Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald said someone took his picture and superimposed his face on the backyard photos


Recommended Posts

Oswald had the appetite size proclivity of a mouse.

What was it that his North Beckley rooming house housekeeper Earlene Roberts described regards his food choices he kept in the shared refrigerator and maybe a pantry shelf?  Milk ... and bread and peanut butter or baloney? That's it.

My guess is Oswald was on his own so much as a child with his single mom mother working all the time and probably had to make his own meals. And what does a poor kid make himself? Peanut butter sandwiches, cold cereal with milk, maybe an occasional banana? The man was never going to be fat with a gut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Thank you Mr. Cohen for injecting common sense back into this argument.

If I recall right, a backyard photo negative was found in Oswald's possessions. And of course, George DeMorenschidlt had a copy of one of the BYP's. 

The backyard photos are real, never faked. 

Some people just can't accept the facts.

 

According to Fritz, Oswald and he had a lengthy conversation regarding the backyard photos. Oswald explained that he suspected the image of his face was taken "in the hall" of the DPD. This image was then superimposed onto the backyard photos. Oswald, at the same time, was declaring his innocence, and if fact told the world just that.

In order for any credibility, in a future courtroom setting, Oswald would have taken into account, during interrogation, that anything he said that could incriminate him would be used against him. When shown the backyard photos, Oswald confidently declared they were fake.

You and Mr. Cohen have the backyard photos as "real", and therefore you have Oswald incriminating himself. Not only that, but you must think Oswald is quite the fool. Here's why;

1. The "real" backyard photos were in the Oswald family photo album.

2. You say Marina actually took the photographs.

3. A backyard photo was given to DeMohrenschildt.

The above evidence, if Oswald knew existed, when presented by the prosecution in a courtroom, would demolish Oswald's credibility. If the backyard photos were real, Oswald must have decided on Saturday, to sink any chance of a credible defense. Again, if they were real, Oswald was better off admitting they were because the indiscernible weapons in the backyard photos can't be tied to the weapons in evidence on the 22nd.

 

backyard-photo-album.png

Those rifleman pistoleer photos look a little out of place on that page ...

ps. Recall Marina said she took a photo, then after presented with two photos, she said she must of taken two photos. When another photo was later found in 1976, Marina said she took three photos. If another photo emerges, she will say she took four photos.

Edited by Tony Krome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

According to Fritz, Oswald and he had a lengthy conversation regarding the backyard photos. Oswald explained that he suspected the image of his face was taken "in the hall" of the DPD. This image was then superimposed onto the backyard photos. Oswald, at the same time, was declaring his innocence, and if fact told the world just that.

Tony,

I have never seen this before.  Can you cite a source, perhaps from Fritz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Tony,

I have never seen this before.  Can you cite a source, perhaps from Fritz?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the photograph and he said someone else took it. It wasn't his picture at all. He said someone in the hall had taken his picture and made that photograph.

And get this .... Oswald claimed his poached face photo was taken at the DPD. What do we find in old news reel footage 50 years later? A pretty good match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From  Captain Fritz’s first WC testimony (4/22/1964):

Mr. BALL. You did ask him how he explained the photograph, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. How he explained the photograph?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the photograph and he said someone else took it. It wasn't his picture at all. He said someone in the hall had taken his picture and made that photograph.
Mr. BALL. In other words, he said the face was his face but the picture was made by somebody superimposing his face?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; yes.
Mr. BALL. He denied ever having lived on Neely Street, did he?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL. And you asked him also if he had ever owned a rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had not. He said a long time ago he owned a small rifle.

 

There is one thing wrong with this analysis.  If someone at the DPD in the hallway took Oswald’s photo and transformed it into a Backyard Photo, then they didn’t photograph his injuries from the beating he took at the Texas Theater and I suspect the DPD.  Or, they removed those injuries and the BYPs are still fraudulent times 2.

Oswald-133a1.jpg

Another big question is when was the film that shows Oswald with a large, square chin taken?  Friday night or Saturday night?

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald's assumption that the image of his face was taken after his arrest at the dpd just doesn't make a lot of sense. I think If he was being set up as a patsy those photographs would have been made in advance. I don't think it would be impossible to have obtained a covert image of his face.

When it comes to the proof that the photographs are real I think it is possible evidence can be faked. There is certainly enough questions surrounding evidence in the JFK case that I just can't take the grain analysis at face value.

I find the vast majority of conspiracy claims regarding alteration in the backyard photos does not add up. I believe the same is true for the Z film.

