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

[Thomas Graves]

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).

Too bad Google Earth doesn't go back to 1963.

-- Tommy

[Ray Mitcham]

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

[Paul Trejo]

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

Well, that's right.

All the more reason to consider Jack White's theory about DELIBERATELY lifting one end of the picture when taking a new picture of the picture.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ray Mitcham]

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

Well, that's right.

All the more reason to consider Jack White's theory about DELIBERATELY lifting one end of the picture when taking a new picture of the picture.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My thoughts, as well, Paul. Think it was done, after composing the photo, when they realised that "Oswald" was leaning at an impossible angle

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Roger DeLaria]

"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."

"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!"

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Interesting ideas on the photos, it provides some food for thought. I always wondered why Oswald said that his head was pasted on another's body, and he could prove it. Why would he say that unless he had some kind of involvement and/or direct knowledge about the alteration process?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Roger DeLaria

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Interesting ideas on the photos, it provides some food for thought. I always wondered why Oswald said that his head was pasted on another's body, and he could prove it. Why would he say that unless he had some kind of involvement and/or direct knowledge about the alteration process?

Yes, Roger, that's also my conclusion after a quarter-century of studying CT's.

The most common CT is that since Oswald didn't shoot at JFK, then he "couldn't" have shot at General Walker, and therefore, the BYP's were created by the JFK conspirators in order to frame Oswald -- starting way back in April, 1963.

That, IMHO, is a twisty detour.

The most direct, simplest explanation of the material evidence is that Oswald was not alone in the JFK shooting, and also not alone in the General Walker shooting -- in an actual attempt to kill General Walker. This is something rare in the history of JFK CT literature. It is absent, for example, in the interesting new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

It is a subtle twist. Usually it is the LNers who say that Oswald shot at General Walker. I am a CTer who says that Oswald shot at General Walker. My evidence includes all the WC witnesses to that effect, as well as Volkmar Schmidt on video, as well as George De Mohrenschildt's 1978 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! as well as the 1993 confession of Michael Paine to Dan Rather that Paine saw a BYP on April 2, 1963/

(These WC witnesses despised General Walker, and had no incentive to lie for Walker by falsely accusing Oswald of the Walker plot.)

Finally there was Jack White's1995 discovery of Roscoe White as the body-double of the BYP.

According to Marina Oswald, during this same period, the month of March 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was also maintaining a full photographic album of General Walker memorabilia, including maps surrounding his house on Turtle Creek Boulevard, photographs of his house, and so on.

At approximately the same time we have Oswald creating a series of Fake ID's for the fictional Alek J. Hidell, which required the use of sophisticated camera equipment (e.g. the kind at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald worked in early 1963).

It is strange to me that after 50 years of CT's, I don't remember anybody comparing the photographic skills needed for the Fake ID of Alek J. Hidell (which was considerable) with the photographic skills needed for the BYP.

We should also ask this question -- was Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall camera equipment adequate to create the BYP?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Walton]

Paul,

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you here. But couldn't your analysis and thoughts on this be biased because you're trying to sell a book that purports that LHO shot at Walker? For me, I've never made a dime from this case. I'm here simply because I want to learn the truth of what happened on 11/22. So my motives are pure.

Yes, that's what LHO said about the head pasting onto a body when shown the photos. Remember, he worked at JCS and in addition to making displays for the government, I wouldn't be surprised if he was involved and quite familiar with photography - like he claims.

He also said he was a patsy and he also said the only reason why they've picked him up was because he was over in Russia. Think about all of these statements. I mean - wow! Here's a guy whom the government has claimed was some surly, lone nut, left wing kook - and according to them - that's all he was supposed to be.

Yet, those three statements alone coming from his own lips hours after the shooting should reveal more than 100 mouthfuls to all researchers of the case. Does it mean he was a complete innocent babe in the woods? I do sometimes wonder about that. On the other hand he knew - KNEW - the jig was up the moment they surrounded him and roughed him up at the theater, as witnessed by his yelling and carrying on as they brought him out to send him down to the station.

There are just way too many coincindences in this case to write it off as, "Oh, he did it and the throw down wallet...and the working all day while the mail order was delivered...and..." on and on and on cannot be just shrugged off by those who think he did it.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you here. But couldn't your analysis and thoughts on this be biased because you're trying to sell a book that purports that LHO shot at Walker? For me, I've never made a dime from this case. I'm here simply because I want to learn the truth of what happened on 11/22. So my motives are pure.

Yes, that's what LHO said about the head pasting onto a body when shown the photos. Remember, he worked at JCS and in addition to making displays for the government, I wouldn't be surprised if he was involved and quite familiar with photography - like he claims.

He also said he was a patsy and he also said the only reason why they've picked him up was because he was over in Russia. Think about all of these statements. I mean - wow! Here's a guy whom the government has claimed was some surly, lone nut, left wing kook - and according to them - that's all he was supposed to be.

