Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

From the same film without shadowing and highlighting.  Oswald's chin as it should be and untouched.  If you notice the other figures in the scene are not shadowed and highlighted either.  Same film.  Natural film effect.

As if your prior insistence that every Dealey Plaza image has been altered wasn't bad enough, It is laughable that you now claim the film footage from Oswald's time in Dallas Police custody has been altered too. Is there ANY outlandish JFK assassination conspiracy theory you DON'T believe? When does it end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JC,

I don't believe I said all media has been altered.  What I've said is most if not all have been altered.  And, even if I did day all, then that is closer to the truth than not.

Consider this about the BYPs without howling about "moon landing" Jack White:

Jack White and the backyard photos,  Many others have come to the same conclusions and have added even more.  Gil Jesus talks about the BYPs in this part VIII discussion available here on the forum.

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

😎 SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

 

During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

Your contention here is that the Backyard Photos were made or altered during the weekend of the assassination.  And, that the broad chinned Oswald in the film you show provided the basis for the BYPs.  

If I am remembering correctly someone, I believe Chris Bristow, figured out the time of the photos by measuring the angles of the shadows in the photos.  His conclusion was that the photos were taken near the time of an equinox.  He couldn't figure which one, the Vernal Equinox or the Autumnal Equinox, since they would provide essentially the same light and shadows.  That being the case the BYPs were made at least two months before the weekend of the assassination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Over and above discussions of the photographic evidence; for me, the issue of the backyard photos is clouded by what I believe was a clumsy and ultimately, unsuccessful effort on the part of the Dallas Police to disguise the fact that Lee Harvey was interviewed by the Dallas Police at 12:35 PM on Saturday, November 23rd; and that during that interview was asked about the rifle photos.

I believe that this interview took place at least four hours before the Detectives returned from their second search at 2515 W. 5th St. in Irving.

You can find a fuller explanation of my analysis of the 12:35 interview on my web site at:

https://myjfksite.weebly.com/

and on the Education Forum in the thread entitled,

“Fritz ADDED the part about the photos afterward...” started by David Joseph on 11/28/2011.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18440-fritz-added-the-part-about-the-photos-afterward/

And, this bit from Steve Thomas falsifies the notion that the film was used to provide the material for the BYPs.

And, the chin of someone was used in the BYPs with Oswalds face ending at the chin.  

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Over and above discussions of the photographic evidence; for me, the issue of the backyard photos is clouded by what I believe was a clumsy and ultimately, unsuccessful effort on the part of the Dallas Police to disguise the fact that Lee Harvey was interviewed by the Dallas Police at 12:35 PM on Saturday, November 23rd; and that during that interview was asked about the rifle photos.

I believe that this interview took place at least four hours before the Detectives returned from their second search at 2515 W. 5th St. in Irving.

You can find a fuller explanation of my analysis of the 12:35 interview on my web site at:

https://myjfksite.weebly.com/

and on the Education Forum in the thread entitled,

“Fritz ADDED the part about the photos afterward...” started by David Joseph on 11/28/2011.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18440-fritz-added-the-part-about-the-photos-afterward/

 

There is also a version of the Interrogation of Oswald in CD 81 AG Texas Letter with attachments dated 07 Jan 1964 beginning on page 452. Covers the Interrogation of Oswald and takes up 13 pages. On page 460, Fritz references the 12:35 interview in the same language as is in the DPD Archives “with Inspector Kelley and some of the other officers and myself”.

He asks Oswald about the different places he lived in an attempt to find out where the picture was made of him holding a rifle.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=652&tab=page

Also, CE 2003 (24H beginning at page 195) - Dallas Police Department file on investigation of the assassination of the President (CD 81b, all pages). The Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald begins on page 264 of this Exhibit and takes up 13 pages. Page 268 covers the 12:35 Interrogation.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=286

 

The Warren Commission interviewed Detective Guy Rose on April 3, 1964

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stovall.htm

Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. But you brought that property back here into town, did you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Now, you say you sat in on the interrogation of Oswald later that day?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Now, you say you sat in on the interrogation of Oswald later that day?
Mr. ROSE. On Saturday evening--that Saturday evening.
Mr. BALL. What time?
Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--it was late--it seemed like it was around 9 or 10 o'clock, I don't remember.
Mr. BALL. Who was present?
Mr. ROSE. Well, Captain Fritz, Detective Sims, and myself--I don't remember--there was an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent there, but I don't remember their names.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what was said?
Mr. ROSE. Do I remember what was said?
Mr. BALL. That this took place in Captain Fritz' office?
Mr. ROSE. In Captain Fritz' office--yes. Well, the occasion was--I got back to the office and I took this small picture of Oswald holding the rifle, and left the rest of them with the Captain and I took one up to the I.D. bureau and had them to make me an enlargement of it, and they made an almost 8" by 10" enlargement of this picture and I brought it back to the captain and Oswald was brought in and the captain showed him this picture, and Oswald apparently got pretty upset when he saw the picture and at first he said, "Well, that's just a fake, because somebody has superimposed my face on that picture." Then, the captain said, "Well, is that you face on the picture?" And he said, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face." I remember that part of it distinctly.

