Backyard pictures

[Terry Adams]

"Dorothy's last public reference to the JFK assassination appeared on Sept. 3, 1965 when she challenged the authenticity of the famous Life magazine cover of Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly holding a rifle. She also chastised Marina Oswald for vouching for it. The incriminating photo has since been discredited by analysts who say Oswald's head was pasted on someone else's body". By Sara Jordan, Midwest Today Magazine, October 21, 2007

[Ed LeDoux]

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Neely_Street_-_p1

The backyard images...

http://www.copweb.be/images/CE-133-all.jpg

The middle pic was supposedly taken with Marina standing closer.

Check the relationship of the gate and the stair post on the left you will see that nothing has moved.

If Marina moved closer the post would move to the left in relation to the gate.

In fact none of the relationships between objects in the background change - all the positions and angles remain exactly the same.

What we have is two photos taken from exactly the same position and one has been cropped to give the appearance of the photographer having moved.

This had to be done with a tripod. Also the Imperial could not zoom in. Ahhh Houston we have a problem....a parallax issue.

In his HSCA testimony Jack stated the camera may have moved a fraction of an inch in the vertical plane (upward or downward) but no movement in the horizontal plane (side to side) between the three pictures.

From:

EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

BACKYARD PHOTOS EVIDENCE OR FAKERY

PRESENTED BY RALPH THOMAS

http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

The photographs were found at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, the home of the Paines. On two searches on the day of the assassination of this address, the Dallas police did not locate the photographs. However, another search was made the following day and it was this third search in which the Dallas police say they found the photos. But the two photos were never listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions. Neither was the black shirt and the black pants that Oswald had on in the photographs ever located. Officially, two photographs but only one negative were found. Yet, Dallas police Gus Rose says that there were also two negatives. Until 1967, these photos were the only ones known to be of the backyard pose.

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

The actual camera the alleged photographs were taken with was not found for several weeks but finally turned over by Robert Oswald, Oswald's brother. Oswald's brother said that he found the camera at the Paine home even though the Dallas police had searched the home several times for the camera. Robert said that the camera belonged to his brother Lee Oswald. This reflex camera was a very poor quality camera and Oswald was highly interested in photography. He owned several very expensive cameras and no one ever explained why he would use such a cheap camera for these photographs.

The Warren Commission said that the photos were taken by Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, on March 31st, 1963 at the 214 W Neely address. The photos show a bright sunny day. But, a check on weather reports in the area that day reveal that it was cloudy and rainy all day.

The Warren Commission determined that the photos where real and had FBI agent Lindal Shangfield testify before it. The agent brought with him a photograph that had duplicated lighting taken with the reflex camera that might have determined the problems of the shadows on the face. However, this photograph was a photograph of an FBI man with his head cut off. The FBI did state that the actual photographs were compared to the simulated photograph to determine if they came from the same reflex camera which they stated that they did. However, Jack White pointed out that this could have easily have been done by taking composite photographs of the scene using the reflex camera.

In 1970, Dallas news reporter Jim Marrs was looking into the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester. The Hesters worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Not only is this highly suspicious, this was the night before the photographs where supposed to have been found in the first place.

Margins of the pictured militant are not the same as the the militant in evidence.

The margin should be approx. 1/4 inch. In the Oswald photo it measures .623 (over an half inch!!)

Some question the definition of his shadow. Very sharp for being cast on uneven ground and across uncut grass.

What is in the lower left corner by the post? Looks like a knitted blanket folded over and a black bag?

Some question his disappearing elbow in #3 pic.

Some question the shadows cast by the stair risers, being different angle (or should not be shadowed at all) compared to the "LHO" shadow on the ground, and thus are from different light source/times of day/etc.

Some question how the de Mohrenschildt photo managed to have more picture around the border?

I was at the HSCA offices the day the photo was discovered. Groden and I

had the opportunity to handle and examine it carefully for about twenty

minutes. Groden later made photocopies. At lunch he and I talked about

how much BETTER QUALITY it was than the 133 pix. We did not pay much

attention to the writing on the back. But we DID use a magnifying glass,

and the type on the newspapers was very legible...could not have been

shot by an Imperial Reflex. And it included extra material around the

edges, which is impossible according to the official story. ~ Jack White

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV20ce133aDeMp150.jpg

Jack White has analyzed the Oswald photos in great depth. White possesses expertise in original photographic evidence, unlike Farid, who only has studied digital photography. Thus White has identified dozens of instances in which the photos were faked. Farid has only discussed his analysis of the shadows cast by the nose and the body to conclude they were from the same general direction of light. That proves very little even if Farid's methods were legitimate, as all that would be needed to make a match according to Farid's analysis is that the photo of Oswald's head and the separate photo of the body of person substituting for Oswald be taken at 12:00 noon to 2:00 pm. But I don't think Farid's computer animation approach is even valid, because it would be easy to manipulate the results in an animation. Why not use an Oswald look-alike, with the same height, general facial features, etc., and then try to replicate the results in the photo? Because Farid couldn't reach the same conclusions that he could with manipulated animations.

