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

[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?

Tommy,

I never claimed I had a proof -- but my dialectics remain rational. The evidence is there, and demands further research.

As for proofs about Atsugi -- again, I rely on Jack White, who was usually brilliant, ahead of his time (and only slipped up with his ridiculous "Harvey & Lee" theory).

My open question is whether Jack White was any relation to Roscoe White. Anybody know?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

The Backyard photos are in 3-D.

They are stunning!

The photos are oriented correctly: "Do not attempt to adjust the picture."

If you’re good at cross-eyed stereo, you can see the breathtaking 3-D right now (The top set is a little too small and the bottom set is a little big - if you're adept, you will see it, but I'm working on making a more comfortable sizing right now)

Andrej and Sandy, the slight perspective-mismatch we all noticed that prevented CE 133A and 133C from being a perfect perspective match, was because the photos were taken with a 3-D stereo camera - probably the Stereo Realist. But the perspective-mismatch one would expect from 3-D is not from left to right, but rather from up and down. The photo shoot would probably have gone something like this:

The stereo camera was mounted to a tripod but tilted at a 90 degree angle. The Oswald figure posed and the photographer snapped CE 133A. While the photographer was winding the film, the Oswald figure, while carefully maintaining position, raised his arms and the photographer snapped 133C. This yielded four negatives, but only two were used - the right image from the first shot, and the left image from the second shot (actually, up and down because of the 90 degree thing).

The next step is a guess, but my guess would be that at a separate photo shoot, Lee Oswald was photographed with the same camera, and the Oswald head taken from that pair of 3-D prints was affixed to the right and left (up and down) pairs taken of the Oswald stand-in. The enlarged masters were then re-photographed with the Imperial Reflex at different distances from the easel to further hide the photographer’s handy-work.

While the bulk of the photo pair above displays great 3-D, Oswald’s face is front-and-center in super 3-D. It appears to be a foot or two in front of his body. And you can almost smell the foliage in the foreground because it’s right in your face. There’s also a nice double exposure effect done with the pair of rifles and papers.

For those of you that are adept at cross-eyed stereo (not everybody is good at this), you can see this for yourselves right now. Below is just one of many sites dedicated to this interesting human capability.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stereo/3dgallery.htm

I’ve set up these sets of photos for cross-eyed stereo viewing, so they are reversed. If you happen to have an old Stereoscope, you’d want to print out a set of photos to the correct size, but then reverse them (see post #304 for “Stereoscope”)

I’m lousy with graphics of any kind, so I’m going to ask Andrej if he'd give me a hand in fine-tuning the two images, but I know he’s a busy guy and has several other irons in the fire on this forum (I can hardly wait to see some of the stuff he’s been working on).

I’m going to wait and see if this all passes peer review before I go shooting off my mouth about who led me here, but without mentioning any names, the initials are “ICO”.

Tom

PS: CE 133B is most likely a 3-D match with the fourth photo that Marina and Marguerite destroyed (and my guess is that Marina had nothing to do with these pictures - her one snapshot was just for show).

PPS: "There is nothing wrong with your [monitor]. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your [monitor]. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – The Outer Limits."

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Thomas Graves]

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?

Tommy,

I never claimed I had a proof -- but my dialectics remain rational. The evidence is there, and demands further research.

As for proofs about Atsugi -- again, I rely on Jack White, who was usually brilliant, ahead of his time (and only slipped up with his ridiculous "Harvey & Lee" theory).

My open question is whether Jack White was any relation to Roscoe White. Anybody know?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

I see. So you have no actual proof that Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald were at Atsugi at the same time. Except for Jack White's belief that they were, which in turn was based on a photograph of a Marine with a chin wider than Roscoe's, and bigger ears, too.

Carry on.

-- Tommy

Edited October 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom,

I take great pride in being the first member here to commend you for your absolute brilliance!

I'm really excited about your discovery. The fact that Oswald's face is on a different plane of stereoscopic vision is proof that the face was pasted on. Is it not?

This is a freakin' breakthrough!

If I buy a stereoscopic viewer, print the two photos, insert and view them, will that work? Or do I need to do or know anything else?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Hume]

Hi Sandy,

My first answer is, I haven't spent a lot of time doing cross-eyed stereo, but I know that I'm good at it, and I know that a lot of my friends struggle or fail. Cross-eyed stereo can convince and amaze you if your head works that way.

