Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Backyard photos


Recommended Posts

I've been trying to approach any analysis of photos with an open mind, knowing that the human eye and the human brains way of interpreting objects in terms of perspective, relationship etc, is often faulty, and trying to apply as much empirical scientific evaluation using modern *computer techniques as I can, and trying to develop same where I can find no preexisting ones, I can't yet say what my opinion is regarding the backyard photos. In the process I've not given time to consider 'why does it matter?'.

What exactly is the significance of the backyard photos? If they are genuine, what does that mean? If they are fake, what does that mean? Perhaps someone could succinctly sum that up?

*with regards to the distorted perspectives etc in these photos, it should be possible to analyze the lens used and develop a formula that would correct that in a similar way that the mirror errors on the hubble telescopes have been corrected for? Would that be difficult? With lasers and a light sensitive surface like that in a digital camera I'd imagine it could be quite easy. Though whether anyone could be bothered is another question. Existing distortion correctors would probably go some way towards it, and educated guesses provide the rest. Then with these corrected images perhaps it is easier to see with the naked eye what the problem is? So far, and I'll post images shortly, 3D graphing of the light values of the chins in the photos are more similar to those of other photos of Oswald than say Roscoe. What 'looks' like a broad chin is actually a pointy one where the grayscale values are sufficiently close to the extereme end of the spectrum to give the eye the impression that it is wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marcel, I find your camera experiments with the polaroid interesting. I wonder if you could comment on the feasibility of using a reverse technique to test the backyard photos? In other words , take the negatives (if they exist? if they don't, could they be recreated on a transparent surface?) and place them where the film would have been and then project them with the original lens, or a sufficiently similar one) onto a surface to perhaps see more closely what the image that created the film might have looked like? In this way one could experiment with tilt and distance. JohnD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig penned:

Great! I can't wait to see what you can do David. It would be a refreshing to see you actually DO something for a change instead of whinning like a stuck cat.

______________

where oh where have I recently heared the term "whinning"? Shame on you ...

Still waiting for a reputable physicist to 'join' [or enlist] your camp? To set JCostella straight -- tough sledding, huh?

How is the "seamless DPlaza film sequence" coming along? Access to all those 1st and 2nd generation films and all - been what, 4 years so far?

Talk about credibility? ROFLMFAO!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems to be difficult to engage in serious discourse on many issues in this forum, invariably some chest-thumping has to be put up with. I don't know anything about this dispute between Craig and David,presumably there is some history there.

I can sympathise with with Craig if he has promised in the past a "seamless DPlaza film sequence" and not yet delivered. In my own experience which started on that sort of issue about 4 months ago, getting the technique right to the point of feeling reasonably satisfied with the results took me about two months daily work , sometimes up to 16 hours a day. Fortunately I have had that sort of time available, and will again in the future. Many people would not. I'd certainly encourage others to work on such things, though apparently it's not something that many are interested in doing. Perhaps a bit less bickering would help in getting people to feel it is a worthwhile thing?

As far as looking to set up 'camps' or 'groupings' I'd suggest that such things might not be a healthy thing, one invariably risks getting involved in some sort of compromise. The cronyism that form part of the ethos of 'special interest' groups, that close rank and devalue truth seeking is part of the whole problem that this forum has to now deal with. I believe that sort of herd mentality is generally not engaged in by serious researchers. Those who DO regard sharing of thoughts and research material as a wortwhile thing fortunately will continue to do so.

I suspect that many who do take these issues seriously would be more likely to engage in discussion if they felt that they would not risk getting involved in some petty disputes. However, as these disputes seem to be par for the course here, a little time and reading past the sillyness generally enables one to stay on track.

It would be nice to continue to have responses to the posts on the backyard photo's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems to be difficult to engage in serious discourse on many issues in this forum, invariably some chest-thumping has to be put up with. I don't know anything about this dispute between Craig and David,presumably there is some history there.

I can sympathise with with Craig if he has promised in the past a "seamless DPlaza film sequence" and not yet delivered. In my own experience which started on that sort of issue about 4 months ago, getting the technique right to the point of feeling reasonably satisfied with the results took me about two months daily work , sometimes up to 16 hours a day. Fortunately I have had that sort of time available, and will again in the future. Many people would not. I'd certainly encourage others to work on such things, though apparently it's not something that many are interested in doing. Perhaps a bit less bickering would help in getting people to feel it is a worthwhile thing?

