Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Backyard photos


Recommended Posts

I think there is no doubt that the backyard photos are fishy.

Given that, someone had to pose as the body double here which is pretty ballsy seeing that if the wind changed, they themselves could be implicated.

I have no doubts that this person wore some kind of facial disguise for the initial shots. I know I would have. :ph34r:

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there is no doubt that the backyard photos are fishy.

Given that, someone had to pose as the body double here which is pretty ballsy seeing that if the wind changed, they themselves could be implicated.

I have no doubts that this person wore some kind of facial disguise for the initial shots. I know I would have.  :ph34r:

James

I have proved (99 percent certainty) that the person who

posed for the body and chin on which the LHO face was pasted

was ROSCOE WHITE. (see my videos, FAKE and THE MANY

FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have proved (99 percent certainty) that the person who

posed for the body and chin on which the LHO face was pasted

was ROSCOE WHITE. ..........Jack

Hmmm... perhaps here's the missing one percent.? When neck width and head size are matched, chest width and shoulder width don't match, and vice versa of course. Also, though it's harder to say, length of limbs don't appear to match. The left image is the b'yard photo resized to correct shoulder width which produces a neck considerably thicker and a chin width wider than that of Roscoes. Oswald probably would have been a large person if he had eaten more as a child. His emotions and his beating* would probably account for the pinched look in the mug shots. Ear position, size and shape also appear different. However, comparing to his mugshot maintains basic body proportions. I'm not saying it's not a fake. I haven't studied it enough for that. But I admit that for a long time before getting involved in all this I found my cursory look at the material to be pretty convincing that they were faked.

*I was aware that he had been hit on the side of the head.It looks to me that he was also hit on the nose. I wonder if his autopsy looked at injuries sustained while being apprehended or while in custody.

JohnD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

Quickly… (sorry for the grammar… always my bad Fr-English) :hotorwot

I would like to bring my support to my buddy, Mister Jack White!

Jack is RIGHT!!! The backyard photos are FAKES!

Hereunder the set of Backyard photos, CE-133A, B and C.

At first glance, considering LHO body's shadow, it is obvious that CE-133 C was taken before CE-133 B.

The shadow of LHO's body has a different orientation on each photo.

That means that there is a time gap of several minutes between each take.

There is nothing of special there simply because… according to Marina testimony, she hasn't advanced the film herself between each photo (it's LHO who did it).

The real problem is elsewhere!

Onto the three photos the shadows from background, and especially the one from the staircases projected on the fence, are identical (no angular variations).

I think that there is no rational explanation for that! :blink:

Best regards from Belgium… ;)

Imperial 620 - Duo Lens Camera (Used to take the Backyard Photos)

fakes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcel, I wonder if you know when during the time that the shutter is open on Zapruders camera, how long from when the light hits the film it is registered as an image? I'm trying to find out if there is a lapse there to consider in working out how long the film during that 1/35 seconds is 'exposed'?

JohnD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Jack White -

So many of your early criticisms were easily seen with the naked eye - no exotic methods of measurement ("photogrammetry") were necessary. They seemed to want to disqualify all of your points with your admission that you were unfamiliar with that term. Your theory that the pictures were complete composites used to seem a bit too radical to me - but, I have seen the light - and, I now believe you have been completely correct, all along. No neighbor or passer-by would ever forget witnessing that particular "photo-shoot" - yet, there are no witnesses. And, perpetrators would never risk "posing" a stand-in like that in broad daylight, leaving such a "loose thread". On March 31, according to weather records - the day ascertained to have been when pictures were taken - was overcast and rainy all day long.

I also agree that Roscoe White was the "stand-in". His full-length body-type matches almost exactly with the backyard figures - Lee Oswald does not. White only became employed with the Dallas police in October - and worked in their photo-lab - and shared some amazing, coincidental history with Oswald. His own son publicly incriminates his dad - saying that he left a diary admitting complete involvement in the assassination plot - shooting at the President with a Mauser - and eliminating 28 witnesses afterwards - all set in motion through cryptic orders from superiors. His wife Geneva worked for Jack Ruby in September and related that she had heard the plot discussed. She also provided some of the "new" backyard photos to investigators prior to the opening of the HSCA.

I was wondering about the "re-creation" (Marina & Lee) which you staged in the actual 214 Neely Street backyard when all of the main backyard elements were still in place (which seemed to be very well done, by the way) in your video, "FAKE". Did you ever take any measurements while you were there that day - such as the prominent stairway support post to the figure's left - the fence - or, the left edge the shed? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcel, I wonder if you know when during the time that the shutter is open on Zapruders camera, how long from when the light hits the film it is registered as an image? I'm trying to find out if there is a lapse there to consider in working out how long the film during that 1/35 seconds is 'exposed'?

JohnD

Hi John!