Failing that, Stereoscopes are very old-tech and very cool. I don't hang out in antique stores much anymore, but they used to be ubiquitous for around 20 bucks - maybe times have changed. Oliver Wendell Holmes created (and deliberately did not patent) the Holmes Stereoscope, and I'll bet if you ask your relatives and neighbors, you'll come up with three of them. I think there are companies still making Stereoscopes.

You'd need to print out the 3-D pair (reversed right and left from my display) and slip it into the viewer. I'm not sure what the exact size should be (I used 3" by 5", and that worked), but it seems likely that one of the forum members has a collection of these old slides and will measure one for us.

The photos at the top are a product of an old man that still lives in the Stone Age. This is why I will be asking somebody like Andrej for help. It would be nice to have a well-matched pair of photos to view.

I have not researched this, but I think there is a cell phone app for this too.

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Craig Lamson sent me a PM regarding his animated GIF. He said that the camera was moved closer to the subject in one photo compared to the other. Since we know that one pair of photos was taken simultaneously (the stereoscopic ones), he must be referring to one of those photos and the third one, CE 133B.

He also said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." But that's just Craig being Craig.

I'm surprised by this because of the precision required in moving the camera while keeping the foreground/background objects in seemingly the same alignment. (Yes, I know Craig... not perfect alignment.) Also, isn't it true that the camera could not have been placed much closer for the other shot? Because if it were, then the perspective would have changed much more noticeably. The near/far object size differences would be much more pronounced than what we see, I would imagine. I need to go back and compare CE 133B with one of the others to see how different they are.

[Tom Hume]

Sandy, Craig Lamson said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." Was he talking about me, do you think?

If he was, it would behoove him to look at the damn 3-D picture.

Added on edit: I might have misunderstood. First, CE 133A and 133C were not taken simultaneously. A stereo photo was taken, the Oswald figure raised the papers and guns, and a second set was taken - probably seconds apart. Of the four resultant negatives, only two were used: One negative from the first pair, and the corresponding 3-D negative from the second pair.

Now, it's certainly possible that if Oswald was both the body and the head, that he had stepped forward a foot and a third photo was taken, and only the head portion of that stereo pair was used for a paste-up job. I personally think it is not Oswald's body, but maybe we'll get to find out.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, Craig Lamson said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." Was he talking about me, do you think?

If he was, it would behoove him to look at the damn 3-D picture.

Ha! No, he was definitely talking about me. But I did consider coming back with, "Well if you're so damn smart, why haven't you figured out that two of the photos were a stereoscopic pair!" LOL, what a wiseguy. (Not to be confused with "wise guy.")

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Andrej,

I posted my proof in Post 281 on page 19. It's not a rigorous proof, but a simple one. I'm satisfied with it.

You can see shadows of the stairway on the exterior wall of the house. By comparing the location of features relative to things on the exterior wall (like a window corner, for example) you can see that the shadow didn't move much between shots. That was the first part of the proof and is vital to the validity of the proof. In the second part of the proof I found an object in each photo held at close to the same angle. The shadows of the two objects should therefore be close as well, but they aren't.

A more rigorous proof may be required by some people. On the other hand, some people might not follow a rigorous proof.

Visual proofs are easy to comprehend, so if you do a vigorous one using your 3D modeling, that would certainly be a nice addition.

(Another problem with vigorous proofs is that opponents can cry "garbage in, garbage out" without any justification and no one will be the wiser.)

[Sandy Larsen]

 

On 10/11/2016 at 12:02 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Craig Lamson sent me a PM regarding his animated GIF. He said that the camera was moved closer to the subject in one photo compared to the other. Since we know that one pair of photos was taken simultaneously (the stereoscopic ones), he must be referring to one of those photos and the third one, CE 133B.

He also said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." But that's just Craig being Craig.

I'm surprised by this because of the precision required in moving the camera while keeping the foreground/background objects in seemingly the same alignment. (Yes, I know Craig... not perfect alignment.) Also, isn't it true that the camera could not have been placed much closer for the other shot? Because if it were, then the perspective would have changed much more noticeably. The near/far object size differences would be much more pronounced than what we see, I would imagine. I need to go back and compare CE 133B with one of the others to see how different they are.

