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

[Guest]

Andrej

How many degrees would you say the gate and gate posts are leaning to the right in this photo? Why not try rotating the photo to the left until all the posts are plumb, and then we'll see how much of a list to starboard Mr. Oswald really has? Or does gravity in Dallas work at an angle?

Of course, the experts at the School of Photographic Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology, one of the truly premier schools in the country, were likewise duped by this cheesy fakery when they reported to the House Select Committee on Assassinations: https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html. It's fascinating how world-class experts at places like Dartmouth and RIT (and others) keep being taken in by cheap tricks the conspiracy theorists can spot in a heartbeat.

In the full sequence of photos (see the above link, as well as https://jfk007.com/1056-2/ and http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html), the "lean" (or lack thereof) of the structures and LHO himself appears to vary widely. In most reproductions of the photo being discussed here, CE-133A, the post looks pretty much perpendicular while LHO himself appears to be leaning at an odd Tower of Pisa angle.

I'm aware of the Roscoe White speculation, as well as the ideological inconsistency of the two publications LHO is holding, and the fact that LHO immediately dismissed the photo shown to him as a fake is certainly food for thought. But to dismiss these photos as cheap fakery when they have "fooled" world-class photographic experts with no vested interest in the matter seems over the top. Fakery, while not impossible, seems less plausible to me than that LHO had Marina take them for some purpose that fit his quirky Marxist persona (or as Andrej suggests, that fit the conspirators' agenda). De Mohrenschildt's discovery of his version of the backyard photo in 1967 seems to me to make the fakery hypothesis exponentially less plausible.

After I bought Harvey and Lee, I compared about 30 photos of myself taken between the ages of 15 and 22. You (and I, if I didn't know better) would have sworn these depicted at least three different people. The "three me's" looked far more dissimilar than supposed Harvey and supposed Lee. As those in the UFO community have learned, debates over old photographs are never settled; one expert's Real Deal Alien Spacecraft is another's Obvious Hubcap Suspended on Fishing Line. If this one is ever settled, it will be for reasons extraneous to the photos themselves (i.e., not through analysis of the photos but because the who, what, when, where and why is definitively learned).

Edited September 7, 2016 by Guest

[Thomas Graves]

Andrej

How many degrees would you say the gate and gate posts are leaning to the right in this photo? Why not try rotating the photo to the left until all the posts are plumb, and then we'll see how much of a list to starboard Mr. Oswald really has? Or does gravity in Dallas work at an angle?

Of course, the experts at the School of Photographic Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology, one of the truly premier schools in the country, were likewise duped by this cheesy fakery when they reported to the House Select Committee on Assassinations: https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html. It's fascinating how world-class experts at places like Dartmouth and RIT (and others) keep being taken in by cheap tricks the conspiracy theorists can spot in a heartbeat.

In the full sequence of photos (see the above link, as well as https://jfk007.com/1056-2/ and http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html), the "lean" (or lack thereof) of the structures and LHO himself appears to vary widely. In most reproductions of the photo being discussed here, CE-133A, the post looks pretty much perpendicular while LHO himself appears to be leaning at an odd Tower of Pisa angle.

I'm aware of the Roscoe White speculation, as well as the ideological inconsistency of the two publications LHO is holding, and the fact that LHO immediately dismissed the photo shown to him as a fake is certainly food for thought. But to dismiss these photos as cheap fakery when they have "fooled" world-class photographic experts with no vested interest in the matter seems over the top. Fakery, while not impossible, seems less plausible to me than that LHO had Marina take them for some purpose that fit his quirky Marxist persona (or as Andrej suggests, that fit the conspirators' agenda). De Mohrenschildt's discovery of his version of the backyard photo in 1967 seems to me to make the fakery hypothesis exponentially less plausible.

