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

[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

Bumped for Paul Trejo.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here we are, boys. Cheap as it gets from Ebay.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Stereoscope-Stereo-Viewer-Stereopticon-Parts-2-EYE-HOOD-MAROON-VELVET-STRIPS-/152264107245?hash=item2373a5e4ed:g:SxUAAOSwcwhVKFf-

Edit: Oops, I read the ad a little more closely. This ad is for a replacement velvet strip that goes on a stereoscopic viewer, not the viewer itself. My bad.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Glascope-Revolutionary-Stereoscope-3D-Stereo-Viewer-Egypt-Set-Stereoview-/222258124974?hash=item33bf9dd8ae:m:mHu975K29YrLGjunVDUJyHw

[Thomas Graves]

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Glascope-Revolutionary-Stereoscope-3D-Stereo-Viewer-Egypt-Set-Stereoview-/222258124974?hash=item33bf9dd8ae:m:mHu975K29YrLGjunVDUJyHw

Hey Bob.

I figure if we get one of those we'll be able to see two Marion Bakers running like madmen down the street to talk with four policemen on on the corner.

(Just trying to interject a little humor here, folks.)

-- Tommy

Edited October 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Tom,

I like your first theory a lot, and actually prefer it to mine because it is much simpler. It doesn't require pasting in of entire bodies and shadows.

Problem is, your theory requires "Oswald" of CE 133A and CE 133C (the apparent stereoscopic pair) to remain as still as possible between shots. But we can see that that is not the case because Oswald's shadow in CE 133C rises considerably up the gate. Either that shot came from later in the day, or Oswald was standing further back.

BTW I am unable to do the cross-eyed stereo thing. Will look for a cheap stereoscopic viewer.

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Folding-stereo-3d-stereoscopic-viewer-12-stereoviews-/220518974083?hash=item3357f48283:g:qhIAAOSw8w1X~L8c

[Tom Hume]

Sandy wrote:

"Problem is, your theory requires "Oswald" of CE 133A and CE 133C (the apparent stereoscopic pair) to remain as still as possible between shots. But we can see that that is not the case because Oswald's shadow in CE 133C rises considerably up the gate. Either that shot came from later in the day, or Oswald was standing further back."

That's an excellent point Sandy. But the body shadows have always been controversial, and it appears to me that a number of enigmas had been intentionally built into the BYP. I think it's fairly obvious that the photos were taken within seconds of each other, and if I'm not mistaken, Andrej is working a model of the backyard and the Oswald figure. We await his results, and the body shadow conundrum will end up either being perfectly explainable, or impossible, or...

The pair of 90 degree images that I provided, unfortunately, don't show the shadow area because I wanted to keep the photos as narrow as possible for cross-eyed stereo viewing. Also, much of the 3-D material is most dramatic in the upper (or left in this case) portions of the photos. I'll spend some time today pairing up images of the lower shadow area.

I sent the 3-D photos to four of my friends yesterday, and two of them got the impressive 3-D right away. For some reason, not everybody can do cross-eyed stereo.

​Thanks Robert for the information on the inexpensive 3-D viewers. The old-fashioned Holmes Stereoscopes are often high-quality and not the sort of thing people throw away, Like I said in an earlier post, ask your friends and neighbors - I'll bet you'll come up with three of them.

Tom

Edited October 12, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Glascope-Revolutionary-Stereoscope-3D-Stereo-Viewer-Egypt-Set-Stereoview-/222258124974?hash=item33bf9dd8ae:m:mHu975K29YrLGjunVDUJyHw

Hey Bob.

I figure if we get one of those we'll be able to see two Marion Bakers running like madmen down the street to talk with four policemen on on the corner.

(Just trying to interject a little humor here, folks.)

-- Tommy

The more the merrier!

Those were the cheapest alternatives I could find. There are lots of the antique stereoscopic viewers on Ebay but the prices tend to be a bit higher.

http://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R12.TR12.TRC2.A0.H1.Xstereoscopic.TRS0&_nkw=stereoscope+viewer&_sacat=0

[Tom Hume]

The stereo 3-D images above are for use in a Stereoscope device, not for cross-eyed stereo viewing.

Yesterday, Sandy wrote:

"Problem is, your theory requires "Oswald" of CE 133A and CE 133C (the apparent stereoscopic pair) to remain as still as possible between shots. But we can see that that is not the case because Oswald's shadow in CE 133C rises considerably up the gate. Either that shot came from later in the day, or Oswald was standing further back."

If it can be shown that the CE 133A and 133C are a matched pair of stereo images, it follows, I think, that the body shadows are a fake. The two figures are standing in exactly the same place, but as you said, 133C appears shorter, as if he were closer to the fence. The reason for this is the difference in perspective between what the right and left (up and down in this case) lenses of the camera saw.

