Backyard Photo Observation

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:27 AM, Tony Krome said:

Rich, the re-enactment photo was taken in March 1967, obviously to coincide with the alleged time frame of the Oswald photo.

There are some who believe that "Neely St" was not an actual residence of the Oswalds. Let's say in order to frame Oswald with incriminating photos, with both murder weapons, they decided to choose a place (preferably vacant) they could safely use with a man holding a rifle, then as Oswald suggested, superimpose his head.

Now, this could have occurred in November, 1963, immediately post assassination. So the shrub in the Oswald photo seems to show foliage whereas the photo known to be taken in March, seems to show the same shrub with no foliage.

This works IF the shrub is deciduous AND the nature of that shrub growing and losing foliage within the months I've mentioned.

If I was in Dallas, I would personally go to Neely St, look for the same type of shrub, and find out the characteristics of that shrub.

The first person who said that "Neely St" was not an actual residence of the Oswalds was . . . "Oswald" himself, according to Will Fritz on page 12 of his report. Fritz earlier wrote on the bottom of page nine that "Oswald was very evasive about this location".

Note that Neely was the cross street on Beckley where cabdriver William Whaley dropped off "Oswald" after leaving the Greyhound Bus Station on 11/22/63. 214 W. Neely and 605 Elsbeth were but a three minute walk from each other, and "Oswald" supposedly lived at both in the first half of 1963. 

I believe he did live at Elsbeth, but there was something going on at Neely. Was it a CIA safehouse?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=12&tab=page

Edited February 4, 2019 by Paul Jolliffe
fix the link to the Fritz Interrogation Report

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Agreed Steve, seems who ever concocted that photo made a cock up, and they had to adjust tilt in order to make the lean acceptable. When corrected look at the ridiculous angle "Oswald" is supposedly standing in this adjusted photo.

 

The fence sits at about 2 degree angle in reality. The Dallas police photos that replicated 133 are a good source for figuring out what the angle. Almost nothing in the photo is straight and it is not easy to figure out. Most agree that 2 degrees to the right is correct. So 133a should be rotated between 1 or   1 1/2 degrees left.

[John Butler]

This photo has different highlight aspects indicating a composite figure.  The brightness has been increased to show the highlights on the figure in a clearer manner.

No. 1 concerns the highlights on the face.  These highlights are from a light source to the front and above.  This light also produces the shadow under the nose.

2.  Indicates the highlights on the shoulders.  They are not quite the same.  The highlights on the left should are bright with no shadows.  The highlights on the right side have shadows.  Which is particularly pronounce in no. 3 and no. 4.

3 and 4.  These are darker areas that should not be there in reference to the rest of the lighting of the Oswald figure.

3 and 6.  These areas show the brightly lit forearm and hand.  The area directly below the brightly lit right forearm is in dark shadow that goes down to the rifle stock.  The rifle stock has an incongruous area brightly lit at the top with deep shadow below.  The highlighted part of the stock is not in tune with the rest of the photo.  There is no shadow of the newspaper on the Oswald figure.

5.  Points to the legs.  They are lit from the front except the upper part of the right leg.

And,

3.  The brightly lit forearm with dark shirt shadow holding the newspaper may indicate this is from another photo pasted into this photo.

3 and 4 versus 2 and 6 may indicate two sides of two photos of the figure pasted together.

With this kind of brightness the shadow of the Oswald figure looks painted.

Edited February 4, 2019 by John Butler

[Jeff Carter]

28 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR...

Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession...   which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer

 

How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977?

Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose...  yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position...  everything in the background is off...  So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images...

And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly...

thoughts?

 

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

[John Butler]

3 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

The fence sits at about 2 degree angle in reality. The Dallas police photos that replicated 133 are a good source for figuring out what the angle. Almost nothing in the photo is straight and it is not easy to figure out. Most agree that 2 degrees to the right is correct. So 133a should be rotated between 1 or   1 1/2 degrees left.