 

Guy Rose went back to 2515 W. 5th St. in Irving on Saturday, November 23rd. and searched the garage.

Detectives Moore, Rose, Adamcik and Richard Stovall were with him. Stovall told the WC that they were for 2-2 1/2 hours at the most, but be also said that they didn’t leave Irving until 5:30 or so.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stovall.htm

Mr. BALL. The next day, you made another search of the Paine home, didn't you?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we did.
Mr. BALL. About what time?
Mr. STOVALL. Must have been around 1 o'clock, just past noon, 1:00 p.m.

Mr. BALL. What time did you leave there that day?
Mr. STOVALL. It must have been around 5:30, because it was--I believe it was 6 when we got back to the office.

Steve Thomas

 

The issue of the authenticity of the BYP will always be subject to debate, a debate which will likely never be resolved. Yet this debate consumes the vast majority of attention and energy to this topic.

Far more interesting, in my opinion, is the often overlooked fact that - as Steve Thomas refers - the investigating officials allowed a false legend regarding the provenance of the photos to remain in the record. (Dallas Police Department and also Secret Service, and likely FBI). Additionally, a cover story regarding the physical presence of the Imperial reflex camera - determined to have taken the photos - was also made part of the official record. The HSCA’s photo panel later perpetuated this problem by failing to account for the photos’ provenance and for the addition of a third pose (133-C), even as they directly interviewed the DPD official who would have known. HSCA photographic panel leader Cecil Kirk also utilized tightly framed lawyerly language to mislead and redirect understandings of Oswald’s cameras and extent of personal photo-making.

The consistency of misdirection, omission, and false information from 1963 through the 1970s by the investigating officials points to a specific cover-up which is not based on the “authenticity” of the photos but rather their provenance. That is, the source or method by which they came into the possession of the DPD was too problematic for the developing lone-nut conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Tony,

Your contention here is that the Backyard Photos were made or altered during the weekend of the assassination.  And, that the broad chinned Oswald in the film you show provided the basis for the BYPs.  

If I am remembering correctly someone, I believe Chris Bristow, figured out the time of the photos by measuring the angles of the shadows in the photos.  His conclusion was that the photos were taken near the time of an equinox.  He couldn't figure which one, the Vernal Equinox or the Autumnal Equinox, since they would provide essentially the same light and shadows.  That being the case the BYPs were made at least two months before the weekend of the assassination.

 

That is absolutely NOT my contention. I am saying the backyard photos existed before Oswald was arrested. My contention is that Oswald may be correct when he claimed that someone captured his image "in the hall" at the DPD and superimposed his face/head onto the already existing backyard photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

And, this bit from Steve Thomas falsifies the notion that the film was used to provide the material for the BYPs.

I have no problem with Fritz showing the backyard photos to Oswald at 12:35pm on Saturday. The final rendition of the backyard photos certainly existed before the 2nd search of the Paine household was instigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 10:39 AM, John Butler said:

JC,

I don't believe I said all media has been altered.  What I've said is most if not all have been altered.  And, even if I did day all, then that is closer to the truth than not.

Consider this about the BYPs without howling about "moon landing" Jack White:

Jack White and the backyard photos,  Many others have come to the same conclusions and have added even more.  Gil Jesus talks about the BYPs in this part VIII discussion available here on the forum.

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

😎 SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

 

During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

I think many of the observations you listed have been explained over time. 
3. OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Oswald is facing Marina with the Sun 13 degrees off to his left. In 133 we should see about 13 degrees plus 6 more for Oswald's lean. But the perspective distortion of Marina's shallow camera angle flattens out all angular lines. I just double checked it and 20 degrees of actual shadow angle as viewed from directly above doubles to 40 degrees when viewed from 10 feet away and matching Marina's camera height. As far as I can tell what we see in 133a and C are correct. In the past I have photographically reproduced these effects to match the BYP's
  133b shows about 28 degrees of shadow angle. (Hard to measure because he feet are cut off). Since he is standing straight there should only be 13 degrees of shadow but the perspective distortion is doubling that as it did in 133a.

11. FACE SHADOWS: To compare the shadows 133b has to rotated 1 degree right and 133c 2 degrees left for all to be level. Once you do it is hard to see any difference in the position of the heads. But even if there was a difference a 1 1/2 shadow under the nose would only change by 1/40th of an inch per degree of head tilt. I don't think the image is sharp enough to detect.

