Sandy Larsen Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Tom Hume said: David, you seem to be a pretty good hand with graphics and there’s something you might want to try sometime. I suspect that the photograph on the DD Form 1173 and the one that passes for its twin on Oswald’s phony Selective Service card are not identical. What I suspect is that they are a pair of 3-D images taken with a Stereo Realist camera tilted 88 degrees to the right (90 degrees is close enough), and when properly sized, rotated to the right, and properly aligned side by side, a 3-D image can be perceived with the aid of a Stereoscope. https://www.etsy.com/listing/508387211/antique-bent-wood-stereoscope-viewer?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_b-art_and_collectibles-collectibles-other&utm_custom1=4378eead-1330-4031-8102-87175185688f&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs8jnlYyA1gIVTZF-Ch2Bwwt0EAQYAyABEgI_bPD_BwE I can only do crude graphics and I can’t post photos right now, but it seems to me if one found the best examples of each photo, sized them properly, etc., and did a transparent overlay, one might be able to decide if they are slightly different in the up-down plane or not. I made some slightly crude image pairs and sent them to Sandy the other day but unfortunately he wasn’t able to perceive the 3-D that I thought I was seeing. The 3-D, if indeed it is present, is not breathtaking like some of the old commercially made Stereoscope image pairs, but I’m seeing enough to keep me interested. Sandy Larsen, would you be willing and able to post that group of four photos I sent you? If so, it would be nice if the image pairs ended up being 6 to 7 inches wide on a typical monitor. An experiment. If I’m wrong, please accept my apology in advance. Tom Here you go: Tom, There are a number of combinations of the above photos that seem to give a slight 3D effect. But there is only one that is significant (for me) and that is if I look at the two bottom photos in my stereoscope. However, the two photos 1) must be on their sides (not upright) as shown above, and 2) the two photos must be swapped (right eye sees left photo, left eye sees right photo.) The most noticeable thing about the 3D effect I see is that the face stands out away from the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Richard Price said: I have a question about the pictures of the ID card posted in David's post of a couple hours ago. If this is supposed to be the front and the back of the card, why is the print running backwards (mirror writing). This, to me appears to be almost like a view of the back of the card taken through the front. It's almost like it was translucent. A picture of the back of the card should be readable and not in mirror print. Also if the picture attached to the card is actually a photo attached to it, you should not be able to see through that area at all. The problem with the translucent properties is that if the card is that transparent, the front should also show (in see through fashion), info on the back in that image. Even Oswald's signature on the right edge can be vaguely seen on the back image. Richard, I think David Josephs has a tendency to assume we understand what is going on with his visuals. He has a lot of insight and great visual aids... I just wish he'd spend more time explaining his presentations. (My not-so-subtle hint, hint DJ.) When I saw the image of the ID card that you are questioning, I got the impression that what David did was take a copy of the back of the card, make a reverse image of it, make it transparent, and then paste it over the front of the card. All in photoshop, of course. So what we were looking at is what we'd see if the card was a little transparent so that we could see both the front and the back of the card simultaneously. Presumably he did that to see how things on the back of the card line up with things on the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Hey guys, I think I may have noticed something significant. Something that I think makes the makeshift fake stamp on the ID make more sense. We've already talked about the circular and various text stamps used in an apparent attempt to make the text appear to be printed in a circular fashion, as though the circles and text were actually all contained on a single, official stamp. Okay now, look in the yellow area of the image below. Focus on the "IUI" or "JUL" text. There is a semicircle running through that text. DJ didn't color it because he wasn't sure it was part of a circle. (I don't recall if Chris colored it in his version or not.) I believe that that actually IS a part of a circle. Pretend for now that it is, and that it is only on the photo. The blue line represents another circle. Pretend for now that it is also only on the photo. Now, look at those two semicircles on the B&W image below. Just the parts on the photo. For now, ignore the "IUI/JUL." What do we see between these two semicircles? It looks a like gibberish, right? But the important thing is that the gibberish has the same curvature as our two lines. Now, look at the passport below, and specifically where the stamp made contact with the photo. Isn't it interesting that the stamp there also consists of two semicircles with gibberish between them, following the curvature of the circles! What I'm getting at, and will now propose, is that the photo on Oswald's ID card came from an ID that he used while in the Soviet Union. He (or somebody else) removed the photo and pasted it to the military ID card. Upon doing so, the photo showed a remnant of the old Russian stamp, but of course the ID had no such stamp. So Oswald (or somebody else) decided he had to fake a stamp on the ID so that the stamp on the photo-only wasn't so obvious. He took a circular stamp and made a couple of impressions, with one lining up pretty well with the outer, Russian stamp. (The blue line, above.) Then he stamped it again with the circle, offsetting it from the first to give it some "depth" or complexity. And then he finished up his work with the date stamps. By making it complex, it provided some camouflage for the stamp on the photo. Without looking close, uninformed people would see something that looked about right, and that