60th anniversary of the backyard photos

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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?

 

Don't need glasses, I am doing all right. Yes he has two feet in both pictures otherwise it's not that similar.

The difference in the two stances is dramatic and the off angle of the one photo can't be ignored. But even from the off angle it's obvious that Oswald is counter-leaning with his upper body. His lower body leans out to the left while his upper body is almost straight up and down. In 133a the camera is in front of Oswald and we can accurately measure his counter lean which is zero. 

I'm an amateur Enthusiast when it comes to the study of photogrammetry. Optics and perspective and the human form especially interest me. So I have a strong opinion and I think this comparison is complete non-starter. I'll leave it at that.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

The difference in the two stances is dramatic...

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

 

People often think they can interpret photos with an intuitive eye. They say it's just obvious I can see it right there. But there are many ways a photograph can be misleading. people will look at the shadow under Oswald's nose in 133a and feel intuitively that it is just impossible if the Sun's not at 12:00 noon. Of course that intuitive knowledge is wrong. So when someone says just look at it, it's obvious, but can't give anything specific like a measurement or principle of perspective I suspect they're just using their intuitive eye and it's likely misleading them.

[Joe Bauer]

I'm not knowledgeable in the BYP area of study.

Just throwing out some layman questions as I look at the photos posted here.

Could someone give their take on the finger discrepancies of Oswald as shown in the main photo?

It is so easy to see how the fingers on Oswald's right hand seem clearly different that his fingers on his left hand.

Length, shape.

Oswald's fingers on his right hand seem shorter and thicker than his left hand fingers. Left hand fingers longer and more boney.

The ends of the fingers on his right hand seem square edged blocked or cropped off. Kind of like the tips were cut off.

Oswald's middle finger of his right hand looks to be the same length of the ring finger next to it.

On Oswald's left hand however, the fingers seem longer and they looked tapered and thinner at their ends. And the middle finger on Oswald's left hand is clearly longer than the index and ring fingers next to it.

Is this a light and/or shadow anomaly?

Maybe Oswald's right hand is getting more direct sunlight than his left hand?

Whatever, the finger differences between Oswald's left hand versus his right hand are clear...and weird.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Charles Blackmon]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

In 133a the camera is in front of Oswald and we can accurately measure his counter lean which is zero. 

 

I would be interested to know what you mean by counter lean (physiologically that is, not appearance-wise). I agree with your description that "His lower body leans out to the left while his upper body is almost straight up and down." What is your take on the head?

Nobody has mentioned here about the straight dark line above the chin which the HSCA "experts" tried to explain away as caused by a water spot, which would be caused by somebody doing a poor job developing the picture in the darkroom.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[Michael Griffith]

The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard photos without markedly altering the position of the mannequin's head to the point that it bore no resemblance to the position of the backyard figure's head.  

The PEP's explanation for the obvious difference between Oswald's chin and the backyard figure's chin is lame. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson didn't buy it either. Revealingly, the PEP declined to publish the Penrose measurements for the chin. 

To explain the charge that the backgrounds in the photos were identical, the PEP ended up proving that the backgrounds are virtually identical. The PEP did horizontal and vertical parallax measurements and, damningly, found only "very small" differences in the distances between background objects in the photos. How small? Incredibly small. Tiny fractions of an inch.

When I interviewed photographic expert Brian Mee, he zeroed in on this finding as strong evidence of forgery. He noted that it was wildly implausible that a camera supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film between exposures could have produced three photos with backgrounds that were virtually identical, three photos that had such incredibly small differences in the distances between background objects. 

Mr. Mee scoffed at the argument that the PEP's vanishing point analysis explained the variant shadows. 

I discuss these and other issues in my article The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos. The full transcript of my interview with Mr. Mee can be found in my online book Hasty Judgment. 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard photos without markedly altering the position of the mannequin's head to the point that it bore no resemblance to the position of the backyard figure's head.  

The PEP's explanation for the obvious difference between Oswald's chin and the backyard figure's chin is lame. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson didn't buy it either. Revealingly, the PEP declined to publish the Penrose measurements for the chin. 

