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

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Let's see if perspectives in the original photo meets these rules.

First, let's assume that the photo does indeed follow the rules of perspective. And that nothing sneaky has been done in making the photo. We need to do this in order to to detect if the photo has been rotated or not. Any rotation needs to be corrected first. (Even if the rotation is due to the camera being tilted during exposure.)

Rule #3 tells us that the object with the greatest slope will be one nearest the camera. Therefore the stairway post next to the man should exhibit more slope from vertical than any other object. My protractor tells me that, in fact, the stairway post is the straightest vertical line of them all! So the photo needs to be rotated.

According to Rule #1, the post should have a clockwise angle. So we need to rotate the photo clockwise.

Problem is, if we rotate the photo clockwise then the left edge of the tall fence on the right will become even more clockwise rotated than it already is. The angle of that edge, above the camera's line of sight, is already violating Rule #1. It should be angled counterclockwise. And rotating the photo clockwise will only make it a worse violator.

Already we have impossible perspective problems. Let's ignore the stairway post and try again.

According to Rule #1, the vertical lines above the camera should be rotated clockwise on the left and counterclockwise on the right. (Rule #3 tells us it doesn't matter how far the vertical line is away from the camera for this to be the case.) The edge of the window on the left is sloping the wrong way. And the edge of the tall fence on the right is also sloping the wrong way. There is no way of rotating the photo to fix this.

We have yet more impossible perspective problems.

This photo is full of perspective problems... if we a assume that the photo was taken the normal way.

As I've said earlier, taking the picture from atop a tall ladder, and then cropping out the trees and sky could explain what we see. Perhaps taking the shot with the camera tilted high up, and then cropping the sky out could explain it. But my guess is that this was done in a photo lab by taking a picture of a tilted picture.

[Sandy Larsen]

This doesn't really matter, but just for the record:

Regarding the 5 degree angle my protractor measured, and the 1.9 degree angle my computer program measured (which only coincidentally matched the 1.9 degrees Andrej measured), I just accidentally discovered the cause of the discrepancy. It turns out that I used a different photo with my computer program than I did with the protractor.

Apparently people have been rotating these photos. No big surprise.

[Paul Trejo]

...Problem is, if we rotate the photo clockwise then the left edge of the tall fence on the right will become even more clockwise rotated than it already is. The angle of that edge, above the camera's line of sight, is already violating Rule #1. It should be angled counterclockwise. And rotating the photo clockwise will only make it a worse violator.

Already we have impossible perspective problems. Let's ignore the stairway post and try again.

According to Rule #1, the vertical lines above the camera should be rotated clockwise on the left and counterclockwise on the right. (Rule #3 tells us it doesn't matter how far the vertical line is away from the camera for this to be the case.) The edge of the window on the left is sloping the wrong way. And the edge of the tall fence on the right is also sloping the wrong way. There is no way of rotating the photo to fix this.

We have yet more impossible perspective problems.

This photo is full of perspective problems... if we a assume that the photo was taken the normal way.

As I've said earlier, taking the picture from atop a tall ladder, and then cropping out the trees and sky could explain what we see. Perhaps taking the shot with the camera tilted high up, and then cropping the sky out could explain it. But my guess is that this was done in a photo lab by taking a picture of a tilted picture.

Sandy, I agree with your evaluation -- this photo is full of perspective problems.

My opinion is that Oswald himself DELIBERATELY created these perspective problems, in order to later "prove" that the photos were Fakes, and therefore they could never be used against him in a court of law.

Jack White once explained how the perspective changes were created -- simply by lifting one end of the photo one inch before re-photographing it.

Why would anybody do that? My opinion is: DELIBERATELY -- Oswald had a very specific reason in mind.

That is why I compare the BYP to Oswald's Fake ID for Alek J. Hidell. Both were created DELIBERATELY, and both were almost certainly created on the sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in the month of March 1963, when Oswald still worked there.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

...Problem is, if we rotate the photo clockwise then the left edge of the tall fence on the right will become even more clockwise rotated than it already is. The angle of that edge, above the camera's line of sight, is already violating Rule #1. It should be angled counterclockwise. And rotating the photo clockwise will only make it a worse violator.

Already we have impossible perspective problems. Let's ignore the stairway post and try again.

According to Rule #1, the vertical lines above the camera should be rotated clockwise on the left and counterclockwise on the right. (Rule #3 tells us it doesn't matter how far the vertical line is away from the camera for this to be the case.) The edge of the window on the left is sloping the wrong way. And the edge of the tall fence on the right is also sloping the wrong way. There is no way of rotating the photo to fix this.

We have yet more impossible perspective problems.

This photo is full of perspective problems... if we a assume that the photo was taken the normal way.

As I've said earlier, taking the picture from atop a tall ladder, and then cropping out the trees and sky could explain what we see. Perhaps taking the shot with the camera tilted high up, and then cropping the sky out could explain it. But my guess is that this was done in a photo lab by taking a picture of a tilted picture.