looked official. Assuming I have this fundamentally right, it would seem to me that whoever made the ID with Oswald's photo on it, was likely someone who had only one photo of Oswald. Because if he had other photos, surely he would have chosen one for the ID that didn't have a Russian stamp printed on it. And he would be spared the hassle of making the (embarrassingly silly) fake stamp. Well, I started off thinking that this find (which I believe is correct) would simplify matters. But really it just explains one mystery at the expense of introducing another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) Sandy, SUPER! I’m conducting a test to see if two ID photos of Lee Oswald are “exactly” the same, or are in fact a very similar pair of 3-D stereo images, possibly taken at the same instant with a 3-D camera like the Stereo Realist. I suspect that Lee Oswald was photographed with such a camera, and that this camera was intentionally tilted 90 degrees to make the pictures look the same to the casual observer. At the top of this page in a Sandy Larsen post (3 posts back), is a grouping of four ID photos of Lee Oswald, two rows of photos with two photos each. Both rows contain the same pair of images but they are reversed. The top row is there for comparison purposes only, so focus your attention on the bottom row. The left picture on the bottom row came from Oswald’s phony Selective Service card, and the right photo came from Oswald’s DD Form 1173 under discussion on this thread. The common tool available in 1963 for viewing 3-D photo cards was the Stereoscope. https://www.etsy.com/listing/508387211/antique-bent-wood-stereoscope-viewer?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_b-art_and_collectibles-collectibles-other&utm_custom1=4378eead-1330-4031-8102-87175185688f&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs8jnlYyA1gIVTZF-Ch2Bwwt0EAQYAyABEgI_bPD_BwE The Stereoscope's wire holder takes a 3 by 7 card bearing a pair of stereo images. To adjust the focus, the holder slides on a stick that brings the photos toward the viewer or away. With my rather poor vision, and without a card in the holder, I can touch the end of the holder stick to my monitor and the focus for the images that Sandy posted is about right . If your vision is perfect, I don’t know what to say - cut the holder stick off? Make some stereo cards from Sandy’s post? You need to point your device between the two images on the bottom row - don't try to look from side to side - you'll go mad. Assuming you can view these images with a device, here’s what I’d like to convince you that you will see: The bottom set of photos will show mild 3-D. You will see “Oswald’s” nose protruding, depth in his eye sockets, his chin protruding from his chest, etc. The top row of two photos are there for comparison and should not display 3-D. This allows you to look back and forth between the top row and bottom row and more easily perceive the differences between them. Go back and forth several times. Do it 50 times. 3-D on the bottom set, no 3-D on the top set. There is no background in these pix, and it’s background and foreground differences that take your breath away in commercial 3-D. Oswald's 3-D face is not all that breathtaking. That would require big differences in perspective, and a close-up facial shot, and I might assume that this mild photographic treatment was intentional so as to not make the stunt too obvious. See what you think. I bet if you start asking around, you’ll find three people that have a Stereoscope in their closet. Edited August 31, 2017 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Sandy, Great catch! You make a terrific argument that there are remnants of Russian-style Cyrillic lettering near the outer edge of the white quarter circle at lower right of the photo. Or at least remnants of something that was partially erased. A couple of other points…. Whoever made this hoax may have had photos of Russian-speaking Oswald, but not the right kind. Think of all the requirements for U.S. passport photos: the entire face has to be in the image, covering a specific percentage of the image area; the subject has to be directly facing the camera; subjects are usually told not to smile, and so on. The vast majority of common snapshots simply will not meet those criteria. But if the Russian-speaking Oswald made this composite himself, why wouldn’t he get a suitable picture of himself so he could simply paste it over the ID card of the taller American-born Oswald? It was work to attempt to obscure the quarter circle of white from the image. I think this suggests, though hardly proves, that the ID was faked by someone other than Harvey Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 8/30/2017 at 5:44 PM, Richard Price said: I have a question about the pictures of the ID card posted in David's post of a couple hours ago. If this is supposed to be the front and the back of the card, why is the print running backwards (mirror writing). This, to me appears to be almost like a view of the back of the card taken through the front. It's almost like it was translucent. A picture of the back of the card should be readable and not in mirror print. Also if the picture attached to the card is actually a photo attached to it, you should not be able to see through that area at all. The problem with the translucent properties is that if the card is that transparent, the front should also show (in see through fashion), info on the back in that image. Even Oswald's signature on the right edge can be vaguely seen on the back image. Richard... when looking at the front of the card the writing on the back bleeding thru would be reversed. When reversed we should also see any heavy pressure imprints that can be seen from the other side. I also use the negative version of images to bring out detail lost in the positive. I take the logic approach focusing on what we should see in a normal world as opposed to the upside down one of the WCR. Again using the PMO as example.. while ""Goods" can be seen bleding thru to the back, the "*21.45" impact stamp cannot... why do you suppose that is Richard? With regards to the forged DOD card, one would expect to see the reversed imprint of the signatures given how these are signed. The