After I bought Harvey and Lee, I compared about 30 photos of myself taken between the ages of 15 and 22. You (and I, if I didn't know better) would have sworn these depicted at least three different people. The "three me's" looked far more dissimilar than supposed Harvey and supposed Lee. As those in the UFO community have learned, debates over old photographs are never settled; one expert's Real Deal Alien Spacecraft is another's Obvious Hubcap Suspended on Fishing Line. If this one is ever settled, it will be for reasons extraneous to the photos themselves (i.e., not through analysis of the photos but because the who, what, when, where and why is definitively learned).

Lance,

I think "Oswald's" square chin in the BYP is a dead giveaway that the photo was faked.

-- Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

"In the full sequence of photos (see the above link, as well as https://jfk007.com/1056-2/ and http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html), the "lean" (or lack thereof) of the structures and LHO himself appears to vary widely. In most reproductions of the photo being discussed here, CE-133A, the post looks pretty much perpendicular while LHO himself appears to be leaning at an odd Tower of Pisa angle."

Perpendicular? Good thing you can make a living as a lawyer; you'd starve as a carpenter.

[Andrej Stancak]

"In the full sequence of photos (see the above link, as well as https://jfk007.com/1056-2/ and http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html), the "lean" (or lack thereof) of the structures and LHO himself appears to vary widely. In most reproductions of the photo being discussed here, CE-133A, the post looks pretty much perpendicular while LHO himself appears to be leaning at an odd Tower of Pisa angle."

Perpendicular? Good thing you can make a living as a lawyer; you'd starve as a carpenter.

Robert:

I am afraid that we are talking too lightly about quite physical aspects of photography. The combination of pincushion distortions and the perspective may give very unexpected views. It is not sufficient only to say that the image is optically impossible. There is a divergence of vertical lines, especially at the periphery and in distant objects in backyard pictures, however, they can have a natural explanation. For instance the post in the centre of the middle picture of the three pictures in the first link (jfk007) appears to be perpendicular.

Getting the Imperial camera allegedly used to take the pictures, installing it on a tripod, and asking the present owner of the property to allow taking some stills of their yard would be the way to continue.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

The question of whether the man shown in this particular backyard photograph could have assumed this particular pose has been addressed by researchers at Dartmouth university: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf. The research of this group concludes that the pictures were plausible in terms of posture and lighting, however, the authors then falsely generalise in writing that the backyard pictures were not manipulated and are not composites.On this forum, the thread "Body pictures" is useful: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18109&page=2 .

Let us check Oswald's pose using an anatomically constraint human model in Poser 11. The picture below shows the backyard photograph in the left panel. The middle panel is a Poser 11 reconstruction of man's posture using Andy as the human model. The advantage of Andy is that one can visualise every joint of his body which otherwise would be covered by clothing if a full human model would be used. The posture has been modelled with Inverse Kinematics method enabled for both legs. Inverse Kinematics ensures that whenever a figure is bend, moved, or rotated, the rest of the body follows in an anatomically appropriate manner. The right panel shows the same pose from the side view.

To check whether the pose would fit Mr. Oswald's figure, the next picture shows an overlay of the original backyard picture and Andy with the transparency of Andy's model set to 34%. You can judge for yourself whether the match is good or not.

As a CT researcher, I would be inclined to believe that the backyard pictures were all faked to incriminate Mr. Oswald. However, let us stick with data. The backyard pictures may have been tampered with, however, the allegedly wrong or impossible pose in this particular picture would not be enough to believe this was the case.

Lee Harvey Oswald incriminated himself actively as a pro-Castro activist and leftist on a number of occasions. Who would willingly distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963? A father of a young family? Well, only someone who wished that his pro-Cuba credentials were well spotted, and the one who saw a very good, maybe a noble reason in doing so. A similar reason may apply to the rifle and the backyards pictures. "You will get a rifle from us, and you will show it as your rifle on few occasions. However, you can always deny owning the rifle if anything happens because we will arrange a faked postal order, and it will be possible to prove that you have not purchased any rifle.The postal officers will testify that they never handed over any rifle to you because they never did. However, you need to send a postal money order because if you would just buy a rifle at a gunsmith shop, we would not be able to plant this deniability trick. With the pictures, we need you to play a militant leftist, a communist capable of killing someone with this rifle for the ideals of communism. Again, do not worry, we make some small tricks with the pictures so that you will always be able to prove that the pictures have been manipulated, for instance that part of your head has been mounted on someone else's body."