Sandy, I agree with your evaluation -- this photo is full of perspective problems.

My opinion is that Oswald himself DELIBERATELY created these perspective problems, in order to later "prove" that the photos were Fakes, and therefore they could never be used against him in a court of law.

Jack White once explained how the perspective changes were created -- simply by lifting one end of the photo one inch before re-photographing it.

Why would anybody do that? My opinion is: DELIBERATELY -- Oswald had a very specific reason in mind.

That is why I compare the BYP to Oswald's Fake ID for Alek J. Hidell. Both were created DELIBERATELY, and both were almost certainly created on the sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in the month of March 1963, when Oswald still worked there.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Yours is an interesting theory that I'll have to consider.

I didn't know that Jack White pointed out this perspective problem. I did watch his video, a long long time ago. I remember there were things he said that I didn't accept as proof, but only because I didn't understand them. I'll bet that this perspective problem is one of those things, and that that is why I don't remember it. (Had it rung true, I would have remembered it.)

I have now studied perspective and I understand it much better. I'll have to watch the video again and see what exactly he says about perspective and the lifting the end of the photo. I'm sure I'll have a much greater appreciation for it this time. I hope he gives some reasons why this might be done. I mean, in addition to your theory.

[Paul Trejo]

...How was the backyard photo made?

First a picture of the backyard was taken and a print made. Then a picture of the print was made, but the print was tilted, with the top of the print closer to the camera than the bottom. Since the bottom of the print was further away from the lens, perspective caused the bottom of the vertical lines to appear closer together. And therefore the tops of the vertical lines to appear further apart. In other words, they diverge at the top. Just like what we see in the photo.

In short, the vertical lines in the backyard photo diverge at the top due to the perspective introduced when taking a picture of the original print.

But why would anybody take a picture of the picture?

...Because taking a picture of a picture is part of the process used in altering pictures! As Oswald said, somebody pasted his face onto somebody else's body. His next sentence would have been, "and then they took a picture of that."

...And change the angle of the original print when doing so?

...I don't know why anybody would want to do it that way. Not only would they have to paste the person's body on the photo, but also his shadow. What a hassle. Much easier just to take different shots with the Oswald impersonator changing his pose.

Sandy, I want to return to your first post on Perspective from four days ago.

Your analysis was aiming at the correct solution -- it's evident there. You even answered the question, WHY, with a logical answer: "Because taking a picture of a picture is a part of the process used in altering pictures!"

Your question about the change of angle also guessed at the possibility of a body-double (whom Jack White in 1995 identified as Roscoe White). Then the question arises -- why would anybody go to all the trouble to use a body-double, paste on a different face, and also change the angle of the result before taking a final picture of it?

The simplest answer would be somebody who wanted to later claim that the photo was a Fake -- and to be able to prove it was a Fake!

More specifically -- somebody who was planning to commit a crime in a few days -- perhaps the assassination of General Walker, in order to impress George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and their young engineer pals in Dallas.

Just my opinion.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul wrote: “The simplest answer would be somebody who wanted to later claim that the photo was a Fake -- and be able to prove it was a Fake!”

Paul, without necessarily agreeing with some of the other facets of your hypothesis, I totally agree with your statement above. And without repeating my hypothesis, my view is that your statement applies to not just this set of puzzling enigmas, but to many, if not most, of the other puzzling enigmas associated with Oswald. They were, I think, conscious creations, and they were created for us to solve and learn from. And it’s entirely possible that properly solving these often absurd enigmas will turn out to be objectively verifiable.

Tom

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Let's see if perspectives in the original photo meets these rules.

First, let's assume that the photo does indeed follow the rules of perspective. And that nothing sneaky has been done in making the photo. We need to do this in order to to detect if the photo has been rotated or not. Any rotation needs to be corrected first. (Even if the rotation is due to the camera being tilted during exposure.)

Rule #3 tells us that the object with the greatest slope will be one nearest the camera. Therefore the stairway post next to the man should exhibit more slope from vertical than any other object. My protractor tells me that, in fact, the stairway post is the straightest vertical line of them all! So the photo needs to be rotated.

According to Rule #1, the post should have a clockwise angle. So we need to rotate the photo clockwise.

Problem is, if we rotate the photo clockwise then the left edge of the tall fence on the right will become even more clockwise rotated than it already is. The angle of that edge, above the camera's line of sight, is already violating Rule #1. It should be angled counterclockwise. And rotating the photo clockwise will only make it a worse violator.

Already we have impossible perspective problems. Let's ignore the stairway post and try again.

According to Rule #1, the vertical lines above the camera should be rotated clockwise on the left and counterclockwise on the right. (Rule #3 tells us it doesn't matter how far the vertical line is away from the camera for this to be the case.) The edge of the window on the left is sloping the wrong way. And the edge of the tall fence on the right is also sloping the wrong way. There is no way of rotating the photo to fix this.

