The Backyard photos

[Pat Speer]

John, could you do a comparison of Kennedy's right hand in the three photos? Based upon reproductions I"ve seen in books, I've speculated that he was wearing the wrong ring in the first photo, and that's why the photo disappeared for so long. I speculated that his hand was smeared because it wasn't wearing the Marine Corps rings apparent in the other photos, but was wearing the wedding ring of the body double. A good comparison by someone with your skills will hopefully prove this wrong.

[John Dolva]

arr Pat, flattery will get you anywhere. Seriously though. In this tilted grayscale 3D depth map the right hand in the first photo (which as you say is much more blurred than the other two.) there appears to be a shadow on the two middle fingers. In the second there appears to be reflections on the same two fingers. In the third there appears to be depressions in the skin on the same two fingers. Was he supposed to be wearing two rings?

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, John. Could you also do the left hand? I think I'd speculated the ring was switched to the left hand for the third photo. Something with the ring just seems wrong.

[John Dolva]

Thanks, John.  Could you also do the left hand?  I think I'd speculated  the ring was switched to the left hand for the third photo.  Something with the ring just seems wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Less clear on this. In the first photo there appears to be a ring on the third finger. In the third there appears to be five rings, 4 at obviously 'not ring' places. One possibly in same location as in the first. Was he wearing, known to have worn, one two or three rings?

[Pat Speer]

On the morning of the assassination, Oswald took off his wedding ring and wore his Marine Corps ring. His wedding ring was a plain gold band, near as I can figure. Even if there's nothing fishy with the ring in these photos, the fact that he wore his Marine Corps ring in the photos, and not his wedding ring, could be significant, as it debunks the theory that prior to November 22nd he'd never taken his ring off, and was thus not planning on seeing Marina again.

BTW, several of Oswald's co-workers have already popped this myth a little, by swearing to researchers that they NEVER saw him wear his wedding ring.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

Another thing that may be an issue is the apparent difference in head size in l. When all the heads are resized to the same ear to ear dimension as the mug shots, the second and third photo heads have consistent dimensions apart from slight differences caused by how the head is tilted. The profile shot can be used to show this: as when the head is tilted forward the length of the head appears to increase. However this factor is small as lining up the top of the ears and the center of the eye line easily shows.

The first photo on the other hand shows a shorter head. This may be explained by the fact that this photo is blurred. The extent and direction of this blur can be seen by comparing the buttons which show up nicely against the darker shirt.

When increasing the gamma the lighter blurred sections diminish and if one places a head at the extreeme of the blur then one gets an overall a head size that does correspond with the mug shots.

Should the photos turn out to be possibly genuine, then what does that mean? Like Pat, though in my case not by choice but by circumstance, I see evidence of a conspiracy even if these images are genuine. I've only been looking at the whole issue for a few months. So I suppose I can say I'm not aligned to ANY school, but only seek to understand things to the best of MY ability. This 'opening of the mind' thing that Pat alludes to in another thread and that others, Lee for example, can lead to interesting theories. In confirming/debunking them much may be learned. Anyway, that's what I believe. I don't understand why the photo's absolutely have to be false in order for there to be a conspiracy. (BTW, I still havent come to any conclusion one way or the other re their genuineness, maybe it's not possible to do more than say one is more likely than the other when taking other evidence into account, I don't know.

So, Pat? I'm still not clear on the number of ring's and on which hand conventional wisdom says he had during these so called 'backyard photos.?

[John Dolva]

Another thing that may be an issue is the apparent difference in head size in l. When all the heads are resized to the same ear to ear dimension as the mug shots, the second and third photo heads have consistent dimensions apart from slight differences caused by how the head is tilted. The profile shot can be used to show this: as when the head is tilted forward the length of the head appears to increase. However this factor is small as lining up the top of the ears and the center of the eye line easily shows.

The first photo on the other hand shows a shorter head. This may be explained by the fact that this photo is blurred. The extent and direction of this blur can be seen by comparing the buttons which show up nicely against the darker shirt.

When increasing the gamma the lighter blurred sections diminish and if one places a head at the extreeme of the blur then one gets an overall a head size that does correspond with the mug shots.

Should the photos turn out to be possibly genuine, then what does that mean? Like Pat, though in my case not by choice but by circumstance, I see evidence of a conspiracy even if these images are genuine. I've only been looking at the whole issue for a few months. So I suppose I can say I'm not aligned to ANY school, but only seek to understand things to the best of MY ability. This 'opening of the mind' thing that Pat alludes to in another thread and that others, Lee for example, can lead to interesting theories. In confirming/debunking them much may be learned. Anyway, that's what I believe. I don't understand why the photo's absolutely have to be false in order for there to be a conspiracy. (BTW, I still havent come to any conclusion one way or the other re their genuineness, maybe it's not possible to do more than say one is more likely than the other when taking other evidence into account, I don't know.

So, Pat? I'm still not clear on the number of ring's and on which hand conventional wisdom says he had during these so called 'backyard photos.?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been trying to make sense of the rifle. It's an easy matter to build a 3d model of a DPD photo of the rifle and turn it to get the resultant alteration of dimensions to match that of the backyard photos. But the scope is another matter. If the rifle is right the scope is wrong. Can anyone direct to a earliest photo showing the rifle with scope fitted as I think the one I'm using has had the scope altered/shifted.

[Pat Speer]

I've been trying to make sense of the rifle. It's an easy matter to build a 3d model of a DPD photo of the rifle and turn it to get the resultant alteration of dimensions to match that of the backyard photos. But the scope is another matter. If the rifle is right the scope is wrong. Can anyone direct to a earliest photo showing the rifle with scope fitted as I think the one I'm using has had the scope altered/shifted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, I don't know if there's an official view on the rings. It just appears to me that the large ring changes hands between the first and second photo. Since the right hand is blurred in the first photo, I thought that maybe there was originally a ring there--a ring that wasn't supposed to be there. Like a body double's wedding ring. Pure conjecture.

As far as the rifle, I believe Jack White has done some good work with that, and has shown that the M/C rifle in the photo has its strap attached differently than the rifle in the archives. Since there is no record of Oswald changing the strap, this raises some questions. Also regarding the rifle, I believe you have to be careful which version of the photo you look at, as Life Magazine, among others. did some airbrushing to better show the detail of the rifle against Oswald's body, and distorted its shape. You need to be sure your photos match those in the HSCA Report, which shows the originals.

[Robin Unger]

Oswald Cut and Paste job.

Replacing the original head with the oswald head, and also adding the new hand holding the newspaper.

This was a crop i did from a "Blow UP" of one of the backyard images which i found in the DPD File box (12).

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4084-001.gif

You need to "soften" the image a couple of times to get the best resolution.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

[Robin Unger]

Oswalds Marine ring

[JL Allen]

I think you've got something there.

[John Dolva]

a bit more on the rings.

There is a possibility there are rings on thesame fingers in all photo's. It'd be great to have a good res copy of the backyard photo's if anyone has them.

In the depth map below, there is a area oif greater illumination on all three hands in the same place indicating a ring. (3,4 and 5 finger here resized and rotated)