(the question is slightly off-topic) :lol:

The Zapruder camera has a fixed shutter speed which is equal to 1/35 of a second (1/40 of a second according to R. Zavada.)

Therefore each film frame is invariably exposed during 1/35 of a second!

The amount of light hitting the film is regulated by the opening of the diaphragm (iris.)

Regards,

Edited by Marcel Dehaeseleer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcel, I wonder if you know when during the time that the shutter is open on Zapruders camera, how long from when the light hits the film it is registered as an image? I'm trying to find out if there is a lapse there to consider in working out how long the film during that 1/35 seconds is 'exposed'?

JohnD

Hi John!

(the question is slightly off-topic) ;)

The Zapruder camera has a fixed shutter speed which is equal to 1/35 of a second (1/40 of a second according to R. Zavada.)

Therefore each film frame is invariably exposed during 1/35 of a second!

The amount of light hitting the film is regulated by the opening of the diaphragm (iris.)

Regards,

At 18 frames per second (18.3 if you believe the fbi calculations) the shutter was 1/40th sec. 16 frames per second equates to 1/35th second. B&H and others in the industry at the time were moving toward the faster 18fps mode of operation.

At least according to Zavada.

The math does work out, though.

Either way, it is safe to say that the frames were exposed at least 1/40th of a second.

----

I'm also with Mr. White on his opinion of the backyard photos... Fake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Marcel, that may explain the results I've been getting. I've been using 1/35. I'll recheck those and see what I get. JohnD

ps. I'm not 'with' you, Jack, or anyone else. I'm also not against you, or anyone else on the backyard photos being or not being fake. I haven't completed my analysis yet. I wouldn't mind hearing what answer is to the discrepancies of body proportions are though with regards to coming to a conclusion of whether it is or isn't Roscoues body/chin. Maybe I've missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Jack White -

                        So many of your early criticisms were easily seen with the naked eye - no exotic methods of measurement ("photogrammetry") were necessary.  They seemed to want to disqualify all of your points with your admission that you were unfamiliar with that term.  Your theory that the pictures were complete composites used to seem a bit too radical to me - but, I have seen the light - and, I now believe you have been completely correct, all along.  No neighbor or passer-by would ever forget witnessing that particular "photo-shoot" - yet, there are no witnesses.      And, perpetrators would never risk "posing" a stand-in like that in broad daylight, leaving such a "loose thread".  On March 31, according to weather records - the day ascertained to have been when pictures were taken - was overcast and rainy all day long. 

  I also agree that Roscoe White was the "stand-in".  His full-length body-type matches almost exactly with the backyard figures - Lee Oswald does not.  White only became employed with the Dallas police in October - and worked in their photo-lab - and shared some amazing, coincidental history with Oswald.  His own son publicly incriminates his dad - saying that he left a diary admitting complete involvement in the assassination plot - shooting at the President with a Mauser - and eliminating 28 witnesses afterwards - all set in motion through cryptic orders from superiors.  His wife Geneva worked for Jack Ruby in September and related that she had heard the plot discussed.  She also provided some of the "new" backyard photos to investigators prior to the opening of the HSCA.

  I was wondering about the "re-creation" (Marina & Lee) which you staged in the actual 214 Neely Street backyard when all of the main backyard elements were still in place (which seemed to be very well done, by the way) in your video, "FAKE".  Did you ever take any measurements while you were there that day - such as the prominent stairway support post to the figure's left - the fence - or, the left edge the shed?  Thanks.

I am pleased that you agree with me about the faked photos, and that

you have viewed my video. I will attempt to answer some of your comments/questions:

1. The Neely St. backyard was totally isolated from view, so neighbors and passersby

were unlikely to see anything going on there.

2. Only people who have seen my videos are aware of the arguments for Roscoe

White being the most likely candidate for being the person who posed. I am glad

that you find the evidence persuasive.

3. At the time of my reinactment, the stairway had been rebuilt and the support

post in a different location. If I recall right, the "shed" was no longer there at the

time. I would have to look at the video to make sure.

Jack ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is no doubt that the backyard photos are fishy.

Given that, someone had to pose as the body double here which is pretty ballsy seeing that if the wind changed, they themselves could be implicated.

I have no doubts that this person wore some kind of facial disguise for the initial shots. I know I would have.  ;)

James

I have proved (99 percent certainty) that the person who

posed for the body and chin on which the LHO face was pasted

was ROSCOE WHITE. (see my videos, FAKE and THE MANY

FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

Jack

Not many researchers are aware of my studies of the Marine photo

found in LHO possessions which show Roscoe White, Saul, and a friend

of Roscoe...all in a photo allegedly taken by LHO with the Imperial

Reflex camera.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note, I have not come to any conclusion with regards to the authenticity of the backyard photos.

