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

[Thomas Graves]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Great work, guys!

Now for a little shocker regarding the body Oswald's face was was pasted onto,

I am no longer convinced that it was Roscoe White.

The Marine with the bump on his wrist in this May, 1959, photo seems to have larger ears and a bigger chin than Roscoe did.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I thought it was established that the marine in the photo is Roscoe. Am I wrong about that?

BTW, it seems to me that the marine has a thicker body than what we see in the photos. The BYP body looks like Oswald's to me. Not saying it is Oswald's, just that it looks like his. Skinny.

Sandy,

I have been assuming for several years that the Marine with his hand on his hip and the bump on his wrist was Roscoe White. Now I'm beginning to think that I, and many other people, were wrong. Just tonight I realized that the Marine's ears and chin are significantly larger than White's, especially the ears. Look for yourself at the photos in my previous post.

I would like to find photos of Oswald's and White's right wrists, to see if either of them have a bump like the one that's visible in the back yard photo that's the subject of this thread

BTW, I agree with you that "Oswald's" the upper torso looks punier than that of Roscoe "Rock" White. I noticed that some time ago, but didn't want to say anything about it.

My personal feeling is that very few things indeed have already been "established" in this fascinating, but highly-frustrating, case.

-- Tommy

Edited October 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Sandy,

I have been assuming for several years that the Marine with his hand on his hip and the bump on his wrist was Roscoe White. Now I'm beginning to think that I, and many other people, were wrong. Just tonight I realized that the Marine's ears and chin are significantly larger than White's, especially the ears. Look for yourself at the photos in my previous post.

I would like to find photos of Oswald's and White's right wrists, to see if either of them have a bump like the one that's visible in the back yard photo that's the subject of this thread

BTW, I agree with you that "Oswald's" the upper torso looks punier than that of Roscoe "Rock" White. I noticed that some time ago, but didn't want to say anything about it.

My personal feeling is that very few things indeed have already been "established" in this fascinating, but highly-frustrating, case.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Jack White has further photos of Roscoe White. Yet even the few photos you posted show how different the same person can look over the passage of time. Also -- the Marine photo of Roscoe White that you posted is very blurry, taken with inferior equipment, and so that makes it very difficult to draw a generality about Roscoe's appearance. Notice how thin Roscoe looks in that final Marine mug shot that you posted.

We should get more pictures -- but that lumpy right wrist is no coincidence, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul

[Paul Trejo]

While it is possible that the single photo taken had an "Oswald" in it (that is, not just the background), that would have been a stupid thing for those photographic genius's to do. Because to put a new body and head in, they'd have to first erase the original one. It would have been much smarter for them to have taken a photo of the background without an "Oswald," make copies of that, and then add an "Oswald" (and its shadow) to each one.

Though I suppose I may be foolish in thinking these guys did it the more logical, least time-consuming way.

But wait, there's more. They'd have to take an extra photo of the background so they could recreate the stuff behind Oswald. And if they did that, they might as well use that photo for the background.

Okay, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I believe that only one photo was taken, and it had no "Oswald" in it.

Sandy,

There's still more. There had to be another photograph with Oswald's face in it. Also, Oswald had to be dressed all-in-black, because this is what matches the eye-witness account of Marina Oswald -- who took one and only one photo on that early March weekend in 1963.

This photograph was carefully planned by Oswald to also confuse Marina Oswald, because he urgently wanted plausible deniability.

By the way, the FBI expert who claimed that the BYP was genuine, also added his own doubts. Here is what he said:

------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL SHANEYFELT -----------------------

Mr. EISENBERG. I asked you before whether you could say whether this negative, which is now 749, had been used directly or indirectly to make the print 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you say whether it had been used either directly or indirectly?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an inter-negative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process...A very expertly done re-photographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated...

...

Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. ...With a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed...

Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. In addition, in this instance regarding Commission Exhibit 133B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera...

------------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL SHANEYFELT -----------------------

I think this speaks directly to your description of the work that Oswald did on the BYP, Sandy. Almost word for word.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 7, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy,

I have been assuming for several years that the Marine with his hand on his hip and the bump on his wrist was Roscoe White. Now I'm beginning to think that I, and many other people, were wrong. Just tonight I realized that the Marine's ears and chin are significantly larger than White's, especially the ears. Look for yourself at the photos in my previous post.