Andrej,

Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images.

I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO.

(When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.)

-- Tommy

Thomas:

thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try.

This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all...

Edited September 7, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Thomas Graves]

The question of whether the man shown in this particular backyard photograph could have assumed this particular pose has been addressed by researchers at Dartmouth university: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf. The research of this group concludes that the pictures were plausible in terms of posture and lighting, however, the authors then falsely generalise in writing that the backyard pictures were not manipulated and are not composites.On this forum, the thread "Body pictures" is useful: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18109&page=2 .

Let us check Oswald's pose using an anatomically constraint human model in Poser 11. The picture below shows the backyard photograph in the left panel. The middle panel is a Poser 11 reconstruction of man's posture using Andy as the human model. The advantage of Andy is that one can visualise every joint of his body which otherwise would be covered by clothing if a full human model would be used. The posture has been modelled with Inverse Kinematics method enabled for both legs. Inverse Kinematics ensures that whenever a figure is bend, moved, or rotated, the rest of the body follows in an anatomically appropriate manner. The right panel shows the same pose from the side view.

[photos deleted by T. Graves to save bandwidth or memory or whatever it's called]

To check whether the pose would fit Mr. Oswald's figure, the next picture shows an overlay of the original backyard picture and Andy with the transparency of Andy's model set to 34%. You can judge for yourself whether the match is good or not.

As a CT researcher, I would be inclined to believe that the backyard pictures were all faked to incriminate Mr. Oswald. However, let us stick with data. The backyard pictures may have been tampered with, however, the allegedly wrong or impossible pose in this particular picture would not be enough to believe this was the case.

Lee Harvey Oswald incriminated himself actively as a pro-Castro activist and leftist on a number of occasions. Who would willingly distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963? A father of a young family? Well, only someone who wished that his pro-Cuba credentials were well spotted, and the one who saw a very good, maybe a noble reason in doing so. A similar reason may apply to the rifle and the backyards pictures. "You will get a rifle from us, and you will show it as your rifle on few occasions. However, you can always deny owning the rifle if anything happens because we will arrange a faked postal order, and it will be possible to prove that you have not purchased any rifle.The postal officers will testify that they never handed over any rifle to you because they never did. However, you need to send a postal money order because if you would just buy a rifle at a gunsmith shop, we would not be able to plant this deniability trick. With the pictures, we need you to play a militant leftist, a communist capable of killing someone with this rifle for the ideals of communism. Again, do not worry, we make some small tricks with the pictures so that you will always be able to prove that the pictures have been manipulated, for instance that part of your head has been mounted on someone else's body."

Andrej,

Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images.

I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO.

(When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.)

-- Tommy

Thomas:

thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try.

This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all...

Andrej,

His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter.

-- Tommy

And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Ray Mitcham]

"Oswald's" lean is even more pronounced when the perspective is corrected.

[Andrej Stancak]

The question of whether the man shown in this particular backyard photograph could have assumed this particular pose has been addressed by researchers at Dartmouth university: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf. The research of this group concludes that the pictures were plausible in terms of posture and lighting, however, the authors then falsely generalise in writing that the backyard pictures were not manipulated and are not composites.On this forum, the thread "Body pictures" is useful: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18109&page=2 .

Let us check Oswald's pose using an anatomically constraint human model in Poser 11. The picture below shows the backyard photograph in the left panel. The middle panel is a Poser 11 reconstruction of man's posture using Andy as the human model. The advantage of Andy is that one can visualise every joint of his body which otherwise would be covered by clothing if a full human model would be used. The posture has been modelled with Inverse Kinematics method enabled for both legs. Inverse Kinematics ensures that whenever a figure is bend, moved, or rotated, the rest of the body follows in an anatomically appropriate manner. The right panel shows the same pose from the side view.