14. The camera did change position vertically and it was more than fractions of an inch. Look at the roof line of the house in the background and where it meets the top of the post next to Oswald. That shows that Marina lowered the camera a couple inches. The story goes that Oswald came over and advanced the film after each shot and Marina just stood there. If you take a photo and don't change your feet at all you can lift the camera back up for a second shot and the camera position will not change horizontally. I tested that. 

15. When Jack White tilted the photo"keystoned it" and got it to match the other I think he was just reversing the natural keystone effect from Marina tilting her camera down in 133a.

The last part about Mr Wilson's analysis of the BYP is a real head scratch-er. He said if the photos were taken on the day they said it would have to be 9:15 in the am. Wow. On 3/31/63 the Sun was in the East at 18 degrees elevation around 9am. The Sun would have been behind the house in the background. The shadow running from the post next to Oswald intersects with the post on the Northwest side of the 2nd story landing. That means the azimuth was very close to 232 not 83 as it was at 9:15am. His conclusion that the conditions in the photo match 9:15am if  taken on 3/31 is really nuts.
 Marina said the photos were taken in the early afternoon but the only time the azimuth of 232 with an elevation of 40 or 50 degrees happened was around 4:40pm. The azimuth can be tightly locked in to within 4 degrees by the post shadow. The elevation has been checked by many by measuring shadow lengths and has to be around 49. That does not allow for any other time than 3/31 around 4:40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

Do you really think that Marina took those photos?  And, she took them at at around 4:50 0'clock in the afternoon 3/31/63?  Do you believe her?  She has a rep of saying what the WC people want her to say and then changing that when it didn't meet expectations.  I believe Marina was a Soviet Spy and still was serving the fatherland after the JFKA.

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

On 3/31/63 the Sun was in the East at 18 degrees elevation around 9am. The Sun would have been behind the house in the background.

Didn't we have some conversation about the date and time several years ago and you suggesting that since this was close to the Vernal Equinox it was difficult to tell whether these photos were taken several days after either the Vernal Equinox or Autumnal Equinox sense the light would be the same in either Sept. or Oct.  

Tony's claim of being made from film taken on a Friday night doesn't quite fit this.

These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos.

oswald-life.jpg

So, in this photo the back of the house is where this gate in the photo is?    And, is the Oswald figure is standing in the backyard and the house is orientated North/South rather than East/West?  For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes.  For the Oswald figure to he highlighted the way he is the light must come from above to produce a shadow directly under the nose.  The light is not consistent with the nose shadow and the body shadow.  the shadow should bend to the left hand as the body shadow does.  It's just one of many inconsistencies in the light in this photo.

And, not last because I have got to run, what about Jack's other statements? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

I believe Marina was a Soviet Spy and still was serving the fatherland after the JFKA.

Please provide a single shred of evidence to support either of these two claims (hint: there isn't any, and no serious researcher of this case believes it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Do you really think that Marina took those photos?  And, she took them at at around 4:50 0'clock in the afternoon 3/31/63?  Do you believe her?  She has a rep of saying what the WC people want her to say and then changing that when it didn't meet expectations.  I believe Marina was a Soviet Spy and still was serving the fatherland after the JFKA.

Didn't we have some conversation about the date and time several years ago and you suggesting that since this was close to the Vernal Equinox it was difficult to tell whether these photos were taken several days after either the Vernal Equinox or Autumnal Equinox sense the light would be the same in either Sept. or Oct.  

Tony's claim of being made from film taken on a Friday night doesn't quite fit this.

These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos.

oswald-life.jpg

So, in this photo the back of the house is where this gate in the photo is?    And, is the Oswald figure is standing in the backyard and the house is orientated North/South rather than East/West?  For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes.  For the Oswald figure to he highlighted the way he is the light must come from above to produce a shadow directly under the nose.  The light is not consistent with the nose shadow and the body shadow.  the shadow should bend to the left hand as the body shadow does.  It's just one of many inconsistencies in the light in this photo.

And, not last because I have got to run, what about Jack's other statements? 

I do think there is reason to doubt Marina's involvement. Changing her story on the number of photos is suspicious. There is a possibility of coercion  as part of a cover too. I think her father was a ranking intelligence official which is also suspicious if true, and I believe she could have been a low level operative. I use her name more as a place marker for the camera and often say "the camera position" when being more careful about what is implied.
  You are right I mentioned the TWO days a year when the azimuth and elevation match the BYP at t 4:30pm. That is 3/31 and 9/11. I remembered that fact as I wrote the post but immediately dismissed it as not germane. Don't know why I did that because it does make it possible to manufacture the image on 9/11.  Skeptics point out there was another BYP that Marina said she burned. So now she has to claim she took 4 photos that day? Well without seeing that photo we don't know if it was a BYP or from another time. Even if she claimed it was a BYP we still have to consider coercion.
"These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos." Absolutely yes that is 214 Neeley St.
   When I talked about the Sun and "the house in the background" I meant the house next to Oswald's, the house just east of 214 Neely.  (The stairs next to him run east/west. Oswald is facing 22 degrees south of west.) At 9:15 on the day in question the Sun was at 83 degrees azimuth and would have been 15 degrees off of and behind Oswald's left shoulder. The elevation was 18 degrees and so maybe the Sun was just rising over the roof of that house next door or still behind it. 18 degrees would never create the overhead shadows. It is so far off what we see maybe he was misquoted somewhere along the way.