I'm declaring Craig Lamson wrong on this point. He is wrong when he says the camera was moved closer for one of the shots, which we know due to Tom Hume's work must be CE 133B. (Because Tom showed us that CE 133A and CE 133C form a stereoscopic pair, which means they were shot simultaneously, and thus at the same location.)

The proof of this is simple. First, look at Craig's animated GIF. Look specifically at where the roof-line of the neighbor's house intersects the right side of the nearest post. Craig has it circled... or rather, squared. The TOP square.

http://s220.photobuc...a/move.gif.html

See how the roof-line jumps up and down a few inches relative to the corner formed by the nearest post and the 2" x 16" lumber that supports the steps?

 

Well, that's about how much it moves in the stereoscopic photo pair, CE 133A and CE 133C. Which mean CE 133B, which Craig says required the camera being moved closer, didn't need to be after all. It just needed to be one of a second set of stereoscopic photos.

 

Here are CE 133A, CE 133B, and CE 133C in that order. CE133B is the one in question. Note that the neighbor's roof-line in CE 133B is pretty close to the same location as it is in stereoscopic photo CE 133C.

 

 

 

 

BTW, note that most the movement in Craig's animated GIF is vertical. This is consistent with the stroboscopic camera being oriented sideways (rotated 90 degrees) on the tripod.

 

QUESTION: Why is the white roof-line fascia much wider in one of the animated GIF frames than in the other? I'm stumped.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, Craig Lamson said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." Was he talking about me, do you think?

If he was, it would behoove him to look at the damn 3-D picture.

Added on edit: I might have misunderstood. First, CE 133A and 133C were not taken simultaneously. A stereo photo was taken, the Oswald figure raised the papers and guns, and a second set was taken - probably seconds apart. Of the four resultant negatives, only two were used: One negative from the first pair, and the corresponding 3-D negative from the second pair.

Now, it's certainly possible that if Oswald was both the body and the head, that he had stepped forward a foot and a third photo was taken, and only the head portion of that stereo pair was used for a paste-up job. I personally think it is not Oswald's body, but maybe we'll get to find out.

Tom,

What makes you think that the left and right shots were taken at separate times and not simultaneously? Can that even be done with a stereoscopic camera?

Also, aren't we to conclude that the Imperial Reflex did not take these photos?

[Sandy Larsen]

Current Conclusions

(Note that these conclusions reflect my conviction that the shadows prove that the background was stereoscopically photographed without "Oswald" present. And that the "Oswald's" and their shadows were pasted on afterward.)

• The "Oswald" figures and their shadows were pasted on. (Well, at least for the stereoscopic pair.)
  
  This is known due to the shadow analysis of Post 281 on page 19. (The stairway shadows on the house 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)
• A tripod was used and two stereoscopic photos of the background were taken. The camera was mounted sideways. This accounts for the slight vertical perspective differences between left and right photos.
  
  (See Post 364 on page 25 for means of confirming these stereoscopic claims.)
  
  (Perhaps Oswald's Stereo Realist Camera was used to take these photos.)
  
  (NOTE: COMPARE ROSCOE WHITE'S BYP TO SEE IF IT MIGHT BE THE MISSING HALF OF ONE OF THE STEREOSCOPIC PAIRS.)
• Oswald's head was pasted on separately. A stereoscopic photo of him was apparently taken.
  
  (We know this because the 3D plane of Oswald's face is nearer than the 3D plane of surrounding objects.)
• The Imperial Reflex camera was not used to take the original photos, but was likely used to take photos of the photos.
  
  (We know the former because the Imperial Reflex is not a stereoscopic camera. We know the latter because of 1) the plastic lens distortion, and 2) the markings on the BYPs that matched the Imperial Reflex, according to WC experts.)
• 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.)

Anybody, let me know if I've made a mistake here. Note again that these conclusions do reflect my conviction that the shadows prove that the Oswald's and their shadows were pasted on after the background was stereoscopically photographed.

Reference Material

Here are CE 133A, CE 133B, and CE 133C, in that order. CE 133A and CE 133C form a stereoscopic pair.

 

 

 

Craig Lamson's animated GIF:
 

http://s220.photobuc...a/move.gif.html

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Hume]

Hi Sandy,

I don’t want to uncork the Champagne just yet, but from what I’ve seen I think I’ve demonstrated that CE 133A and 133C are a stereo pair of photos with a stereo image of Lee Oswald’s head pasted on. He’s smiling.

