Back Yard Photography

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Of note is the size of LHO in the images.


LHO in these pictures is the same height as the post holding up the stairs or about 5'
Lee's true height is 5'9"

When compared to a probably 6 foot detective, whom is standing closer to the camera, the detective looks huge in comparison to mini-Lee.


Of note is Jim Di's Reclaiming Parkland page 4603 about Bobby Brown's claims as to the pose and the cut outs made by DPD of the BYP's and of Oswald. Gary Savage did a fine job exposing Brown as having made up his story.
The white lines in the cut out and another having the lines touched up to hide them... Whew that is a lot of BYP's!!!




Neither of the cut outs above look very convincing to me. 


September 6, 2015 at 9:19 AM  
Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Ed,


Thank you for posting the first verifiable images of "black dog nose man". I do believe this 5'-0" tall version of Lee (or... damn!... is it Harvey!?!! I never can keep them straight!) is the tiny fellow we have been seeing in the vestibule of the TSBD. THIS is the very short Lee!!


Who knew he would be found in the BYPs as well.


Brilliant work, Ed. Black Dog Nose Man can be put to rest.



--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham




September 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

I've always shied away from the BYP because I suck at photo analysis. But after the questions raised, I took the three pictures cropped them to focus on three the highlighted areas that seem remarkably the same to me. Shadows and position of leaves and branches – nothing seems to change from image to image. Looks pretty static to me. You be the judge.



Also, the BYP were said to have been taken on March 31, 1963 (per Walt Brown's Chronology). I looked up the weather conditions for Dallas TX (Love) on March 31, 1963 and I got this:



Wind Speed: 17 mph (South)

Max Wind Speed: 22 mph



With wind conditions like these at my place, I see vegetation/leaves/braches dancing around, non-stop. I'd expect to see a little more change from picture to picture here.


September 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

steely dan
Moderator
Posts: 1013

Looks like a single background image with only the figures shadow moving slightly to indicate a small passage of time between "shots".
September 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

It doesn't really matter what any of us think really, when the reality is that Lee cannot be 5 feet tall.

The Backyard Pics are faked because of that. We have a known quantity. I just want to learn a little more about why and how.....
September 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Stan Dane at September 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM

   I've always shied away from the BYP because I suck at photo analysis. But after the questions raised, I took the three pictures cropped them to focus on three the highlighted areas that seem remarkably the same to me. Shadows and position of leaves and branches – nothing seems to change from image to image. Looks pretty static to me. You be the judge.

   



   Also, the BYP were said to have been taken on March 31, 1963 (per Walt Brown's Chronology). I looked up the weather conditions for Dallas TX (Love) on March 31, 1963 and I got this:

   

   Wind Speed: 17 mph (South)

   Max Wind Speed: 22 mph

   

   With wind conditions like these at my place, I see vegetation/leaves/braches dancing around, non-stop. I'd expect to see a little more change from picture to picture here.

   

The more I look at these pics you've done Stan the more I'm inclined to say they're fake. We know Lee was not 5 feet tall but seriously theres more at issue here...someone went to a lot of trouble to implicate Lee with the manipulation of his image and the props we see in these photos.




September 6, 2015 at 4:23 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Awesome work Terry, Stan and Mick!

Terry made me fall out the chair again...   BDNM! Hahaha
September 7, 2015 at 12:52 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

   steely dan at September 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM

   Looks like a single background image with only the figures shadow moving slightly to indicate a small passage of time between "shots".

Thanks Steely.
This is the single worst piece of evidence yet it was waved in the American publics face.

Folks like Hany Farid will only examine one photo and claim no funny business...Farid is a tool of the FBI.
Farid would dare not compare the three photos together, as Stan has, as it would show he is full of shit.

I really dislike Farid because he is a  professor and a scientist and knows better.
He must have tenure or else he'd be fired.  Although he is a computer software scientist and has zero cred in photo analysis except pixel metrics.

Yet the BYPs did not have pixels. They had silver grains in emulsion. Apples and Oranges.

"Farid's counting on computer processed pixel re-transformations of old (presumed) silver iodide films today to affirm fakeness is akin to me looking at old home movies on dvd format and trying to ascertain where the exact point of editing occurred. Ain't gonna happen.

As it turns out, on March 31, 1963 (the documented date from Warren Commission files for the backyard photo), one can compute (using a specialized computer program) the maximum solar altitude on the local meridian at noon (for lat. 32 deg 47’ 09” for Dallas, TX) as 57.o deg.

This means that if the photo is legit, and conforms to the correct solar meridian crossing on that date, Oswald’s shadow (given his recorded height on his draft card of 5' 9" or 1.74m) can be no longer than 1.12m (3.7'), which sets limits on how far he can be located from the picket fence. My own computer software program that transforms a 2D perspective into a 3D one to obtain projected shadow lengths, shows that the actual length of shadow was more like 2.1 m (6.9'). This shows that at least two of the photos could not have been taken on the same day, if taken at all. Indeed, the massive discrepancy shows fakery ....but which Farid's seemingly superb software can't catch."
~Philip Stahl

“First of all he'd have to have had the original photo of Oswald, not a copy, which I doubt very much he had, since the Feds confiscated it and only allowed reprints. Secondly, in those old photos there were no pixels to measure since all photos of that period were taken with film type cameras and no pixels were on them to measure. The photos looked the same as a painted picture, smooth and even "
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html


Now go wipe you Hany Mr. Farid and run along to the FBI for some more funding.


Cheers ROKCERS!
September 7, 2015 at 1:54 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239



September 7, 2015 at 2:58 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

your killing me Stan!!
September 7, 2015 at 4:19 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Mini-Me eh Mini-Lee:P
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 7, 2015 at 5:07 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Has anyone ever measured that wooden post next to LHO?
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 7, 2015 at 9:53 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

   Barto at September 7, 2015 at 9:53 AM

   Has anyone ever measured that wooden post next to LHO?