I would like to find photos of Oswald's and White's right wrists, to see if either of them have a bump like the one that's visible in the back yard photo that's the subject of this thread

BTW, I agree with you that "Oswald's" the upper torso looks punier than that of Roscoe "Rock" White. I noticed that some time ago, but didn't want to say anything about it.

My personal feeling is that very few things indeed have already been "established" in this fascinating, but highly-frustrating, case.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Jack White has further photos of Roscoe White. Yet even the few photos you posted show how different the same person can look over the passage of time. Also -- the Marine photo of Roscoe White that you posted is very blurry, taken with inferior equipment, and so that makes it very difficult to draw a generality about Roscoe's appearance. Notice how thin Roscoe looks in that final Marine mug shot that you posted.

We should get more pictures -- but that lumpy right wrist is no coincidence, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul

I wonder whether Mr. Jack White left his notes or any other kind of written record of his research. Mr. White was also a member of this forum - is there not any thread in which he would explain details of his research. His research was pioneering, however, a lack of proper written record makes it very complicated for new generation of researchers.

It may be out of context of this thread, however, I think we need a peer reviewed and properly edited JFK assassination journal in which solid pieces of research (such as Mr. Jack White's) would be published in the form or articles. Published articles would either be commented on a forum or receive editor-approved comments which would be also published in the journal. Such JFK journal would not substitute a more spontaneous and creative forum, however, it would ensure that some invaluable data would be properly archived and also quoted.

[Chris Newton]

wonder whether Mr. Jack White left his notes or any other kind of written record of his research. Mr. White was also a member of this forum - is there not any thread in which he would explain details of his research. His research was pioneering, however, a lack of proper written record makes it very complicated for new generation of researchers.

Jack White was interested in a lot of other things such as the moon landings and the 9/11 Pentagon attack.

I don't know where his files ended up but that's a good question.

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Great work, guys!

Now for a little shocker regarding the body Oswald's face was was pasted onto,

I am no longer convinced that it was Roscoe White.

The Marine with the bump on his wrist in this May, 1959, photo seems to have larger ears and a bigger chin than Roscoe did.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I thought it was established that the marine in the photo is Roscoe. Am I wrong about that?

BTW, it seems to me that the marine has a thicker body than what we see in the photos. The BYP body looks like Oswald's to me. Not saying it is Oswald's, just that it looks like his. Skinny.

Sandy,

I have been assuming for several years that the Marine with his hand on his hip and the bump on his wrist was Roscoe White. Now I'm beginning to think that I, and many other people, were wrong. Just tonight I realized that the Marine's ears and chin are significantly larger than White's, especially the ears. Look for yourself at the photos in my previous post.

I would like to find photos of Oswald's and White's right wrists, to see if either of them have a bump like the one that's visible in the back yard photo that's the subject of this thread

BTW, I agree with you that "Oswald's" the upper torso looks punier than that of Roscoe "Rock" White. I noticed that some time ago, but didn't want to say anything about it.

My personal feeling is that very few things indeed have already been "established" in this fascinating, but highly-frustrating, case.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Yes, I agree that the marine's ears and chin are bigger than Roscoe's. When Jack White said he thought the BYP body was Roscoe's, did he base that statement on the above photo of the marine? Or did he see the large wrist protrusion on a photo that he knew was indeed of Roscoe? (From what you wrote, it sounds like you agree with the former, not the latter.)

The reason to suspect Roscoe White is because he had some backyard photo materials. As it turns out, that may be the only reason. (But you're right, we need to see photos of Oswald's and Roscoe's right wrists.)

BTW the BYP "Oswald" does have quite a large (wide) chin, like the marine's. And the wrist protrusion, like the marine's. But the BYP "Oswald" seems skinnier than the marine (IMO)... whoever he is. (Which I now know you agree with.)

Edited October 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

While it is possible that the single photo taken had an "Oswald" in it (that is, not just the background), that would have been a stupid thing for those photographic genius's to do. Because to put a new body and head in, they'd have to first erase the original one. It would have been much smarter for them to have taken a photo of the background without an "Oswald," make copies of that, and then add an "Oswald" (and its shadow) to each one.

Though I suppose I may be foolish in thinking these guys did it the more logical, least time-consuming way.

But wait, there's more. They'd have to take an extra photo of the background so they could recreate the stuff behind Oswald. And if they did that, they might as well use that photo for the background.

Okay, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I believe that only one photo was taken, and it had no "Oswald" in it.