I think that CE 133B is half of a second set of stereo images and what should have become known as CE 133D, or something, has gone missing. CE 133B is the oddball in my opinion, because even though it also was apparently taken from the same spot, the body and head are in a quite different yard position and there is no chance of the person depicted in CE 133B interacting three dimensionally with 133A or 133C. Also, the amount of keystoning in CE 133B is miles apart from the other two. So to keep it simple for now, I’m just going to talk about CE 133A and 133C.

I can think of two possible scenarios, and I favor the first:

(1) An Oswald body double was photographed in Oswald’s back yard with a tripod mounted stereo 3-D camera. The actor posed with the papers and guns, the photographer snapped one picture. Trying to move as little as possible, the actor raised the papers and guns, and the photographer snapped a second photo. The photographer now has two sets of negatives, a total of four.

The photographer processes the film and selects the right negative from one pair and the left negative from the second pair for his handy-work, and puts the other two camera-originals away for safe keeping (These stashed-away camera originals are not fakes, and they show the face of the actor).

The Stereo Realist is a high quality camera and the the photographer makes large prints of this new stereo pair for his next step. He takes a close-up of Lee Oswald’s face and processes that stereo image, sizing them to fit the body double, and carefully pastes them onto his work of art.

He now has two large masters of CE 133A and CE 133C which he puts on an easel and he photographs using a piece-of-crap Imperial Reflex. He takes the film to a commercial establishment and has prints made, two of which he gives to his associate, Lee Oswald, to stash with his stuff at the Paine’s house.

(Lee Oswald and the photographer were both low level CIA agents and they were “angels”. They were both trying to prevent the assassination, and leaving a huge trail of supporting evidence should they fail - but let’s not go there or we’ll get tangled up in my hypothesis).

The second possible scenario I can think of is that a single pair of stereo images were taken of the backyard, one image would become CE 133A, and the other 133C. This would require pasting on a body, and pasting on a stereo image of Oswald’s head. This would actually require more work and be a lot more obvious.

I think that if worse came to worse and patsy Oswald was arrested for the deed, that Oswald and company wanted him to go to trial. They not only had the evidence that would clear him, they had the evidence that would bring the house down.

So I think pasting an entire body and head would be too detectable, that is, Oswald and Company wanted the BYP to pass muster at least until he went to trial. And that is apparently why they made their stereo image only detectable when the photos were re-sized and tilted 90 degrees - who would ever think of trying that?

Were you able to do the cross-eyed stereo thing, Sandy?

Tom

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

Tom,

I take great pride in being the first member here to commend you for your absolute brilliance!

I'm really excited about your discovery. The fact that Oswald's face is on a different plane of stereoscopic vision is proof that the face was pasted on. Is it not?

This is a freakin' breakthrough!

If I buy a stereoscopic viewer, print the two photos, insert and view them, will that work? Or do I need to do or know anything else?

Sandy and Tom,

I agree that, if confirmed, this is a 21st century technical breakthrough, even beyond the reaches of the great Jack White.

One immediate historical confirmation is that Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed own a Stereo-Realist camera.

Why would Oswald create this elaborate, sphinx-like BYP? It was a deliberate puzzle -- it was an exercise in Intelligence Community training, because LHO wanted to be in the CIA so bad he could taste it. So it was an exercise in plausible deniability. Lyndal Shaneyfelt, FBI photographic expert, said this to the WC on September 1, 1964:

Mr. SHANEYFELT. ...In addition, in this instance regarding CE 133B which I have...identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is CE 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 CE 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is CE 133B.

So, this means that even if the Stereo Realist was used, the final photograph of the forgery had to be made with the Imperial Reflex camera (CE 750). We note that Lee Harvey Oswald possessed both a Stereo Realist and a Imperial Reflex.

I look forward to hear the experts discussion about this 3-D hypothesis by Tom Hume. Very exciting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

133C CE 133A

Note: The pair of 3-D images above are arranged for “cross-eyed” stereo viewing. If you want to use a mechanical 3-D devise, such as a Stereoscope, you will need to use the pair of images below.

CE 133A 133C

Tom

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Hume