Dartmouth and the study of Oswald's lean in 133a

[Chuck Robbins]

On 11/6/2019 at 5:32 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I'm going to guess it's Frazier demonstrating how Oswald was carrying the curtain rods, maybe in front of 214 Neeley Street. He does have his hips shifted over his right foot but his upper body is not leaning. To me the 133 a posture is a problem but the posture in this photo looks doable.

Correct.  It is Frazier proving, without meaning to, that the position is very possible.  Now, I keep wondering, was it... Naahh.  Just a coincidence.

[John Butler]

Not the same posture as 133A.  The way his left leg is set his left foot would be off the ground.  Or, it looks like he is sitting on something.  This looks like a figure walking or sitting on something.  If so, then this photo is not at all relevant.

Edited:

This fellow is not standing at all.  He is sitting on something.

Edited November 9, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

On 9/19/2019 at 3:51 PM, David Josephs said:

It's copy pasted from 133-C so Ozzie fits into the ghost....  Here's the rotation I was talking about

Given this, the ghost background is from a different time (no leaves on the trees) so the cutout/ghost could have been from 133-C (even though they were not supposed to know about 133-C for many years) and just placed over the blank background photo... but then when we put him back, it's all skewed....

Doesn't that conclusively prove that at least 133-C was created?

 

If that doesn't prove it... this does... no?

David, been trying to sort this issue out but I was never really clear on what the issue is. So I am throwing out some observations. First the two cutout images are using two of the Dallas PD backyard photos as the backgrounds. Below I posted the Dallas backyard photos 91-001/140 and 91-001/141 next to their matching cutout images. The camera position is correct in both and the shadows on the bottom of the door behind the stairs are perfect matches.  
 I used to think the cutouts may be related to the forging of the original backyard photos. But because the background in the cutouts was taken after they found the original backyard photos, the cutouts must be an attempt to fulfill the SS request to duplicate the BYP's.
  This attempt must have been a half hearted endeavor, maybe a first draft, because the shadows in the backyard are nowhere near a correct match for the shadows on Oswald. Secondly Oswald in the cutout is placed several inches too low. Roscoe, I assume,  lined up  the roof line in the background to Oswald's head which comes close to matching 133a and 133c. But if you compare Oswald's height to the post on his right it is obvious that he was placed about 4 inches too low. The camera in the Dallas PD images is positioned very low like maybe 18 to 24  inches off the ground. That caused objects like the roof line in the background to drop when compared to objects in the foreground like the post to Oswald's right.
 Lowering the cutout created some big perspective problems because when lowered Oswald's feet appear lower in the image. When the feet  get lowered they land on a spot of grass that is closer to the camera. Creating the effect of Oswald being closer to the camera means you would have to increase his size as you move him closer. But his head is lower in relation to the post. Moving forward would have increased his size relative to the pole. So the perspective is all messed up.
 Regarding Oswald's  lean it seems Roscoe did a decent job on the cutout that matches 91-001/140. But in the other he tilted the cutout about 6 degrees too far. Because of the perspective problems and misaligned shadows I am inclined to think that Roscoe may have just made a sloppy mistake when he leaned the cutout 6 degrees too far left. He did much better on the other cutout and it is interesting that he cropped the feet off. Maybe he was trying to hide the perspective problem he created by placing it too low. 
  I had considered that Roscoe may have stolen 133c before it got into evidence. But I know now that the copy found by his wife in the 70's was a first generation copy not the original. I also read that copies were made of the BYP's for some of the cops involved. Roscoe White and Stoval (maybe wrong spelling) both received copies of 133c. I can only guess that the original 133c somehow got lost in the shuffle before the rest were entered into evidence.
 Roscoe white had his own copy of 133c and would have been able to pose  LT Brown to match 133c. And he would have used it to trace out the same pose in the cutouts. I guess if 133c was lost or misplaced before being entered into evidence Roscoe may not have known that until the BYP's were made public some time later.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Chris Bristow