Yet, those three statements alone coming from his own lips hours after the shooting should reveal more than 100 mouthfuls to all researchers of the case. Does it mean he was a complete innocent babe in the woods? I do sometimes wonder about that. On the other hand he knew - KNEW - the jig was up the moment they surrounded him and roughed him up at the theater, as witnessed by his yelling and carrying on as they brought him out to send him down to the station.

There are just way too many coincidences in this case to write it off as, "Oh, he did it and the throw down wallet...and the working all day while the mail order was delivered...and..." on and on and on cannot be just shrugged off by those who think he did it.

Michael,

I find your remarks to be respectful and well considered. I see no fight here.

However -- I'm not trying to sell a book. I do keep touting Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), however, I myself never get any money at all for my efforts. Not one dime.

Or, if you're thinking of my 99 cent book on General Walker on Smashwords -- that has been on sale for nearly two years, and I've sold 20 copies, and I'm not really interested in the money -- although I would like to pay the Briscoe Center for the Study of American History so that I can show all the 1,200 photos that I took of General Walker's personal papers. (I still can't afford that).

So, no, Michael, I'm not in this for money. Like most people here, I'm interested in American History -- and also in the greatest murder mystery in US History. Like you, I'm here simply because I want to learn the truth about what happened on 11/22/1963 there in Dallas.

So -- we do agree that LHO was talented with photography, otherwise he never would have obtained that job at JCS in the first place. First point.

Next, Michael, you point out two key claims of LHO: (1) he was a Patsy; and (2) his only crime was that he had lived in the USSR for two years.

That's partly correct and partly incorrect, but it's what I would expect LHO to say. First, he was a Patsy, and he found this out too late. However, the main evidence against LHO was that the Dallas Police had LHO's rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, with three spent shells on the floor. Also, LHO had fled the TSBD after the JFK assassination, and evidently had a quick-draw shoot-out with Officer J.D. Tippit.

I mean -- one can argue that LHO was innocent -- but one cannot argue that the Dallas Police merely had the evidence that LHO had lived in the USSR for two years. Everybody knew that, of course, because it was in the local newspapers in 1962 when Oswald returned from the USSR. But nobody pursued that, because the State Department and the FBI gave LHO a clean bill, and set him loose. That was that.

So, yes, LHO was a patsy -- but whose patsy?? And further, the Dallas Police had a lot more on LHO than simply his USSR period, or even his New Orleans FPCC period, or his Mexico City period. The LHO rifle and the murder of Tippit were the big deals. I'm pretty sure everybody knows that.

As for the Lone Nut theory -- it was invented by 3PM on 11/22/1963 by J. Edgar Hoover himself. The news out of Dallas was that LHO was a Communist, and that the JFK murder was a Communist Conspiracy. But J. Edgar Hoover knew every single Communist in the USA by name -- and LHO was not on his list. Also, Hoover knew every single FPCC officer by name, and LHO was not on that list either.

By 3PM -- according to FBI records -- Hoover called RFK to report that LHO was not a Communist and not an FPCC officer. In my current opinion, Hoover realized at that point that the murder of JFK was a Radical Right plot to blame the Communists so that the USA would invade Cuba. Hoover knew this, and told LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren, and got their approval to spread the Lone Nut theory -- in order to cut off General Walker and the Radical Right.

Of course LHO was no innocent. We do agree, Michael, that LHO knew that something had gone wrong with the PLAN around the time that Officer J.D. Trippit tried to kill LHO dead in the street.

As for the wallet theory -- I agree with you that there are too many coincidences involving the Radical Right elements of the Dallas Police to allow us to ignore them. Yet I think we might agree, Michael, that some Radical Right rogues within the Dallas Police were far more central to the JFK assassination than even CIA rogues David Morales and Howard Hunt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Well, Paul T. - you may not be in this for the money, but you have a clear and omnipresent agenda.

[Paul Trejo]

My agenda, Paul B., is to convince readers that the CIA-did-it CT's are out-dated, and that the Walker-did-it CT is up and coming, simply because it is the TRUTH. When more people agree with this CT, I can finally get some rest.

I will add here that Roscoe White as the body-double of the BYP plays a major part in my theory (and every once in a while Tommy Graves comes up with some great threads).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

In order to involve LHO with his 6.5mm Carcano rifle in the Walker shooting, there is one small hurdle that must be overcome.

In the police report of the Walker shooting, investigating officers reported that the bullet recovered from the Walker residence was "steel jacketed". As you may, or may not, know, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano bullets allegedly used by LHO were lead bullets jacketed in a copper alloy that contained no steel, and did not even resemble steel.

To make matters worse, the bullet recovered from the Walker residence, CE 573, is most definitely jacketed in a copper alloy that bears no resemblance at all to a steel jacketed bullet.

Now, just to keep the conspiracy mill going, I will share some info about Carcano and other types of bullets that I am sure will spark your imaginations.

While WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo was only jacketed in copper alloy, Italian military issue ammo was jacketed in a wide variety of materials, including a copper alloy quite similar to the WCC bullets.