White has discovered loads of evidence establishing that the photos were fakes that Farid could not possibly refute, even if he had the required expertise (which he does not). White discovered, for example, that in two separate photos of Oswald, the "heads" of Oswald were identical! The photo forgers simply tilted the same image of Oswald's head for the second faked photo, and then added a slight touch up to one of the photos, in the corner of Oswald's mouth, to make them appear different. Farid wouldn't touch that incriminating evidence with a 10 foot pole.

Finally, as you have discovered, Farid makes his living testifying for the FBI. He does not make his real money as a college teacher. Farid knows where his bread is buttered. For those who are interested in the truth, I've included a link that will summarize White's real analysis of the photos, and that provides additional links. Do not expect the news media to give you any information about the truth of the JFK assasination. They have been an intrinsic part of the coverup since November 22, 1963. If the news media were really interested in the truth, they would provide information about White's analysis as well as Farid's shoddy animations. But no, you only get Farid's phony side of the story.

Source(s):

http://newsblaze.com/story/2009050917020

Listen to Hany Farid here:

http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/media_player.aspx?id=67

The wristwatch seen on Oswald`s left arm in 133 B was never retrieved or positively identified as Oswald's.

The Warren Commission main proof that the photos are genuine, is that the markings on the negatives were legitimately from the Imperial Reflex Camera. Jack White figured out how the conspirators pulled this off, they photographed the photograph with the Imperial Reflex Camera, so that the negative would have matching forensics to the camera!

Ed

[Craig Lamson]

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Neely_Street_-_p1

The backyard images...

http://www.copweb.be/images/CE-133-all.jpg

The middle pic was supposedly taken with Marina standing closer.

Check the relationship of the gate and the stair post on the left you will see that nothing has moved.

If Marina moved closer the post would move to the left in relation to the gate.

In fact none of the relationships between objects in the background change - all the positions and angles remain exactly the same.

What we have is two photos taken from exactly the same position and one has been cropped to give the appearance of the photographer having moved.

This had to be done with a tripod. Also the Imperial could not zoom in. Ahhh Houston we have a problem....a parallax issue.

In his HSCA testimony Jack stated the camera may have moved a fraction of an inch in the vertical plane (upward or downward) but no movement in the horizontal plane (side to side) between the three pictures.

--snip the rest of the nonsense...--

Edited September 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The DeMohrenschildt version is a real puzzler.

When Patty Orr brought that into the HSCA specialists, everyone raised an eyebrow or two.

The resolution on the photo was so much better, plus the border area was different, like it was taken on another camera.

McAdams tries to say that Oswald did this himself. Ha Ha

He forgets that Oswald insisted they were fakes to begin with.

He doesn't want to admit that this version appears to have been taken from a different camera.

Your decided lack of photographic knowledge is showing again....surprise, surprise.

[Craig Lamson]

I did not say one thing about my photographic knowledge.

I described the reaction, the photo, McAdams comments, Oswald's comments, and the implication of what McAdams said about Oswald and JCS.

Period. That was it Lammy.

This from a guy who did not even know who David Eisendrath was.

Of course you did, lets show it again...

"He doesn't want to admit that this version appears to have been taken from a different camera."

"The resolution on the photo was so much better, plus the border area was different, like it was taken on another camera."

If you had an ounce of photographic knowledge you wood know just how silly these statements really are.

Eisendrath is a meaningless aside Jim and you know it. Heck for a guy like you who tries to squeeze everything out of this, you can't even quote the actual report.

You have that report in your hands yet Jim? or are you still flinging hearsay?

Edited September 6, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Parker]

The DeMohrenschildt version is a real puzzler.

When Patty Orr brought that into the HSCA specialists, everyone raised an eyebrow or two.

The resolution on the photo was so much better, plus the border area was different, like it was taken on another camera.

McAdams tries to say that Oswald did this himself. Ha Ha

He forgets that Oswald insisted they were fakes to begin with.

He doesn't want to admit that this version appears to have been taken from a different camera.

Your decided lack of photographic knowledge is showing again....surprise, surprise.

There was a time I was undecided about the photos. Not any more, They're as fake as Dolly Parton's boobs.

And I don't need a photo "expert" to tell me anything about them to come to that conclusion.

Think of all those films you've seen with screenplays "based on a true story"...

The BY photos are like those screenplays...

[David Butler]

Then photo's are 100% genuine...But then that makes no difference as to whether LHO pulled the trigger or not as they prove nothing in themselves......

[Greg Parker]

Then photo's are 100% genuine...

The original was, but it was destroyed. The ones in the records are fakes based on that original. But of course, that is just my opinion (though one based on the evidence). A lot of people believed Dolly's boobs were real too, based on her say so... until she finally admitted the truth... Maybe one day another (not so) dumb blond will likewise come clean.

But then that makes no difference as to whether LHO pulled the trigger or not as they prove nothing in themselves......

It makes no difference historically - but AT THE TIME, the BY photos were a major part of convicting Oswald in the public eye. And that was their likely only purpose.

[Bernice Moore]

ED; Note the dogs nose in the fence in 133 B....b

[Bernice Moore]

Ed;CLOSE UP OF what is called the dogs nose, no one has been able to figure it out, jack found it..b

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I believe that the backyard photos are real: meaning that Oswald had Marina take them for him as part of his "sheepdipping" pretend-to-be-a-commie process.

That is what I currently think. Remember months later in the summer of 1963 Oswald was making a big splash in New Orleans pretending to be a pro-Castro Marxist and passing out Fair Play for Cuba fliers (while officing at far right FBI guy and Minuteman Guy Bannister's office). US intelligence agent Oswald had already been a fake defector to Russia a few years before.

Of course these photos were powerful tools used by CIA/LIFE to posthumously implicate Oswald in the JFK assassination and also drive home the false image of him as a communist and a ideologiccally gun toting one at that.

Aren't the 2 newspapers in the photo of competing and not friendly communist ideologies? Kind of like someone brandishing a copy of the Nation and the National Review, along with a M-16, posing as an "American" terrorist.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Greg Parker]

I believe that the backyard photos are real: meaning that Oswald had Marina take them for him as part of his "sheepdipping" pretend-to-be-a-commie process.

I once considered that a possibility.

That is what I currently think. Remember months later in the summer of 1963 Oswald was making a big splash in New Orleans pretending to be a pro-Castro Marxist and passing out Fair Play for Cuba fliers (while officing at far right FBI guy and Minuteman Guy Bannister's office). US intelligence agent Oswald had already been a fake defector to Russia a few years before.

If it was for "sheep-dipping" what would be the purpose of taking them months ahead of any supposed related action? Why not take them in NO? Why not make sure they appear in the press in NO?

Of course these photos were powerful tools used by CIA/LIFE to posthumously implicate Oswald in the JFK assassination and also drive home the false image of him as a communist and a ideologiccally gun toting one at that.

Which is the ONLY KNOWN use of them. Wake up and smell the acetic acid.

Aren't the 2 newspapers in the photo of competing and not friendly communist ideologies? Kind of like someone brandishing a copy of the Nation and the National Review, along with a M-16, posing as an "American" terrorist.

Yep. And didn't those lame-brained cops and FBI agents know exactly diddly-squat as far as differentiating the various communist and socialist factions? In short, this was simply a product of ignorance.

[Ed LeDoux]

Ed;CLOSE UP OF what is called the dogs nose, no one has been able to figure it out, jack found it..b

Thanks for the dog nose pic Bernice. And thanks to Jack again.

Looks like artifacts got left behind?

Interesting shape of the dark 'dog nose' and the lighter one near it.

Both appear triangular.

If one "caused" the other is only a guess, but a possibility due to their shape.

Then there is the dark streak and spots on the fence.

These anomalies may be key to understanding how the pictures were made.

[Ed LeDoux]

And thus began Marina's story about the Imperial Reflex camera used in the BYP. Which, btw is weird, since she did not even know how to use such a camera. When the HSCA tested her on this she said you raised it to eye level. Nope. You bend over it while holding it at your waist. Oopsy Daisy!

The reason this switcheroo was important is that the first three cameras took the equivalent of 35 mm pictures in shape and configuration. But the BYP were on 620 roll film. Therefore, the belated "discovery" was necessary. And Ruth was jolly on the spot. Just like she was for the FBi when they wanted to ditch the Minox.

No one ever asked, "How did the police scoop up the miniature Minox but miss something like the Imperial Reflex?"

Pretty tough question to answer. Just like its difficult to figure how Ruth did not realize it was not hers, and why she did not turn it over to the authorities herself. Oopsy Daisy again!

Great questions Jim, and this shows the dance that was going on with the evidence.

[Ed LeDoux]

Two additional first. generation prints, one of 133-A and

one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective

Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was among the

police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the

search of the Paine premises . (154)

Nice of Dick Stovall to hang on to these till Roscoe's had surfaced.

(379) The photographs show a slight variation in the horizontal and

vertical dimensions of the prints and borders that were caused by artifacts

of masking position . On the back of each is the small graphite

mark characteristic of automatic printing machines. It indicates to an

electric eye scanner where the long continuous roll of prints should be

cut into individual snapshots. (See figs. IV-18, IV-19, JFK exhibits

F-179 and F-182.) As most drugstore prints, these were apparently

cropped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border

around their periphery. Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the

negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indicated

that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots

indicative of improper washing or drying .

Were they all "Drugstore" photos printed on an automatic printing machine. Do the emulsion tears and water spots account for the dog nose its shadow(piece of emulsion) and other anomalies?