To explain the charge that the backgrounds in the photos were identical, the PEP ended up proving that the backgrounds are virtually identical. The PEP did horizontal and vertical parallax measurements and, damningly, found only "very small" differences in the distances between background objects in the photos. How small? Incredibly small. Tiny fractions of an inch.

When I interviewed photographic expert Brian Mee, he zeroed in on this finding as strong evidence of forgery. He noted that it was wildly implausible that a camera supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film between exposures could have produced three photos with backgrounds that were virtually identical, three photos that had such incredibly small differences in the distances between background objects. 

Mr. Mee scoffed at the argument that the PEP's vanishing point analysis explained the variant shadows. 

I discuss these and other issues in my article The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos. The full transcript of my interview with Mr. Mee can be found in my online book Hasty Judgment. 

 

Michael,

I have some related information that you might find useful since you seem to have become somewhat of an expert on this  topic.

Others might find this useful or interesting themselves.

We have a forum member named Tom Hume who I haven't seen posting in many years. I ignored most of his posts because they were generally about numerology or some other pseudoscientific nonsense. (Sorry, Tom.) But one time he said that if you take two of the BYPs and viewed them with a stereoscopic viewer, you would indeed see the background in 3D.

So I bought a cheap 3D viewer and tried it, and by golly it worked! But not in the normal way. It worked only if the two photos were rotated by 90 degree (i.e. tipped over). It was as though you were there in the back yard and could see 3D only if you had you your head tipped sideways.*

The odds of this happening by chance are very low, thus indicating a probable forgery. (The HSCA even new about this phenomenon. So why didn't they mention the probable forgery?)

The most likely way those stereoscopic photos were made was with a stereoscopic camera rotated sideways. Stereoscopic cameras were popular at the time.

Anyway, this is yet one more piece of evidence pointing to  a forgery.

 

* BTW, FWIW.... Actually physically rotating your head probably won't do what  my above mind-experiment makes you think it will do. If you rotate your head, your eyes will rotate in the opposite rotational to compensate. Just try it in front of a mirror and you will see that what I'm saying is true. Eye muscles try very hard to keep eyes level.

 

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

 

 

Indeed.

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

 

Oh c'mon. Look at the gate in your comparison. The back yard photo has been tilted to the side to disguise that the Oswald figure is leaning to its right. Now, could Oswald have been leaning in such a manner? Sure. But he probably would have taken a quick step to his right just after the picture was taken. 

That's one of the problems with photos. They capture a precise instant in time. In this case, the Oswald figure--whether it be Oswald himself or a body double--was standing in an awkward position that just seems odd. It's almost like one of those boxing photos in which the face of the boxer receiving the blow is incredibly distorted. It's a split second in time. 

As for myself, I am still on the "backyard" fence on this issue. The photos look like they may have been altered. Some of the negatives "disappeared", or else never existed, in such case copies were made by the DPD that fooled the HSCA photo panel. So the jury in my mind is still out. But I do put substantial weight on Marina's claim she took the photos--somehow, someway--and if I recall Marguerite admitted seeing one as well.

So I accept the possibility they're legit, and were taken at Oswald's instruction to impress someone.

But let's not pretend there are no oddities about the photos. 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Charles Blackmon]

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I'm not knowledgeable in the BYP area of study.

Just throwing out some layman questions as I look at the photos posted here.

Could someone give their take on the finger discrepancies of Oswald as shown in the main photo?

It is so easy to see how the fingers on Oswald's right hand seem clearly different that his fingers on his left hand.

Length, shape.

Oswald's fingers on his right hand seem shorter and thicker than his left hand fingers. Left hand fingers longer and more boney.

The ends of the fingers on his right hand seem square edged blocked or cropped off. Kind of like the tips were cut off.

Oswald's middle finger of his right hand looks to be the same length of the ring finger next to it.

On Oswald's left hand however, the fingers seem longer and they looked tapered and thinner at their ends. And the middle finger on Oswald's left hand is clearly longer than the index and ring fingers next to it.

Is this a light and/or shadow anomaly?

Maybe Oswald's right hand is getting more direct sunlight than his left hand?