      10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Agreed Steve, seems who ever concocted that photo made a cock up, and they had to adjust tilt in order to make the lean acceptable. When corrected look at the ridiculous angle "Oswald" is supposedly standing in this adjusted photo.

 

I agree with Ray Mitcham on the "cock up".  There is more than one in the photo.  It shows that an amateur photo alterationist was at work.  My favorite candidate is Roscoe White.  He joined the Dallas force in Sep. 1963 in the Identification Bureau, I think that's so.   And, that may help explain Josephs question above on the ghost images.  Perhaps, photo material was left over at the Dallas Police Identification Bureau that was later found and used in a different context.

I know lots of folks disagree on Roscoe White as the author of the BYPs, 

[Chris Bristow]

15 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wondered about that Chris, However, using the same camera,  which didn't have a zoom feature, and standing in the same spot, how come "Oswald" in CE133B is closer to the camera than he is in the other two photos?

133b is a larger image overall. everything is about 5% bigger. Here is a photo I shopped to add lower legs to 133b. The image is also rotated and adjusted for size. Still I can't see why he appears further forward in 133b yet his head and knees seem to be in the same place relative to the background. Still a mystery there.
 Once the lower legs are added you see the lower body shadow leans as much as 133a and c yet Oswald is not leaning. Strange. It also puts his feet way in front of the post yet his head and holster line up in the same places.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[David Josephs]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

[Tony Krome]

14 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR...

Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession...   which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer

 

How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977?

Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose...  yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position...  everything in the background is off...  So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images...

And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly...

thoughts?

 

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

Posts of the day!

This 133-C is the key. They get Marina to admit to 2 photos;

Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

So first she says one, then two, and if asked again today, she would have to say three ... unless another one surfaces

Why did 133-C "disappear indeed

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

Sorry Joseph I misread your post and confused it with a similar but different argument. you were not saying the shadows should be parallel. 
Oswald is leaning and that adds 7 more degrees if he is leaning at 8 degrees. So we should see less convergence. I have reproduced all this in photographic experiments. The camera angle  distorts the actual shadow angle too. 
 
 I think the reason the ghost image seems more skewed is because when you overlay 133c you have to rotate right because Oswald was leaning left and the ghost image was not leaning.
 Looking at the Dallas cop image I believe the light source is a camera flash not the Sun. One clue is the cops shadow goes all the way up the picket fence and beyond the top of it.
 
 So the reason the shadow of the post and Oswald seem to diverge is due to his lean and the camera angle from Marinas chest to the shadow on the ground. That camera angle will cause shadows to lean more however that is not true when the shadow is vertical, then it just shrinks down vertically. But Oswald's shadow starts out at around 18 degrees away from vertical. This means Oswald's shadow will distort greatly while the post shadow which is near vertical will distort much less. This is why the two shadows appear to diverge.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

hi David - I really don't know what to make of the cut-out image because we don't know when it was created or for exactly what purpose. Again, the HSCA totally dropped the ball when it interviewed Studebaker and failed to address important and relevant details such as the cut-out image and 133-C. It is all the more glaring as a failure when considered against the considerable effort they made examining other aspects of the BYPs, most specifically their "authenticity."

But, logically, if the cut-out image was used to assist with faking the backyard photos, then this strongly suggests the fakery was a project within the Dallas Police Dept, presumably located in their photo department. My issues with that: how did the DPD know Oswald lived at Neely St address? how did they find date-specific copies of The Militant and The Worker, or even know of Oswald's subscriptions? where did the rifle come from and how did they choose it?

[Chris Bristow]

It is often asked how could the Dallas cops be aware of the pose shown if the photo did not surface till years later. Well I think it was Roscoes wife who found the photo. If that is true it explains the issue. Roscoe was around when the photos were taken so they could have easily had access to it and so known the pose at that time

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

This photo has different highlight aspects indicating a composite figure.  The brightness has been increased to show the highlights on the figure in a clearer manner.

