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

[Paul Trejo]

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.

Well, Andrej, do have photographic equipment that lets you reverse images? Can you take this BYP, and then reverse the image left-to-right? (I don't have such an app.)

If you do, would you show us all? In a normal scenario, reversing the photo never loses the center of gravity -- but in a doubtful case like this BYP, I would expect to see a massive break in gravity. It would be great to see it, to prove it, and to show it to everybody.. Am I wrong? It's easy to test.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Hi Chris

Oswald isn't leaning anymore!

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

Will somebody please measure Oswald's head with at least one standing pose of 1963 -- say, his November 1963 arrest photos -- and take tht trouble to measure his head, neck, shoulders?

I agree that Oswald's head looks too big here. I think this is imporant

Thanks,

--Paul

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris:

thanks for posting this clip, It shows for the first time the yard from a perspective that is missing in available pictures

[Chris Newton]

thanks for posting this clip, It shows for the first time the yard from a perspective that is missing in available pictures

my pleasure Andrej.

I'm actually very curious about the height of the stairs and it's support post that is next to Ozzies leg. Unless the ground height has risen considerably in the last 50 years, Oswald would appear to be really small.

[Andrej Stancak]

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.

Well, Andrej, do have photographic equipment that lets you reverse images? Can you take this BYP, and then reverse the image left-to-right? (I don't have such an app.)

If you do, would you show us all? In a normal scenario, reversing the photo never loses the center of gravity -- but in a doubtful case like this BYP, I would expect to see a massive break in gravity. It would be great to see it, to prove it, and to show it to everybody.. Am I wrong? It's easy to test.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

I have no photographic equipment allowing to flip a printed picture. You can surely flip using a digital image using "Flip horizontal" tool which is available even in the most basic photographic programs.

If you are interested in balance analysis, you may wish to read the following:

http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jdfsl

[Andrej Stancak]

thanks for posting this clip, It shows for the first time the yard from a perspective that is missing in available pictures

my pleasure Andrej.

I'm actually very curious about the height of the stairs and it's support post that is next to Ozzies leg. Unless the ground height has risen considerably in the last 50 years, Oswald would appear to be really small.

Chris:

I hope to post my model of backyard soon, and also hope you would critically check it. If the model would be faithful, it would be possible to measure using the model the height of the backyard man, check the effects of perspective, evaluate shadows, and overlay the 3D model of the man onto the picture, and more. At this moment, I work with the height of the stairs (the level of the top step, not of the small platform about one step above the top step) to be 2.98 m. This height is, naturally, only an estimate. Unless someone goes and measures the dimensions of the house including the height of the platform, there is still some uncertainty about this height estimate. I arrived at it by measuring the planar dimensions of the house (as they project on the ground) using ruler tool in Google Earth. I measured it repeatedly (5x) and calculated the average values. The dimensions I got were 8.80 x 8.08 m. I constructed a house using these dimensions and adjusted the height to match various pictures of the house.This method yielded the height of the house including the height of the first floor level.

Here is one of the working versions of the West Neeley house model.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Newton]

Andrej,

I'd be glad to give it a critique but I'm not a photogrammetrist so I can't give you any expert opinion. There might be others on the forum more qualified.

There could be some clues in the photo about sizes. Construction materials like lumber have standard configurations like the 2X4 (actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" inches) which the steps actual frame structure is constructed with.

Just a suggestion.

[Sandy Larsen]

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>

Paul,

I asked you the following question:

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

(I emphasized "material evidence" because you had just used the phrase to describe what is important to you.)

Now, let me summarize your response:

• Lots of people saw the backyard photos with Oswald holding up his rifle.

• Marina had in her possession photos of Walker's house.

• Marina testified that Oswald admitted to shooting at Walker. (You changed her testimony from "admitted shooting" to "admitted involvement." I am changing it back.)

• The bullet shot at Walker doesn't match Oswald's rifle.

Since the Walker bullet doesn't match Oswald's rifle, we know that his rifle was not used. Therefore, the backyard photos are irrelevant.

So the only evidence against Oswald is Marina's testimony that he had told her that he'd shot at General Walker, and the photos of Walker's house in her possession.

If Marina told the truth, then what I'd conclude from this is that Oswald shot at General Walker with somebody else's rifle.

Can we trust what Marina said?

[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:

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.

