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

[Tom Hume]

Here is what Craig Lamson sent me, I hope he doesn't mind me posting his Photobucket demo:

http://s220.photobucket.com/user/infocusinc/media/move.gif.html

And if one looks closely, one can find many very subtle differences in perspective like this. Maybe the camera only moved an inch between shots, but it seems to have moved. And since we now seem to have a fourth photo that Andrej found in Jack White's work, more close comparison work seems necessary.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

I'm not sure what the Forum rules are for posting relayed messages, but I just received another PM from Craig Lamson:

"Jack White spoke of that photo on this forum often. It was digitally altered for Oliver Stone to remove Oswald form the image."

[Andrej Stancak]

Tom;

Thanks for sending Craig Lamson's note. If the image was not genuine then that is not a game changer at all...

The picture of the backyard with no person in it is from Jack White's collection, and it has been pointed to by Sandy in another thread.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3180

I will now edit my previous post not to mislead people. However, it seems that the only one who has been misled was me...

[Tom Hume]

No Andrej, I was mislead worse than you, but hey, not even Babe Ruth batted a thousand.

What got me super interested in this thread a few weeks ago, was the intriguing possibility that the BYPs were taken with the Stereo Realist mounted on a tripod - that if we did the resizing and the de-keystoning work, we would end up with 3-D images of the back yard.

To check out this possibility, I resized the three BYPs and used a technique called “cross-eyed stereo”, a method for perceiving 3-D images without any equipment.

Thinking I detected some 3-D going on in the image pairs, I took the next step and made prints that would fit into a Stereoscope - an old fashioned but effective method for viewing 3-D stereo photographs.

(I'll bet there are apps for doing this on your cell phone)

Although I was disappointed in my results, there is still the possibility that when Andrej finishes his work, Stereo Realist 3-D images might be the end result. And if 3-D does emerge after the resizing and the keystone-continuity work is finished, I guarantee that I will declare in a very loud voice that this was one of Oswald’s (and his crew of good guy’s) intentions; an enigma deliberately left for us to untangle and learn from.

We’ll see.

I can't quite achieve the Oswald "Leaning Tower of Pisa" 4 degree tilt. I think the old Fender bass is working against me.

The initials of the "Leaning Tower of Pisa" are "L TOP". The question is, "Who's on the bottom?"

Tom

Edited October 9, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

Here is what Craig Lamson sent me, I hope he doesn't mind me posting his Photobucket demo:

http://s220.photobucket.com/user/infocusinc/media/move.gif.html

And if one looks closely, one can find many very subtle differences in perspective like this. Maybe the camera only moved an inch between shots, but it seems to have moved. And since we now seem to have a fourth photo that Andrej found in Jack White's work, more close comparison work seems necessary.

Kudos to Craig Lamson for coming up with a superior way of checking for photo differences. The overlay method doesn't work for me. (No offense Andrej. I thought overlaying was the way to go too.)

That said, Lamson's animated gif is a bit misleading as there is nothing in the animation that is stationary in size and location. Everything is clearly big, small, big, small. But subtle differences can still be made out.

However, I still believe a tripod was used. The near-far comparisons are still very, very close. I think the reason they change is because the camera shifted slightly between shots. Nobody could keep the camera as still as what we see without a tripod. (If Lamson tweaked his animated gif so that the size and location of SOMETHING, ANYTHING didn't shift, we would see a lot less movement in the gif. IMO.)

Right away I can think of one possible exception to the use of the tripod, and that is to quickly take three successive shots without moving a muscle.

So what can we conclude?

• A tripod was likely used and three separate photos were taken. Perspective changed because the camera moved a bit.

• The proof of forgery still stands. The stairway shadows on the house still indicate that the sun didn't move noticeably between shots. Yet the shadows from the rife and newspapers are inconsistent with one another. This proves forgery, as I demonstrated earlier.

• My proof of forgery means that at least one Oswald (and shadow) was pasted on later. IMO all three were pasted on.

• Marina most likely lied about taking the photo. (Conceivably she could have snapped the shutter as the camera sat upon the tripod. But probably not.)

Am I missing anything?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I will now edit my previous post not to mislead people. However, it seems that the only one who has been misled was me...