Looking at the photograph here, it looks pretty low/short...


http://www.onthisveryspot.com/pics/spot_1684_761.jpg


September 7, 2015 at 11:05 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

...then again...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

   Smee at September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM

   ...then again...


   http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


Just a simple measurement from my computer screen shows the overall width of the two 2x4's that are ganged together to form the post itself at 3/8". The height of the post measures 8 1/4" on my computer screen. Without accounting for foreshortening in the horizontal (which there is some since we can see the two faces of the post, but accounting for it would simply make this post calculation shorter since there can only be a slight foreshortening in the vertical, if any) Divide height by width (8 1/4" by 3/8") we get 22 width units for the height of the post. Multiply 22 time 3" (two 2x4's put together is 3" since a 2x4 is 1 1/2" thick) and we get 5'-6" for the post height. I'm sure this is very close and slightly taller than it really is because of the width foreshortening.
September 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

   Jake at September 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM

       Smee at September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM

       ...then again...


       http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


   Just a simple measurement from my computer screen shows the overall width of the two 2x4's that are ganged together to form the post itself at 3/8". The height of the post measures 8 1/4" on my computer screen. Without accounting for foreshortening in the horizontal (which there is some since we can see the two faces of the post, but accounting for it would simply make this post calculation shorter since there can only be a slight foreshortening in the vertical, if any) Divide height by width (8 1/4" by 3/8") we get 22 width units for the height of the post. Multiply 22 time 3" (two 2x4's put together is 3" since a 2x4 is 1 1/2" thick) and we get 5'-6" for the post height. I'm sure this is very close and slightly taller than it really is because of the width foreshortening.

Actually, if I add a mere 1/32" to the 3/8" width calculation shown above, it shortens the post to 5'-0", so I have to say the foreshortening has a more dramatic effect than I thought. This also brings the 3/8" measurement into closer scrutiny, but with this we are on a track with the order of magnitude of the height of the post being around 5' to 5'-6".
September 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

One thing I was looking at was comparing the BYPs to the image of the site four years later (thanks, Smee!)


I wondered what the discoloration lines on the ground were and the newly posted image made it clear: electrical lines running overhead.



On the left and right are the BYP images from the start of the thread (the third image doesn't show the feet well enough) and the central image is the one taken March 30, 1967.


On the left image the three shadows of the wires lay beyond the pale thing on the ground (whatever it is) and the right hand image shows the first line is now well beyond the pale spot. By my estimation of the travel rate of such shadows, it appears there is a fifteen to twenty minute passage of time from the first to the second.


Now, what's really odd about this passage of time is that it means the Sun was traveling from behind the photographer to a position more over the head of the person being photographed. The weird thing about this is that the shadow of the figure holding the weapons does not fall onto the base of the fence in the left hand photo (just like in the central frame) but in the right hand frame, the shadow falls on the fence.


This latter fact means the Sun was traveling in the opposite direction than the other shadow would indicate. If Lee's shadow has shifted toward the fence, shouldn't the shadow of the lines overhead also have shifted in that direction?


Unless my grasp of spatial mechanics is twisted around backward...
-

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Another strange thing was the bushes and ground vegetation in the BYPs show they had advanced farther than they had four years later (in the Smee posted image). Who knows? Maybe spring came a little earlier in 1963 than it did in 1967. Another small anomaly.

September 7, 2015 at 12:20 PM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

   Terry Martin at September 7, 2015 at 12:17 PM

   One thing I was looking at was comparing the BYPs to the image of the site four years later (thanks, Smee!)


   I wondered what the discoloration lines on the ground were and the newly posted image made it clear: electrical lines running overhead.



   On the left and right are the BYP images from the start of the thread (the third image doesn't show the feet well enough) and the central image is the one taken March 30, 1967.


   On the left image the three shadows of the wires lay beyond the pale thing on the ground (whatever it is) and the right hand image shows the first line is now well beyond the pale spot. By my estimation of the travel rate of such shadows, it appears there is a fifteen to twenty minute passage of time from the first to the second.


   Now, what's really odd about this passage of time is that it means the Sun was traveling from behind the photographer to a position more over the head of the person being photographed. The weird thing about this is that the shadow of the figure holding the weapons does not fall onto the base of the fence in the left hand photo (just like in the central frame) but in the right hand frame, the shadow falls on the fence.


   This latter fact means the Sun was traveling in the opposite direction than the other shadow would indicate. If Lee's shadow has shifted toward the fence, shouldn't the shadow of the lines overhead also have shifted in that direction?


   Unless my grasp of spatial mechanics is twisted around backward...



I think you're right about the contradictory advancement of the shadows. All suns rays are parallel, not like from a point source (light bulb). If his shadow gets longer toward the back of the yard, then the wires move toward the back of the yard also, not the other way. The question becomes is his shadow shorter (consistent with the wires moving toward the front of the yard) but now he's standing further toward the back of the yard so that his shadow falls upon the base of the fence anyway. Upon studying the feet realtive to the post and the "pale thing" I think the answer to that question is definitely no.

September 7, 2015 at 12:57 PM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

That was the answer I arrived at as well: "No."

September 7, 2015 at 1:01 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Its a no from me too.

September 7, 2015 at 5:25 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Also as Ed has noted, I'm certainly curious with the rifle shadow in the pic with it leaning to the figures right hand shoulder. I'm more than curious with the fall of that part of the shadow....it may be that my eyes deceive me and that wouldn't be the first time but its worth noting.

September 7, 2015 at 5:28 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Oh no Terry you have it exactly!

The right photo should show the power line shadow moving with the mans shadow, towards the fence, but we see the opposite.

Brilliant!


In the photo-graphs, three horizontal linear shadows may be seen crossing the post in the foreground of the pictures and continuing along the ground behind the subject. These may have been shadows of power cables or some similar object. There is a knot in the post between the lower two shadows that may be used as a visual reference point. The shadows are lowest relative to the knot on 133-C, highest on CE 133-A, and in an intermediate position on CE 133-B. The Sun position would cause the shadows in the backyard pictures to move upward on the post with the passage of time. Therefore, since the shadows were moving upward, 133-C was taken first, followed by CE 133-B, and then CE 133-A. (See figs. IV-IS, IV-2O, and IV-36.) (The possibility of additional intervening photographs cannot be discounted.)



Bart its seems its been asked about before but not measured in situ that I can locate.

Hershel Womack

April 27, 2001

Mike, (Griffith)

I very much enjoyed reading your material and agree with the things you have written [i.e., my article "A Brief Analysis of the Backyard Rifle Photos"]. I have tried in my research to concentrate on items that a person with even a very limited knowledge of photography could understand.

