60th anniversary of the backyard photos

[Charles Blackmon]

Any real photographic expert would tell you forgery is often missed by those who are looking for it. It even happened with the experts called on by the HSCA. They couldn't find evidence of forgery in a photo they knew had been forged. 

 

 

[Charles Blackmon]

The size of Oswald's head and the configuration of the ears are the same in 133-a and 133-b, but the body configurations are different (he is closer to the camera in one photo than the other). Physically this is not possible.

 

There just too many comical things to describe them all including the weird shadows.

 

One interesting theory is that Oswald created the fakes using JCS equipment. 

 

[Michael Crane]

22 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The size of Oswald's head and the configuration of the ears are the same in 133-a and 133-b, but the body configurations are different (he is closer to the camera in one photo than the other). Physically this is not possible.

 

There just too many comical things to describe them all including the weird shadows.

 

One interesting theory is that Oswald created the fakes using JCS equipment. 

 

I believe that Roscoe White tinkered in photography also.

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Any real photographic expert would tell you forgery is often missed by those who are looking for it. It even happened with the experts called on by the HSCA. They couldn't find evidence of forgery in a photo they knew had been forged. 

 

 

Charles,

Like the back of the head photos of JFK at autopsy,I believe that the forgers take a picture of the picture to avoid detection.

That's my belief in the back of the head photo showing no hole.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Again, 

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.

When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

The "fine lines in the chin" have nothing to do with anything, otherwise fakery involving these "fine lines" would have been detected when the photos were viewed using stereoscopic techniques.

 

 yes, when you compare two photos of the "same scene" you get a stereoscopic 3D impression. But only the backgrounds are the same in the backyard photos. Oswald does not stay stationary so the photo of Oswald is not the "same scene". Stereoscopic viewing requires that you are looking at the exact same object in space from two slightly different angles.

I am an amateur photogrammetrist. Studied optics for a few decades and principles of photogrammetry for the last 10 years or so. Photogrammetry is not a specific test, it is the overall science of everything that relates to the forming and manipulation of two-dimensional photographs.

 I'll go out on a limb and say that the stereoscopic testing of Oswald's figure in the photo is not possible. Only the background could be tested.

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

 yes, when you compare two photos of the "same scene" you get a stereoscopic 3D impression. But only the backgrounds are the same in the backyard photos. Oswald does not stay stationary so the photo of Oswald is not the "same scene". Stereoscopic viewing requires that you are looking at the exact same object in space from two slightly different angles.

I am an amateur photogrammetrist. Studied optics for a few decades and principles of photogrammetry for the last 10 years or so. Photogrammetry is not a specific test, it is the overall science of everything that relates to the forming and manipulation of two-dimensional photographs.

 I'll go out on a limb and say that the stereoscopic testing of Oswald's figure in the photo is not possible. Only the background could be tested.

Here is what is found in the HSCA Report pg 146: 

The backyard pictures were also visually inspected with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be viewed in three dimensions .* This was possible because the camera's movement between exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these two pictures are viewed together in a stereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. (161) (375) This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fakery because photographs of prints (i .e ., a photographic copy of a photo- (Yraph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.** Further, any retouching of an original photograph of a scene can be detected because when t-%vo photographs of that scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched item will appear to lie either in front of, or behind the plane in which it should be lying. It is virtually impossible to retouch one or both images of a stereo pair with enough skill to escape detection when viewed stereoscopically .

 

The report appears to be disingenuous in that it fails to point out that the stereoscopic testing can only be done effectively on the background, which does form a single scene. Oswald is in two different place in 133-A and 133-B, thus is not in a single scene, as Chris pointed out.

[Chris Bristow]

16 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Here is what is found in the HSCA Report pg 146: 

The backyard pictures were also visually inspected with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be viewed in three dimensions .* This was possible because the camera's movement between exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these two pictures are viewed together in a stereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. (161) (375) This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fakery because photographs of prints (i .e ., a photographic copy of a photo- (Yraph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.** Further, any retouching of an original photograph of a scene can be detected because when t-%vo photographs of that scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched item will appear to lie either in front of, or behind the plane in which it should be lying. It is virtually impossible to retouch one or both images of a stereo pair with enough skill to escape detection when viewed stereoscopically .

 

The report appears to be disingenuous in that it fails to point out that the stereoscopic testing can only be done effectively on the background, which does form a single scene. Oswald is in two different place in 133-A and 133-B, thus is not in a single scene, as Chris pointed out.

 Thank you and yes they do seem to avoid the issue. Although they do say that it is based on two slightly different positions along the  same axis. Keeping the same axis is worthless if the object photographed isn't stationary.

 

[Chris Bristow]

The popular theory is that Oswald's head has been photoshopped into the image. But what if it's the other way around? If you could get a hold of the photo of Oswald standing in his backyard you could Photoshop in the person holding a rifle, pistol and newspapers.

[David Von Pein]

14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

David, the image on the left is very misleading and really can't be compared without compensating for the off angle of the camera.

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see.

Main Point:

Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

Edited April 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

The popular theory is that Oswald's head has been photoshopped into the image. But what if it's the other way around? If you could get a hold of the photo of Oswald standing in his backyard you could Photoshop in the person holding a rifle, pistol and newspapers.

Is that really  possible? Having a hard time picturing how that black-clad torso could perfectly cover up Oswald below the neck, especially seeing as how the torso is so contorted. Maybe my imagination is just not that good.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[Charles Blackmon]

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see.

Main Point:

Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

The posture is goofy in both photos but there is a pronounced lean in 133-a and the way his head sits atop the leaning torso is just unbelievable. These eyes of mine aren't lying to me.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[Michael Crane]

The actual size of those magazines is off also aren't they?

Didn't someone on here figure that out? Probably Jack White?

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see.

Main Point:

Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

Virtually identical huh? I'm not making some argument from a CT or point of view, I just like photographic analysis and you could not be more wrong when you say these stances are identical.

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Is that really  possible? Having a hard time picturing how that black-clad torso could perfectly cover up Oswald below the neck, especially seeing as how the torso is so contorted. Maybe my imagination is just not that good.

I don't know I'm just tossing the idea for the hell of it. But the first problem I thought of is how to cover up the old Oswald from the neck down. Maybe you could cut and paste in bits of the background from 133 B and C. You'd have to correct the shadow too. It's starting to very problematic.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Virtually identical huh? I'm not making some argument from a CT or point of view, I just like photographic analysis and you could not be more wrong when you say these stances are identical.

I would, therefore, suggest you get some new eyeglasses.

And focus on the position of Oswald's feet in both images. Notice anything similar there?

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by David Von Pein