How Did They Get Roscoe White To Lean Like That And Not Fall Over?

[Sandy Larsen]

Just so you know, Paul, I believe that the scope disappeared due to the touch up work. It would have made no sense for the authorities to release different versions of the photograph.

Earlier you said:

For example, multiple DPD officers, Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt, George DeMohrenschildt, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt and Everett Glover -- all gave sworn testimony that confirms Captain Fritz.

Now -- the CIA-did-it CTers claim that the CIA controlled all these people to force them to lie about LHO.

I believe that all those people, with the exception of Volkmar Schmidt (whom I've never heard of before), were controlled... either by the CIA or the WC.

Well, Sandy, you can keep searching, yet IMHO people have searched down that road for 50 years and never came up with more than suspicions.

IMHO, these WC witnesses were all intelligent people. The men were oil and technology engineers -- they were free private citizens.

They did express their hatred over General Walker to LHO, but they were surprised when LHO tried to murder General Walker.

Volkmar Schmidt was one of the roommates of Everett Glover, and a friend of George DeMohrenschildt, mentioned in his 1978 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

Schmidt appears on the PBS Special, Frontline: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald, and explains how he tried to convince LHO that General Walker was as bad as Hitler. He also claims that he didn't mean to suggest to Oswald to actually go out and murder Walker -- he was surprised when that happened.

The CIA-did-it theories can't explain how or why ten unrelated people would coordinate their stories about the BYP.

Two of those people were Dallas officials on the right wing. Four were moderates. Four were liberals. They had no motive to coordinate their stories in support of General Walker, to try to frame LHO for the assassination attempt on General Walker.

The shooting at Walker was in April, 1963, and had nothing to do with the JFK assassination of November 1963, except that the Walker shooting was one of the abiding themes of the Warren Commission. Why?

Why make General Walker into a victim -- what did that have to do with convicting LHO of the JFK murder? There's no connection -- unless these witnesses are all actually telling the truth.

Again -- there's no connection between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting except LHO himself. These liberal Dallas engineers were behind the Walker shooting. Walker himself was behind the JFK shooting. LHO was caught switching sides.

IMHO, the Walker shooting is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination. The shooting at General Walker was Walker's main motivation for killing JFK and framing LHO for it.

Roscoe White played a role in both shootings -- first in the BYP -- as a favor to his pal, LHO. Secondly as JFK one of the shooters, and maybe even as one of the shooters of J.D. Tippit, as suggested by Dr. Jeff Caufield (as well as by Roscoe's son, Ricky White).

Yes -- we are far apart about theory. But I seek MATERIAL EVIDENCE for a CT. I think the Walker-did-it CT has the most MATERIAL EVIDENCE and best coordinates the available testimony in a Unified Field Theory of the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

What is the MATERIAL EVIDENCE that Oswald shot at General Walker? Or was even involved?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

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.

Andrej,

The lack of detail in Jack White's video is very frustrating because I think he had some useful information and insight. Without the detail, it leaves people like us, who want to confirm his conclusions, in a position of starting from scratch.

Are you sure that he didn't write anything up?

I've gone more into detail here in this thread than he does in his video.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

Oswald's head looks over-sized now that he's standing with others.

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert:

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

(they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

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.

Sorry Andrej, but what you say isn't true. I've been collecting backyard photos and the only one I've found that shows phony perspective is a pro-WC reconstruction dated March 30, 1967. All the others including the modern one in your Post 40 has correct perspective. The one in your Post 40 has simply been rotated.

Here it is with corrected rotation:

Note that the privacy fence on the right is straight and the window pane on the left is straight. These are both pretty plum. The stairway has been rebuilt and its posts are not plum, the nearest one being far from plum. (Compare this post with the same one in Robert's photo... they are both very crooked)

(Note that there is a little bit of pincushion in this photo.)

Don't feel bad... I was fooled at first too.

To repeat... the only photos with the incorrect perspective angles are 1) the one with Oswald, and 2) a WC-friendly recreation from 1967.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert:

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

(they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

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?

[Michael Cross]

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

Oswald's head looks over-sized now that he's standing with others.

Blowing this up, his head is a tad big, but I'd guess within reason for humans (perhaps not for Oswald's actual head in proportion). But that CHIN is VERY wide. What do you know about this photo Robert?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Michael

I know nothing about this photo at all. It was in the link provided by Chris Newton in post # 162 of this thread.

https://sightseeingd...-harvey-oswald/

[Robert Prudhomme]

They likely straightened ol' Lee up for these photo shoots with the tourists, simply because it would look a little strange to have the tourists standing up straight and Lee listing to starboard about 20°.

[Michael Cross]

Hi Michael

I know nothing about this photo at all. It was in the link provided by Chris Newton in post # 162 of this thread.

https://sightseeingd...-harvey-oswald/

Thanks, and Jesus Christ. These folks aren't worried about decorum, practically celebrating the assassination.