paper may be thicker but the question remains, why is only one side of that card stained when they are supposedly two sides of the same thing... ? Edited September 11, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 8/30/2017 at 8:12 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Richard, I think David Josephs has a tendency to assume we understand what is going on with his visuals. He has a lot of insight and great visual aids... I just wish he'd spend more time explaining his presentations. (My not-so-subtle hint, hint DJ.) When I saw the image of the ID card that you are questioning, I got the impression that what David did was take a copy of the back of the card, make a reverse image of it, make it transparent, and then paste it over the front of the card. All in photoshop, of course. So what we were looking at is what we'd see if the card was a little transparent so that we could see both the front and the back of the card simultaneously. Presumably he did that to see how things on the back of the card line up with things on the front. hint well taken Sandy Here are the variety of images which appear to be the same. I've done repeated slow transitions between images and they are the same, simply different versions and quality. On 8/30/2017 at 9:15 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Hey guys, I think I may have noticed something significant. Something that I think makes the makeshift fake stamp on the ID make more sense. What I'm getting at, and will now propose, is that the photo on Oswald's ID card came from an ID that he used while in the Soviet Union. He (or somebody else) removed the photo and pasted it to the military ID card. Upon doing so, the photo showed a remnant of the old Russian stamp, but of course the ID had no such stamp. So Oswald (or somebody else) decided he had to fake a stamp on the ID so that the stamp on the photo-only wasn't so obvious. He took a circular stamp and made a couple of impressions, with one lining up pretty well with the outer, Russian stamp. (The blue line, above.) Then he stamped it again with the circle, offsetting it from the first to give it some "depth" or complexity. And then he finished up his work with the date stamps. By making it complex, it provided some camouflage for the stamp on the photo. Without looking close, uninformed people would see something that looked about right, and that looked official. Assuming I have this fundamentally right, it would seem to me that whoever made the ID with Oswald's photo on it, was likely someone who had only one photo of Oswald. Because if he had other photos, surely he would have chosen one for the ID that didn't have a Russian stamp printed on it. And he would be spared the hassle of making the (embarrassingly silly) fake stamp. Well, I started off thinking that this find (which I believe is correct) would simplify matters. But really it just explains one mystery at the expense of introducing another. Just a thought Sandy... With a MINOX, Oswald or anyone could take a photo of the object that includes the bottom corner stamp and a new print of the image can be created for these multiple purposes...your identification of the straight stamp printing instead of curved suggests to me Oswald made it himself as he did the SSS card... imho. Edited September 11, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 31, 2017 Author Share Posted August 31, 2017 So are we saying that the overstamp was done to cover up the photo's original markings which were in Cyrillic? And we now agree that the photo was taken in Minsk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: So are we saying that the overstamp was done to cover up the photo's original markings which were in Cyrillic? And we now agree that the photo was taken in Minsk? How could we prove it was taken in MINSK Jim? All we have is that image on the DOD and SSS cards... what evidence places it from Minsk other than Jack White's comment on the Oswald poster he created? It would appear to come from some form of ID created within Russia. Work ID? Internal Travel Visa? or maybe the real man playing the Oswald part's actual Passport? The photo in the poster next to this one is captioned "January 1960. Minsk radio plant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 If Oswald made the DoD ID card where and how did he acquire the restricted blank with the perforations at the top and the DoD watermark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 19 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: If Oswald made the DoD ID card where and how did he acquire the restricted blank with the perforations at the top and the DoD watermark? Guess that would depend on who was helping him.... or whether he somehow acquired the actual Oswald DOD card and had his image pasted in... or if the DOD/ONI/MID did it themselves to add to the Oswald backstory.... Chris - would the real Lee get one of these cards after leaving the Marines (remember Gorsky tells us this was March 1959, not Sept.)... Associating a specific plan with those IDs and that photo is so convoluted... My main concern is who took that photo and for what purpose. Where was it from 1960 until it was used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 24/08/2017 at 11:03 PM, Chris Newton said: This is an example of a Retired Military Dependent ID Card: What does that tell us? Chris (or anyone else), What does the "(M)" relate to after the typed name? Edited August 31, 2017 by Ian Lloyd Update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger DeLaria Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 38 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said: Chris (or anyone else), What does the "(M)" relate to after the typed name? Male? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Mother? Is Jesusa a female name? I'm in the UK so not sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Carpenter Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) The M appears to stand for married. She is sponsored by her husband. Above her name, it says typed name and relationship, which I assume means married to the sponsor. Edit: Or possibly Mother? Edited August 31, 2017 by Ty Carpenter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now