Get 8x10s of the two Warren Report photos and the Roscoe White photo if possible. If not get the largest and best photo from a publication or book and enlarge them so they are identical in size using a couple of reference points. This is because some of the photos have been enlarged and cropped differently.

Then measure from his nose to a common point on each side, do the same to other areas such as the same point on the pistol etc. Measure from identical points at his feet to different points at his heads. Measure the stairpost.

Hershel Womack

April 26, 2001

Mike,

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's NO WAY you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.

With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa.

Hershel Womack

(PS in my above post I meant MC ring)

September 7, 2015 at 7:26 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

   Smee at September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM

   ...then again...


   http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


Bravo Smee!

I took Capelle whom was LHO's 69" height and overlaid LHO by resizing a LHO image and matching the post and stairs.



What do you think?

I should have split the post so half is Capelle pic and half LHo pic ...next time.

September 7, 2015 at 7:51 pm

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106


Split the post for the overlay

Hmm quite a difference in apparent height

September 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

I tinted one of the BYP and adjusted the size of it to match up with size of the edge of the garage, the posts, and the stairs in the other black and white one. I had to slightly tilt the image to make things line up. Got it as close as I could. Then I overlaid the green image on top of the B&W picture, and varying the transparencies, I made a gif. Just felt like trying it to see how it looked.

The background is very static.

September 7, 2015 at 9:45 PM

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

Stan,


Looking at the BYPs, and your comment that the background is very static, it strikes me that the original BYPs all look to me like the camera was mounted on a tripod or something - I'd be surprised if someone using the Imperial Reflex as Marina claimed she did, who'd apparently never even seen one before, would manage to get such consistency!?!? I may be wrong though as I'm no photographic expert...

September 8, 2015 at 2:49 AM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

This view is out front looking west, 212 Neely is on left. Recall that the BYP's are looking east. Note the shadows in the street of the wires halfway up the pole and how at this time of day (a few hours earlier than the BYP using the pole as a sun dial and comparing the angle to LHO's shadow in backyard) the wires cut right onto the house and would therefore appear on the ground in the Back Yard in the correct area seen in Terry's analysis.


September 8, 2015 at 9:20 AM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Here's another shot. Don't be fooled by the wires going down to the house service. They stop on the face of that wall. They don't cast shadows on the back yard, but the wires halfway up the poles running down the alley do cast shadows onto the back yard.


September 8, 2015 at 9:23 AM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Excellent work, Jake!


I wonder what happened to the houses on either side...

September 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Terry Martin at September 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM

Excellent work, Jake!


I wonder what happened to the houses on either side...

They were raised to the ground........
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Also note that the post in question has the wire shadows on it too. Two are higher, and one is down lower, just like on the ground beside it (amazing!) yet as PM's shadow get's longer, the wires go lower on the post. Welcome to a modest back yard behind a small house on Neely Street in Dallas, TX where up is down and where longer is shorter. Welcome, if you will, to the Twilight Zone.


I think you've nailed another one there Terry!

September 8, 2015 at 4:08 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9gvqfcjgg


1978 HSCA Testimony of Sgt.Cecil Kirk ~ Director, Mobile Crime Laboratory, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

September 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlkzBIqvvWU


RIT Study of Lee Harvey Oswald Backyard Photos
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

September 8, 2015 at 6:20 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Bring on uncle Jesse


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJBbzqguKq4
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 8, 2015 at 8:45 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Barto at September 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Terry Martin at September 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM

Excellent work, Jake!


I wonder what happened to the houses on either side...

They were raised to the ground........

Reminds me of my Grandfather, whom had two wooden legs after an accident.
He caught fire one day and burned to the ground.

September 9, 2015 at 8:21 AM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Excellent finds and reasoning Jake!
Twilight Zone? Maybe. But only The Shadow knows...

September 9, 2015 at 8:29 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

That's my book title Ed, don't be throwing that around that cheaply
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 9, 2015 at 9:13 AM  

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

   Smee at September 8, 2015 at 2:49 AM

   Stan,


   Looking at the BYPs, and your comment that the background is very static, it strikes me that the original BYPs all look to me like the camera was mounted on a tripod or something - I'd be surprised if someone using the Imperial Reflex as Marina claimed she did, who'd apparently never even seen one before, would manage to get such consistency!?!? I may be wrong though as I'm no photographic expert...

Smee we have ruled out a tripod, unless that tripod was bumped an inch or so, and then was realigned but at a slightly different angular plane.
Height at which the camera was when taking the image is the key to telling if it was the IR hanging around Marina's neck ie waist level or about eye level, thus not the IR and yes perhaps a camera on a tripod.

The HSCA jokers don't say what that height really was. Seems an important number to understand the photos.

(348) Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas

Police headquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes.

Through the years, many critics have argued the same thing. In

part the controversy was stimulated by a 1964 Life magazine cover

of a copy of one picture, retouched to enhance its quality.

(349) If the backyard photographs are valid, they are

highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him

with the murder weapon. If they are fakes, how they were

produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy.

"Faked" backyard photographs would indicate a degree of

conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise

the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to

kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy."

(1) History of the Backyard Photographs

(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas

detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in

Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The

search concentrated primarily in the garage in which possessions

of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police

officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers

and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald

holding a rifle. (126) (Only one negative was made available to

the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.)

(127)



Of course LIFE couldn't use the 133b or risk showing Black Dog  Nose Man to the world... but even 133a had the "oil spot" near the shadows head, or where 133b's shadows head was or would be. Sorry Life.

I think we all know LIFE wound up with (likely bought from a DPD officer) the other negative 133A, used it for its cover and then claimed ignorance. (They should have to answer for that) The HSCA should have asked the LIFE boys how they took a print and made it better than the other negative. Those LIFE boys must have been photographic geniuses!  Heck they were so good they could probably fake a photo...oops I mean "recreate the scene."


For all we know it was Tippit in those BYP's and he had to take a dirt nap so as not to spill the beans.  
Whom do we know who is a short guy 5' - 5'3",  a news reader and gun enthusiast in '63 Dallas?