Including the copper alloy, referred to as "gilding metal", Italian military bullets were jacketed in copper-nickel alloy, copper-nickel plated steel and gilding metal plated steel.

WCC 6.5mm Carcano "gilding metal" jacketed round on extreme right; second from right is Italian military issue 6.5mm Carcano "cupro-nickel" jacketed

The issue is further confused by the fact the cupro-nickel jacket, with its silvery appearance, could be confused for a steel jacket.

There is no way of telling if a gilding metal or cupro-nickel plated steel jacketed bullet is steel jacketed without using a magnet, unless one scrapes off the plating material.

As the gilding metal or cupro-nickel plating on the steel jacketed bullets is very thin, the trauma CE 573 went through would have easily exposed the steel jacket; had CE 573 been a Carcano steel jacketed bullet.

However, let us not limit ourselves to Carcano bullets. The 30-06 calibre ammo manufactured for the American M1 Garand was jacketed in a triple layer of metal comprised of an inner and outer layer of gilding metal sandwiched onto a layer of steel; all bonded together in a rather bizarre process that defies an easy description.

As with the Carcano plated steel bullets, the mangling the Walker bullet received would have easily exposed this steel jacket material, and I strongly feel the detectives who examined the Walker bullet were either WW II or Korean veterans who were quite familiar with 30-06 military ammo, and who would have recognized the exposed steel jacket.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

If the back yard photos were taken from a second storey, then the under side of the steps to the left wouldn't be visible.

Excellent point Ray.

Earlier I postulated a way that would achieve the perspective angles that we see in the photo. Not that I ever believed it was actually done (I believe I called it "silly"). And that was with Marina (or whoever) standing on a ladder and taking a picture with the camera's line-of-sight level. Then afterward cropping the print to eliminate the sky and trees on the its upper part.

While it is true that that could be done to achieve the desired perspective (the vertical angles we see), as Ray points out it would also introduce undesirable elements to the photo. Such as showing the upper sides of the stairway steps rather than the undersides.

[Sandy Larsen]

I just finished watching Jack White's presentation on the photos. Jack said that by tilting the print of one of the backyard photos in his lab, he was able to precisely achieve the same perspective in another of the photos. (Unfortunately he didn't elaborate as to whether the third background also matched.)

Based upon this and what we've seen in this thread, I believe it can be concluded that -- with near certainty -- at least two of the photos were made from one photo. Which means that the person posing with the rifle, and his shadow, were added later. And since this was indeed done, it is reasonable to assume it was also done for the third photo.

I learned one other pertinent thing from Jack's presentation, and that is that experts hired by the HSCA concluded the photos came from Oswald's camera. They determined this by comparing markings (imperfections made by the camera) on the backyard photos with those on a picture known to have been taken by that camera. Jack noted that these marks could have been introduced by taking the final photo of a photo using Oswald's camera.

Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother Robert a couple weeks later.

Does anybody know:

1. When the existence of the backyard photos was first made public?
   
2. When copies of the backyard photos were first made public?

[Ray Mitcham]

Re the Walker shooting, two guys were seen leaving the scene of the crime after the shooting.

Kirk Coleman saw them leave.

Two Men Outside Walker’s House

There were no witnesses to the shooting itself, but one of Walker’s neighbours was alerted by the gunshot and saw two men leaving the scene. Each man got into a car and drove away. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, pp.437–441 [Commission Exhibit 2958]). After the JFK assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive.

Robert Surrey, an associate of General Walker, reported that he had seen two men acting suspiciously outside Walker’s house two days before the shooting. Neither man resembled Oswald (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.5, pp.446–9).

{My emphasis.]

Edited September 14, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

I just finished watching Jack White's presentation on the photos. Jack said that by tilting the print of one of the backyard photos in his lab, he was able to precisely achieve the same perspective in another of the photos. (Unfortunately he didn't elaborate as to whether the third background also matched.)

Based upon this and what we've seen in this thread, I believe it can be concluded that -- with near certainty -- at least two of the photos were made from one photo. Which means that the person posing with the rifle, and his shadow, were added later. And since this was indeed done, it is reasonable to assume it was also done for the third photo.

I learned one other pertinent thing from Jack's presentation, and that is that experts hired by the HSCA concluded the photos came from Oswald's camera. They determined this by comparing markings (imperfections made by the camera) on the backyard photos with those on a picture known to have been taken by that camera. Jack noted that these marks could have been introduced by taking the final photo of a photo using Oswald's camera.

Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother Robert a couple weeks later.

Does anybody know:

1. When the existence of the backyard photos was first made public?

2. When copies of the backyard photos were first made public?

The Imperial reflex camera was first shown by Robert Oswald on Feb 24th 1964, three months after the shooting. He said he found it several weeks after the assassination.

"Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother, Robert, a couple weeks later."

Neither did the DPD find it when they searched the Paine residence twice. So they were either the most inept policemen ever or the camera wasn't there when they searched.