Whatever, the finger differences between Oswald's left hand versus his right hand are clear...and weird.

Here is a link to the HSCA "photograph authentication" that supposedly details all of the findings regarding authenticity of the BYP.

HSCA Volume VI: IV. Conspiracy Questions - B. Photograph Authentication - 1. The Oswald Backyard Photographs (aarclibrary.org)

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

So I bought a cheap 3D viewer and tried it, and by golly it worked! But not in the normal way. It worked only if the two photos were rotated by 90 degree (i.e. tipped over). It was as though you were there in the back yard and could see 3D only if you had you your head tipped sideways.*

The odds of this happening by chance are very low, thus indicating a probable forgery. (The HSCA even new about this phenomenon. So why didn't they mention the probable forgery?)

The most likely way those stereoscopic photos were made was with a stereoscopic camera rotated sideways. Stereoscopic cameras were popular at the time.

 

 

A stereoscopic camera? Wouldn't you think something like that would be kind of expensive and out of reach for a guy like Oswald who had trouble keeping a job?

I agree that the backgrounds in 133-a and 133-b look like carbon copies of each other. Which proves forgery right there. It's just a question of who created the photos and for what purpose. A former poster on EF seemed to think Oswald did it himself, with an associate providing the "body". Not sure if that makes any sense or not. 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Michael,

I have some related information that you might find useful since you seem to have become somewhat of an expert on this  topic.

Others might find this useful or interesting themselves.

We have a forum member named Tom Hume who I haven't seen posting in many years. I ignored most of his posts because they were generally about numerology or some other pseudoscientific nonsense. (Sorry, Tom.) But one time he said that if you take two of the BYPs and viewed them with a stereoscopic viewer, you would indeed see the background in 3D.

So I bought a cheap 3D viewer and tried it, and by golly it worked! But not in the normal way. It worked only if the two photos were rotated by 90 degree (i.e. tipped over). It was as though you were there in the back yard and could see 3D only if you had you your head tipped sideways.*

The odds of this happening by chance are very low, thus indicating a probable forgery. (The HSCA even new about this phenomenon. So why didn't they mention the probable forgery?)

I suspect that the HSCA PEP members knew or strongly suspected that the backyard photos were fake. The fact that they refused to publish the Penrose measurements for the chin says volumes. They had to know that their vanishing point analysis did not even remotely explain the impossible variations in the shadows. They outright lied about duplicating the variant shadows with the mannequin (at least McCamy admitted that the model's head was "no longer looking at the camera" when they finally got one of the shadows to fall at the required angle, but of course the backyard figure's head is looking almost straight at the camera). And on and on we could go.

Several years ago, one of the PEP members emailed me after he read the first version of my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." He was quite upset by the article. But, when I asked him to explain the phony reenactment with the mannequin and the impossibly tiny distances between the background objects in the photos, he never replied.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Crane]

For the hardcores out there wanting more info.

If I'm not mistaken,I seem to recall a investigator mentioning that you can take the head photo & place it on both pictures and it comes out the same?

Give it a try.

But don't hold me to this,I was actually just laying on the couch with Youtube playing.I might have been half asleep.

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I would be interested to know what you mean by counter lean (physiologically that is, not appearance-wise). I agree with your description that "His lower body leans out to the left while his upper body is almost straight up and down." What is your take on the head?

Nobody has mentioned here about the straight dark line above the chin which the HSCA "experts" tried to explain away as caused by a water spot, which would be caused by somebody doing a poor job developing the picture in the darkroom.

A counter lean is when the person leans their upper body in the opposite direction of the lean. In Oswald's 133a you can draw a straight line from the base of the throat at the clavicle, down over the fly flap or belt buckle and to a location between his feet on the ground.  When there's is a counter lean you can't draw one straight line from clavicle to the feet. You have one line from clavicle to the belt buckle, and then the line has to deviate to follow the lean of the legs down to that spot between his feet.

[Sean Coleman]

 

 

Haha OMG!!! When reversed this pic is hilarious!! 
Didn’t realise the sausage fingered  big headed assassin was also a gravity defying contortionist! 
Lawdy dawdy…….