All the photos could have been taken with the IR but that doesn't make it LHO's camera.
The film could have been wound through the IR, without taking any photos, and used in a film holder to protect it when taking the photos in another camera. Thus creating the scratches, a mat would create the edge markings to match up with the IR's irregularities, an empty background image would supply that shape necessary for making the overlay edge mat.
Or the end of a roll was in the IR, film was wound and not all frames exposed, those remaining frames were then used as above.

A few more possibilities are possible,,,, later

So newpapers are wrong size, gun is wrong sized, and Lee is wrong size, except his head which is same in all pics... but them pics are not forgeries    

ASK NOT IF THE PHOTOS ARE REAL, ASK WHERE ARE THE REAL PHOTOS ~ JFK (sorta)
September 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM  

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

   Barto at September 9, 2015 at 9:13 AM

   That's my book title Ed, don't be throwing that around that cheaply

The Twilight Zone Maybe?
Hmm not too catchy a banner Bart.

Oh you mean Only The Shadow Knows.

Most folks are not old enough to have listened to that radio show or know what the hell were talking about.
I'd change it to Only the Buell Knows


September 9, 2015 at 10:01 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Harold Weisberg on the BYP esp. on the weapons.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Pictures%20Assassination/Item%2006.pdf
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402



While musing over the power line shadows (moving down when on the post and closer to the camera when on the ground) as compared to the inconsistent lengthening of LHO's (fake) shadow, my dyslexia kicked in and for a somewhat panicky moment I thought I had it backwards; the lowering shadows on the post meant the shadow should grow longer because time was passing from the past into future, like it’s supposed to do. It’s kind of intuitive to think about the shadows that way. Then I came back to my senses and relaxed.



Then I wondered, did the darkroom artist who did this slip up like I did? Was he kind of musing to himself, shadows moving down on the post, sun moving down in the sky, and everybody knows shadows grow longer later in the day, so I’ll make his shadow grow longer too? Certainly he fucked it up for some reason. Maybe he was dyslexic too!




September 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

http://www.c-span.org/video/?154212-1/book-discussion-photo-fakery


Dino Brugioni's presentation in 2000 for his book Photo Fakery. It's been unwatchable on CSPAN for several years now (for me at least) due to an old format that they used. I check once in a while and now it's apparently been updated. He touches on BYP, but only slightly. Many of the points he made for other photos can be considered when looking at the BYP's though.


For example I'm pretty sure there is a cat crouched at the base of the post in one of the photos (I hope somebody else can see the cat ) .  Judging by the position of its head, the cat is focused upon something back toward the the base of the picket fence . Anyway, most cats focus on the feet of anyone nearby because that's the living entity at their eye level, also the feet are the things that might step on them, so they are typically monitoring that pretty closely. It seems like the cat doesn't know there is a person standing nearby. Cause and effect is one of the items Brugioni identifies. If there are helicopters in the sky over people's heads and nobody is looking up, it's an indication.


September 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

September 13, 2015 at 2:23 AM

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

LOL Ed. I do appreciate that effort.  I should have done this when I first brought it up. If you zoom in on it, then I think it's a cat. It disappears in the other two photos, so I guess it went off to have a bowl of milk or something.


September 13, 2015 at 8:56 AM  

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Gotcha Jake,
Its what I called the blanket used to carry the rifle to the location.
Its in all the photos as I use the shadow on it to note how that shadow remains the same. notchy shadow is there in all three photos, a little lighter in one but same shape can be seen. Those are and odd series of images no matter the animal content.
Sorry though better images shows the kitty is an inanimate object, I had to find a crappy one to begin to see a cat though.


September 13, 2015 at 8:45 PM  

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

   Ed Ledoux at September 13, 2015 at 8:45 PM

   Gotcha Jake,
   Its what I called the blanket used to carry the rifle to the location.
   Its in all the photos as I use the shadow on it to note how that shadow remains the same. notchy shadow is there in all three photos, a little lighter in one but same shape can be seen. Those are and odd series of images no matter the animal content.
   Sorry though better images shows the kitty is an inanimate object, I had to find a crappy one to begin to see a cat though.
   

Yep, went off in search of a better image, found one, it's a blanket or fabric wadded up. Thanks for correcting me Ed. No sense in carrying on with wrong ideas.


Terry clearly showed these photos are fake anyway by pointing out that the wire shadows are traveling the wrong way in relation to the lengthening, alleged shadow of LHO. Brilliant that he spotted that when no one else has. That should make headlines being as it is earth shaking in its implications. For now though, there remains that unbelievable silence.
September 13, 2015 at 10:30 PM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Thanks, Jake.


What amazes me is the number of people that have spent hours, days, years looking at the photos and no one has mentioned it before. That's what's really weird.
September 14, 2015 at 8:46 AM  

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

   Terry Martin at September 14, 2015 at 8:46 AM

   Thanks, Jake.


   What amazes me is the number of people that have spent hours, days, years looking at the photos and no one has mentioned it before. That's what's really weird.

I imagine it's because very few people ever recognized them as shadows of wires. Power lines are in fixed, or at the least, in highly restrained positions in space. Tree branches are far more subject to breezes and the swaying movements a breeze can cause to the entire tree. So, if they thought of them as shadows of tree branches, then no one gave them the kind of thought where movements of the shadows are solely dependent upon the movement of the sun. It wasn't fixed in space in their minds and apparently even so in the mind of whoever faked the photos.
September 14, 2015 at 10:47 AM  

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Lest we forget and in case the current hyperbolic warp-edos aimed at PM are actually a smoke screen for distracting from the smoking sun shining in the backyard photos that Terry discovered using his supreme photoanlytical skills: The shadows of the power wires on the ground are moving in precisely the opposite direction to the direction that they should be moving as PM's shadow grows longer. Talk about warping space and time!   Oh wait, it's a woman in the back yard so it can't be PM.
September 18, 2015 at 3:36 PM  

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

   Jake at September 18, 2015 at 3:36 PM

   Lest we forget and in case the current hyperbolic warp-edos aimed at PM are actually a smoke screen for distracting from the smoking sun shining in the backyard photos that Terry discovered using his supreme photoanlytical skills: The shadows of the power wires on the ground are moving in precisely the opposite direction to the direction that they should be moving as PM's shadow grows longer. Talk about warping space and time!   Oh wait, it's a woman in the back yard so it can't be PM.

Prayer Women: can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
September 18, 2015 at 3:51 PM  

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

More BS from mainstream media .......rehashed garbage.