I experienced a moment of elation too Andrej, when I first saw the photo. Then I remembered that I found it among Jack White's files. Surely he would have made a big deal of the photo if it were real.

[Andrej Stancak]

Here is what Craig Lamson sent me, I hope he doesn't mind me posting his Photobucket demo:

http://s220.photobucket.com/user/infocusinc/media/move.gif.html

And if one looks closely, one can find many very subtle differences in perspective like this. Maybe the camera only moved an inch between shots, but it seems to have moved. And since we now seem to have a fourth photo that Andrej found in Jack White's work, more close comparison work seems necessary.

Kudos to Craig Lamson for coming up with a superior way of checking for photo differences. The overlay method doesn't work for me. (No offense Andrej. I thought overlaying was the way to go too.)

That said, Lamson's animated gif is a bit misleading as there is nothing in the animation that is stationary in size and location. Everything is clearly big, small, big, small. But subtle differences can still be made out.

However, I still believe a tripod was used. The near-far comparisons are still very, very close. I think the reason they change is because the camera shifted slightly between shots. Nobody could keep the camera as still as what we see without a tripod. (If Lamson tweaked his animated gif so that the size and location of SOMETHING, ANYTHING didn't shift, we would see a lot less movement in the gif. IMO.)

Right away I can think of one possible exception to the use of the tripod, and that is to quickly take three successive shots without moving a muscle.

So what can we conclude?

• The proof of forgery still stands. The stairway shadows on the house still indicate that the sun didn't move noticeably between shots. Yet the shadows from the rife and newspapers are inconsistent with one another. This proves forgery, as I demonstrated earlier.

• A tripod was likely used and three separate photos were taken.

• My proof of forgery means that at least one Oswald (and shadow) was pasted on later. IMO all three were pasted on.

• Marina most likely lied about taking the photo. (Conceivably she could have snapped the shutter as the camera sat upon the tripod. But probably not.)

Am I forgetting anything?

Sandy:

where did you post your proof of impossible shadows? Would the shadows need to move noticeably if shots were e.g. one minute apart? I have not looked at shadows properly yet because I could do it only by building a 3D model of the whole scene with all details, and this takes a long time to accomplish.

There are different scenarios of forgery ranging from a complete composite with Lee Oswald not being involved at all in taking the pictures, to a minor version in which Lee Oswald was indeed photographed and only e.g., a broad chin being copied onto his face to allow future plausible deniability.

The use of a tripod: do you take it for granted or is it still something which needs to be proven? I have not spent enough work to be able to say anything conclusive, and would therefore be interested in empirical evidence refuting the work of HSCA and further work alluded to in Mr. Craig Lamson's note.

[Micah Mileto]

Is there some kind of journal where someone could one day publish a peer-reviewed article proving that the backyard photographs were most likely taken with a tripod?

[Tom Hume]

Post deleted

Edited October 9, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Michael Walton]

Is there some kind of journal where someone could one day publish a peer-reviewed article proving that the backyard photographs were most likely taken with a tripod?

You're thinking way too highly about this because there's no such thing when it comes to the JFK case. Supporters of the official story pretty much go by what the government said what happened and cherry pick the evidence to fit a round peg in a square hole. And if too much dissent is expressed to them, then they either sneer, shrug, or both. And any and all official story supporters are in turn supported by the mainstream media.

On the other side of the aisle, you have those who think there was a conspiracy based on discrepancies with the available evidence, and others who think what happened is just too wild or implausible to be possible. An example of this is the Single Bullet Theory, an entirely ridiculous official "conclusion" of how a single bullet did extensive damage to two men and came out intact. Then, there are some who think everything - and boy, do I mean *everthing * - was a conspiracy anywhere and everywhere they look. They'll say the Zapruder film is a fake, the Nix film is a fake, there was no throat wound, Oswald did not have a pistol when arrested, Jackie shot her husband, the Secret Service driver shot him, and on and on. It seems like it's similar to what Google did during its early days - throw s---t on the wall and see what sticks.

And the worst part about that side of the aisle is no one *on* that side of the aisle ever seems to agree with anyone else, no matter how viable or plausible a theory may be.

[Tom Hume]

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

...So what can we conclude?

