Vox video on the Oswald backyard photos

[Denny Zartman]

https://www.vox.com/videos/22660913/jfk-assassination-superimposed-lee-harvey-oswald-darkroom

-

A video essay on the backyard photos was just posted by vox.com as part of their history and photography series "Darkroom".

What was new to me was the claim that it has been scientifically proven that the backyard photos were taken with Oswald's own mini Minox spy camera, which as I understand was usually held up to the face when taking pictures. Isn't that a contradiction between Marina's claim that it was a camera you held around chest or waist level and looked down into the viewfinder?

[Chris Bristow]

Ya it was an Imperial reflex top view camera and the height of the camera in the BY photos matches the height she would have held a top viewfinder. The difference is over 10 inches. The WC or HSCA proved it was the Imperial reflex by the scratches on the negative  that matched the camera they got from Oswald's brother. I assume they just made a mistake about it being the the Minox.
  That video shows an angle of the computer model of Oswald I had not found before. It shows clearly that they placed Oswald's left leg way forward of where it was in 133a.

•  

[John Butler]

15 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

https://www.vox.com/videos/22660913/jfk-assassination-superimposed-lee-harvey-oswald-darkroom

-

A video essay on the backyard photos was just posted by vox.com as part of their history and photography series "Darkroom".

What was new to me was the claim that it has been scientifically proven that the backyard photos were taken with Oswald's own mini Minox spy camera, which as I understand was usually held up to the face when taking pictures. Isn't that a contradiction between Marina's claim that it was a camera you held around chest or waist level and looked down into the viewfinder?

The business of the Minox spy camera has not been brought up prior to this as far as I know.  The Minox camera is a great 35 mm camera capable of taking ordinary photos and special close up photos.  I had one briefly in Korea where I bought it in a Korean "kimchi shop".  It disappeared about a month later.  You couldn't keep anything of value long there.

There were two to many commercials in the video.  I don't watch commercials.  I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that this was a made up theory to sell commercials.  Perhpas, I have wronged those fellows, but that was my impression.  

Edited September 8, 2021 by John Butler

[Denny Zartman]

11 hours ago, John Butler said:

The business of the Minox spy camera has not been brought up prior to this as far as I know.  The Minox camera is a great 35 mm camera capable of taking ordinary photos and special close up photos.  I had one briefly in Korea where I bought it in a Korean "kimchi shop".  It disappeared about a month later.  You couldn't keep anything of value long there.

There were two to many commercials in the video.  I don't watch commercials.  I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that this was a made up theory to sell commercials.  Perhpas, I have wronged those fellows, but that was my impression.  

That's very interesting that you actually owned one. Did you have to manually change the focus setting? Was the type of film easily available?

While interesting, I don't think the video is a must see. I think the main takeaway is that the technology of CGI seems to support that the shadow on the nose and the body shadow on the ground are consistent with each other.

I was curious about the conflict between the cameras. I only now saw that there's another thread about this video. Sorry for the duplicate thread!

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

That's very interesting that you actually owned one. Did you have to manually change the focus setting? Was the type of film easily available?

While interesting, I don't think the video is a must see. I think the main takeaway is that the technology of CGI seems to support that the shadow on the nose and the body shadow on the ground are consistent with each other.

I was curious about the conflict between the cameras. I only now saw that there's another thread about this video. Sorry for the duplicate thread!

I reproduced the backyard shadows photographically so I know the CGI was not faked to get the results they wanted, Anytime you have a computer model like the Dartmouth Oswald study you can't verify the accuracy.
The nose shadow seems intuitively wrong but it does work. Naturally people think it has to be high noon for the shadow to fall straight down. But even if the sun was at a 50 degree elevation all you have to do is turn to face in the direction of the Sun and the shadow will fall straight down. Same is true if the Sun was at 45 degrees elevation and you tilted your head over from  straight up to 45 degrees toward the Sun the shadow would again fall directly below the nose to the philtrum.
 

[Denny Zartman]

8 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I reproduced the backyard shadows photographically so I know the CGI was not faked to get the results they wanted, Anytime you have a computer model like the Dartmouth Oswald study you can't verify the accuracy.
The nose shadow seems intuitively wrong but it does work. Naturally people think it has to be high noon for the shadow to fall straight down. But even if the sun was at a 50 degree elevation all you have to do is turn to face in the direction of the Sun and the shadow will fall straight down. Same is true if the Sun was at 45 degrees elevation and you tilted your head over from  straight up to 45 degrees toward the Sun the shadow would again fall directly below the nose to the philtrum.
 

I don't doubt Vox's experiment or their honesty. I think the error with the Minox and Reflex cameras is fairly significant and makes me not put a huge amount of faith in their other claims, but I do think it was just an error.

Still, the mystery of the back yard photos persists. I would have liked them to address the white silhouette "cutout" backyard photo, and how it was possible that a third photo pose ended up in the possession of Dallas policeman Roscoe White and not in the official evidence files.

Marina and Marguerite discussed destroying the copy in their possession before the cops found it. How did Marina not know there were other copies floating around? Who developed the pictures, where did they do it? How many copies were made? How many different poses were taken? Who gave an inscribed copy to George De Mohrenschildt, and why?

