Jump to content
The Education Forum

Backyard Photographs


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ray,

Sorry, about the name mix up.  You need to have relevant questions in order for me to answer.  You can't just make up stuff to side track the issue.  You need to provide legitimate material such as David Joseph did.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Right on David Joseph.  Maybe, what you have provided will put an end to this foolish argument that the BYPs are authentic.  But, with people like Ray Meacham, I doubt it.

Nowhere have I ever said the BYPs are authentic. You seem to agree with David Joseph that the shadow of the stair post is in the incorrect position. Am I correct in assuming that?

David Joseph's photo is not legitimate.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

I posted long ago on my position on the different shadow directions in the BYPs on this forum.  Look it up.  Or, for your convenience go to:

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/08/23/lee-harvey-oswald-and-his-shadows-jfk-running-the-gauntlet-com/

David Joseph is correct in everything he posted.  If you don't know something posted as an example to illustrate a point you should study what he is saying a lot more.  As far as you saying that you have never said the BYP's are not authentic, I can believe that.  You are a "Lone Gunner" from head to toe.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

I posted long ago on my position on the different shadow directions in the BYPs on this forum.  Look it up.  Or, for your convenience go to:

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/08/23/lee-harvey-oswald-and-his-shadows-jfk-running-the-gauntlet-com/

David Joseph is correct in everything he posted.  As far as you saying that you have never said the BYP's are not authentic, I can believe that.  You are a "Lone Gunner" from head to toe.

I'v not known somebody be so wrong since Doyle was barred from this forum.

You agree with Josephs that Sun shadows diverge (as in the photo he posted.) You can't be more wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of physics.

As far as my being a "Lone Gunner" what ever that is. LOL. You obviously haven't been on these for very long, otherwise you would never say that. Guess what  wrong again.

 

Incidentally you still haven't answered the questions I asked you in the "McIntyre Photo Ellis or Bellah?  item. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

"I'v not known somebody be so wrong since Doyle was barred from this forum."

I am only answering your posts because I have nothing better to do this morning.  As far as name calling, this is a tactic that most of your kind use when they have little else to say.

"You agree with Josephs that Sun shadows diverge (as in the photo he posted.) You can't be more wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of physics"

Prove to me that Joseph is wrong!

Let's see.  Shadows that go in three different directions at the same time indicates a lack of understanding the laws of physics.  Shadows going in 3 directions in the BYP's are undeniable and irrefutable and violate the laws of nature. 

I will reiterate.  Ask a sensible question and I may answer you.  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

"I'v not known somebody be so wrong since Doyle was barred from this forum."

I am only answering your posts because I have nothing better to do this morning.  As far as name calling, this is a tactic that most of your kind use when they have little else to say.

"You agree with Josephs that Sun shadows diverge (as in the photo he posted.) You can't be more wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of physics"

Prove to me that Joseph is wrong!

Let's see.  Shadows that go in three different directions at the same time indicates a lack of understanding the laws of physics.  Shadows going in 3 directions in the BYP's are undeniable and irrefutable and violate the laws of nature. 

I will reiterate.  Ask a sensible question and I may answer you.  

Do you agree with Josephs that (as per his photo the shadow of the post) diverge rather than converge? Should be easy to answer.

I don't have to prove Josephs is wrong,  physics proves it.

Tell you what, show me your proof that shadows of vertical parallel items  can diverge.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shadows.png

I understand your point, Ray, but the example of converging shadows you posted is extreme. The light source (the sun) is obviously near the horizon causing very long shadows that appear to converge into the distance as does the road.

In the Backyard Photos, the sun is very high and the shadows are pretty short. I agree with David, the Oswald shadow and the post shadow should be nearly parallel, and they are obviously not. 

Edit: I'll add a comment to avoid confusion: David drew in the dark post-shadow to show what it should have looked like (or sort-of looked like). The seemingly inconsistent post-shadow is at the tip of the white arrow with most of the shadow out of sight behind the post itself. 

All three Backyard Photos display the same seemingly contradictory Oswald/Post shadows. 

D6D324C5-637D-4631-B6D7-0D7F28E51F17.gif

Tom
 

Edited by Tom Hume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

I am not talking about diverging, converging, or vertical parallel items.  I am talking about 3 different shadows going in 3 different directions at the same time.  That violates physics unless our Solar System has 3 suns.

When I called you a "lone gunner" that's not name calling but, short hand for some one who believes in the Lone Gunman Theory, the SBT, and the other Conclusions of the Warren Commission, most of the Conclusions of the HSCA, and anything I missed about the official government position on he assassination.

David Joseph and I do not get along.  He has me on his ignore list.  But, when the man is right there is nothing you can do about it.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI’s Shaneyfelt, the HSCA’s panel which examined the BYP, and, by the latter’s instigation,  two prominent critics who had made appearances on the CBC and BBC doubting the photo’s authenticity, all agreed that the photos have not been manipulated except for the possibility that Oswald’s face could have been pasted onto an unidentified posing figure. This is very different to claims that the photos represent some sort of composite of multiple photos taken at different times and stitched together. The argument against such a composite is that it would not be possible to achieve a seamless rendition of the backyard I.e. that the “joins” would feature obvious flaws similar to the Oswald figure’s chin. The photos do not expose such flaws.

Also, while the two magazines held by the Oswald figure do represent competing ideological factions, it is a fact that Oswald did indeed subscribe to both. This is one reason I struggle with the idea that the BYP were created some months after Oswald left Dallas, as it would require the forgers to both know Oswald’s subscriptions and acquire copies backdated to that time in late March. I also wonder how these forgers knew Oswald lived at that address, as his stay was fairly short and known to relatively few people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did some photographic testing on this post shadow vs Oswald shadow a couple weeks ago. Ray is correct and if need be i might do a video so i can move to different positions and you can all watch as shadows change. But I like thought experiments so try the following one which logically proves rays point.

1. picture yourself standing with the Sun directly at your back and the post directly in front of you. This means the Sun, you and the post are all on the same line of sight. So where is the post's shadow when you are in a direct line with it and the Sun? The answer is the shadow would be hidden directly behind the post. That is pretty easy to visualize and if you agree with me you can consider point 2.
 
2.Now if you understand that you, the Sun and the pole all have to share the same line of sight in order to hide the shadow behind the post, then consider that Oswald's position in the picture does not share that same line of sight. Oswald is not in direct line and so could never have his shadow hidden directly behind him as the post does. 
 
So if Marina was 10 feet away then Oswald is 7 degrees of to the right of the pole and we should see his shadow protruding by the same 7 degrees. But oswald is also leaning and that adds another 7 degrees. Then you add the perspective change of a camera at ten feet and approx 4 feet high and 14 degrees of shadow expands 2 1/2 times to about 35 degrees. (The post shadow is not subject to the same distortion because as the perspective changes vertical lines just shrink in size while angled lines change their angle towards the horizontal). 
 
Although I can account for what should be 14 degrees of original shadow distorted by perspective to 35 degrees, Oswald's shadow is closer to 50 degrees. Still can't explain that. It would take 20 degrees of shadow angle for the perspective to change it to 50(20 x 2.5 = 50) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Ray and Chris, you’ve convinced me. I forgot that the Oswald figure was about to fall over. Below is CE 133A with the 12 degrees of keystone removed, and the photo properly straightened:

Untitled.jpg

If we could now get the Oswald figure to loose the Tower of Pisa lean, his shadow would be much more congruent with that of the post. 

Below is a screenshot from the “Wrong Way Shadows” video posted by Ed LeDoux earlier on this thread. The Oswald model is standing erect, and one can now more accurately compare the two shadows under discussion.

 screenshot_of_3_D_model_BYP.jpg

Tom

 

Edited by Tom Hume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 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

I think the post is a 4x4 which is really 3.25 inches. The post shows us the front and side so it is more than 3.25, but you can see the corner and then use the front measurement as a gauge. I get 13 inches for the newspaper and that leave me short by about 2.50 inches. But I found if i stand normal, not totally straight like when we measure our height, it  reduces my height by 2 to 2.50 inches. So his height seems correct.

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...