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

[Ray Mitcham]

"Oswald's" lean is even more pronounced when the perspective is corrected.

This is one of the few sensible posts in this entire thread. Good show, Ray! After all the scientific double talk, Ray simply rotates the photo to make everything plumb, and shows us why the photo has to be a fake. Oswald going down!

Well, if perspective correction straightened all the lines as shown here, then the divergence of the lines in the original picture was due to perspective effects. Ray would not be able to straighten the lines with the perspective tool if part of the lines would be artificially tilted.

I didn't rotate the photo. 'I adjusted it using the perspective tool in GIMP. And thanks, Bob.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Tom Hume]

Hi Ray,

Your version of this photo is one of the clearest I’ve seen but it’s been cropped - did you do that, or is this the way it came. I’d like to know if your source for this picture has the other three photos available.

Also, the other three backyard photos don’t seem to have the divergence of verticals that this one does. Why would that be?

Tom

[Andrej Stancak]

Ray:

the perspective-corrected picture appears to be "narrow", and the man unusually lean and tall. I guess one pays for the perspective correction by an altered ratio of vertical and horizontal proportions. I was satisfied by rotating the image to adjust to vertical axis the post closest to Mr. Oswald (sorry, I see Mr. Oswald in this particular backyard picture). The perspective effect is a natural part of any photograph, however, it is true that if things such as stance are discussed, the man should stand in the best vertical pose possible.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Rotated or perspective adjusted; who cares? Either way, once the posts and gate are lined up and plumb, Oswald is leaning so far to his right he could never stand like that.

[Tom Hume]

I’m going to try to stay out of everybody’s way with my anagrams by adding new material, as I find it, to post #76 on this thread. For example, I just added an anagram of “Richard Case Nagell”, “C RIG L LEAN CHARADE”. ("C", of course, would be "Case", and "L" would be "Lee")

Edited September 10, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Andrej Stancak]

I’m going to try to stay out of everybody’s way with my anagrams by adding new material, as I find it, to post #76 on this thread. For example, I just added an anagram of “Richard Case Nagell”, “C RIG L LEAN CHARADE”. ("C", of course, would be "Case", and "L" would be "Lee")

Tom:

I hope you stay around. Your work is understood by few because of the difficulty of the method, I read every message you publish. I am not sure which of the anagrams are really valid, however, the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald with other people planted surreptitious messages appears to be a modus oerandi which may apply not only to backyard pictures but to any Mr. Oswald's move which involved his self-incrimination (even to his presence in the doorway as Prayer Man). That idea of future exoneration using difficult to understand actions has been elaborated in your ICO solutions.

[Sandy Larsen]

The farthest post to our right is 8° off of vertical. Your computers are full of baloney.

Regardless if it is 1.9, 5 or 8 degrees, you straighten that picture out by any of these amounts and Mr. Oswald has too much weight out the right side of his body, and he will fall over.

Well that explains Roberts's 10/8 degrees versus my 5 degrees. I didn't measure the angle of the gate posts because I hadn't checked them carefully for plumbness on that one "honest" photo. Rather, I chose the left edge of the tall fence or privacy screent. (At the time I thought it might be the side of a shed.)

[Sandy Larsen]

The farthest post to our right is 8° off of vertical. Your computers are full of baloney.

Regardless if it is 1.9, 5 or 8 degrees, you straighten that picture out by any of these amounts and Mr. Oswald has too much weight out the right side of his body, and he will fall over.

Robert: 1.9 degrees equalises the vertical posts which is the closest to man's right arm.

Now I know that my computer program's 1.9 degrees is only coincidentally identical to Andrej's 1.9 degrees. Because I used the left edge of the tall fence to straighten the photo. And that is sloping the opposite direction of Andrej's post.

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited September 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

"Oswald's" lean is even more pronounced when the perspective is corrected.

This is one of the few sensible posts in this entire thread. Good show, Ray! After all the scientific double talk, Ray simply rotates the photo to make everything plumb, and shows us why the photo has to be a fake. Oswald going down!

Robert,

If you look closely, you can see that Oswald has his left foot lifted slightly off the ground. His reason for doing so is, by adjusting how far out he extends his left foot, he can balance himself and not fall down.

That funny guy Oswald.... always doing things the hard way!

[Paul Trejo]

Again, if we simply REVERSE this BYP, left-to-right, it is obvious to the casual observer that no human being can ever stand like this. The center of gravity is entirely lost. (Any other photo of anybody standing can be reversed, left-to-right, and the center of gravity will remain. That's the clue.) The photo is a Fake.

The question, IMHO, isn't whether the BYP is a Fake -- but about the relationship of the Fake ID of Alek J. Hidell to the Fake BYP.

Finally -- I also appreciate the anagram theory posed by Tom Hume; it's original and speaks to the CIA-wannabe aspect of Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...BTW, why do so many people believe the actor is Rosco White?

Sandy, this theory was first stated by photographer Jack White in his video series from 1995.

His theory is convincing to me. In fact, it's brilliant.

Not everything Jack White said was brilliant, but IMHO this was.

Jack White's brilliant discovery of Roscoe White in the BYP can be found on YouTube. Here's one example:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4]

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

His theory is convincing to me. In fact, it's brilliant.

For once, I agree with Paul Trejo.

I do miss Jack. I wonder what his take would have been with Prayerman?

[Andrej Stancak]

...BTW, why do so many people believe the actor is Rosco White?

Sandy, this theory was first stated by photographer Jack White in his video series from 1995.

His theory is convincing to me. In fact, it's brilliant.

Not everything Jack White said was brilliant, but IMHO this was.