Image 1. With regards to Roscoe Oswald comparison: These mugshots further indicate differences in Roscoes and Oswalds physique that seem to cast doubt on whether Roscoe was the body in the backyard photos. As I understand it the contention is that the face of Oswald has been superimposed on the body of Roscoe. There appears to be no mistake in said superimposition as far as the head proportions go. So therefore if Oswalds face is to scale and properly placed on the head then the neck matches the neck size of Oswald, not Roscoe. If the neck is scaled up to match then the face size of Oswald would reveal a discrepancy in the head size. As well, either way the shoulder width and chest width follow a similar relationship.

Is the contention that the ears are Roscoes? If so then obviously not.

These two mugshots are taken 17 days apart. It is likely, as it is a standardised procedure that these photos were taken with the same camera with subject and camera in the same location (watch the birdie...) hence these two mugshots are probably the best images available for comparing upper body propertions. It would be helpful to have the full size one of Roscoe. So while not conclusive I think this casts doubt on a statement that it is Roscoes body.

Image 2. With regards to the backyard photos: I am curious as to the history of the photos. Are the two better ones known the ones dated 1978 here? If so, the third one is the one where 'Oswald' holds a paper in the right hand. In which case the detective posing with a rifle here may have seen the third as he is holding up his right hand to simulate holding a newspaper? Either that, or it wasn't of significance, or he had seen a negative where depending on how he looks at it the magazine appears to be in 'Oswalds' right hand, though the visuals in the background should be an indicator, or he may have been visually dyslexic, or the person posing him was. Whatever, care was taken to locate the camera in the correct position. (The season of the photos may be ascertained by a botanist as the bush in the photo of the detective appears to be flowering.)

JohnD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

Following several critics and mockeries* coming from members of William Reymond's Forum; I carried out the little illustration hereunder to explain my previous graphic regarding the shadows from the Backyard photos.

(*) I think that they didn't understand what I wanted to pinpoint in the previous graphic.

The shadow of Oswald body in CE-133B is obviously different of the ones from CE-133A and C.

That means that CE-133-B has been the latest taken photo.

The shadows in CE-133-A and C are almost the same.

Therefore the right snapshots chronology could be as follows: A, C and B or C, A and B.

It is obvious that the Oswald shadow angle in CE-133B is oriented in a different way, a few degrees clockwise.

Considering that, the shadow of the staircase which is projected on the barrier's picket should also be different!

It is not the case!

The shadow of the staircase projected on the picket is the same on each Backyard photo!

That is physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!

backy-(en).jpg

Edited by Marcel Dehaeseleer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

Following several critics and mockeries* coming from members of William Reymond's Forum; I carried out the little illustration hereunder to explain my previous graphic regarding the shadows from the Backyard photos.

(*) I think that they didn't understand what I wanted to pinpoint in the previous graphic.

The shadow of Oswald body in CE-133B is obviously different of the ones from CE-133A and C.

That means that CE-133-B has been the latest taken photo.

The shadows in CE-133-A and C are almost the same.

Therefore the right snapshots chronology could be as follows: A, C and B or C, A and B.

It is obvious that the Oswald shadow angle in CE-133B is oriented in a different way, a few degrees clockwise.

Considering that, the shadow of the staircase which is projected on the barrier's picket should also be different!

It is not the case!

The shadow of the staircase projected on the picket is the same on each Backyard photo!

That is physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!

backy-(en).jpg

Marcel, what you are saying is impossible is not impossible, but rather quite possible. The study of shadows in not intuitive. Unless you have spent a great deal of time studying the effects of light and shadow, its very easy to screw up. Most laymen and many photographers cannot judge a shadow to save their soul. Thats the case here.

In the case of the backyard photos the sun has not moved between any of the three frames and both the shadows on the fence and the Oswald body shadows on the ground are consistant with each other and to the light being in almost the exact same place for each of the three photos. Noting is out of place nor has the sun "moved" between any of the three images. The only things that HAVE moved are the camera and Oswalds body, which fully account for the changes in the shadow on the ground.

None if this is rocket science and can be proven easily with any camera.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Unless you have spent a great deal of time studying the effects of light and shadow, its very easy to screw up. Most laymen and many photographers cannot judge a shadow to save their soul. Thats the case here.

dgh01: imagine that, a lone neuter mentioning "save their soul". The irony...

In the case of the backyard photos the sun has not moved between any of the three frames and both the shadows on the fence and the Oswald body shadows on the ground are consistant with each other and to the light being in almost the exact same place for each of the three photos. Noting is out of place nor has the sun "moved" between any of the three images. The only things that HAVE moved are the camera and Oswalds body, which fully account for the changes in the shadow on the ground.

None if this is rocket science and can be proven easily with any camera.

dgh01: we await the demonstration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...