  "For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes."  If the Sun was in back of Oswald the shadow would fall in front of him not to the rear. 

    The nose shadow issue frustrates me a bit because there is a solid explanation for it but it is hard to explain and hard to visualize the answer. I have reproduced it photographically so I know there is an answer.
 First consider that there two other condition that will make the light fall directly below the nose when the Sun is not directly above. 1. Lets say the Sun is at elevation 50 degrees and you are facing directly towards it. If you are facing the direction of the Sun the shadow will fall directly below the nose regardless of elevation.
2. You can be facing 90 degrees away from the Sun(You would be facing azimuth 270, directly west) but if you tilt your head in the direction of the Sun and tilt it to match the elevation(Sun elevation 50 degrees means you would tilt your head over 40 degrees from 90 degrees(vertical) to 50 degrees. The shadow will again fall directly below your nose. In both cases you orient your head so you see the sun directly above your forehead and between your eyes.
 Oswald was facing 13 degrees away from the Sun which would cause about 10 degrees of nose shadow angle(13 gets you 10 but the reason takes more unpacking, let me know if you want to discuss it). So we have to account for the 10 degrees we should see. Here is how it goes.
first Oswald's face is actually looking two degrees to his left, he is not looking straight into camera. It is subtle but measurable in the increased size of the right side of his face.(Temple to bridge of nose has a large 10% difference from left half to right.). This reduces the 10 degrees to 8 cause while his body is facing the camera his face is looking 2 degrees more towards the Sun.
 His facing two degrees left of camera also causes the tip of his nose to swing to the left of center so the tip is not directly over the philtrum. To measure the shadow angle we have to draw a line from the tip of the nose to the tip of the shadow. The shadow being on the philtrum(center of face) and the tip of his nose being off center results in 4 degrees of shadow angle present on his face. We have 2 degrees cancelled by his looking left of camera and 4 degrees measurable under his nose. That explains 6 of the 10 degrees we expect to see. That leaves 4 degrees to explain and that is due to the 4 degrees of head tilt.
 Each aspect of this explanation is perfectly consistent with the way shadows are known to behave and I have tested each aspect of this and it is all reproducible. So I have to conclude the nose shadow is not an issue.
 As to Jack Whites other statements some are interesting like the wrist watch or the fingers but it seems like they can't be resolved. I have used the rifle to gauge his height and it came out correct as I recall. I think that depends on whether you take the rifle length to be what he ordered or what is claimed they supplied. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Bristow said: "I do think there is reason to doubt Marina's involvement. Changing her story on the number of photos is suspicious. There is a possibility of coercion  as part of a cover too. I think her father was a ranking intelligence official which is also suspicious if true, and I believe she could have been a low level operative..."

It was her uncle who was involved with the government and may have been KGB.  

Agent Hosty tried to convince me that Marina was a sleeper agent. At the time I just wanted to ask him about Lee. Now, it does not seem impossible that she was being used to keep track of his whereabouts (which he seemed to sense and made more difficult).  She may have been reporting that to someone. Ruth Paine and George deM are logical possibilities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Marina secret agent, spy, operative, sleeper;

We can safely say that Hollywood's version of glamorous international spies is out the window. Marina was sent over with rotting teeth and had to borrow money for urgent dental treatment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Chris Bristow said: "I do think there is reason to doubt Marina's involvement. Changing her story on the number of photos is suspicious. There is a possibility of coercion  as part of a cover too. I think her father was a ranking intelligence official which is also suspicious if true, and I believe she could have been a low level operative..."

It was her uncle who was involved with the government and may have been KGB.  

Agent Hosty tried to convince me that Marina was a sleeper agent. At the time I just wanted to ask him about Lee. Now, it does not seem impossible that she was being used to keep track of his whereabouts (which he seemed to sense and made more difficult).  She may have been reporting that to someone. Ruth Paine and George deM are logical possibilities...

An interesting perspective, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Re: Marina secret agent, spy, operative, sleeper;

We can safely say that Hollywood's version of glamorous international spies is out the window. Marina was sent over with rotting teeth and had to borrow money for urgent dental treatment. 

If I see a person with super clean white straight teeth I trust them less. Maybe the whole rotten teeth thing was a KGB ploy. I'm kidding except for the first part.

 

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...