Paul Baker Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Also I'm not convinced that these two pictures are of the same man. [Pictures of Oswald in original post] Martin, I assume, since the bottom photo is a portrait, that you're comparing differences in facial characteristics. If the top backyard photo is a fake, then it's Oswald's head superimposed on someone else's body, isn't it? Or are you suggesting it's a straight, unaltered photo of an Oswald lookalike? Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 I really don't know the answer to that question, Paul. I suppose I'm saying that I don't believe that the backyard picture is an unadulterated picture of the same man as in the portrait. The "conventional" wisdom is that the head is grafted onto a body in the BYP. It could still be - the chin is an obvious difference between these two pictures. But the browline also looks wrong to me. The subject of the BYP looks sufficiently "Oswald-like" to pass muster as a picture of Oswald, but could be a picture of a lookalike. And that odd stance bugs me too. Not to mention the watch which there is little (if any) evidence to support that Oswald ever wore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) And that odd stance bugs me too. Not to mention the watch which there is little (if any) evidence to support that Oswald ever wore. Strange way to stand Some people might say he was falling over and the photo is just a "moment in time" Edited January 22, 2013 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) To understand this photo an understanding of the topography of the ground, and obviously the height of the camera above the ground and how it was tilted. afa part of the 'stand' goes a look at where weight is and where centre of gravity is and which foot takes more weight is an important consideration. edit typo Edited January 22, 2013 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 John, Whatever the ground slope is, the comparison of the angle the person is standing at - compared to the wooden uprights- is conclusive. The person is standing at a very odd angle. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) You know what John, I took another look at the photo. I think you might be right that the figure was standing on a slope when the photo was taken. The centre of gravity is such that it would seem to be impossible to stand that way unless on a slope. That slope, however, is not in this picture. This leads me to think that the whole figure has possibly been grafted into the image of the backyard. It's as though the figure was originally standing on a slope, like for instance, standing on the grassy knoll with the TSBD in the background? (Just a complete guess) It's notable that CE134 is rotated (with respect to CE133A) to make the angle of the figure standing look less severe. Even the scan of CE134 shows what looks like a ring on the ring finger of the right hand. Did Oswald ever wear a ring there? Edited January 22, 2013 by Martin White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 As for the lack of detection of fakery, well that depends who you talk to. Groden has "proved" that they're faked. I'm happy to bow to Craig Lamson's superior knowledge of photography, but if he's correct that it's not uncommon for fakery to be "missed" by observers, then that's hardly a ringing endorsement for authenticity. I don't see how it's possible to build an argument which says "we've tested the photos & negatives and conclude that they're authentic" when the team examining them couldn't find forgery in an image they knew had been forged, and a photographic expert says forgery is often missed by those looking for it? Man, you really don't read well do you... The panel did not MISS the forged image they failed to detect the METHOD, and of course that's what I said about the other photographers. As with many other things there are many ways to skin a cat and photo alteration is a similar beast. Again nothing sinister and quite frankly the panel tested the heck out of the images. For more than Groden or any of the other "I think its fake because" ct's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 As for the lack of detection of fakery, well that depends who you talk to. Groden has "proved" that they're faked. I'm happy to bow to Craig Lamson's superior knowledge of photography, but if he's correct that it's not uncommon for fakery to be "missed" by observers, then that's hardly a ringing endorsement for authenticity. I don't see how it's possible to build an argument which says "we've tested the photos & negatives and conclude that they're authentic" when the team examining them couldn't find forgery in an image they knew had been forged, and a photographic expert says forgery is often missed by those looking for it? Man, you really don't read well do you... The panel did not MISS the forged image they failed to detect the METHOD, and of course that's what I said about the other photographers. As with many other things there are many ways to skin a cat and photo alteration is a similar beast. Again nothing sinister and quite frankly the panel tested the heck out of the images. For more than Groden or any of the other "I think its fake because" ct's. Actually, I think Jim had said that the HSCA panel missed both the "what has been done" and the "how has it been done" in each of Eisenberg's tests. I accept that what you had said, Craig, related to the method only. Sorry. I got that wrong. Craig, what do you think about the chin shape and the angle that the figure is standing at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) As for the lack of detection of fakery, well that depends who you talk to. Groden has "proved" that they're faked. I'm happy to bow to Craig Lamson's superior knowledge of photography, but if he's correct that it's not uncommon for fakery to be "missed" by observers, then that's hardly a ringing endorsement for authenticity. I don't see how it's possible to build an argument which says "we've tested the photos & negatives and conclude that they're authentic" when the team examining them couldn't find forgery in an image they knew had been forged, and a photographic expert says forgery is often missed by those looking for it? Man, you really don't read well do you... The panel did not MISS the forged image they failed to detect the METHOD, and of course that's what I said about the other photographers. As with many other things there are many ways to skin a cat and photo alteration is a similar beast. Again nothing sinister and quite frankly the panel tested the heck out of the images. For more than Groden or any of the other "I think its fake because" ct's. Actually, I think Jim had said that the HSCA panel missed both the "what has been done" and the "how has it been done" in each of Eisenberg's tests. I accept that what you had said, Craig, related to the method only. Sorry. I got that wrong. Craig, what do you think about the chin shape and the angle that the figure is standing at? If I have it wrong I'm happy to correct it and in fact i just sent a letter the the archives to get a copy of the complete report. But I'd love to see Jim's source. Body angle, not a problem in the world...photos capture a split second in time...for example look at this guy...is this normal position or is it just a slice of time? http://blackandgoldworld.