Guest Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) On 2/11/2023 at 6:36 AM, Chris Bristow said: I have heard the 'Ghost Cutout' photos that show the near perfect outline of Oswald in 133c were found years later in with the contents from Roscoe Whites desk. I have also heard the official explanation was that White was tasked with testing Oswald's claim that the photos were faked by attempting to create a fake. Either way whoever made the cutout must have had other working copies of 133c to cutout Oswald and trace his shape into a background image. Those were made based on reenactment photo's, you can tell by the bushes in the background that have grown. **Picture removed to save space ** Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans **Picture removed to save space ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) Of course, over the years a lot of people have been doing things with those photo's. Like Groden making/creating a "blank" canvas picture based on an original background. Left is the Groden-fake (bushes from a picture showing LHO, the right is from the reenactment (grown bushes,...). Besides the bushes there is a lot of stuff in the LHO-type visible that is no longer there in the reenactment-type-photo''s. This stuff causes a lot of confusion, especially when Groden presented the picture w/o telling what he had done (see his photographic book) **Picture removed to save space ** Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans **Picture removed to save space ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) On 2/11/2023 at 12:36 AM, Chris Bristow said: I have heard the 'Ghost Cutout' photos that show the near perfect outline of Oswald in 133c were found years later in with the contents from Roscoe Whites desk. I have also heard the official explanation was that White was tasked with testing Oswald's claim that the photos were faked by attempting to create a fake. Either way whoever made the cutout must have had other working copies of 133c to cutout Oswald and trace his shape into a background image. Couple things about the ghost image... there are multiple images as we can see a drop shadow in one of them and not the other... As Pat mentioned, if Studebaker took photos, that could explain the drop shadow image along with the one that is flat... Also, below, see how skewed the actual 133-c is compared to the ghost image.. the 2 parallel lines in white are on the original ghost image, so if you paste Oswald in 133-c back into the ghost image, everything is off... if you rotate the actual image counter-clockwise it fits but also appears like he's going to fall over... the strange stance he seems to have. FWIW I thought Jeff mentions that 133-c was actually seen that weekend but suppressed for some reason as how else would they know to put Det Brown into that position? A 3rd image without a negative... and a lost negative... hmmm... Edited August 22, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) On 2/11/2023 at 4:28 AM, Pat Speer said: As a blow-up for one of the photos was shown to Oswald, First, I see Fritz lying about the timing by correcting his report... this is an earlier version from the DPD archives... the BYPs were not brought back until after the 12:35 he originally wrote... so he changed it. Second, there is little mention of the photo shown beyond him "holding a rifle" The/This "picture", not "pictures"... even though there is a CSSS form stating 2 negatives with prints of each... so I was wondering where you learned he was shown the photo with the lost negative... and why they are not listed at all on any inventory from either the DPD of FBI... Same with the arrest wallet BTW... the only wallets in evidence are marked as coming from IRVING... no arrest wallet and no wallet found at Tippit scene other than the one acknowledgment from Croy written on a Tippit crime scene photo signed and given to Bentley, if I remember correctly p.s. Reading the Gary Mack from 1985, he was quite the conspiracy advocate wasn't he... till the Dark Side got him.. Edited August 22, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 I noticed a long time ago the peculiar, actually impossible stance of Oswald in the backyard photographs, which David's work here clearly shows. Who was the so-called expert who testified to the HSCA that these pics were legit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) On 2/11/2023 at 9:57 AM, Charles Blackmon said: I noticed a long time ago the peculiar, actually impossible stance of Oswald in the backyard photographs, which David's work here clearly shows. Who was the so-called expert who testified to the HSCA that these pics were legit? I love how they tried to make excuses about this study of the image/negative... The lines only appear after an Aerospace enhancement process... because the job done was so good... Wonder who, in 1963 had access to highly skilled photographic manipulators/creators.... Edited August 22, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) Again looking thru all the DPD copies of things I came across this version with a notation that the negatives were all returned to ROSE So maybe it was ROSE who needs to be held responsible for the loss of a negative.. or keeping it for posterity... Hicks' testimony is very short and there is no mention of this transaction or the copies... Rose is never questioned about these all important negatives and photo... and gives credit to McCabe for finding another photo while standing with him... huh? Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle. So... what is the follow-up question from BALL this master of getting to the truth? Mr. BALL. What color were the sea bags? (YES, THIS IS HIS NEXT QUESTION.. no more negatives, photos, or Hicks)Mr. ROSE. I believe they were kind of an off white--I would call them--more of a greyish-white.Mr. BALL. What about the suitcases?Mr. ROSE. I don't remember the color of those suitcases. I know one of them was real worn.