As far as looking to set up 'camps' or 'groupings' I'd suggest that such things might not be a healthy thing, one invariably risks getting involved in some sort of compromise. The cronyism that form part of the ethos of 'special interest' groups, that close rank and devalue truth seeking is part of the whole problem that this forum has to now deal with. I believe that sort of herd mentality is generally not engaged in by serious researchers. Those who DO regard sharing of thoughts and research material as a wortwhile thing fortunately will continue to do so.

I suspect that many who do take these issues seriously would be more likely to engage in discussion if they felt that they would not risk getting involved in some petty disputes. However, as these disputes seem to be par for the course here, a little time and reading past the sillyness generally enables one to stay on track.

It would be nice to continue to have responses to the posts on the backyard photo's.

I don't get any of it either, you'd think grown men & women could have a civil discussion without fighting like alley cats. The vast majority of this community has a severe flair for histrionics.

The backyard photos, if real, mean that Oswald did own the rifle supposedly used to kill JFK, and the gun used to kill Tippit. It also implicated him as a Communist, as he was holding Communist literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..........................

The backyard photos, if real, mean that Oswald did own the rifle supposedly used to kill JFK, and the gun used to kill Tippit. It also implicated him as a Communist, as he was holding Communist literature.

OK. Nic, in that case it seems to me, if the photos are genuine, that would still not mean Oswald used the weapons to kill. there is a certain 'theatricality' that doesn't make sense about the photos. Stephen mentioned in another thread that it's a copy of Militant and Worker, from two organisations that are historically opposed to each other. The Stalinists killed Trotsky only a few years previously. I've argued that on some issues however that these organisations would grudgingly appear to cooperate, for example on the need to support the Cuban revolution. Still there is something about the whole thing that doesn't make sense. It's almost as if they are 'advertisements', or 'job applications', perhaps. A convenient thing to use in framing Oswald? So I wonder, do they 'need' to be fakes to prove a conspiracy? JohnD

edit:: could genuineness and the way they have been used be indicative of a conspiracy? As far as I understand, only two of the photos originally appeared, the third some time later? However, the pose of the detective may indicate that this third photo was in possession of the authorities, and for some reason withheld. "Why?" I can't at this moment imagine. Perhaps for no significant reason. Again I'm not arguing the genuineness or otherwise of the photos (Marcels analysis of the shadows are interesting, worth looking into) but rather trying to understand their significance.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..........................

The backyard photos, if real, mean that Oswald did own the rifle supposedly used to kill JFK, and the gun used to kill Tippit. It also implicated him as a Communist, as he was holding Communist literature.

OK. Nic, in that case it seems to me, if the photos are genuine, that would still not mean Oswald used the weapons to kill. there is a certain 'theatricality' that doesn't make sense about the photos. Stephen mentioned in another thread that it's a copy of Militant and Worker, from two organisations that are historically opposed to each other. The Stalinists killed Trotsky only a few years previously. I've argued that on some issues however that these organisations would grudgingly appear to cooperate, for example on the need to support the Cuban revolution. Still there is something about the whole thing that doesn't make sense. It's almost as if they are 'advertisements', or 'job applications', perhaps. A convenient thing to use in framing Oswald? So I wonder, do they 'need' to be fakes to prove a conspiracy? JohnD

edit:: could genuineness and the way they have been used be indicative of a conspiracy? As far as I understand, only two of the photos originally appeared, the third some time later? However, the pose of the detective may indicate that this third photo was in possession of the authorities, and for some reason withheld. "Why?" I can't at this moment imagine. Perhaps for no significant reason. Again I'm not arguing the genuineness or otherwise of the photos (Marcels analysis of the shadows are interesting, worth looking into) but rather trying to understand their significance.

Hi John

If Oswald was part of the conspiracy in some way, even if he was not the lone shooter, or if the CIA connived to make him a patsy, there might be circumstances in which he could have willingly allowed himself to be photographed with the rifle and the Communist literature. The common wisdom, almost from the beginning, though, seems to have been that the backyard photographs were faked, which is of course what Oswald himself said -- that his head had been pasted on someone else's body. To my eyes, the work of Jack White to show that a fellow Marine had been the person whose body was used doesn't appear totally persuasive. Again, as with a lot of these things, much is in the eye of the beholder. It has been pointed out that White's testimony before the before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations was not persuasive. However, as detailed on that link, possibly his questioners' attempt to discredit White for not understanding the principles of "photogrammetry" might conceivably be considered a lawyer's trick to dismiss the testimony of someone who really did have something useful to contribute to the investigation. I remain open minded at this point and am still looking into the backyard photograph question.