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html The point is that people get caught in weird poses and facial expressions ... captured by that slice of time that is a still photo. I would not be surprised you have a few photos of yourself that are 'awkward" Chin, just camera angle. We can tell the photo was taken from a lower than eye level position (aside from the fact that camera had no facility to compose at eye level) buy just looking at the steps. It you can see the top side of a step the camera is above it, if you can see the bottom side of the step the camera is below it. The camera was well below the level of Oswalds chin. The position changed the apparent shape of the chin from pointed to square. Lets see that in action first with the corner of Macbook... Now lets see what Obama's chin looks like from eye level and then below eye level.... Edited January 22, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Good points, well made Craig. Thanks. My only problem with what you've said though is that clearly your football player is in the process of scoring a touchdown (or something. American Football is not my game :-). The picture was taken with a modern camera with, I suspect, a fast exposure (or whatever the digital equivalent is) or the players would be blurred. It has to be a fast shutter speed. If the camera was not panning, then the player would be blurred. If the camera was panning with the player, then the grass would be blurred. The camera in evidence was not up to this. There's nothing I can see in the picture which implies that the figure is on the move. And oh yes, there are plenty of awkward looking pictures of me! Edited January 22, 2013 by Martin White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Martin, The guy you are referring to was David B. Eisendrath. Melvin Eisenberg was a Warren Commission lawyer. Bollocks. What a stupid mistake to make. Thanks Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 It's been said several times that stereoscopic viewing proves that the images are not faked. Does anyone have a link to a study with examples that shows how this is done please? thanks Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) Hi Martin, Consider these questions: If the backyard photos were faked, why were multiple versions made, when only one would be required to incriminate Oswald? i.e. Why did the forgers deliberately increase the odds of their handiwork being exposed? How did the forgers ensure that two of the photographs can be viewed stereoscopically without any evidence of fakery being visible? This is nigh on impossible. How was Oswald coerced into signing the back of one of the photos? Why did one copy (the signed copy) surface in 1977, 13-and-a-half years after the assassination? Wouldn't those people that wanted to incriminate Oswald do what was required to ensure that particular copy was 'discovered' during the Warren Commission investigation? Why did Marina admit to taking the photos if they were in fact faked? Now couple these questions with the studies undertaken on the photographs and negatives, which have failed to unconver any evidence of tampering. What conclusion do you reach? I think they're genuine. I'd bet my house on it. Paul. Paul B., I have responses to your five questions that might interest you: 1. Marina Oswald admitted to taking one picture. She said that's all she could remember. When she was shown two pictures, she was puzzled, and said that she "must have" taken two, because the evidence was clear, but she really didn't remember taking two; she was sure she pushed the button only once. 2. Lee Harvey Oswald worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall at the time. He asked his supervisor if people ever used company equipment to make personal photographs. The supervisor said it's not allowed, although he knew people did it -- but they were discreet and did not get caught. Oswald took that as a green light -- we know this because he made his Alek J. Hidell fake ID using that same equipment. 3. In my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald himself also made those additional copies of Marina's original single photograph. Lee probably spent a lot of time at it, as he made multiple versions. Lee was also indiscreet about it -- it looked bizarre to co-workers -- Lee posIng with weapons. That was also the time that Oswald was fired from Jagger-Chiles-Stovall. Lee Harvey Oswald was known as a loose cannon -- an unreliable boaster -- according to George De Mohrenschildt himself. 4. My point is that Lee was a capable photographer, and a capable code-maker and code-breaker. He had a package mailed to himself that was replete with secret codes on the outside -- and possibly glow-in-the-dark ink, too, which is now being researched. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald was a capable photographic technician who had motive, means and opportunity to make the fakes of his own Backyard photographs. (His motive was twofold: First, to show off to people like George De Mohrenshildt. Secondly, to ensure that if his photographs were found, that he could prove they were fakes.) 5. This also explains how Lee Oswald signed one. It wasn't forced. Oswald was a braggart. This was why George De Mohrenschildt exclaimed that no government agency would be so stupid as to trust Oswald with anything important. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I thought, since this post is active now and about LHO and photography I would present a possibly new question. Why was LHO not taking photos of the motorcade? Is there any reason to think he may have been doing just that? Of course if he was busy shooting at JFK that would explain it. But if he was not shooting, why would he miss the opportunity to take pictures of such a major event. Maybe his visit to the Paines the night before was in order to retrieve a camera rather than a rifle. Of course I know this is highly speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) The legs and stance look odd in CE-133 a, b, and c. Later photographic chicanery aside, is it possible a taller, slimmer man is contorting to appear shorter? Also, as I have mentioned before - is there any other photograph of Oswald showing his legs in a similar pose? I doubt it, even absent the "falling over" aspect. Edited February 5, 2013 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now