Wired.co.uk‎

3D analysis provides sudden Kennedy assassination breakthrough


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/19/lee-harvey-oswald-photo-real





October 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM  

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Mick Purdy at October 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM

   More BS from mainstream media .......rehashed garbage.

   Wired.co.uk‎

   3D analysis provides sudden Kennedy assassination breakthrough


   http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/19/lee-harvey-oswald-photo-real





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/john-f-kennedys-assassination-photo-showing-lee-harvey-oswald-with-gun-used-to-kill-former-president-a6699751.html


More from the lazy media..............
October 21, 2015 at 1:34 AM


Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

What's really hilarious about this "study" is that they took only ONE of the complaints and refuted it... whether the pose Oswald struck was implausible. Sure the 3D modeling can show it WAS plausible but cannot refute the other complaints about the picture.



It's like the blind men and the elephant.



And worse even id that this study is not NEW, it was done in 2009 fer chrissakes!


--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham




October 21, 2015 at 8:56 AM  

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

According to Wesley Liebeler's memo from Sept 9th 1964, page 3



It is interesting to noto that the conclusion to the

ownership section, on pogo 32, states that "a photograph ta:cn in

the yard of Oswald's apartment showed him holding this rifle."

That statement appears in the conclusion in spite of tho fact that

Shancyfolt specifically testified that ho could not make a positive

identification of the rifle that Oswald was holding in the picture

and in spite of the fact that the Commission was not' able to conclude,

in the discussion of this subjecti on page 31, that Oswald was holding

the assassination weapon in the picture.


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Liebeler%20Wesley%20J/Liebeler%20Wesley%20J%20Memoranda/Item%2002.pdf


--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 21, 2015 at 9:43 AM  

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Terry Martin at October 21, 2015 at 8:56 AM

   What's really hilarious about this "study" is that they took only ONE of the complaints and refuted it... whether the pose Oswald struck was implausible. Sure the 3D modeling can show it WAS plausible but cannot refute the other complaints about the picture.

   

   It's like the blind men and the elephant.

   

   And worse even id that this study is not NEW, it was done in 2009 fer chrissakes!

   

Isn't that the infuriating part of this Terry.

2009, My Lordy the lazy lazy media. The story sprung up in one outlet and before you know it it's plastered all over the place as a "new" break through.

This is what we;re up against. Lazy blinkered narrow minded people who cannot see reason.

They follow the crowd, but that just maybe our good fortune.....

We only need one to take up the PM cause in mainstream and the others will follow.



October 21, 2015 at 8:22 PM  

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Robert and Patricia Hester, of the National Photo Labs in Dallas, Texas processed pictures for the FBI the evening of November 22, 1963. Mr. and Mrs. Hester told Jim Marrs, author of "Crossfire", that the FBI had the "backyard photos" that evening, the day before those photos were "found" by the Dallas Police in Ruth Paine's garage. They further said that the FBI had a color transparency of one of the photos and a picture of the backyard with no one in the picture.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 25, 2015 at 1:54 PM

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

Stan Dane at September 18, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Jake at September 18, 2015 at 3:36 PM

Lest we forget and in case the current hyperbolic warp-edos aimed at PM are actually a smoke screen for distracting from the smoking sun shining in the backyard photos that Terry discovered using his supreme photoanlytical skills: The shadows of the power wires on the ground are moving in precisely the opposite direction to the direction that they should be moving as PM's shadow grows longer. Talk about warping space and time! Oh wait, it's a woman in the back yard so it can't be PM.

Prayer Women: can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

If that's a woman I'm Charlotte McKinney.
October 25, 2015 at 10:06 PM

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

Barto at October 25, 2015 at 1:54 PM

Robert and Patricia Hester, of the National Photo Labs in Dallas, Texas processed pictures for the FBI the evening of November 22, 1963. Mr. and Mrs. Hester told Jim Marrs, author of "Crossfire", that the FBI had the "backyard photos" that evening, the day before those photos were "found" by the Dallas Police in Ruth Paine's garage. They further said that the FBI had a color transparency of one of the photos and a picture of the backyard with no one in the picture.

We know the DPD had these things too, yes? So, who had them first, the DPD or the FBI?


In no way does this imply that either agency was the source of the altered photos, correct? Or.... is there a possibility George de Mohrenschildt got his copy "after" the assassination?


What keeps bothering me about these BYP's, is Marina's testimony around them, and the sequence of her testimony around them. I'm clueless what it might mean, would someone like to put a box around Marina for me? Firsit she admitted to taking only one photo, is that right? Then later she claimed to take multiple photos? She was all over the map on this one, wasn't she?
October 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Brian Castle at October 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM

Barto at October 25, 2015 at 1:54 PM

Robert and Patricia Hester, of the National Photo Labs in Dallas, Texas processed pictures for the FBI the evening of November 22, 1963. Mr. and Mrs. Hester told Jim Marrs, author of "Crossfire", that the FBI had the "backyard photos" that evening, the day before those photos were "found" by the Dallas Police in Ruth Paine's garage. They further said that the FBI had a color transparency of one of the photos and a picture of the backyard with no one in the picture.

We know the DPD had these things too, yes? So, who had them first, the DPD or the FBI?


In no way does this imply that either agency was the source of the altered photos, correct? Or.... is there a possibility George de Mohrenschildt got his copy "after" the assassination?


What keeps bothering me about these BYP's, is Marina's testimony around them, and the sequence of her testimony around them. I'm clueless what it might mean, would someone like to put a box around Marina for me? Firsit she admitted to taking only one photo, is that right? Then later she claimed to take multiple photos? She was all over the map on this one, wasn't she?

With a Black ((Oswald's was grey) Reflex camera which she held up to her eye to take the photo(s) (1 ...no...2...no..3.)
October 27, 2015 at 9:46 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Ray Mitcham at October 27, 2015 at 9:46 AM

Brian Castle at October 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM

Barto at October 25, 2015 at 1:54 PM

Robert and Patricia Hester, of the National Photo Labs in Dallas, Texas processed pictures for the FBI the evening of November 22, 1963. Mr. and Mrs. Hester told Jim Marrs, author of "Crossfire", that the FBI had the "backyard photos" that evening, the day before those photos were "found" by the Dallas Police in Ruth Paine's garage. They further said that the FBI had a color transparency of one of the photos and a picture of the backyard with no one in the picture.

We know the DPD had these things too, yes? So, who had them first, the DPD or the FBI?


In no way does this imply that either agency was the source of the altered photos, correct? Or.... is there a possibility George de Mohrenschildt got his copy "after" the assassination?


What keeps bothering me about these BYP's, is Marina's testimony around them, and the sequence of her testimony around them. I'm clueless what it might mean, would someone like to put a box around Marina for me? Firsit she admitted to taking only one photo, is that right? Then later she claimed to take multiple photos? She was all over the map on this one, wasn't she?

With a Black ((Oswald's was grey) Reflex camera which she held up to her eye to take the photo(s) (1 ...no...2...no..3.)

Hi Ray,


Isn't it funny how things turn. I once was of the opinion that the BYP's were authentic, but that was way back, when I hadn't had a close enough look. I along with a good many others probably put this one in the Kook folder.


In recent years after reading about the history and provenence of the BYP's I became less skeptical of the claims of fakery. It wasn't until I actually studied them closely that I became aware of anomolies in those pictures which cannot be related to artifacting or any other errors inherent in photograpic work. I had read Farid's study, and heard of Jack Whites opinion and still found it hard to accept that one or more of these pics may have been forged. (I am a professional cameraman by trade)


Then someone here recently pointed to something in one of the pics which for me is absolute proof that at least one of these pictures have been faked or altered maybe just as Oswald claimed.


After years of Study by so called experts, our very own Terry Martin has given us the smoking gun in these pics. The overhead electrical wires and their shadows falling onto the ground. It was he whom discovered that indeed the shadows of these cables had moved in the opposite direction to which they should have moved in reality.


Now thats research with a capital 'R'. He alone has proven beyond any doubt that at least one of these curious photos is not what it seems.
October 27, 2015 at 6:58 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Goban Saor
Member
Posts: 333

Terry’s excellent observation is one of two ROKC-produced proofs of backyard photos fakery that I’m aware of.



The other proof was presented by Greg on or around 22nd December 2014 (that’s when I commented on it) on a thread titled, I think, “Backyard Photos”.



If I remember correctly, the gist of Greg’s proof went something like this: Marina Oswald said at some stage that she had destroyed a photo of Oswald with a rifle or some other such documentary evidence after the assassination because it would incriminate him.



Greg pointed out that if the extant BYPs really existed before they were “discovered” after the assassination, Marina would have destroyed those also.



I have searched for the thread and the posts in question without success. Maybe some other ROKCer with better recall and search faculties than mine will be able to find them. (I could be wrong but I seem to remember Terry also at the time expressing his appreciation to Greg for coming up with that clincher.)


October 27, 2015 at 8:20 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Goban Saor at October 27, 2015 at 8:20 PM

Terry’s excellent observation is one of two ROKC-produced proofs of backyard photos fakery that I’m aware of.



The other proof was presented by Greg on or around 22nd December 2014 (that’s when I commented on it) on a thread titled, I think, “Backyard Photos”.



If I remember correctly, the gist of Greg’s proof went something like this: Marina Oswald said at some stage that she had destroyed a photo of Oswald with a rifle or some other such documentary evidence after the assassination because it would incriminate him.



Greg pointed out that if the extant BYPs really existed before they were “discovered” after the assassination, Marina would have destroyed those also.



I have searched for the thread and the posts in question without success. Maybe some other ROKCer with better recall and search faculties than mine will be able to find them. (I could be wrong but I seem to remember Terry also at the time expressing his appreciation to Greg for coming up with that clincher.)



Hi Goban,

My bad! It was that thread by Greg which you've mentione that convinced me of the forgery, Terry has proven it with solid hard evidence.

Apologies to Greg.

Cannot recall the name of the thread, but I remember it well.



October 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Thread name Backyard Photos

Started by Paul:

Greg said:







Greg

Site Owner

Posts: 1399

The testimony that blows the BY photos out of the water. Have also included and highlighted some other stuff that shows what a complete bitch Ruth Paine really was.



MRS. OSWALD. I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you." I said to myself but when? Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then. So I wasn't too happy about that. Now, gentlemen, this is some very important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English. I said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture. Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on on television--I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don't know all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination--"To my daughter, June." Because I would immediately say, and I remember--I think my son is all agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence. So, I didn't think a thing about it. And it says "To my daughter, June." I said, "The police," meaning that if the police got that, they would use that against my son, which would be a natural way to think. She says, "You take, Mamma."' "Yes, Mamma, you take." I said, "No, Marina. Put back in the book." So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know. So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she--we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, "Mamma, picture." She had the picture folded up in her shoe. Now, I did not see that it was the picture. but I know that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn't open for me to see. I said, "Marina." Just like that. So Robert came along and he says, "Robert" I said, "No, no Marina." I didn't want her to tell Robert about the picture. Right there, you know. That was about the picture.



Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell her to destroy the picture?



Mrs. OSWALD. No. Now, I have to go into this. I want to tell you about destroying the picture. Now, that was in Mrs. Paine's home. I want to start to remember--because when we leave Mrs. Paine's home, we go into another phase, where the picture comes in again. So I have to tell the--unless you want to ask me specific questions.



Mr. RANKIN. No, you go right ahead.



Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine, in front of me, gave Marina $10. Now, Mrs. Paine, when I said, after the representatives left--I said, "You know, I do want to get paid for the story, because I am destitute, and here is a girl with--her husband is going to be in jail, we will need money for attorneys, with two babies." She said, "You don't have to worry about Marina. Marina will always have a home with me, because Marina helps." Now, Mrs. Paine speaks Russian fluently. "She helps me with my Russian language. She babysits for me and helps me with the housework, and you never have to worry about Marina. She will always have a home with me." Now, Mr. and Mrs. Paine are separated. Mr. Paine does not live here. So it is just the two women. So, Mrs. Paine didn't graciously do anything for Marina, as the paper stated--that Lee never did pay Mrs. Paine for room or board. Mrs. Paine owes them money. That is almost the kind of work that I do, or the airline stewardesses do, serve food and everything. Marina was earning her keep, and really should have had a salary for it--what I am trying to say, gentlemen, Mrs. Paine had Marina there to help babysit with the children, with her children-if she wanted to go running around and everything. So actually she wasn't doing my son or Marina the favor that she claims she was doing. But the point I am trying to stress is that she did tell me Marina would never have to worry, because Marina would have a home with her. At this particular moment, I cannot remember anything of importance in the house. Otherwise, about the picture I have stated. And Mrs. Paine with the Life representative, and her saying that Lee would have an attorney, and Mrs. Paine giving Marina a $10 bill. Oh, Marina told me, "Mamma, I have this money." It was money in an envelope--in the bedroom, when she showed me the picture. I said, "How much money, Marina." "About how much?" I asked her. "About $100 and some." Now, Mrs. Paine has stated to the Life representative that Lee and Marina were saving his pay in order to have a home for themselves for Christmas time, because they had never been in a home of their own at Christmas time in order to celebrate Christmas. So, the hundred and some odd dollars isn't a big sum, considering that Lee paid $8 a week room in Dallas--and it has been stated by the landlady that Lee ate lunchmeat or fruit. And Lee was very, very thin when I saw him. And Lee gave his salary to his wife in order to save to have this home for Christmas. So, that is not a lot of money to have in the house I would not think so, because I believe Lee was earning about $50 a week. And let's say he could live for about $10 or $12. And he gave the rest of the money to his wife. And so I reported this money to the Secret Service while we were in Six Flags--that Marina had the money. I wanted them to know. She showed me the money. I cannot think now-I did think of the money after going back--but I cannot think of anything at this particular moment that would be of any benefit that happened in this house. Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.



Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.



Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.



Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.



Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean----



Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.



Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?



Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.



Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?



Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.



Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?



Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.



Mr. RANKIN. Now, you were going to tell us about some further discussion of the picture you did see?



Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--all right. Now, so the next morning the two representatives of the Life Magazine, Mr. Allen Grant and Mr. Tommy Thompson come by at 9 o'clock with a woman, Russian interpreter, a doctor somebody. I have not been able to find this woman. I have called the universities, thinking that she was a language teacher, and I--maybe you have her name. But she is very, very important to our story. And I do want to locate her, if possible. During the night, I had decided I was going to take up their offer, because I would be besieged by reporters and everything. So why not go with the Life representatives, and let them pay my room and board and my daughter-in-law's. They came by at 9 o'clock, without calling, with this Russian interpreter. Marina was getting dressed and getting the children dressed. He was taking pictures all the time.



Mr. RANKIN. They came by where?



Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine's home. And there was no hurry, though, to leave the home, because Mrs. Paine was most anxious for the Life representatives to talk to her and get these pictures and everything--whether Marina has any part in this I don't know, because they spoke Russian, and she didn't tell me about it. But I know Mrs. Paine did. We left with the two Life representatives. They brought us to the Hotel Adolphus in Dallas. I immediately upon entering the hotel picked up the phone and called Captain Will Fritz, to see if Marina and I could see Lee at the jailhouse.

------------------------------

MRS. OSWALD. While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.



Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?



Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.



Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this?



Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too. We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening.



Mr. RANKIN. What day?



Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.



Mr. RANKIN. That was at the Executive Inn?



Mrs. OSWALD. At the Executive Inn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

When did the BYP make their debut? Straight after the Minsk photo was safely destroyed (I previously said it was destroyed at Marguerite's suggestion - I should have said at (most likely) Ruth's/Life's suggestion.



6:00 - 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office

"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html



I know nowhere does Marguerite say the photo she saw was taken in Minsk, but Sylvia Meagher believed it was and it makes sense that it was inscribed to June with the raised arms in celebration of her birth. Marina initially only admitted taking one photo of Lee holding a rifle (it was actually a shotgun, but she also admitted not knowing the difference). The Minsk photo was that photo.



December 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM Flag Quote & Reply




October 27, 2015 at 8:37 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Mick Purdy said:



Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 887

For what it's worth, I say fake! Have waxed and waned on this for several years. And I really don't see an issue either way, fake or not. They are damming and extremely incriminating. And used oh so effectively by Time life magazine. For me it was the cincher. The world took one look at that photo and Oswald was as good as dead. But I am convinced they're fake not so much by the photo's themselves but swayed by the evidence Greg alludes to. Having said all that, I believe also, that the shadows in the photographs show quite clearly signs of forgery. Not the obvious ones, not the shadows on the face or the chin or the nose, the ones studied for over 50 years, but shadows on the ground from inanimate objects which do not relate in any way to the torso shadow. I am using my own photgraphic skill set to determine this, as I have filmed for over 37 years, and this plus the testimony of Marina and Mrs Oswald cries out FAKE!

December 23, 2014 at 1:31 PM


October 27, 2015 at 8:40 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403


Ed wrote:


Of note is the size of LHO in the images.

LHO in these pictures is the same height as the post holding up the stairs or about 5'

Lee's true height is 5'9"
October 27, 2015 at 8:56 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

So, what we have now regarding the BYP's is written research and photographic evidence which when combined give us absolute proof these pics were faked.


Sound familiar........PM = Oswald.


ROKC ON!
October 27, 2015 at 9:18 PM

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

As Ray pointed out -- Marina described taking one photo with a camera that couldnot have been the Imperial. She did agree she took it in March - but no year was mentioned. Early March, 1962 is right after when June was born and the inscription to June and the raised arms nail it as a "victory" salute to June's birth. Destroy that photo but leave ones where you also have a pistol and are waving commie papers around? I don't think so....
--

I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights


In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once

inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their

address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp


http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker


They put Johnny and Bobby in the ground

Then the place was run by shucks and clowns

Motherfuckers are still thick on the ground

Coz there’s a new God – There’s a new God in town.

Steve Schwartz & the Strap-Ons


October 27, 2015 at 10:11 PM

Goban Saor
Member
Posts: 333

In the meantime, thanks to Google I found the thread and the post by Greg that I failed to find with the ROKC search function.



The post by Greg is well worth reading again. Here’s the link:



http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13097955-backyard-photos




October 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

   Goban Saor at October 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM

   In the meantime, thanks to Google I found the thread and the post by Greg that I failed to find with the ROKC search function.