Andrej,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Let me outline what you and I have said in this thread:

Sandy: The diverging angles in the Oswald BYP violate the rules of perspective. Keystoning (taking a picture of a angled picture) probably explains what we see. Especially since Jack White was able to replicate what we see using Keystoning.

Andrej: You are wrong Sandy. Look at this modern photo (with the red car) showing the same diverging angles as seen in the Oswald BYP.

Sandy: But Andrej, the modern photo (with the red car) you posted doesn't have the same angle pattern we see in the Oswald BYP. In fact, the angles in it do not violate the rules of perspective at all. It is simply rotated (the photographer held the camera at an angle). Here, look at the same photo after I rotated the it back to normal. See how the angles disappear? The privacy fence on the right is now straight, and the window frame on the left is now straight. Thus there is no divergence!

But what about the angles seen in the stairway posts? They are there because the stairway has been rebuilt since 1963 and whoever built it didn't make the posts plumb. In fact, the post nearest us is VERY crooked.

Andrej: [What you wrote above that makes no sense to me.]

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/16/2016 at 2:30 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

.... the reason for the two pictures (the modern one and the original backyard picture) agreeing so well.

The modern photo and the original BYP do NOT agree, Andrej.

Here's the original. Note that the tall fence on the right is angled clockwise, whereas the window frame on the left is angled counterclockwise.

Now here's the modern photo. Note that the tall fence and window frame are straight and parallel with each other.

 

You are being fooled by the crooked stairway post.

I know the post is crooked because I have several MODERN photos, taken at different angles with different cameras/lenses, and they ALL show the posts to be crooked, the nearest one being particularly crooked.

In addition I have a few old photos as well. Comparing the old with the new, I can see that the stairway was rebuilt. The rebuilt one has crooked posts, whereas the original one has straight posts. (Except as shown in the Oswald BYP.)

Edited December 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

"But what about the angles seen in the stairway posts? They are there because the stairway has been rebuilt since 1963 and whoever built it didn't make the posts plumb. In fact, the post nearest us is VERY crooked."

I noticed that too, Sandy. At first, I simply thought it was because the stair stringers had rotted out but this does not seem to be the case, as we would see a definite sag in the outside stringer. Placing a straight edge on the outside stringer shows no sag, and the stair treads that are still intact and in place appear to be level.

Do you know for sure the stairs have been rebuilt since 1963? If they have, I wonder if these intermediate support posts were placed just a bit further down the stringers than the original ones, and ended up being shorter posts. This could explain why Oswald looks so small.

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

I agree that the story becomes rather messy, and it seems I have contributed to the misunderstanding. My view is that this particular backyard picture was rotated by about 1.9-2 degrees which causes falling of vertical lines and the small picket fence towards the right. I see no other geometric problem with this picture. The modern picture shown in post 40 attempted to recreate the view of this backyard picture, and included even the rotation applied to the backyard picture. The two yellow lines drawn by myself have very much the same angles as the corresponding lines in the backyard picture. Thus, I say that the divergence of the vertical line was a normal phenomenon as otherwise the modern photo could not reproduce the very similar angle (highlighted with yellow lines). I avoided any comparisons with the post next to the right of Oswald because that one is obviously rotten in the modern picture.

The effect of perspective is a tricky one and depends on the view angle, lens, and the relative distances of objects. Therefore, if this backyard picture is compared to any tourist picture or even other backyard picture, we may not see in those pictures the divergence of the lines seen in this backyard picture, and the fact that actually only this backyard picture shows the divergence of vertical lines does not need to be explained by a manipulation.such as keystoning. I would imply alteration of image only after all possibilities to explain a feature of a picture have failed. I hope that my 3D model will shed some light on this issue as I see no other chance to test further the integrity of the geometric lines in this particular backyard picture.

[Sandy Larsen]

"But what about the angles seen in the stairway posts? They are there because the stairway has been rebuilt since 1963 and whoever built it didn't make the posts plumb. In fact, the post nearest us is VERY crooked."

I noticed that too, Sandy. At first, I simply thought it was because the stair stringers had rotted out but this does not seem to be the case, as we would see a definite sag in the outside stringer. Placing a straight edge on the outside stringer shows no sag, and the stair treads that are still intact and in place appear to be level.

Do you know for sure the stairs have been rebuilt since 1963? If they have, I wonder if these intermediate support posts were placed just a bit further down the stringers than the original ones, and ended up being shorter posts. This could explain why Oswald looks so small.

Thank goodness, somebody else can see what I see.