No. 1 concerns the highlights on the face.  These highlights are from a light source to the front and above.  This light also produces the shadow under the nose.

2.  Indicates the highlights on the shoulders.  They are not quite the same.  The highlights on the left should are bright with no shadows.  The highlights on the right side have shadows.  Which is particularly pronounce in no. 3 and no. 4.

3 and 4.  These are darker areas that should not be there in reference to the rest of the lighting of the Oswald figure.

3 and 6.  These areas show the brightly lit forearm and hand.  The area directly below the brightly lit right forearm is in dark shadow that goes down to the rifle stock.  The rifle stock has an incongruous area brightly lit at the top with deep shadow below.  The highlighted part of the stock is not in tune with the rest of the photo.  There is no shadow of the newspaper on the Oswald figure.

5.  Points to the legs.  They are lit from the front except the upper part of the right leg.

And,

3.  The brightly lit forearm with dark shirt shadow holding the newspaper may indicate this is from another photo pasted into this photo.

3 and 4 versus 2 and 6 may indicate two sides of two photos of the figure pasted together.

With this kind of brightness the shadow of the Oswald figure looks painted.

1. The shadow under the nose appears to land directly under the nose as if the Sun was directly above. But the tip of the nose is not centered because Oswald is looking to his left about 2 degrees. So if you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find  a 4 degree angle. Furthermore his head is tilted 3 or 4 degree to the side(Towards the Sun) That eliminates 3 or 4 degrees of shadow angle.
       The elevation was about 50 degrees but what determines the shadow angle is less about elevation and more about whether you are facing towards the Sun or not. When you turn 90 degrees away from the Sun you will see all 50 degrees of elevation represented in a nose shadow. But if you turn 90 degrees to face the sun it will be directly above the nose and you will see zero shadow angle. It will fall directly below the nose if all else is equal(No head tilt). So Oswald was facing about 9 degrees away from the Sun and should show about 9 degrees shadow angle under the nose(The increase from zero to 50 degrees shadow as you turn away from the Sun is not proportional. It is about doubled for the first 20 degrees or so. Oswald facing 9 degrees away from the Sun create about 9 degrees of shadow. 4 degrees are visible from nose tip to shadow tip. 3 or 4  more degrees are neutralized because of his head tilt. that is 7 or 8 degrees accounted for and we should see 9, so there is only one degree missing.

2. Oswalds right arm is drawn back a bit and that creates more shadow on the biceps from the fold in his short sleeve. 

3 and 4. The shadow of the telephone lines cross Oswalds lower body and cross his right hip near his holster. Also his hip is angled back by about 20 degrees which may cause more shadow on his right.

6. The rifle stock and part of the scope were modified by Life Mag because the image was not contrasted well. So we can't really know what was there originally. The telephone line shadows also cross the rifle in that area.

5. Looks like the telephone line shadow on the upper right leg.

5a. I find it hard to evaluate the arm brightness because the exposure, film stock and printing can all distort relationships of dark and light.

[John Butler]

Chris,

Since the shadows appear to move in different directions.  I think they show 3 time periods.  Your opinion would be greatly valued.

What time of the day would you put on the step shadows striking the fence?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's shadow?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's nose shadow?

 

[Ray Mitcham]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

133b is a larger image overall. everything is about 5% bigger. Here is a photo I shopped to add lower legs to 133b. The image is also rotated and adjusted for size. Still I can't see why he appears further forward in 133b yet his head and knees seem to be in the same place relative to the background. Still a mystery there.
 Once the lower legs are added you see the lower body shadow leans as much as 133a and c yet Oswald is not leaning. Strange. It also puts his feet way in front of the post yet his head and holster line up in the same places.

 

 

If you agree, Chris, how do you account for it?

[Ray Mitcham]

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun

Edited February 5, 2019 by Ray Mitcham