If it was Oswald, then why would he deny the crime and the legitimacy of the photos themselves? The Warren Commission declined to make Oswald's lack of mental health part of their report, but who other than a delusional person would claim they could prove legitimate photos to be fakes? Photos that he apparently was developing himself? Photos that seem to have no other purpose than to tie Oswald to the weapons and Russian politics.

How many times in his life has Oswald posed for pictures with weapons, outside of his time in the military?

I've also read that the two Russian language papers held in the photos were of opposing political philosophies, as if someone in Russia held up a copy of National Review and a copy of The Nation at the same time and tried to present that as a coherent political motivation. Why would someone do that? What message does Oswald send by posing for a picture with those papers in one hand while also holding the rifle that killed the president in the other and having the handgun that killed the policeman on his hip?

And here's another thing I don't think anyone has addressed: Oswald's famous police-killing handgun was so important to his plans that he made sure to include it in his pictures, yet on the day of the assassination, he left this handgun at home. If he could smuggle a rifle into the TSBD, he surely could have taken a handgun as well. How did he not think that he might have had a need for the handgun during his initial escape? He felt the need for it later. Oswald made sure to have the handgun in his picture, to pose at least three ways with it, to order or develop, on his own, multiple copies, to even go so far as to write a note on one copy and give it to his only friend. Why then, on assassination day, would he leave the handgun behind as if it were an afterthought? Actually, saying "he left it behind" is being generous. I mean, the handgun wasn't even at the place Oswald had spent the previous night.

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

That's very interesting that you actually owned one. Did you have to manually change the focus setting? Was the type of film easily available?

The Minox camera I had was different from Oswald's. 

It had no features at all when closed.  It was just a rectangular camera very small it size.  The same size as the one above.  It just showed a dull aluminum case.  The controls and adjustments became available when you opened the camera.  It was 35 mm and easy to obtain.  Opening and closing the camera advanced the film.  If I am recalling correctly the camera came apart to load the film. 

I didn't know what a Minox was and ignorant of its spy purposes.  I am sure it was stolen off an Army base from perhaps an Intelligence unit.  The Koreans of the time were said to be legendary thieves.  Here is a photo taken with the camera of the place where I bought it. (It would probably be of better quality if I had more film developing knowledge)   Frankie's Store.  It was rumored you could buy anything you wanted there provided you had the money.

GI's called small stores like this "kimchi shops".  Koreans in the 2nd Inf. Division area was not allowed to prosper.  No paved highways and buildings that were easily destroyed.  So nothing permanent or expensive was ever built.  

     

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't doubt Vox's experiment or their honesty. I think the error with the Minox and Reflex cameras is fairly significant and makes me not put a huge amount of faith in their other claims, but I do think it was just an error.

Still, the mystery of the back yard photos persists. I would have liked them to address the white silhouette "cutout" backyard photo, and how it was possible that a third photo pose ended up in the possession of Dallas policeman Roscoe White and not in the official evidence files.

Marina and Marguerite discussed destroying the copy in their possession before the cops found it. How did Marina not know there were other copies floating around? Who developed the pictures, where did they do it? How many copies were made? How many different poses were taken? Who gave an inscribed copy to George De Mohrenschildt, and why?

If it was Oswald, then why would he deny the crime and the legitimacy of the photos themselves? The Warren Commission declined to make Oswald's lack of mental health part of their report, but who other than a delusional person would claim they could prove legitimate photos to be fakes? Photos that he apparently was developing himself? Photos that seem to have no other purpose than to tie Oswald to the weapons and Russian politics.

How many times in his life has Oswald posed for pictures with weapons, outside of his time in the military?

I've also read that the two Russian language papers held in the photos were of opposing political philosophies, as if someone in Russia held up a copy of National Review and a copy of The Nation at the same time and tried to present that as a coherent political motivation. Why would someone do that? What message does Oswald send by posing for a picture with those papers in one hand while also holding the rifle that killed the president in the other and having the handgun that killed the policeman on his hip?

And here's another thing I don't think anyone has addressed: Oswald's famous police-killing handgun was so important to his plans that he made sure to include it in his pictures, yet on the day of the assassination, he left this handgun at home. If he could smuggle a rifle into the TSBD, he surely could have taken a handgun as well. How did he not think that he might have had a need for the handgun during his initial escape? He felt the need for it later. Oswald made sure to have the handgun in his picture, to pose at least three ways with it, to order or develop, on his own, multiple copies, to even go so far as to write a note on one copy and give it to his only friend. Why then, on assassination day, would he leave the handgun behind as if it were an afterthought? Actually, saying "he left it behind" is being generous. I mean, the handgun wasn't even at the place Oswald had spent the previous night.

Why Oswald did not bring his handgun to work is definitely odd. Pretty much agree with your post overall. I took a close look at the ghost cutout images "white silhouette "cutout" and the story behind them and I believe I have an explanation for all of it. Here is a re post from another thread I did.

  First the two cutout images are using two of the Dallas PD backyard photos 91-001/140 and 91-001/1 as the backgrounds. The camera position is correct in both and the shadows on the bottom of the door behind the stairs are perfect matches. In other words if they are not the same photo they were both taken at the exact minute on only one or two possible days of the year and from the exact same position. 
 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 lowering Oswald his 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.