All my best

Chris George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John

If Oswald was part of the conspiracy in some way, even if he was not the lone shooter, or if the CIA connived to make him a patsy, there might be circumstances in which he could have willingly allowed himself to be photographed with the rifle and the Communist literature. The common wisdom, almost from the beginning, though, seems to have been that the backyard photographs were faked, which is of course what Oswald himself said -- that his head had been pasted on someone else's body. To my eyes, the work of Jack White to show that a fellow Marine had been the person whose body was used doesn't appear totally persuasive. Again, as with a lot of these things, much is in the eye of the beholder. It has been pointed out that White's testimony before the before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations was not persuasive. However, as detailed on that link, possibly his questioners' attempt to discredit White for not understanding the principles of "photogrammetry" might conceivably be considered a lawyer's trick to dismiss the testimony of someone who really did have something useful to contribute to the investigation. I remain open minded at this point and am still looking into the backyard photograph question.

All my best

Chris George

Thank you Chris, I agree. So concievably there was thought to be a good reason to discredit said findings because of the conclusions derived from them? If so I still wonder if that could possibly be a 'non argument' in the sense that should the photos be genuine then : so what?? I'm sure there is an answer to 'so what', I'm just not understanding it at the moment. I speculate ( and I must admit I'm not all that comfortable with this, it seems too daft somehow) should Oswald really have posed for those photos, and was now aware of a policeman and president being killed then he might be of a mind to continue a lie that he had no rifle by saying this about the photos. Still I wonder how important it is for them to be or not be fakes, either way it could be argued there is a conspiracy. At the time though when he would have seen a trial and possible execution on the horizon to be associated with the weapons was certainly a difficult position. In hindsight I wonder if perhaps the significance lies elsewhere? JohnD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit:: could genuineness and the way they have been used be indicative of a conspiracy? As far as I understand, only two of the photos originally appeared, the third some time later? However, the pose of the detective may indicate that this third photo was in possession of the authorities, and for some reason withheld. "Why?" I can't at this moment imagine. Perhaps for no significant reason. Again I'm not arguing the genuineness or otherwise of the photos (Marcels analysis of the shadows are interesting, worth looking into) but rather trying to understand their significance.

John, if the DPD faked the photographs it is indicative of a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald while he was still alive. To most minds, this is absolute proof of a vast conspiracy to kill Kennedy, as why would the DPD frame a man who was merely a suspect, and might still name others?. I suggest you read the other threads on the photos to get a better understanding of their significance. I reactivated one just the other day in hopes some here would do so.

The existence of 133 C as revealed by Geneva White is one of the most damaging discoveries of the post WC period. Here we have a first generation print of an Oswald photo that was never given to the WC or the FBI. The HSCA investigated--an investigation that apparently has no paper trail, by the way--and discovered that one of the DPD officers, Studebaker, had made copies of the various photos and given them to his fellow officers. There are huge problems with this. One problem is that the detectives who found the photos testified to finding only two. I believe the FBI agent who was a witness to Oswald being confronted by the photos also said there were only two. That NO ONE at the DPD who had all three photos ever said there were three is highly suspicious. Furthermore, the negatives to 133 A and 133 C have never surfaced. Famed newspaper editor Gene Roberts, who was at that time a young reporter for the Detroit Free Press, is reported to have purchased a bunch of contraband photos in early 64. One of these photos was 133 A, and it was published by the Press before Life Magazine could print their version which they purchased from Marina. In the HSCA report on the photos there is no mention of anyone ever contacting the Detroit Free Press and seeing if they still have this material or if their 133A was a first generation copy. I have suggested that interested researchers here do as much.

Since the photo found in the DPD files of the detective mocking the pose of 133 C indicates some sort of re-enactment was attempted or achieved, it would seem that a careful study of the photographs should begin with 133-C, which the shadows indicate was the first photo taken (the HSCA report said as much) and was the photo completely concealed from the WC. I don't have the photographic equipment to do so, but perhaps you can do a comparison of Oswald's hands in the photos. To my eyes it looks like Oswald's hand in 133-c has been smeared in some way. This led me to compare it to the other photos and it seemed to me that the rings on his fingers change hands from photo to photo. This led me to suspect that 133-C was kept from the public because the body double had left his wedding ring on. Just a hunch.