When you do an overlay of the two images, which I’m sorry I can’t demonstrate, the width of the two bodies are exactly the same, but one is a little taller, and that’s to be expected. What shouldn’t change at all is how the two head shadows relate to the fence and the ground.

Today I made the new pair of stereo images above that show as much of the original photos as possible. One could print those out to a hight of about 3 inches and put it in ones Stereoscope.

Also today, I made two calls to two acquaintances and came up with two Stereoscopes - what are the odds? Without a pair of photos in the holder, I can put the devise up to my monitor and view the pictures I posted. It’s very clear, and there’s no eye fatigue from doing cross-eyed stereo. This might not be optimum on some Stereoscopes because the focus adjustment stick will be too long.

All of the images I've posted so far on this thread work just fine for stereo viewing, but I'm still tweaking, and will come up with a final set of images soon.

Tom

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

Craig Lamson reports:

Quote:

Just garden variety camera movement. Camera moved closer.

Images rotated so the post behind Oswald was plum. Then perspective was corrected to bring all vertical lines to agreement (both steps have the effect of leveling the camera.

Pincushion distortion was roughly removed ( this is rough since we don't have a full frame of C)

No stereo pair. Both vertical and horizontal movement as well as size increase caused by the camera moving closer.

End Quote.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

Well, looking at the vintage stereo photos that came with my new Stereoscope, if I plumbed up a random vertical line, and then corrected the perspective of the rest of the verticals lines to agree the first correction, I’m pretty sure that the photo pair wouldn't be square any more, and most, if not all, of the 3-D would be lost. Two different perspectives is what stereoscopic vision is all about.

The only change I made was in sizing, and the likely reason that was even necessary is because what should have been Lee Oswald’s original of CE 133C and the corresponding negative were never reported and are not extant - the Dallas Police apparently just started making copies as collectors items and the bootleg prints of 133C we see today were cropped. Chances are we could have just put the Oswald-original CE 133A and CE 133C into a Stereoscope with the left side down and witnessed Oswald and Company’s 3-D hand-work.

Also, since the Oswald figure did not change position on the ground, the obvious difference in his head shadow is an extremely interesting incongruity. Those of you that are old enough to remember the radio series "The Shadow" from the 1930s and into the 1950s might remember this opening line:

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"

Edited October 14, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Robert Prudhomme]

Craig Lamson reports:

Quote:

Just garden variety camera movement. Camera moved closer.

Images rotated so the post behind Oswald was plum. Then perspective was corrected to bring all vertical lines to agreement (both steps have the effect of leveling the camera.

Pincushion distortion was roughly removed ( this is rough since we don't have a full frame of C)

No stereo pair. Both vertical and horizontal movement as well as size increase caused by the camera moving closer.

End Quote.

Hi Tom

I'm not quite sure what Craig is saying here. Is he stating that he believes there was alteration of the BYP's? Also, why does he not post his own responses?

[Tom Hume]

Hi Robert,

I posted everything Craig sent, and I think he’s saying that the camera moved in closer between shots, but I can’t speak for him. I've already stated my opinion that the camera did not move closer, it was stationary, and the movement we are seeing is up and down. A stereo camera was mounted at 90 degrees and the two camera lenses are about 4 inches apart - one over the top of the other in this case. 3-D stereo would not work if one moved the camera closer, and if one looks at the images I posted, the 3-D works great. If Craig wants to continue giving me input privately, that’s fine with me, but I think I’ll let him post his own critiques from now on.

Tom

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Robert,

I posted everything Craig sent, and I think he’s saying that the camera moved in closer between shots, but I can’t speak for him. I've already stated my opinion that the camera did not move closer, it was stationary, and the movement we are seeing is up and down. A stereo camera was mounted at 90 degrees and the two camera lenses are about 4 inches apart - one over the top of the other in this case. 3-D stereo would not work if one moved the camera closer, and if one looks at the images I posted, the 3-D works great. If Craig wants to continue giving me input privately, that’s fine with me, but I think I’ll let him post his own critiques from now on.

Tom

Hi Tom

I see now. Craig is saying Marina merely stepped closer, and that somehow achieved the 3D effect. I agree with you. The 3D effect is achieved by taking a second photo from a different angle, not simply by moving closer. Besides, I thought it was determined long ago that Oswald's head is exactly the same size in all three photos, and moving closer should have made his head bigger.

[Tom Hume]

Robert wrote:

“I thought it was determined long ago that Oswald's head is exactly the same size in all three photos, and moving closer should have made his head bigger.”

I don’t think the heads on CE 133A and 133C are exactly the same size, Robert. I think that the Oswald heads are an entirely separate set of stereo images that were attached later. The noticeable difference in head size is because Oswald’s head was made a to be a sort-of super 3-D. When you look at the two BYPs in Stereo, Oswald’s head appears to really jump out at you, it appears to be about a foot in front of his body, and it’s reasonable to suspect that this piece of theatrics was very much intentional.

Tom

Edited October 14, 2016 by Tom Hume