Dr John Costella's Theory about the lack of pincushion Distortion in the Stemmons sign is in my opinion the most irrefutable evidence of fakery ever to be put forth about the Z film. But a close second is Oswald's lean in 133a. It is more subjective than the pincushion Theory because it requires trying to duplicate the stance to see just how absurd it is. I know the Dartmouth people claimed they provided proof that his stance was stable. But a computer model is just an approximation and I found three mistakes in their model. I don't think their model is worth much of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

But a close second is Oswald's lean in 133a. It is more subjective than the pincushion Theory because it requires trying to duplicate the stance to see just how absurd it is. I know the Dartmouth people claimed they provided proof that his stance was stable. But a computer model is just an approximation and I found three mistakes in their model. I don't think their model is worth much of anything.

I got so used to seeing the backyard photos, I flipped the image to see it afresh. By that I mean, the stance should be achievable whether horizontally flipped or not. Looks just as awkward. 

backyard-oswald-flipped.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Oswald's assumption that the image of his face was taken after his arrest at the dpd just doesn't make a lot of sense. I think If he was being set up as a patsy those photographs would have been made in advance. I don't think it would be impossible to have obtained a covert image of his face.

When it comes to the proof that the photographs are real I think it is possible evidence can be faked. There is certainly enough questions surrounding evidence in the JFK case that I just can't take the grain analysis at face value.

I find the vast majority of conspiracy claims regarding alteration in the backyard photos does not add up. I believe the same is true for the Z film.

Dr John Costella's Theory about the lack of pincushion Distortion in the Stemmons sign is in my opinion the most irrefutable evidence of fakery ever to be put forth about the Z film. But a close second is Oswald's lean in 133a. It is more subjective than the pincushion Theory because it requires trying to duplicate the stance to see just how absurd it is. I know the Dartmouth people claimed they provided proof that his stance was stable. But a computer model is just an approximation and I found three mistakes in their model. I don't think their model is worth much of anything.

Chris,

A number of good points.  I don't go along with the notion that photo of Oswald on that Friday night is the head for the BYPs.  That scraggly bush in the photo indicates spring.  Krome's flip of the photo shows how absurd the stance is.  Tony has made a number of good points.

byp-comparison-oswald-flipped.jpg  

Oswald in NO has wider hips than the BYP Oswald.  Another indication the body belongs to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some incredible pretzel logic going on here with these backyard photos. Apparently some people want to reject the following:

1. The HSCA photo panel of experts (not Jack White or armchair internet jockeys) authenticated the photos as real.

2. FBI Shaneyfelt matched the irregular edge markings from Oswald's camera to an original negative.

3. Yes, there was one or two NEGATIVES found in Oswald's possessions. Did your secret conspirators leave that in there as well? Explain that, please.

4. Marina admitted taking them.

5. George DeM. had one (133-A). Well isn't that interesting, the secret Ninja Conspirators gave one to George. Wow! 

6. The HSCA photo panel examined the ORIGINAL PHOTOS AND NEGATIVE to come to their conclusion they were real, not faked.

7. Oswald's own mother, Marguerite admitted under oath that she saw one that Marina burned. Now why would she do that? 

8. Somehow these secret conspirators knew where Oswald was living at Neely street, way back in April 1963! Wow, amazing stuff. Somehow they secretly went over there and snapped photos, but couldn't get the leaning pose down right! 

Of course the simple answer is they were real, not faked. If you want to wrap yourself into a pretzel trying to explain all this away......go right ahead. Your armchair photoshopping of Oswald's pictures will never be believable. Frankly all this is laughable. 

When you ignore the evidence, the sky's the limit. You can make up anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

oswald-chin-comparison-lighting.jpg

Same film.  Same lighting.  Why the difference?  The light comes from overhead and is stable.  There are no camera flashes.

Blow up the left hand Oswald.  Lighting strips corners of the mouth, lips, and chin.  Air gun spray was sprayed to far up on the chin and had to covered by two lighting strips.  With stable overhead lighting camera angles should not make a difference as demonstrated by the right hand Oswald from the end of the film.  The shadow under the chin is way darker than it should be.  Instead of shadow one finds black ink or paint of ink consistency.  IMO.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I got so used to seeing the backyard photos, I flipped the image to see it afresh. By that I mean, the stance should be achievable whether horizontally flipped or not. Looks just as awkward. 

backyard-oswald-flipped.png

Tony, it is even more Awkward looking because the original unflipped version of the photo is rotated a couple degrees too far to the left. The most accurate version will show the picket fence leaning 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 degrees to the right. There's a well-known comparison photo in which a tall and skinny guy named Capell attempts to duplicate Oswald stance, and it is a very poor attempt. But in that photo you can see the door jamb on the house behind Oswald. It is about the only object in the backyard photos that can accurately reflect the vertical plane. Everything else  save for the corner of the house is wonky . When that door jamb is aligned the picket fence sits at 2 and 1/4 degrees right. In the comparison image of 133a and the Capell photo they have rotated Oswald two extra degrees to the right to decrease his lean. Then they took the Capell image and rotated it two degrees to the left to make it appear like he was leaning more than he was. Now that's photographic fakery! I will find that comparison photo and Post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...