.... Also, Oswald had to be dressed all-in-black, because this is what matches the eye-witness account of Marina Oswald -- who took one and only one photo on that early March weekend in 1963.

Sorry Paul, but I'm afraid that Tom's analysis and my subsequent one proves conclusively that Marina was lying. (Probably forced to lie.) Because either a tripod was used, in which case Marina would have not been used, or only one photo was taken and all three BYPs were made from that.

Well, okay, backing up a little on what I just claimed... There is some possibility that Marina took the photograph with Oswald in it, and he was wearing all black, and that somebody produced two additional BYPs from that. In order for the person to do that, he would have had to take another photo of the background so that he could erase Oswald (by reconstructing the background behind him and his shadow).

I think it is much more likely that Marina lied.

[Thomas Graves]

Tom:

Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed.

Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.

If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Great work, guys!

Now for a little shocker regarding the body Oswald's face was was pasted onto,

I am no longer convinced that it was Roscoe White.

The Marine with the bump on his wrist in this May, 1959, photo seems to have larger ears and a bigger chin than Roscoe did.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I thought it was established that the marine in the photo is Roscoe. Am I wrong about that?

BTW, it seems to me that the marine has a thicker body than what we see in the photos. The BYP body looks like Oswald's to me. Not saying it is Oswald's, just that it looks like his. Skinny.

Sandy,

I have been assuming for several years that the Marine with his hand on his hip and the bump on his wrist was Roscoe White. Now I'm beginning to think that I, and many other people, were wrong. Just tonight I realized that the Marine's ears and chin are significantly larger than White's, especially the ears. Look for yourself at the photos in my previous post.

I would like to find photos of Oswald's and White's right wrists, to see if either of them have a bump like the one that's visible in the back yard photo that's the subject of this thread

BTW, I agree with you that "Oswald's" the upper torso looks punier than that of Roscoe "Rock" White. I noticed that some time ago, but didn't want to say anything about it.

My personal feeling is that very few things indeed have already been "established" in this fascinating, but highly-frustrating, case.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Yes, I agree that the marine's ears and chin are bigger than Roscoe's. When Jack White said he thought the BYP body was Roscoe's, did he base that statement on the above photo of the marine? Or did he see the large wrist protrusion on a photo that he knew was indeed of Roscoe? (From what you wrote, it sounds like you agree with the former, not the latter.)

[...]

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy,

I have no idea what Jack White's thought process on this was.

Unfortunately, Jack was put "upon a pedestal" by many researchers / serious students, myself included.

-- Tommy

Edited October 8, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Tom Hume]

I’m going to backtrack on what I wrote in posts #277 and #278, which was that CE 133A, CE 133B, 133C, were all photographed from exactly the same spot, as if the camera had been mounted on a tripod. If any of you have been studying the three photos in post #278 closely, you might well have come to the same conclusion I did.

Then Andrej had a good suggestion:

“I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.”

So I sized CE 133A and 133C based on identifiable points, top and bottom, and I think I got the relationship pretty close.

I don’t have the skills or software to do a proper overlay, but here’s something easy one can do. Put the two photos on an email page, and you should be able to drag a semi-transparent copy of one of the photos and overlay it on the other. If your results are like mine, the two back yard perspectives are a very close match, but they aren’t identical.

Perhaps one of you with the skills and software will fine tune my slightly primitive example, but I’ve changed my mind for now - I think someone could have taken the three photos with a hand-held camera - but whoever it was, he/she didn’t move around much.

Tom

Edited October 8, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Andrej Stancak]

I’m going to backtrack on what I wrote in posts #277 and #278, which was that CE 133A, CE 133B, 133C, were all photographed from exactly the same spot, as if the camera had been mounted on a tripod. If any of you have been studying the three photos in post #278 closely, you might well have come to the same conclusion I did.

Then Andrej had a good suggestion:

“I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.”

So I sized CE 133A and 133C based on identifiable points, top and bottom, and I think I got the relationship pretty close.

I don’t have the skills or software to do a proper overlay, but here’s something easy one can do. Put the two photos on an email page, and you should be able to drag a semi-transparent copy of one of the photos and overlay it on the other. If your results are like mine, the two back yard perspectives are a very close match, but they aren’t identical.

With the proper skills and software, I’m sure some of you can improve on my example, but I’ve changed my mind for now - I think someone could have taken the three photos with a hand-held camera - but whoever it was, he/she didn’t move around much.