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. Edited February 11, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 7 hours ago, David Josephs said: Couple things about the ghost image... there are multiple images as we can see a drop shadow in one of them and not the other... As Pat mentioned, if Studebaker took photos, that could explain the drop shadow image along with the one that is flat... Also, below, see how skewed the actual 133-c is compared to the ghost image.. the 2 parallel lines in white are on the original ghost image, so if you paste Oswald in 133-c back into the ghost image, everything is off... if you rotate the actual image counter-clockwise it fits but also appears like he's going to fall over... the strange stance he seems to have. FWIW I thought Jeff mentions that 133-c was actually seen that weekend but suppressed for some reason as how else would they know to put Det Brown into that position? A 3rd image without a negative... and a lost negative... hmmm... By 'drop shadow' you mean the red image? Obviously not there in the background image 140 so it is an artifact of some kind and I wonder specifically what caused it. The lean in 133c is strange and 133a even stranger. That is the most baffling part of the Backyard photos for me. I have never seen a recreation of the 133a lean that got the foot and hip angle correct. Also in 133a Oswald has no upper body counter lean at all. It is almost impossible to lean over to the point you are near falling and not automatically counter lean the upper body. I found the hips in 133a are almost straight forward, no more than 10 degrees of angled and closer to 5 degrees. If you match the right foot, hips and counter lean the stance gets crazy. Using the fence to compare his lean in 133c and the ghost image from 141 shows the hand done cutout has him leaning 1 or 2 degrees more than 133c. so pasting 133c Oswald back into the cutout will cause him to lean more than 133c. Still the lean is strange. The actual 133c and the ghost image backgrounds are taken from different positions so the backgrounds and foreground will always be a mismatch. When they created the cutouts they matched his head to 133c and the roof line in the background. But the background roof line is a big mismatch with 133c. The lower camera in the recreation moves that background roof line down compared to the foreground. It can be seen where the roof line meets the stairway post next to Oswald. That mismatch places Oswald lower in the foreground and creates a huge perspective error. Being lower his feet land on the grass lower/closer to the camera. That should make Oswald bigger in the image but the cutout size matches his original size relative to the stairway post. He is too small for his location on the grass. That larger/closer Oswald should have his head appear higher relative to the stairway post but it is well below 133c. So the cutouts do not compare well to the original 133c. The recreation photos used for the background were supposedly taken on 11/29. If that is true Roscoe White would have had his personal copy of 133 by then so matching the 133c stance does not strike me as being controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 12 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said: Those were made based on reenactment photo's, you can tell by the bushes in the background that have grown. Yes the bushes grew some. The background roof line appears lower in the cutout relative to the foreground because the recreation camera was lower than 133c. That makes it look like they grew more than they did. But the structure right behind the bush does show they grew from March to November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) Moving 133A and 133B to the FBI, etc (C was out as we know) : FBI 18 = DPD D-33 nr. 46 + 47 DPD handled the stack of photo's like a deck of cards, shuffling, dealing, you name it 😃 Only a pair to show, but... they still had one up their sleeve.... **Picture removed to save space ** Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans **Picture removed to save space ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 Btw, does anyone have pictures of the Stovall- and Dees-versions backsides ?? I would really like to see if they also have the DPD stamp on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) On 2/12/2023 at 5:39 PM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said: Btw, does anyone have pictures of the Stovall- and Dees-versions backsides ?? I would really like to see if they also have the DPD stamp on it. A little problematic is the back of CE 134 (HSCA and WC) : "Finally, CE 134 is an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of the CE 133-A negative. (See fig. IV-23.) It apparently was reproduced by the Dallas Police Department by enlargement from the original negative, with an easel set that accommodated 8- by 10-inch enlarging paper. The back of the photograph contains an impression from a rubber stamp identifying the Dallas Police Department. (See fig. IV-24.)" Huh ? None of the others had this stamp ? The pictured is referred to as IV-23 but IV-23 in not in the global picture showing all the pics (it was in the files since the WC. Ok, it's just a DPD-print, and they filled in the spaces this time... We do know the negative of this one was lost, so any details (hardly visible...) written on the back can be important... **Picture removed to save space ** Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans **Picture removed to save space ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 (edited) Ending it for now, made a list of what I have and what I would like to find. Of course, as others have pointed out, the commissions did not ask the much needed questions to solve some of the questions these pictures have raised. **Picture removed to save space ** Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans **Picture removed to save space ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now