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

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited October 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Keystoning removed by photographing 27 inch monitor tilted at 11 degrees.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

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.

Robert,

Marina's own memory is that she took one and only one photograph that day. She was browbeaten by the WC attorneys to say that she took two photographs, because they had two photographs, and they kept pushing them under her nose.

'No,' she said, 'I distinctly remember pushing the button only once.'

The WC attorneys would not back down. Finally she relented, and said she must have taken the other one 'by accident.'

The sworn testimony of Marina Oswald is that she herself took one and only one photograph. It was of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was dressed in all-black (and since LHO never owned an all-black ensemble, it must have belonged to somebody else, perhaps Roscoe White). LHO told Marina which button to press, and she did and quickly gave the camera back to LHO so she could finish hanging up laundry.

It seems to me that the photograph which Marina Oswald took was only similar to the BYP that we know -- but it was only the face of Oswald which we have from Marina's photograph. The body (and so the other photographs) were taken by Lee Harvey Oswald himself -- and the body double was Roscoe White.

I think the evidence shows that.

Here's more evidence: Notice how Oswald is standing a little bit farther from the camera in CE 133A than in CE 133B. Yet the heads of the two photographs are exactly the same size -- exactly. This is impossible unless a photo of a head from a third photograph was pasted onto these two photographs.

We get the same result with yet another pose of the BYP produced by Roscoe White's wife, Geneva White Dees. The head is exactly the same size, though the body is a slightly different distance from the camera. That is a photographic impossibility.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul wrote:

“It seems to me that the photograph that Marina Oswald took was only similar to the BYP we know -- but it was only the face of Oswald that we have from Marina's photograph. The body (and so the other photographs) were taken by Lee Harvey Oswald himself -- and the body double was Roscoe White.”

Paul, you addressed your post to Robert, so please excuse me for butting in. The Oswald head in CE 133A and 133C are a complimentary pair of stereo images and, in my opinion, almost certainly not the result of a single exposure from the Imperial Reflex. I don’t think we’ve ever seen Marina’s single photo.

I do share your opinion about Roscoe White, however, and I also suspect that there were two body doubles - one for CE 133A and 133C, and another guy for CE 133B and its missing stereo twin - the missing fourth BYP.

Tom

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

Paul wrote:

“It seems to me that the photograph that Marina Oswald took was only similar to the BYP we know -- but it was only the face of Oswald that we have from Marina's photograph. The body (and so the other photographs) were taken by Lee Harvey Oswald himself -- and the body double was Roscoe White.”

Paul, you addressed your post to Robert, so please excuse me for butting in. The Oswald head in CE 133A and 133C are a complimentary pair of stereo images and, in my opinion, almost certainly not the result of a single exposure from the Imperial Reflex. I don’t think we’ve ever seen Marina’s single photo.

I do share your opinion about Roscoe White, however, and I also suspect that there were two body doubles - one for CE 133A and 133C, and another guy for CE 133B and its missing stereo twin - the missing fourth BYP.

Tom

Tom, what you say is possible and plausible. I also doubt that we've ever seen Marina's BYP photo -- and yet the face of LHO which is pasted on the three BYP we possess had to come from somewhere. Why not from Marina's photo?

Assuming that Marina Oswald told the truth to the WC, then we must ask the question why LHO dressed himself in all-black when he asked Marina to take his photograph in the first BYP. He never showed that full photograph to anybody (as we agree). So, the best explanation would be to confuse Marina Oswald -- so that she would always believe that she was the one who took the BYP, and that there was only one.

Marina's confusion was valuable to LHO on many levels, and LHO lied to Marina often, and he tried to keep her as ignorant as possible.

I believe that Marina never met Roscoe White in her life -- nor even today has any clue about how Roscoe White's body became a part of LHO's BYP, which were made at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in March, 1963. Yet she did snap that Imperial Reflex camera one time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul wrote:

“Tom, what you say is possible and plausible. I also doubt that we've ever seen Marina's BYP photo -- and yet the face of LHO had to come from somewhere. Why not from Marina's photo?”

As I said above, Paul, Oswald’s head in CE 133A and 133C, by all appearances, is a stereo image and crafted in such a way that it protrudes forward from what might well be Oswald’s body double.

You and I get the bulk of our information from two entirely different places, and if I respond to the rest of your comments in your last post, I will be going off on an opinionated rant derived from my highly speculative ICO puzzle hypothesis. And then I really will be off topic, so I think I’ll pass.

Tom

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Robert Prudhomme]

I can hardly wait for the stereoscopic viewer I bought to arrive in the mail. Here is the rather economic unit I finally decided on. I hope it is adequate for the task.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/220518974083

This is great work you have done, Tom. Who would have thought the BYP's were stereoscopic photos?