We have yet more impossible perspective problems.

This photo is full of perspective problems... if we a assume that the photo was taken the normal way.

As I've said earlier, taking the picture from atop a tall ladder, and then cropping out the trees and sky could explain what we see. Perhaps taking the shot with the camera tilted high up, and then cropping the sky out could explain it. But my guess is that this was done in a photo lab by taking a picture of a tilted picture.

Hi Sandy

Wow, you have certainly done your homework here. This is the kind of intense scientific research I like to see.

I looked at the BYP again and I see you are quite correct about something I overlooked. I was simply looking at the posts on the right, and assuming the photo was merely rotated to the right. However, as you pointed out, the main stairway post is almost plumb, and the window and window casing on the house lean to the left; the opposite direction from the posts I was studying.

Your explanation of perspective rules is quite understandable, and this photo certainly seems to be breaking the rules. As you say, just HOW they broke the rules (and why) is another question.

One thing bothers me. I keep a small herd of horses, and pride myself on my homemade wooden gates, and the methods I use to keep them hanging straight and level. The gate in this photo appears to be hanging down quite badly on the latch end, and I refuse to believe any self respecting Texan would allow that. Is it an optical illusion or is the gate crooked?

Edit: I may have made a mistake about which is the latch end of the gate, and which is the hinge end. It is difficult to tell from this photo.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

[Sandy Larsen]

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

I wonder if it's a case of making due with what you have.

Since they didn't simply take a guy there, have him pose in different ways, and take the shots, my guess is that they couldn't. Maybe because Marina was always home. Or maybe the neighbors might see them and report the suspicious activity to the Oswalds.

It would have certainly seemed a lot less suspicious had someone walked back there, took a few shots, and left. Without any posing. If word of this got back to the Oswald's, they'd just wonder what was going on. We rent a house and I've seen people come over and take pictures and measurements. I thought the landlord was selling his house, but it turns out he was getting quotes from painters.

[Thomas Graves]

IMHO, the big difference between these two photos is that Oswald (left) has his entire body turned to his right, whereas Roscoe White (right) has his upper body "squared" to the camera. Therefore it's not fair to say that the overall "lean" of their bodies is the same.

Did the person (Oswald?) who faked the photo on the right intentionally do so in a way that screamed "fake"? (Along the lines of having Oswald hold two ideologically incompatible "Communist" newspapers?) Or was he / she just grossly incompetent?

[credit: DVP]

-- Tommy

I don't suppose Oswald himself could have intentionally made the photo like this so he could point to it later, if necessary, and say "It's fake."

-- Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

I don't suppose Oswald himself could have intentionally made the photo like this so he could point to it later, if necessary, and say "It's fake."

-- Tommy

My point exactly.

And let me add that I'm not a Lone-Nutter. IMHO Oswald was always involved in some group or other; whether in Dallas or in New Orleans. Oswald was never alone.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

Is the photo on the right the original? It has the crazy gate lean. If the gate was the centre of the photo, should it not be plumb? Or was the stair post the centre of the original photo, before the photo was trimmed?

[Robert Prudhomme]

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

I wonder if it's a case of making due with what you have.

Since they didn't simply take a guy there, have him pose in different ways, and take the shots, my guess is that they couldn't. Maybe because Marina was always home. Or maybe the neighbors might see them and report the suspicious activity to the Oswalds.

It would have certainly seemed a lot less suspicious had someone walked back there, took a few shots, and left. Without any posing. If word of this got back to the Oswald's, they'd just wonder what was going on. We rent a house and I've seen people come over and take pictures and measurements. I thought the landlord was selling his house, but it turns out he was getting quotes from painters.

Or was Oswald being monitored from a house nearby, and those doing the monitoring took a photo of the back yard of Oswald's house from a second storey window?

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited September 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

I wonder if it's a case of making due with what you have.

Since they didn't simply take a guy there, have him pose in different ways, and take the shots, my guess is that they couldn't. Maybe because Marina was always home. Or maybe the neighbors might see them and report the suspicious activity to the Oswalds.

It would have certainly seemed a lot less suspicious had someone walked back there, took a few shots, and left. Without any posing. If word of this got back to the Oswald's, they'd just wonder what was going on. We rent a house and I've seen people come over and take pictures and measurements. I thought the landlord was selling his house, but it turns out he was getting quotes from painters.

Or was Oswald being monitored from a house nearby, and those doing the monitoring took a photo of the back yard of Oswald's house from a second storey window?

Interesting idea, Robert.

Had they taken the photo from a second story, then that would explain the need to take a picture of a tilted print.

To compensate for the tilted original, they could have tilted the original print at the opposite angle and taken a picture of that to make it look like the picture was taken from ground level (i.e. without the tilt).