"This JFK EXPERIENCE tour is all about the JFK assassination, we take you back in time to relive a minute by minute journey of what happened on November 22nd , 1963. On this tour you will enter Oswald's rooming house were you will get to ask questions and get answers from a once 11 year old girl that actually knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Pat Hall is now all grown up and owns the home left to her by her grand mother Gladys Johnson. "

And check out the limo tour (this thing could be a valuable reference car):

http://www.dallascitytour.com/jfk-limo-tour-1.html

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

What is the MATERIAL EVIDENCE that Oswald shot at General Walker? Or was even involved?

Well, let's see now, Sandy. We have several BYP appearing over the course of 1963-1980.

The BYP were found -- by sworn testimony and eye-witnesses -- at Ruth Paine's house, in George DeMohrenschildt's storage, at Roscoe White's widow's home, and at the offices of The Militant newspaper.

We have Everett Glover's sworn testimony that he delivered a record player and record set received from Marina Oswald for George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, in which they later found the BYP.

We also have photographs of General Walker's house, made at the same time as the BYP, according to the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald (whom I find eminently believable in her sworn statements).

We also have Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that Oswald told her he was involved in the Walker shooting. (This is complicated by LHO's three lies to Marina that (1) he acted alone; (2) he was entirely on foot; and (3) he buried his rifle.)

We also have George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt's sworn testimony that they suspected LHO of the Walker shooting from the day it happened, and worked up the courage to visit LHO and Marina at 10PM on the following Saturday, when Jeanne searched their apartment under pretense of admiring it -- and found a rifle. George confronted LHO with the question -- "Did you take that potshot at General Walker," and then LHO froze. Then George laughed, and they all laughed, and the DeMohrenschildts never saw the Oswalds again.

We have confirmation for this same story from both Jeanne and Marina.

We have a YouTube 1995 video of Volkmar Schmidt admitting that he attended a party at Everett Glover's in February 1963, when Volkmar personally worked for *hours* trying to convince LHO that General Walker was a fascist -- as evil as Hitler.

We have the Alek J. Hidell Fake ID with LHO's photograph, which LHO used often, which matches the skill and the date (and probably the camera equipment) used to make the BYP.

I think this is a fairly good summary.

We don't have a bullet-rifle match, obviously. But we also have this interesting memo from General Walker himself from 1975:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

Of all the evidence we have of LHO in the Walker shooting -- this letter by General Walker himself is among the most interesting.

By the way, we also have the accounts told to Gayle Nix Jackson just this year, IIRC, that the sons of Robert Allen Surrey knew Lee Harvey Oswald through association with their father at gun-shooting ranges. They claim they were there inside General Walker's house with their mother and father when the Walker shooting occurred.

We have barely scratched the surface with the Walker shooting, IMHO, because 50 years of the Lone Nut theory have obscured the empirical research. I salute Gayle Nix Jackson for her pioneering work on it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

What is the MATERIAL EVIDENCE that Oswald shot at General Walker? Or was even involved?

Hey Trejo, did you notice the caps? He was asking for material evidence not hearsay, innuendo and conjecture.

The only piece of material evidence that investigators found was the slug pulled from the wall above Walker's desk. Supposedly, the condition of the slug made it impossible to identify the weapon that fired it. There are no witnesses to the event other than the alleged victim.

[Andrej Stancak]

Robert:

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

(they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

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 Prudhomme]

Robert:

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

(they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

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.

So, why aren't the tourists leaning over, Andrej?

[Andrej Stancak]

Robert:

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

(they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

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.

Sorry Andrej, but what you say isn't true. I've been collecting backyard photos and the only one I've found that shows phony perspective is a pro-WC reconstruction dated March 30, 1967. All the others including the modern one in your Post 40 has correct perspective. The one in your Post 40 has simply been rotated.

Here it is with corrected rotation:

byp_non_plum_posts.jpg

Note that the privacy fence on the right is straight and the window pane on the left is straight. These are both pretty plum. The stairway has been rebuilt and its posts are not plum, the nearest one being far from plum. (Compare this post with the same one in Robert's photo... they are both very crooked)

(Note that there is a little bit of pincushion in this photo.)

Don't feel bad... I was fooled at first too.

To repeat... the only photos with the incorrect perspective angles are 1) the one with Oswald, and 2) a WC-friendly recreation from 1967.

Sandy:

rotation of a picture is not a manipulation. I did many photographs using a wet process in my younger years. If the photographer feels the picture needs re-orienting by a few degrees, the picture is simply rotated during the positive process. There were guiding lines both below the lens of the magnifier and on the wooden frame allowing to re-orient the picture. However, the whole picture is re-oriented, and the proportions between objects or lines angles are not altered. Here the rotation was maybe intended to straighten Oswald's pose which looked strange. This was paid by several vertical lines falling towards the right in the final image.

As the perspective is concerned, rotation which you have shown to have occurred with the modern picture does not explain the reason for the two pictures (the modern one and the original backyard picture) agreeing so well. This modern pictures support the view that the picture was not altered by keystoning to create divergence of vertical lines in the right part of the backyard picture.

Rotation yes, keystoning - not likely.

[Chris Newton]