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

I don't know for sure if there is a stereo pair. But much of the movement in this photo is no doubt due the corrections Craig made. So I wouldn't put much stock into what's is being reported here.

End Quote.

[Sandy Larsen]

What I learn from this animated GIF is that Oswald got a haircut and had a visit with a head shrinker between shots.

[Robert Prudhomme]

What I learn from this animated GIF is that Oswald got a haircut and had a visit with a head shrinker between shots.

Holy crap! I can see it plain as day now! In the photo with the gun in the lower position, his head is enormous!

I recall looking at the BYP of the two tourists standing with the cardboard cutout of LHO and thinking there was something odd. I see it now.

Good show, Sandy. As usual.

[Tom Hume]

Thank you everyone for including me in this discussion of the Backyard Photos, but I have reached my level of incompetence; with my meager scientific training and aptitude, I seem to have come up with a 3-D hypothesis that while a definite possibility in my mind, would be impossible for me to argue and defend.

This will be my last post, for a while at least, but I will be checking in from time to time to see how things are going. I want to get back to an historical novel I started several months ago, and yes, the ICO puzzles are a major subplot.

You people are great - so long for now,

Tom

Edited October 14, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

Thank you everyone for including me in this discussion of the Backyard Photos, but I have reached my level of incompetence; with my meager scientific training and aptitude, I seem to have come up with a 3-D hypothesis that while a definite possibility in my mind, would be impossible for me to argue and defend.

This will be my last post, for a while at least, but I will be checking in from time to time to see how things are going. I want to get back to an historical novel I started several months ago, and yes, the ICO puzzles are a major subplot.

You people are great - so long for now,

Tom

Thanks for your excellent contributions, Tom.

[Michael Walton]

I said way back on #71 or #72 of this thread that his head looks too large and made an animated GIF to show it, but I guess it took over 260 more posts for everyone else to catch up

Oh, well...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23028&page=5#entry333160

Edited October 15, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Sandy Larsen]

I said way back on #71 or #72 of this thread that his head looks too large and made an animated GIF to show it, but I guess it took over 260 more posts for everyone else to catch up

Oh, well...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23028&page=5#entry333160

There's a problem with your animated GIF, Michael.

It doesn't prove anything because it merely shows two different-sized heads on the same body. Yes, one head looks big and the other small. But we aren't told anything more. For example if one of the heads came from another photo.

The animated GIF I commented on above alternates between two of the BY photos. And so, first, we know exactly what exactly we're looking at. And second, we can easily observe the change in body/head proportion between the two photos.

It would have been even better had the sizes of the two bodies been made identical. But I suppose that would have been too much to ask, given that the GIF was made by LNer Craig Lamson in an attempt to discredit something we are discussing here. (I forget what.)

[Paul Trejo]

I said way back on #71 or #72 of this thread that his head looks too large and made an animated GIF to show it, but I guess it took over 260 more posts for everyone else to catch up

Oh, well...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23028&page=5#entry333160

There's a problem with your animated GIF, Michael.

It doesn't prove anything because it merely shows two different-sized heads on the same body. Yes, one head looks big and the other small. But we aren't told anything more. For example if one of the heads came from another photo.

The animated GIF I commented on above alternates between two of the BY photos. And so, first, we know exactly what exactly we're looking at. And second, we can easily observe the change in body/head proportion between the two photos.

It would have been even better had the sizes of the two bodies been made identical. But I suppose that would have been too much to ask, given that the GIF was made by LNer Craig Lamson in an attempt to discredit something we are discussing here. (I forget what.)

The ambiguous part of this thread is that there are two themes:

(1) that the body-double of the BYP was Roscoe White (with his back-leaning stance, exaggerated by photographic retouching)

(2) therefore the photo of the head of LHO was pasted onto the photo of the body of Roscoe White.

This interesting, double-theme has led this thread to consider the environment of the BYP, so that we can see significant differences in the dimensions of the background, the shadows, the stairs, and so on -- which clarify the photographic faking and retouching.

The proposal by Tom Hume that the BYP were made at some point by using LHO's "Stereo Realist" camera, is a breakthrough, and to the best of my knowledge, is a historical first. If Tom is correct, then he has made a giant step forward after a half-century of JFK CT writing.

Yet that still leaves open the question about the head of LHO in the BYP. The retouching of the shadows above and below the lips of the photographs -- plus the tilting of the head slightly to one side -- obscures the fact that the same face was used to paste onto two different photographs.

The tell-tale sign is that the bodies are in different distances to the camera, and so are different sizes in proportion to LHO's head.

We are still not done with the theme of this thread. Tommy's original question was ironic, and yet rich in meaning.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo