Backyard Photographs

[John Butler]

Thanks Tom,

I will give that a try.

photo deleted

Thanks Tom,

This really works well.

Edited August 13, 2018 by John Butler

[John Butler]

The shadows in the photo that you don't see or ignore:

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques.  The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake.  He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows.  The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left.  The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows.  This is common mistake with new artists.  So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. 

3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose.  It moves straight down indicating the light source is from above.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by John Butler

[Tom Hume]

On 8/11/2018 at 4:05 PM, James DiEugenio said:

What about this from a K and K reader?

 

As an artist, I have for many years have been struck by the 'oddness', in terms of proportion and pose, of the backyard Oswald photos.  A little while ago, I had a 'eureka' moment: we know the Militant and Worker newspapers were tabloid size, ie 11 x 17 inches. That means the paper Oswald holds vertically against his chest in one shot is 11 inches wide. Using this as a 'ruler' and a photo-editing program such as Photoshop, it's possible to work out a fair approximation of Oswald's height in the photograph. It's roughly 5 feet to 5 feet 4 inches, way below what it should be. This immediately screams 'fake' to me. I wonder what your view is on this, and whether anyone else has made the same calculation.

Regards

Hi James,

With my limited ability and equipment, my calculations will have to be approximate. I’ll use two methods.

Method #1: In the picture below, I simply made five semitransparent copies of the papers and stacked them on top of each other. The top of the stack is level with the top of the Oswald figure’s head.

If the papers are indeed 11 inches wide (tall in this case), then this stack of five papers is 55 inches tall. 

Now we have to make a judgement as to how far it is to the ground from the bottom semitransparent pair of papers. With the pair of papers on the left as a rough guide, I’m going to guess about 5 inches should be added to the 55 inch figure.

5 inches + 55 inches = 60 inches - an estimated height of 5 feet for the Oswald figure. 

Method #2: The “grab” feature on a Mac has a measuring counter, and measuring the left edge of the pair of papers yields the number “162”. Measuring the Oswald figure from the top of his head to the center of his right foot at the ground yields the number “867”.

If the papers are in fact 11 inches wide (tall in this case), the approximate height of the Oswald figure using this method is 4 foot 11 inches.

(867 divided by 162 equals 5.352.  5.352 times 11 inches equals 58.9 inches, or very close to 4 foot 11 inches)

I think Method #2 might be more accurate, but with fuzzy images and other possible complications, uh…?

Three possibilities:

(1) The papers are not 11 inches wide but almost 13 inches.

(2) The papers and the Oswald figure are way out of proportion with each other, and hence the photos are a hoax.

(3) I’m not very good at this stuff.

Tom

Edit: The rough measurements above were, of course, done on CE133A. I just went through the same process with 133C, and assuming an 11 inch paper, the Oswald figure's height is 62 inches, or 5' 2" (in CE133B, the papers are indistinct and sort-of unmeasurable. Also, we cannot see the Oswald figure's feet. I'll pass on CE133B).

Edited August 13, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Chris Bristow]

I have a new method for measuring the backyard. On google Earth you can count the horizontal slats on the front of the house and compare them to the 80 inch screen doors. I count 32 slats  which equals 80 inches or 2.5 inches per slat. From a side view of the house that shows the landing in the backyard I used the slats to confirm that the landing is 10 feet high, maybe 10 ' 4" at the tallest. I have also confirmed the landing at 10 feet two other ways. So that makes the steps 8 inches tall each. Oswald's head comes to 1.1/2 inches below the top of the 9th step. That puts him at 5'10. But the first step seems to be short by about two inches which makes Oswald 5'8". I have found that when you do not stand perfectly straight to measure your height your slouch drops one to two inches off your actual height. Also I have tested his lean and found it takes another inch off. I get his height at 5' 6" which is about right when you subtract his slouch and lean.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[Ray Mitcham]

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

 

 

Either the background is "natural and real" or it has been altered by having articial shadows added. Which one is it?

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Ray,

I see. You now have problems with reading.  Reread what I said and that will answer your question.

[Ray Mitcham]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

I see. You now have problems with reading.  Reread what I said and that will answer your question.

Perhaps you can explain how a thing can be "natural and real" and yet have "artificial shadows introduced  to it."

[Jeff Carter]

The “cutout” figure would not necessarily represent an easy photo-editing task, certainly not as simple as the later matte cutout done by a member of the Dallas Police would have it. Tricky matte areas include the small gap between the Oswald figure’s right elbow and his waist, the pistol on his hip, the creases of the trousers, and then the thin barrel of the rifle. Any small mistake would result in an obvious matte line. Also, assuming the Oswald figure’s shadow has been added, it has been carefully overlayed as features of the ground are still visible within the shadow (more apparent in 133-B and 133-C). So not the work of someone inexperienced, and this is one of the reasons why there was an earlier consensus that any fakery would be limited to the pasting of an Oswald head onto another body.

The analysts working for the HSCA had the great advantage of working with first generation copies and the existing negative, and a 30x magnifier. Unless they are lying, and I am unaware of any direct refutation of their work, their observations should be factored into these discussions. One important factor is the “curvature of field” (see item 457 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=189&tab=page), which suggests, at a minimum, that all elements within the BYP were filmed with the Imperial Reflex camera, and the positioning of the Oswald figure -if it was to be added later to backyard background - is remarkably consistent with features of the background based on relative sharpness of the image.