Tom

Tom:

I should be able to do the overlay using the two prepared images above. I can also show a difference map highlighting the pixels which are different in the two pictures. A simple overlay may work better if one or both images is tainted, e.g. yellow/blue. It appears that 133A is sharper than 133B, maybe 133A would be the generic picture, and 133B its clone.

In the meantime, I was also thinking about the possibility that someone took the three picture whilst standing at the same spot and having the camera strap hung over his/her neck which would allow under certain circumstances almost identical views on repeated exposures. Let us explore the issue further, it is worthy.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Sandy Larsen]

I’m going to backtrack on what I wrote in posts #277 and #278, which was that CE 133A, CE 133B, 133C, were all photographed from exactly the same spot, as if the camera had been mounted on a tripod. If any of you have been studying the three photos in post #278 closely, you might well have come to the same conclusion I did.

Then Andrej had a good suggestion:

“I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will.”

So I sized CE 133A and 133C based on identifiable points, top and bottom, and I think I got the relationship pretty close.

I don’t have the skills or software to do a proper overlay, but here’s something easy one can do. Put the two photos on an email page, and you should be able to drag a semi-transparent copy of one of the photos and overlay it on the other. If your results are like mine, the two back yard perspectives are a very close match, but they aren’t identical.

Perhaps one of you with the skills and software will fine tune my slightly primitive example, but I’ve changed my mind for now - I think someone could have taken the three photos with a hand-held camera - but whoever it was, he/she didn’t move around much.

Tom

I disagree with you Tom. You were right the first time. Nobody could get the same foreground/background alignment repeatedly without a tripod.

If there is a slight "perspective" difference between the photos, I'll bet that it was caused by a slight change via keystoning. I'll bet that is what Jack White was talking about when he described keystoning.

BTW, Jack White has already done the overlay thing and claims to have gotten a (near) perfect match. He explains and shows it in his video. In fact, I believe that is where he came up with the keystoning idea. I think he did NOT get his perfect overlay match until he added keystoning.

You can view some of his BYP work here. Start viewing at Slide 107.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

See some more Roscoe White chins here. See slide 125.

Roscoe's chin is pretty big/square in some photos.

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm beginning to really appreciate Jack White's work on the backyard photos. But it was Tom Hume's "near-far relative object location analysis" that convinced me, not White's overlay analysis. (White's overlay analysis may be convincing if you have the overlays in your hands. But not so much the glimpse of the overlays in his video.)

Edited October 8, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

Well, here is slide 114 from Jack White's collection. Thanks to Sandy for posting the link in another thread. So, after all Mr. White did leave his most important images and results in a database. The slide 114 from Mr. White's collection is a game changer: (please see my EDIT and CORRECTION below)

This backyard picture was taken at the same time as the rest of pictures and stands in perfect alignment with CE133A. Please find below overlays of slide 114 (plain background) with CE133 with 30%, 50% and 70% blending of CE133A.

At 30%:

At 50%:

At 70%:

All lines and details are in perfect alignment in the plain backyard picture and in CE133. This can only be achieved using a tripod, no doubts in my mind.

If Mr. White had the plain backyard picture at his disposal, it was quite straightforward to figure out that composite pictures were made.

One cannot take two pictures at different instants (after turning the knob which turns the film to a new field) from a hand held camera with this perfect alignment. A tripod was used. Marina did not speak the truth about the backyard pictures since she has claimed to manipulate the camera.

Importantly, the existence of such a crucial picture as the picture of backyard with no person in it was not mentioned either by Warren Commission or the HSCA. The commissioners and experts realised that this picture would expose this fraud and Oswald's framing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT and CORRECTION: my enthusiasm for the picture with no person in it has evaporated after Tom posted a message by Craig Lamson. Craig explains that the picture in slide 114 has been digitally prepared for Oliver Stone film by removing man's figure from one of backyard photographs. So, please do not let be misled by the obvious correspondence of slide 114 and CE133A as I did. There is nothing wrong to overlay the two pictures, however, the implications were wrong.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Tom Hume]

WOW! A game changer indeed! Where did slide 114 come from, Andrej?

But Craig Lamson has just pointed out to me the same sort of subtle differences in perspective that had led me to change my mind about the photos being taken from the "EXACT" same position. I hope he posts his convincing demonstration.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Tom Hume