• The proof of forgery still stands. The stairway shadows on the house still indicate that the sun didn't move noticeably between shots. Yet the shadows from the rife and newspapers are inconsistent with one another. This proves forgery, as I demonstrated earlier.

• A tripod was likely used and three separate photos were taken.

• My proof of forgery means that at least one Oswald (and shadow) was pasted on later. IMO all three were pasted on.

• Marina most likely lied about taking the photo. (Conceivably she could have snapped the shutter as the camera sat upon the tripod. But probably not.)

Am I forgetting anything?

Sandy,

I like your proof of forgery by the stairway shadows compared with other shadows.

Your theory of a tripod is interesting -- yet it also seems incompatible with Marina's testimony.

Your theory finds three separate photos -- but there had to be a fourth -- that is, there had to be a photo with Oswald's face as well.

My main challenge to your theory is about your claim that Marina was lying about taking the photo. I see no reason for her to lie. Reading her testimony over and over, we see that Marina resisted the WC putting words into her mouth -- although they were forceful about it.

Marina insisted that she took one and only one photo. She couldn't explain how the WC had two different poses. She knew she had taken only one -- but she could not explain the material evidence repeatedly forced under her nose by the WC. She was obliged to conclude that she "must have" taken two -- by accident.

Then, of course, we have the Roscoe White version of the BYP, and so there was a third pose -- and so the WC argument fell apart immediately.

Marina took one photograph of LHO, not of Roscoe White. Definitely not using a tripod. Definitely. This is the source of the head of LHO that was pasted onto the body of Roscoe White, IMHO.

Is it possible for your theory to be harmonized with the theory that Marina Oswald was telling the truth (even though LHO was working very hard to keep her in the dark)?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 10, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

...So what can we conclude?

• The proof of forgery still stands. The stairway shadows on the house still indicate that the sun didn't move noticeably between shots. Yet the shadows from the rife and newspapers are inconsistent with one another. This proves forgery, as I demonstrated earlier.

• A tripod was likely used and three separate photos were taken.

• My proof of forgery means that at least one Oswald (and shadow) was pasted on later. IMO all three were pasted on.

• Marina most likely lied about taking the photo. (Conceivably she could have snapped the shutter as the camera sat upon the tripod. But probably not.)

Am I forgetting anything?

Sandy,

I like your proof of forgery by the stairway shadows compared with other shadows.

Your theory of a tripod is interesting -- yet it also seems incompatible with Marina's testimony.

Your theory finds three separate photos -- but there had to be a fourth -- that is, there had to be a photo with Oswald's face as well.

My main challenge to your theory is that Marina was lying about taking the photo. I see no reason for her to lie. Reading her testimony over and over, we see that Marina resisted the WC putting words into her mouth -- although they were forceful about it.

Marina insisted that she took one and only one photo. She couldn't explain how the WC had two different poses. She knew she had taken only one -- but she could not explain the material evidence repeatedly forced under her nose by the WC. She was obliged to conclude that she "must have" taken two -- by accident.

Then, of course, we have the Roscoe White version of the BYP, and so there was a third photograph -- and so the WC argument fall apart quickly.

Marina took one photograph of LHO, not of Roscoe White. Definitely not using a tripod. Definitely. This is the source of the head of LHO that was pasted onto the body of Roscoe White, IMHO.

Is it possible for your theory to be harmonized with the theory that Marina Oswald was telling the truth (even though LHO was working very hard to keep her in the dark)?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

How do you know that's Roscoe White (with Oswald's face) in the back yard photographs?

Have you found any pictures of a verified Roscoe White with a bump on his wrist like that?

Other than this unverified one, of course, which shows a big-eared "Roscoe" dude in a snapshot developed and printed in May, 1959.

-- Tommy

Edited October 10, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Paul,

How do you know that's Roscoe White (with Oswald's face) in the back yard photographs?

Have you found any pictures of a verified Roscoe White with a bump on his wrist like that?

Other than this unverified one, of course, which shows a big-eared "Roscoe" dude in a snapshot developed and printed in May, 1959.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

My only evidence is the theory of Jack White, who posted this photograph and others, to show that the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the back-leaning stance, and the lumpy right wrist -- are consistent with Roscoe White's photographs, and inconsistent with LHO's photographs.