[photos deleted by T. Graves to save bandwidth or memory or whatever it's called]

To check whether the pose would fit Mr. Oswald's figure, the next picture shows an overlay of the original backyard picture and Andy with the transparency of Andy's model set to 34%. You can judge for yourself whether the match is good or not.

As a CT researcher, I would be inclined to believe that the backyard pictures were all faked to incriminate Mr. Oswald. However, let us stick with data. The backyard pictures may have been tampered with, however, the allegedly wrong or impossible pose in this particular picture would not be enough to believe this was the case.

Lee Harvey Oswald incriminated himself actively as a pro-Castro activist and leftist on a number of occasions. Who would willingly distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963? A father of a young family? Well, only someone who wished that his pro-Cuba credentials were well spotted, and the one who saw a very good, maybe a noble reason in doing so. A similar reason may apply to the rifle and the backyards pictures. "You will get a rifle from us, and you will show it as your rifle on few occasions. However, you can always deny owning the rifle if anything happens because we will arrange a faked postal order, and it will be possible to prove that you have not purchased any rifle.The postal officers will testify that they never handed over any rifle to you because they never did. However, you need to send a postal money order because if you would just buy a rifle at a gunsmith shop, we would not be able to plant this deniability trick. With the pictures, we need you to play a militant leftist, a communist capable of killing someone with this rifle for the ideals of communism. Again, do not worry, we make some small tricks with the pictures so that you will always be able to prove that the pictures have been manipulated, for instance that part of your head has been mounted on someone else's body."

Andrej,

Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images.

I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO.

(When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.)

-- Tommy

Thomas:

thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try.

This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all...

Andrej,

His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter.

-- Tommy

And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground.

Tommy:

All right, whilst I will have some work to do with the model maybe you would let us know in the meantime what is this picture about: did someone just paste this man's body from a different picture violating the principles of geometry? Or would someone construct piece by piece the man and commit some mistakes?

[Ray Mitcham]

IMO, Another guy's body, with Oswald's head grafted on, was overlaid onto the background.

[Thomas Graves]

The question of whether the man shown in this particular backyard photograph could have assumed this particular pose has been addressed by researchers at Dartmouth university: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf. The research of this group concludes that the pictures were plausible in terms of posture and lighting, however, the authors then falsely generalise in writing that the backyard pictures were not manipulated and are not composites.On this forum, the thread "Body pictures" is useful: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18109&page=2 .

Let us check Oswald's pose using an anatomically constraint human model in Poser 11. The picture below shows the backyard photograph in the left panel. The middle panel is a Poser 11 reconstruction of man's posture using Andy as the human model. The advantage of Andy is that one can visualise every joint of his body which otherwise would be covered by clothing if a full human model would be used. The posture has been modelled with Inverse Kinematics method enabled for both legs. Inverse Kinematics ensures that whenever a figure is bend, moved, or rotated, the rest of the body follows in an anatomically appropriate manner. The right panel shows the same pose from the side view.

[photos deleted by T. Graves to save bandwidth or memory or whatever it's called]

To check whether the pose would fit Mr. Oswald's figure, the next picture shows an overlay of the original backyard picture and Andy with the transparency of Andy's model set to 34%. You can judge for yourself whether the match is good or not.

As a CT researcher, I would be inclined to believe that the backyard pictures were all faked to incriminate Mr. Oswald. However, let us stick with data. The backyard pictures may have been tampered with, however, the allegedly wrong or impossible pose in this particular picture would not be enough to believe this was the case.

