should the facial features be radically different? It's the very same face photographed three times in a short period of time.

The shadows DO change, quite a bit actually.

And why does a VPA done on all three images show the shadows all correctly point to a single vp in each image, showing a single and consistant light source for each image? If the shadows were incorrect, as you parrot, that would not be the case.

What is it you don't understand? Perhaps everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald's face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.

35bgozc.jpg

You do understand, don't you, that you can't take images taken from different camera to subject distances and resize them to match. Well you can do it but you can't make any sizing comparisons with the resulting images. The results of such work is invalid. So much for Jim Marrs. (and Jack White as well).

You don't understand this, do you?

Thats the problem with parroting.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
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...