The question becomes -- what in the world links Roscoe White to LHO so that anybody would even think to examine Roscoe's photos in the first place? I find several points of connection -- some from Jack White, and some from other contributors:

(1) Roscoe White was at Atsugi at the same time that LHO was at Atsugi

(2) Roscoe White's picture appears in some of LHO's Marine photographs

(3) Roscoe White's wife, Geneva, worked for Jack Ruby at one time.

(4) Ron Lewis (1993) says that he saw Roscoe White in New Orleans in the context of 544 Camp Street.

(5) Ron Lewis also says that LHO told him, personally, that Roscoe White was going to be the JFK shooter.

(6) Roscoe White joined the Dallas Police Department on October 7, 1963 -- the same day that LHO returned to Dallas from Mexico City.

(7) Roscoe White, according to his son, Ricky White, confessed to being part of the JFK assassination plot.

Adding all these up, it makes sense to me that Roscoe White had interaction with LHO in 1963, although the details are still unclear. Roscoe White also confessed (to his son and wife) that he was also present at the shooting of J.D. Tippit.

It seems to me that Roscoe White was an Anticommunist and a follower of LHO in April 1963, when he believed that LHO was capable of infiltrating the Communists. That was why Roscoe participated in creating the BYP at LHO's request.

LHO created the BYP's at his employer's, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which had superior camera equipment, at the same time (March, 1963) that LHO created the fake ID for Alek J. Hidell.

However, after LHO tried to assassinate General Walker (April 10, 1963), at the urging of George DeMohrenschildt, Roscoe White abandoned LHO, and instead joined General Walker and Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street to ensure that LHO paid the ultimate price.

Roscoe White was one of the key people who transformed LHO into the JFK Patsy. Roscoe, like General Walker, IMHO will one day go down in US History like John Wilkes Booth.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Paul,

How do you know that's Roscoe White (with Oswald's face) in the back yard photographs?

Have you found any pictures of a verified Roscoe White with a bump on his wrist like that?

Other than this unverified one, of course, which shows a big-eared "Roscoe" dude in a snapshot developed and printed in May, 1959.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

My only evidence is the theory of Jack White, who posted this photograph and others, to show that the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the back-leaning stance, and the lumpy right wrist -- are consistent with Roscoe White's photographs, and inconsistent with LHO's photographs.

The question becomes -- what in the world links Roscoe White to LHO so that anybody would even think to examine Roscoe's photos in the first place? I find several points of connection -- some from Jack White, and some from other contributors:

(1) Roscoe White was at Atsugi at the same time that LHO was at Atsugi

(2) Roscoe White's picture appears in some of LHO's Marine photographs

(3) Roscoe White's wife, Geneva, worked for Jack Ruby at one time.

(4) Ron Lewis (1993) says that he saw Roscoe White in New Orleans in the context of 544 Camp Street.

(5) Ron Lewis also says that LHO told him, personally, that Roscoe White was going to be the JFK shooter.

(6) Roscoe White joined the Dallas Police Force on October 7, 1963 -- the same day that LHO returned from Mexico City.

(7) Roscoe White, according to his son, Ricky White, confessed to being part of the JFK assassination plot.

Adding all these up, it makes sense to me that Roscoe White had interaction with LHO in 1963, although the details are still unclear. Roscoe White also confessed (to his son and wife) that he was also present at the shooting of J.D. Tippit.

It seems to me that Roscoe White was an Anticommunist and a follower of LHO in April 1963, when he believed that LHO was capable of infiltrating the Communists. That was why Roscoe participated in creating the BYP at LHO's request.

LHO created the BYP's at his employer's, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which had superior camera equipment, at the same time he created the Alek J. Hidell fake ID.

However, when LHO tried to assassinate General Walker, at the urging of George DeMohrenschildt, Roscoe White abandoned LHO, and instead joined General Walker and Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street to ensure that LHO paid the ultimate price.

Roscoe White was one of the key people who transformed LHO into the JFK Patsy. Roscoe, like General Walker, will one day go down in US History like John Wilkes Booth.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

Circular reasoning.

You need to get back to the good old Dialectical Method.

-- Tommy

BTW, Can you prove that Roscoe White was at Atsugi at the same time LHO was at Atsugi?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thomas Graves