Lee Harvey Oswald incriminated himself actively as a pro-Castro activist and leftist on a number of occasions. Who would willingly distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963? A father of a young family? Well, only someone who wished that his pro-Cuba credentials were well spotted, and the one who saw a very good, maybe a noble reason in doing so. A similar reason may apply to the rifle and the backyards pictures. "You will get a rifle from us, and you will show it as your rifle on few occasions. However, you can always deny owning the rifle if anything happens because we will arrange a faked postal order, and it will be possible to prove that you have not purchased any rifle.The postal officers will testify that they never handed over any rifle to you because they never did. However, you need to send a postal money order because if you would just buy a rifle at a gunsmith shop, we would not be able to plant this deniability trick. With the pictures, we need you to play a militant leftist, a communist capable of killing someone with this rifle for the ideals of communism. Again, do not worry, we make some small tricks with the pictures so that you will always be able to prove that the pictures have been manipulated, for instance that part of your head has been mounted on someone else's body."

Andrej,

Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images.

I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO.

(When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.)

-- Tommy

Thomas:

thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try.

This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all...

Andrej,

His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter.

-- Tommy

And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground.

Tommy:

All right, whilst I will have some work to do with the model maybe you would let us know in the meantime what is this picture about: did someone just paste this man's body from a different picture violating the principles of geometry? Or would someone construct piece by piece the man and commit some mistakes?

Andrej,

I don't know. Whilst I'm not a graphic artist, or a darkroom technician for that matter, I have learned from experience that I can trust my own eyes.

When I started studying the JFK assassination in earnest right after the movie "JFK" came out, the strangeness of "Oswald's" stance was one of the first things I noticed.

There used to be a video in which the late Jack White, himself a photographer, showed how it could have been done.

To me, it's so fake-looking that I almost think that Oswald, possibly under duress from his handlers (so he could get into Cuba?), made it himself at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and made it fake-looking intentionally, so he could point at it later, if necessary, and say. "It's fake. Someone pasted my head on somebody else's body. And look at how that body is tilting!""

-- Tommy

Here it is.

FAKE The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald -- part 5 of 5

see Jack White around 05:30

Edited September 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Oswald's" lean is even more pronounced when the perspective is corrected.

Precisely, Ray, although I don't think Andrej could ever be convinced. Some people just seem to have their minds "made up" if you know what I mean.

[Joe Bauer]

Just a quirky thing but the junior civil air patrol photo of a young Oswald with David Ferry ( the one that made Gerald Posner look like a fool because it proved he was wrong in saying Ferry and Oswald were never together ) shows Oswald standing with another odd even uncoordinated posture.

Maybe Oswald just had this unusual physical trait?

I do however believe more than disbelieve that the BYPs were either faked or part of a patsy creation plan of incriminating evidence.

And Marina Oswald's testimony regarding her taking these photos always seemed unsettling to my sense of logic.

[Andrej Stancak]

It seems that almost all contributors to this thread agree that there was something wrong with the backyard pictures, the difference in views is more about how much and how. Here are three different scenarios of what had happened:

Scenario 1: the pictures were created without Mr. Oswald's knowledge by having someone else to pose in the backyard of their previous house at Nealy Street. Mr. Oswald's head was mounted to this foreign body. Mrs. Marina did not take the pictures, she was pressed to admit it. The rifle used was never in Mr. Oswald's possession, and it might or might not be the same as the one found in the Depository. The backyard pictures were intended to paint Mr. Oswald as an aggressive leftist who might have killed a politician for ideological reasons. This has been carefully planned with the intention to use it as incriminating evidence in killing President Kennedy.

This scenario has a variation: the backyard was photographed on a different occassion than the man. Therefore, it was neccesary to artifically copy man's picture onto the backyard scene, and also to replace his head with Mr. Oswald's head.

Scenario 2: Mr. Oswald colluded in the preparation of the backyard pictures with his intelligence handlers to build his profile of a likely political assassin. He consented to this risky and compromising scenario under the condition that safety breaks would be implanted. For instance, it would be his figure and his head, however, his head would be tampered with as shown by Mr. Jack White's research. The rifle itself would be similar but not identical (e.g., the sling mount or the length would differ) with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor. Mr. Oswald knew what safety breaks were planted, and he was therefore confident during his interrogation about what has been manipulated, and that he would be able to prove a manipulation. This would make the backyard pictures worthless as forensic evidence. Scenario 2 would assume Mr. Oswald's full knowledge of the fact that a false image of himself is being created (distributing pro-Castro leaflets would be another expample of his active self-incrimination), and it also supposed a contact with his handlers. Mr. Oswald might or might not help with manipulations of backyard pictures, which might or might not be taken by Mrs. Marina.