I'm not absolutely sure that the whole stairway has been rebuilt. But if not rebuilt, it has certainly been significantly modified. The post that is very crooked most definitely has been replaced. It is attached to the stairway in a completely different way. Plus, to me it looks like the original post consisted of two boards nailed together to form a thicker board. The new post is solid.

I had the same thought as yours, that the new post may have been attached below a different stair step, and that this could explain Oswald looking so small. But my current thought is that it has to do with perspective from different angles and cameras with different focal lengths.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

I asked you the following question:

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

(I emphasized "material evidence" because you had just used the phrase to describe what is important to you.)

Now, let me summarize your response:

• Lots of people saw the backyard photos with Oswald holding up his rifle.

• Marina had in her possession photos of Walker's house.

• Marina testified that Oswald admitted to shooting at Walker. (You changed her testimony from "admitted shooting" to "admitted involvement." I am changing it back.)

• The bullet shot at Walker doesn't match Oswald's rifle.

Since the Walker bullet doesn't match Oswald's rifle, we know that his rifle was not used. Therefore, the backyard photos are irrelevant.

So the only evidence against Oswald is Marina's testimony that he had told her that he'd shot at General Walker, and the photos of Walker's house in her possession.

If Marina told the truth, then what I'd conclude from this is that Oswald shot at General Walker with somebody else's rifle.

Can we trust what Marina said?

That's a fair summary, Sandy -- except that if we do believe what Marina said, then we must also include all the sworn testimony of the others who supported her story, including George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, Everett Glover, and then the informal statement of Volkmar Schmidt, as well as the possession of new BYP by DeMohrenschildt, the Militant newspaper and Roscoe White.

(And let's not forget the JCS workers who saw the Alek Hidell Fake ID being made there on company cameras.)

The fact that somebody else's rifle was used in the shooting at General Walker instead of LHO's rifle is, indeed, relevant, but that doesn't mean that the four BYPs are irrelevant. The signed copy of the BYP that DeMohrenschildt possessed also had the remark, "Hunter of fascists, ha ha!" Volkmar Schmidt and George DeMohrenschildt both admitted they tried often to convince LHO that General Walker was a fascist -- near or about the presence of Michael Paine.

There are two issues here:

(1) If Marina Oswald is believable, then we must also include all those who support her account.

(2) If Marina Oswald isn't believable, then we must explain exactly why all these others supported her account. Didn't they all believe that General Walker was a fascist? Or -- the opposite -- did they all wish to blame LHO for the Walker shooting? Why would they coordinate a lie in favor of General Walker?

Yet, you're right about the final question, Sandy -- do we believe Marina Oswald or not? This might require its own thread, but I have long argued that Marina Oswald lied to the FBI when she was first arrested, but after she spoke with the Secret Service, and then took her WC witness oath, I believe that Marina Oswald told the TRUTH.

I believe Marina Oswald, and I'm interested in any arguments that her WC testimony is false. I've heard all the arguments, I believe, and I've answered every one that I've heard.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Please find here a comparison of the backyard picture with my simulation of Oswald's pose. The purpose of this small experiment was to show the maximum leaning angle provided that: 1) the front part of the left foot touches the ground, 2) all weight rests on the right foot, 3) the trunk and the head align with the vertical plane perpendicular to the ground. The arms simulate Oswald's pose only approximately, however, it was not the purpose of this experiment to reproduce all aspects of Oswald's pose. Also, the right foot is rotated slightly more compared to Oswald's stance.

The angle of leaning in the right picture appears even larger than in the original backyard picture. This is highlighted in the picture below. The yellow line in Oswald's figure connects the tip of the left foot with the nose, and crosses the left knee. In the right hand side figure, the same line was copied to cross the tip of the left foot. However, the yellow line misses the nose by a large margin. Thus, Oswald's pose looks strange on the first sight, however, it can be reproduced. Holding a rifle weighing 3.4 kg would make the pose even more stable. I have tested this condition by reproducing the pose whilst holding a stone weighing about 3 kg in my left hand (not shown).

The new pictures were taken by my daughter. Interestingly, I had to ask her to make sure in the next round of shooting that the vertical lines are really vertical and the horizontal lines are horizontal. The reason was that my daughter rotated the pictures towards the right in maybe a subconscious effort to correct the strong leaning as if trying to avoid my falling down. Could this be the reason for seeing this particular backyard picture rotated towards the right?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Andrej Stancak