It should also be kept in mind that the Imperial Reflex camera is an extremely cheap low-end camera, and its evident flaws help the analysis to the extent it can be determined which images originated with that camera.

In my opinion, it is the camera itself, along with the mysterious provenance of 133-C, which are the major issues, and if these trails were followed properly by the HSCA then certainly one faction of the conspiracy could have been exposed. Instead, questions of authenticity served as a massive diversion.

[Tom Hume]

Hi Jeff,

You wrote “It should also be kept in mind that the Imperial Reflex camera is an extremely cheap low-end camera, and its evident flaws help the analysis to the extent it can be determined which images originated with that camera.”

You’re the expert, but I’m going to take exception with this phrase, “…it can be determined which images originated with that camera.” I want to nitpick one word - “originated”.

I believe that the Backyard Photos are a first-class photo forgery, and I agree that the Imperial Reflex was used, but only used in the very last stage.

It’s my belief that the Backyard Photos were actually taken with Lee Oswald’s high-quality Stereo Realist camera mounted sideways on a tripod. I believe that a body double was used. And I believe that 3D images of Lee Oswald’s head were added to the 3D yard photos.

Near the end of this process, the expertly doctored slides were projected on a screen, and rephotographed with the cheep Imperial Reflex. The 12 degrees of keystone could have been intentionally added at this time, or maybe done earlier. The final step was having prints made at a commercial film processing joint. 

There were at least two advantage to using this “cheep low-end camera” in the final stage. It blurred up the final prints a bit to help avoid detection, and the emulsion scratches on the prints and negatives would be compatible with the Imperial Reflex that was entered into evidence. 

I believe that those running Lee Oswald told him to buy some paper-trail laden firearms, and then have Marina take his picture brandishing them. 

I believe that the extant Backyard Photos were not taken by Marina, but were a clever creation of Oswald and his crew, created as just one of many absurd and enigmatic puzzle stunts for our benefit, and possibly for theirs.  

Tom

Appendix:

Below are CE133A and 133C rotated 88 degrees as intended for 3D viewing. 

Below are CE133A and 133C likewise rotated 88 degrees, but with the 12 degrees of keystone removed (explanation at a previous post on this thread). 

To view the 3D images, one needs to get a hold of good quality Stereoscope, and there are plenty of vintage examples out there. Ask your friends and relatives and you’ll surely come up with one (avoid the new cardboard ones you can buy on line for around $5.00). You will see Lee Oswald's backyard in stunning 3D, and Lee's 3D head jutting toward you in super 3D. Wesley's body will have four arms, but I have not yet found the significance of this, other than the fact that had both poses been the same, it would have been a dead give-away. 

With no photo-card in the cardholder of your Stereoscope, it’s possible to view the 3D Backyard Photos directly on you computer monitor with many of the Stereoscopes. For proper viewing, Oswald’s nose on the left photo, for example, should be very close to 3 inches from Oswald’s nose in the right photo. Do whatever you need to do to achieve this 3-inch relationship. If you find that you cannot get the Stereoscope close enough to your monitor to achieve a good focus, you will either need to cut off the cardholder stick (bad idea), or print out a 3 x 7 inch copy of the photo pair above.

Another trick is to copy the photo pairs to a page of Microsoft Word or Apple Pages and you can resize them all you want.  With Oswald's noses 3 inches apart right to left, you can view them directly on your monitor, or print out a hard copy. 
 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Tom Hume

[John Butler]

Ray,

Ditto.

[Ray Mitcham]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Ditto.

I assume what you meant to write was the original background had artificial shadows added to it. If so please show where you believe the artificial shadows are.

[John Butler]

Ray,

Asking questions like that leads me to believe you didn't really read what I have posted earlier or you didn't understand what was being said.  This is what I said and I am posting this again for your convenience:

John Butler   

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 445 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  

Posted Monday at 10:13 AM (edited)

The shadows in the photo that you don't see or ignore:

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques.  The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake.  He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows.  The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left.  The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows.  This is common mistake with new artists.  So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. (Unnatural)

3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose. (Unnatural) It moves straight down indicating the light source is from above.

 

At some point Ray you need to ask better questions or I won't respond.  I will use my time to achieve a greater understanding of life on Earth.

Edited August 15, 2018 by John Butler

[Tom Hume]

Post deleted.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

Asking questions like that leads me to believe you didn't really read what I have posted earlier or you didn't understand what was being said.  This is what I said and I am posting this again for your convenience:

John Butler   

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 445 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  

Posted Monday at 10:13 AM (edited)

The shadows in the photo that you don't see or ignore:

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques.  The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake.  He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows.  The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left.  The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows.  This is common mistake with new artists.  So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. (Unnatural)

3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose. (Unnatural) It moves straight down indicating the light source is from above.

 

At some point Ray you need to ask better questions or I won't respond.  I will use my time to achieve a greater understanding of life on Earth.

You are quite right, John. I don't understand what you are on about. Either the backgrounds are untouched i.e."natural and real" as you put it, or they are touched up with "artificial shadows." They can't be both.  Which is it?

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Ray,

They can be both.  The shadows under the steps are natural and caused by the steps.  The Oswald figure's shadow is artificial and in the wrong direction.  It was probably made by using an airbrush to make the shadow.  The shadow under the Oswald figure's nose come from mating a face mask of LHO to the Oswald Figure.  The light in the LHO face mask generates a different direction from the light in the overall picture.

If you disagree with this then I can help you on other questions about this subject.