Scenario 3: Mr. Oswald made the pictures on his own because he himself and alone has been creating a picture of a potential political assassin. He did it as he was irresponsible and derranged, and he wanted to make himself attractive to some strange people or organisations. Mrs. Marina took the pictures, and she was experiencing a strong conflict during her testimonies for the Warren Commission because she was worsening Mr. Oswlad's image while she was admitting her role in this incriminating affair, which threatened to increase her vulnerability. Mrs. Marina attempted to at least reduce the number of pictures taken and reluctantly admitted two of them. Mr. Oswald was supposed to have the infamous rifle in his possession. The rifle was most likely given to him by his handlers (only an agency or organisation can arrange such a trap as a money order which never would be cashed in by seller), and Mr. Oswald might then produce the pictures on his own initiative. He would then add some safety breaks to the pictures by himself as in Scenario 2. However, the rifle would have to be identical with the one found on the 6th floor as it is unlikley that Mr. Oswlad had owned two similar Mannlicher Carcano rifles.

In Scenarios 2 and 3, there would be no geometric problems with the backyard pictures as it would be Mr. Oswald who was photographed. Only details of his face and the rifle would be manipulated as safety breaks. The man's pose could have been perfectly fine as the pose itself was not a safety break. The man's pose could be a problem only in the variation of Scenario 1 in which the body of someone else would be pasted onto a blank backyard scene.

What scenario would you pick?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Thomas Graves]

It seems that almost all contributors to this thread agree that there was something wrong with the backyard pictures, the difference in views is more about how much and how. Here are three different scenarios of what had happened:

Scenario 1: the pictures were created without Mr. Oswald's knowledge by having someone else to pose in the backyard of their previous house at Nealy Street. Mr. Oswald's head was mounted to this foreign body. Mrs. Marina did not take the pictures, she was pressed to admit it. The rifle used was never in Mr. Oswald's possession, and it might or might not be the same as the one found in the Depository. The backyard pictures were intended to paint Mr. Oswald as an aggressive leftist who might have killed a politician for ideological reasons. This has been carefully planned with the intention to use it as incriminating evidence in killing President Kennedy.

This scenario has a variation: the backyard was photographed on a different occassion than the man. Therefore, it was neccesary to artifically copy man's picture onto the backyard scene, and also to replace his head with Mr. Oswald's head.

Scenario 2: Mr. Oswald colluded in the preparation of the backyard pictures with his intelligence handlers to build his profile of a likely political assassin. He consented to this risky and compromising scenario under the condition that safety breaks would be implanted. For instance, it would be his figure and his head, however, his head would be tampered with as shown by Mr. Jack White's research. The rifle itself would be similar but not identical (e.g., the sling mount or the length would differ) with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor. Mr. Oswald knew what safety breaks were planted, and he was therefore confident during his interrogation about what has been manipulated, and that he would be able to prove a manipulation. This would make the backyard pictures worthless as forensic evidence. Scenario 2 would assume Mr. Oswald's full knowledge of the fact that a false image of himself is being created (distributing pro-Castro leaflets would be another expample of his active self-incrimination), and it also supposed a contact with his handlers. Mr. Oswald might or might not help with manipulations of backyard pictures, which might or might not be taken by Mrs. Marina.

Scenario 3: Mr. Oswald made the pictures on his own because he himself and alone has been creating a picture of a potential political assassin. He did it as he was irresponsible and derranged, and he wanted to make himself attractive to some strange people or organisations. Mrs. Marina took the pictures, and she was experiencing a strong conflict during her testimonies for the Warren Commission because she was worsening Mr. Oswlad's image while she was admitting her role in this incriminating affair, which threatened to increase her vulnerability. Mrs. Marina attempted to at least reduce the number of pictures taken and reluctantly admitted two of them. Mr. Oswald was supposed to have the infamous rifle in his possession. The rifle was most likely given to him by his handlers (only an agency or organisation can arrange such a trap as a money order which never would be cashed in by seller), and Mr. Oswald might then produce the pictures on his own initiative. He would then add some safety breaks to the pictures by himself as in Scenario 2. However, the rifle would have to be identical with the one found on the 6th floor as it is unlikley that Mr. Oswlad had owned two similar Mannlicher Carcano rifles.

In Scenarios 2 and 3, there would be no geometric problems with the backyard pictures as it would be Mr. Oswald who was photographed. Only details of his face and the rifle would be manipulated as safety breaks. The man's pose could have been perfectly fine as the pose itself was not a safety break. The man's pose could be a problem only in the variation of Scenario 1 in which the body of someone else would be pasted onto a blank backyard scene.

What scenario would you pick?

Andrej,

I'm not ready to answer your question yet because I'm still thinking about it.

I tend to think that LHO didn't even own a Carcano.

If he did, then I can only think of three "innocent" reasons he would have owned one: 1) because he'd always wanted to own a Carcano, 2) because someone told him to buy one for an "innocent" reason, like investigating mail order gun sales, and 3) because ... (I'm too tired to think right now but I know there's a third one -- it'll come to me.)

If I'm right that he didn't own one, then I can only wonder what was in the "kinda short" package that Frazier and his sister claimed to have seen that morning. Curtain rods?

-- Tommy :sum

[Tom Hume]

I’ll add a hypothetical scenario to Andrej’s list:

Scenario 4: Lee Oswald and two other low-level spooks found themselves tangled up in the assassination scenario of Ferrie/Banister/Hoover, and, being men with principles, they took steps to prevent the assassination, and they littered all of their various activities with puzzling enigmas, the explanations for which could be found in their solvable anagram puzzles. The trio called themselves “ICO” (which stands for “Igor”, “Case”, and, “Oswald”), and several months before the assassination they recruited at least two civilians and put them into position. One of those recruited civilians was Buell Wesley Frazier.

Many of ICO’s anagram puzzles are taken from naturally occurring anagrams inside the names of the ICO members, and Lee Oswald’s leaning tower of Pisa pose is one of those.

“LEE HARVEY OSWALD” anagrams to:

(1) “L HEAD OVERLAY WES”

(2) “WESLEY HAVE A L ROD”

(3) “HO, WES, A LEVEL YARD”

In my hypothetical scenario, anagrams such as the three above appear to be the genesis for this particular ICO stunt.

The photographs were taken at “214 WEST NEELY STREET”, and the house faces True North. The teetering Oswald figure is tilted both toward the house (North), and toward the camera (West), so Lee is teetering N-West. in order to anagram this address, we need to translate “214” into the letters “CBE” using the universal letter/number translation devise at the bottom of this post.

“CBE WEST NEELY STREET” anagrams to”

“LEE TEETERS N-WEST. BY C”

The “C” at the end is the likely creator of this stunt, “Case Nagell”. But then there’s this anagram of “CBE WEST NEELY STREET”:

“WESLEY BEST TEETER. CN”

And,

“B WESLEY SET TEETER. CN”

The address “214 WEST NEELY STREET” is “18” characters, or “18-bits”. Buell Wesley Frazier was born in 1944 and was 19 in 1963. Translating a few letters to numbers, “CBE WEST NEELY STREET” anagrams to:

“1944 WESLEY CENTER. 18-BT”

And,

“SECRET TEEN: B WESLEY - 19”

Thanks Ray Mitcham for straightening up the composite photo of Wesley and Lee. “CBE WEST NEELY STREET” anagrams to:

“L EYE TEST: CENTER B WES”

If in fact we are being told that Lee’s face was put on Wesley’s body, ICO probably left us a lot of other stuff to find, and I hope somebody finds it.

Tom

(A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25)