Jack White's brilliant discovery of Roscoe White in the BYP can be found on YouTube. Here's one example:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4]

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

And what if there are mistakes in previous research which had been done with limited technical possibilities? Shall we repeat individual findings and calcify a potentially false conclusion? For instance, the divergence of vertical lines in the right part of the backyard image we discuss were deemed to be due to tilting the photographic plate during the positive process, however, we now see that the most likely explanation was that this was just an effect of perspective. It is a big difference to me to explain a feature of this picture as a natural phenomenon or an intentional manipulation, and a warning sign in the sense that the author might have errred. If he did, in what other aspects of his work could he also be in error?

[Sandy Larsen]

...BTW, why do so many people believe the actor is Rosco White?

Sandy, this theory was first stated by photographer Jack White in his video series from 1995.

His theory is convincing to me. In fact, it's brilliant.

Not everything Jack White said was brilliant, but IMHO this was.

Jack White's brilliant discovery of Roscoe White in the BYP can be found on YouTube. Here's one example:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4]

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

And what if there are mistakes in previous research which had been done with limited technical possibilities? Shall we repeat individual findings and calcify a potentially false conclusion? For instance, the divergence of vertical lines in the right part of the backyard image we discuss were deemed to be due to tilting the photographic plate during the positive process, however, we now see that the most likely explanation was that this was just an effect of perspective. It is a big difference to me to explain a feature of this picture as a natural phenomenon or an intentional manipulation, and a warning sign in the sense that the author might have errred. If he did, in what other aspects of his work could he also be in error?

Andrej,

You're assuming that everybody here agrees with you on the point I highlighted in red above. Not everybody does. And I think you're statements here are flat wrong. You haven't spent the time to study the effects of perspective or the cause of it.

You talk as though perspective is some mysterious thing that is hard to grasp. You see something that doesn't make sense in a BYP, even a modern one, and you chalk it up to the mysterious phenomenon of perspective.

But perspective isn't mysterious, and in simple cases such as parallel vertical lines it can be easily understood.

Perspective is 100% about things appearing smaller the further away they are. Not only do things look smaller, but distances between things look smaller. Case in point:

The further away the railroad is, the smaller the ties are. And the shorter the distance between the two tracks is.

Why do things appear smaller the further away they are? Its a simple trigonometry problem. It has to do with the angle any given object takes up in your eyes' field of view. (FOV)

Suppose a 1 ft tall object is locates one foot straight in front of your line of sight, with its base sitting ON your line of sight, so that the object's top is 1 ft above you line of sight. If you rotated your eye upward and looked at the top of the object, you will have rotated your eye 45 degrees. In other words, the object is occupying 45 degrees of your FOV.

Now move the object 10 ft away and do the same. This time the object occupies a much smaller angle withing your FOV. I calculated it to be 5.74 degrees. (DON'T LET THE TRIGONOMETRY FRIGHTEN YOU if you aren't a math whiz. It's not important in understanding this.) It is because of the smaller angle that the object looks smaller. In fact, with the the object now ten times further away, it will look the same height as a 1/10 ft tall object that is 1 ft away. Simply put, an object that is ten times further away will appear to be 1/10th its real height.

Now you know what causes perspective. It is the angle within your FOV that is the key.

Now, let's examine the very simple case of vertical lines in a photograph. If you want to know how perspective affects vertical lines, here is the proper way to think about them. First, imagine two parallel vertical lines, one to the left of the lens centerline, the other to the right. The camera is aimed at the center of the two lines. What will the photo look like?

Since the lines are furthest away from the lens at their tops and bottoms -- where they appear to be nearest each other due to perspective -- they will be angled towards each other. The widest point between the two line will be where the lines are nearest the lens. If the lines are very long and the photographic film is long enough, the two vertical lines will look like a diamond shape:

Of course, this is exaggerated. The vertical lines on the backyard photo are far too short to meet at the top and the bottom.

The same thought experiment can be used to determine what the effect would be to move the two vertical lines to the right, or to the left, of the camera's line of sight. Or the case where the vertical lines are closer or further away from the face of the camera. I've done this and will give a summary here:

1. Effect of Perspective on Vertical Line Slope

• Vertical Line at the Center: It will be straight.

• Vertical Line to the Left: It will slope clockwise above the lens centerline, and counterclockwise below.

• Vertical Line to the Right: It will slope counterclockwise above the lens centerline, and clockwise below.

In summary, for two parallel lines centered about the lens, the lines will appear diamond shape.

2. Effect of Moving a Line Further to the Left or Right

Vertical lines located further horizontally from the lens centerline will be progressively closer together.

3. Effect of Moving a Line Further Away from the Camera

The further the vertical line is back away from the camera, the less the slope will be. But it will never slope the opposite direction.

Now, take a look at an example that demonstrates most these points:

The photo on the left is the original photo that shows the perspective we're interested in, and on the right with that perspective corrected. Pay attention to the vertical lines in the left photo.

The camera's centerline is low relative to the tall buildings, so we will see only the convergence of vertical lines at the top, not the bottom. Vertical lines on the left of where the camera is pointed (down the center) are all sloped clockwise. Those on the right are sloped counterclockwise. This demonstrates Rule #1 from above.

The vertical lines on the buildings further away from the camera have less slope than those closer up. But none are sloped in the opposite direction of nomal. This demonstrates Rule #3 from above.

Rule #2 from above is not demonstrated in this photo. Unfortunately I couldn't find a photo that shows several vertical lines photographed straight on. So I am unable to demonstrate this rule. Fortunately this is not important for the BYP.

Andrej, you expressed in a prior post, in reference to the BYP, that you don't know how distance from the camera affects perspective. Read number 3 above for the answer.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen