Backyard Photos, invitation for Jack White.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes. And PROVING that the different shadow angles are NORMAL for a photo taken in the backyard of 214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas, on March 31st at noontime.

And yet there are still CTers arguing that the shadows "prove fakery", even with that huge blow-up of the CBS News 3/31/67 photo staring them in the face via the above-linked video. (I guess they must ALSO think the 3/31/67 CBS picture is fake too.)

 

S'alright.

If it was noon the shadow angle off of Oswald would have been about 48 degrees. The photo shows about forty but when you account for perspective it has to be less than 20 degrees. The image seems to refute the 3pm time and puts it past 4pm. Can you explain the angle of his shadow? By the way the photo you have provided previously where they have Mr Cappel imitating Oswald's lean is very flawed. First they claim he is exactly Oswald's height but he is actually 4 to 5 inches taller. While the top of his head matches Oswald's at the pole behind him, the camera was raised to accomplish this. Look at where the roofline of the house in the background aligns with the stairway and it proves the camera was raised. If you want to compare their height's just look at how they each line up with the part of the stairway right next to them( basically the same distance from the camera as they are). You will see there is about 1/2 of one step difference in their height's. The stairs are 8 inches high, so Mr Cappel is 4 inches taller than Oswald. The other thing has already been pointed out, that is Mr Cappels photo is rotated 2 or 3 degrees left compared to 133 which makes it look like he is leaning more than he is. If you rotate him to match Oswald he is not even leaning with his lower body. All he is doing is leaning his upper body and still is not displacing his head to the right of his feet anywhere near Oswald's stance. Oswald's entire body leans  but Cappel comes nowhere near this. And of course if you lean Oswald's picture right to match Cappel he is leaning even farther and that is a problem.  I think I saw you say that this photo proves the lean is not fake and that is complete nonsense. That photo is of no value 

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Hi Chris

Thanks for your work. Am I right in summarizing that the shadow anomalies are in fact consistent with the existing conditions (positions), and therefore not “anomalies”?

After the HSCA photo panel finished their report, the consensus of the consulted experts - from both sides of the debate - was that the only viable location of forgery in the BYP was the possible superimposition of Oswald’s face on someone else’s body (which, everyone conceded, could be done by a skilled forger with high-end equipment). If you are saying the shadows line up and are consistent, then this would make such a superimposition much less likely due to the coincident of an unrelated Oswald face matching the light conditions.

Jeff, yes I am saying the nose shadow is consistent with the other shadows and does not show fakery. that does not mean the head was not pasted on the body ir just means they got the shadows right. what did the HSCA say about Oswald's leaning. Did they determine it was possible?

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Jeff, yes I am saying the nose shadow is consistent with the other shadows and does not show fakery. that does not mean the head was not pasted on the body ir just means they got the shadows right. what did the HSCA say about Oswald's leaning. Did they determine it was possible?

hi Chris

you might find it interesting to skim through the HSCA panel’s work yourself:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=185&tab=page

To make my position clear:

The HSCA photo panel, through its spokesman Calvin McCamy, presented a false version of the Oswald family photo record, and therefore created a false context for the backyard photos. The HSCA also failed to account for the presence and origin of the third backyard pose. These are crucial issues which transcend the authenticity of the BYP themselves.

That said, the panel’s forensic work on the BYP utilizes recognized techniques in examining photographs (i.e. it is not pseudo-science as seen in other areas such as the SBT), and I am not aware of any substantial critique of its work. If such exists I would be very interested to see it.

My analysis of all these issues is here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#The-Leaning-Tower-Of-Oswald

[Chris Bristow]

54 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#The-Leaning-Tower-Of-Oswald

I really don't think this is a valid comparison since your backyard image is rotated almost 3 degrees farther right than other representations like Life Magazine, which seemed pretty fair. Secondly the backyard photo is from the front while his Marines? photo is almost 45 degrees to the side. You cannot determine how far over he is leaning to the side of his feet. But you can tell  his lower body is leaning and his upper body is leaning back to a near straight position. This is nothing like the backyard photo or stance and not valid for comparison

[Tom Hume]

The caption on David’s website for the two Oswald photos in his post is this:

“Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:”

Balderdash!

If one took those two photos to a professional photographer and asked him or her to make some nice prints of this subject that one could hang on one’s wall, the photographer would say “Sure thing, but in both instances the person who took the pictures was not holding the camera level. Would you like me to straighten them for you?”

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Chris

you might find it interesting to skim through the HSCA panel’s work yourself:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=185&tab=page

To make my position clear:

The HSCA photo panel, through its spokesman Calvin McCamy, presented a false version of the Oswald family photo record, and therefore created a false context for the backyard photos. The HSCA also failed to account for the presence and origin of the third backyard pose. These are crucial issues which transcend the authenticity of the BYP themselves.

That said, the panel’s forensic work on the BYP utilizes recognized techniques in examining photographs (i.e. it is not pseudo-science as seen in other areas such as the SBT), and I am not aware of any substantial critique of its work. If such exists I would be very interested to see it.

My analysis of all these issues is here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

Thanks I am looking three the HSCA now and guess I agree with their nose shadow opinion but might have started reading past were they fully explained their findings on it. I had seen the photos of their test manikin before and noticed it is messed up. Don't know why, not giving a theory, but the mouth on that thing is offset quite a bit from the eyes. The nose is offset just a bit to the right and the mouth to the right of that.  I will also check your analysis link

[David Von Pein]

Chris,

It's just a general comparison of the so-called "impossible" Oswald stance. I'm not saying the angles are identical. They obviously aren't EXACTLY the same angle. But just look at his general "stance" in both pictures. They're the same basic posture. It's just how Oswald stood. Leaning back somewhat on his right foot, with his left foot in front of his right. It's a very similar stance in both photos. (Do some CTers claim the photo on the left is an "Imposter Oswald" too?)

Edited July 15, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Chris Bristow]

No they don't because the two stances are not similar enough for comparison

 

[Chris Bristow]

9 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

The caption on David’s website for the two Oswald photos in his post is this:

“Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:”

Balderdash!

If one took those two photos to a professional photographer and asked him or her to make some nice prints of this subject that one could hang on one’s wall, the photographer would say “Sure thing, but in both instances the person who took the pictures was not holding the camera level. Would you like me to straighten them for you?”

 

 

Thanks for that. It is interesting to note that Oswald's belt line is leaning at the same 8 degrees or so that his whole body matches, while Oswald on the left has a belt line that is almost level

[Tom Hume]

To understand CE 133A, one needs to straighten the photo, and also remove the "keystone". Only CE 133A and 133C display keystone - CE 133B does not.

Edit Added: Hey Chris, you say 8 degrees of Oswald tilt, and I get 4 degrees - roughly the same as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Chris Bristow]

On July 14, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tom Hume said:

To understand CE 133A, one needs to straighten the photo, and also remove the "keystone". Only CE 133A and 133C display keystone - CE 133B does not.

Edit Added: Hey Chris, you say 8 degrees of Oswald tilt, and I get 4 degrees - roughly the same as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. 

I added the red line to show what I take to be a 8 degree lean. 2nd photo, left:Just for fun I photoshopped Oswald back to a non leaning position. It looks fairly normal, his feet are flat on the ground and he does not look like he had been compensating for his extreme lean. I bet if the Pisa tower leaned as far as Oswald it would have fallen already. 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[Guest]

BYP at ROKC

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1159-back-yard-photography#15858

which is a copy of (and I posted this yonks ago already) 

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13242989-back-yard-photography.html which is actually easier to read through. But has no forum functionality than besides reading and clicking the following pages.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Bart Kamp

[John Butler]

Whew!

I sure stirred the pot. 

I have not read anything sensible here that can explain 3 conflicting shadow directions in the same photo, hence in the same time frame.  The sun does not cast shadows in different directions.  The sun casts shadows in only one direction.  Sun rays move only in the direction directly off the sun.  Sunlight hits an object and the resulting shadow is cast directly in the direction of the sun's rays.  Some people need to go back and study physics and optics.

The Warren Commission and the HSCA are quad-xs.  Quad-x refers to mispresentation or a lie.  I couldn't say xxxx at one time on the forum so quad-x means the same.

Sorry, Mr. Gordon but, I can't think of anything more expressive than quad-x to make the point.  I am in agreement with your new policies and make apology for stepping out of bounds.

Edited July 15, 2018 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]