That said, I'm not completely convinced the photos are fake. I am 100% convinced that members of the DPD stole some of the photos and that this obvious blatant FACT was largely ignored by the HSCA and the mainstream media. WHY? If the LAPD can be crucified for beating Rodney King why wasn't the DPD criticicized fro mishandling evidence in the biggest case of the century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with regards to the shadows, and an attempt at distortion correction:

I thought it might be helpful to myself to see if I could correct the distortion in the three photographs in order to compare them. having done so to some extent I then superimposed them on each other. Then drawing a line from the tip of the stock of the rifle to the corresponding point on the shadow, from the knuckle on the hand to corresponding point, from the holster to corresponding point it appears to me that the photons travelling from the sun to the ground in all three photos are largely on a parallel path. It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow of the photo of 'Oswald' further away closer to the body.

How tall was Marina. Using a down looking camera by a person of a particular height may allow a "reverse engineering" that could be used to determine the height of the person taking the photo' with the one of the detective if one knew the height of the one taking that photo as a reference.

*please refer to the preceding posts for images and discussion. Good points have been made regarding the significance of the photos. I feel more could be said on what it wouyld mean IF the photos were genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with regards to the shadows, and an attempt at distortion correction:

I thought it might be helpful to myself to see if I could correct the distortion in the three photographs in order to compare them. having done so to some extent I then superimposed them on each other. Then drawing a line from the tip of the stock of the rifle to the corresponding point on the shadow, from the knuckle on the hand to corresponding point, from the holster to corresponding point it appears to me that the photons travelling from the sun to the ground in all three photos are on a parallel path indicating photos taking around the same time. It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow of the photo of 'Oswald' further away closer to the body.*

How tall was Marina. Using a down looking camera by a person of a particular height may allow a "reverse engineering" that could be used to determine the height of the person taking the photo' with the one of the detective, if one knew the height of the one taking that photo, as a reference.

(please refer to the preceding posts for images and discussion. Good points have been made regarding the significance of the photos. I feel more could be said on what it would mean IF the photos were genuine.)

edit:: *this sentence perhaps clearer like this :: "It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow closer to the body in the photo where 'Oswald' is further away from the camera, or closer to the fence."

edit2:: I just noticed that the two news papers 'Oswald' is holding appear to be in 'mint' condition. Whenever I buy or pick up from a postbox a publication that I am interested in, if I catch the bus I will read them. To refold a read newspaper neatly has always been difficult for me. Seldom also two publications will arrive simultaneously if I check my mail regularly.

So, it seems to me that either: 'Oswald', had no interest in the publications that overode a keeness to use them in this set of photos, or they were bought specifically for this pupose, again by someone without interest in them. (has it been established when these publications were supposed to have come into 'Oswalds' possession?) Did they come from his postbox? If so, there should be a record as the mail monitoring/opening operation in the post office was in place at this time. If they DID come through the post office, is this record available? If the record is NOT available, why not. The post office, CIA and FBI , (DPD?) should have it. If they are 'old' again it begs the questions : why are they apparently not read, by someone supposedly a communist? Maybe because it is not Oswald in the photos? If it is Oswald then apparent lack of interest would lead me to question how much of a communist he really was.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

with regards to the shadows, and an attempt at distortion correction:

I thought it might be helpful to myself to see if I could correct the distortion in the three photographs in order to compare them. having done so to some extent I then superimposed them on each other. Then drawing a line from the tip of the stock of the rifle to the corresponding point on the shadow, from the knuckle on the hand to corresponding point, from the holster to corresponding point it appears to me that the photons travelling from the sun to the ground in all three photos are on a parallel path indicating photos taking around the same time. It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow of the photo of 'Oswald' further away closer to the body.

How tall was Marina. Using a down looking camera by a person of a particular height may allow a "reverse engineering" that could be used to determine the height of the person taking the photo' with the one of the detective, if one knew the height of the one taking that photo, as a reference.

*please refer to the preceding posts for images and discussion. Good points have been made regarding the significance of the photos. I feel more could be said on what it wouyld mean IF the photos were genuine.

John,

The main reason for the differences in the body shadow on the ground is simply the body position of Oswald. His body position changes and the shadows on the ground change. Nothing sisister here at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, your questions about the [apparently] unread newspapers certainly seem to raise a valid point. In all my years of reading and studying on the assassination, I don't recall anyone ever bringing up those points before.

Of course, there are those among us who might say that, just because you [and I] have trouble refolding a newspaper perfectly, it may be that Oswald was sufficiently anally retentive to be obsessive about achieving a perfectly folded newspaper every time. But I personally doubt that Oswald was so inclined.

Speculation on my part...no supporting evidence to this point...but so far no refuting evidence, either.

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...