Another look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part I

[Michael Griffith]

22 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).

The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes.  During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast.  These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark.  In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints.  In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints.  The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.

The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.

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.

One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.

Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.

The HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) refused to acknowledge clear signs of forgery in the backyard photos.

For example, the panel's own parallax measurements found impossibly small differences in the distances between objects in the background of the photos. If the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the WC, i.e., with the camera handed back and forth between Lee and Marina between each picture so Lee could advance the film, those differences should be much, much, much larger. This was one of the issues that photographic expert Brian Mee zeroed in on when I interviewed him about the backyard photos. He noted that it would be difficult to achieve such virtually identical backgrounds with an automatic camera.

Also, the PEP was unable to duplicate the variant shadows in the photos. Although the PEP dishonestly claimed otherwise, one of the PEP members tacitly but clearly admitted that they could not duplicate the variant shadows with the model's head in the same position as the backyard's figure's head; to get the shadows to align, the PEP had to markedly tilt the model's head and alter the camera angle. One can look at the PEP's photos of their reenactment and easily see that the panel did not duplicate the problematic shadows when the model's head was in the same position as the backyard figure's head.

And, the PEP's own Penrose measurements cast serious doubt on the photos' authenticity, so much so that the PEP withheld the measurements for a long-recognized problem area in the photos: the chin. 

I discuss these issues and several others in this article:

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos

Edited September 5, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

Mike wrote a good critique of this issue.

He and Gil make some good points.