   

   The post by Greg is well worth reading again. Here’s the link:

   

   http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13097955-backyard-photos

   

   

Thanks, Goban. I was nice to see that thread again - the search function here leaves much to be desired. Yes, I thought Greg nailed the logic on the BYPs.



I was trying to recall which thread it was that Ed showed the Neely house.



And how could I forget our introduction to the numbat...?
October 28, 2015 at 9:14 AM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Just had  a look at the BYP CE133B Cropped and enlarged and then "antialiased" it in GIMP. Nothing altered other than the antialias. Enlarge it. Can anybody else  see a problem in the chin area?



Can't get the image to upload. How do I upload it?


October 28, 2015 at 9:58 AM

Goban Saor
Member
Posts: 333

Looks like Cary Grant's chin to me.
October 28, 2015 at 12:00 PM

Vinny
Member
Posts: 533

Here it is,Ray.



October 28, 2015 at 12:18 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Apart from notes gifted to us by Fritz an Co. from the Oswald interrogations, what proof is there that Oswald actually was shown any of the BYP's and said they wre fake? I realize if this info was corroborated by more than one person then its could be likely, but I'm curious.




My point being, do we know when the photos were really discovered...and not relying on anything the DPD SS or FBI told us. When did we see these pics for the first time?


Tell me our first glimpse of them wasn't in the issue of Life.




I apologise in advance if this has been covered off, and is widely known.

October 29, 2015 at 11:16 AM  



Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 910

6:00 - 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office

"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM  



Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 910





Rose testified to the Warren Commission:

Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?

Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.

Mr. BALL. What did you find there?

Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property of Oswald.

Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.

Mr. BALL. What color were the sea bags?

Mr. ROSE. I believe they were kind of an off white--I would call them--more of a greyish-white.

Mr. BALL. What about the suitcases?

Mr. ROSE. I don't remember the color of those suitcases. I know one of them was real worn.

Mr. BALL. But you brought that property back here into town, did you?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.


A scan of this document can be found on the Dallas archives website at http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/ Page 1

The following items were recovered in Irving, Texas, at 2515 West 5th Street on November 23, 1963, by Moore, Rose, and Stovall:

Blue suitcase containing:

Sharp shooter medal

1 bag containing some old jewelry

2 watches

1 key

Dog tag

Envelope containing some 35mm negatives

Several miscellaneous Russian books/and literature

1 grey metal box containing miscellaneous Russian literature and some slide negatives

Miscellaneous photographs and maps

Yellow envelope containing miscellaneous pictures and letters

Pamphlet on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee

1 candy box containing pictures. correspondence, and letters

1 notice of attempt to deliver mail, card dated November 20, 1963, to Mr. Lee Oswald, 2515 West 5th, Irving, Texas - a parcel to be picked up.

1 Book on Modern Postage Stamps

Miscellaneous personal papers and work receipts

1 copy of The Worker paper, dated October 20, 1963

Book containing World Atlas

Marine Corp Recruiting Depot Manual, Second Batallion, 2000 Platoon, San Diego, California.

Brown envelope containing hand written manuscripts of Lee Oswald.

In the words of Detective Guy Rose:

"Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture - I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture - of Oswald holding the rifle." (5)



Unfortunately, the testimony of Detective John A. McCabe, who has been named as finding one of the most vital pieces of evidence in the investigation, was not considered of sufficient importance to be included in either the Commission Report or its Hearings. Oddly, his name does not appear on any of the property receipts for items seized during that search (6).

http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM  



Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 910

Unless I'm missing something all roads lead to Rose. Right?

October 29, 2015 at 11:56 AM  


Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 910

So, my question is when did the press or the general public or anyone else for that matter outside the FBI, DPD get to view these BYP's before the infamous edition of Time Life's front cover job on Oswald.

Putting aside, what we're told Lee said to Fritz, and what Rose testified......

October 29, 2015 at 12:00 PM  



Mick Purdy

Member

Posts: 910

Anyone here know the answer?






October 30, 2015 at 7:17 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106






In early 1964, the backyard photo identified as 133-A was sold and/or released to several newspapers and magazines, resulting in wide public dissemination, most notably on the cover of Life Magazine’s February 21 issue. The release of the photo was considered a serious breach of the Warren Commission’s confidentiality, and the FBI was tasked with investigating “how the press got hold of the photo.” The FBI responded energetically, focusing resources in numerous cities.



Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald.



An internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 is far less circumspect, stating: “Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.” The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, “made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.” Life Magazine negotiated a price of $5000 with Marina Oswald’s business agents for the publication rights to the photo, but the photo itself came from “an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department.” Life had an “original copy negative” of the photo, made in Dallas. (Shaneyfelt Exhibit 10)2




Follow this with Hany Farid's garbage analysis that even though we here at ROKC have debunked Hany and the BYP's they don't seem to get the message that they have been defeated. Power Lines shadow drop kicks Hany and his appeal to authority to the curb. Much like PM has shattered the lunchroom and sixth floor window stories, the power line shadows do the same here. The height is of a five footer with a square chin?
http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/another-lee-harvey-oswald-conspiracy-theory-bites-the-dust/
Are they so ignorant that they would make themselves look foolish rather than just shut up?
What does Hany get from this? Oh that is right, his own lab and bonuses, he gets to suck up to the FBI on any case that needs "special attention" like the Oswald BYP's.

November 26, 2015 at 11:10 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Thanks Ed....
November 27, 2015 at 3:57 AM


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



NYHT 9/26/1964
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




December 1, 2015 at 5:29 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Thanks Barto!
New York Herald Tribune should be asked about that photo.

The head is too big for the body, rifle is way too long, pistol handle is way too thin, and lolly pop guild wants paid for their stand-ins work.
December 5, 2015 at 8:06 AM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

http://www.scribd.com/doc/286297188/Oswald-3D-Modeling-Study
Its interesting when you read through the 3D study by Srivamshi Pittala, Emily Whiting, Hany Farid from Dartmouth and how they skirt the size of the figure. They use 1.02 meter as the rifle length and give a measurement of the pistol but skirt the size of the figure based on that 1.02 meter rifle.
Had they been honest they would not have used some metric of percentages of average body proportions
They skirt the issue of height again by only comparing the model shadow to the pictures shadow.
They use body segments but show no basis for the origin of the body which has these segments.
They say this:

"We start witha 3-D articulated human body of a genericmale (www.makehuman.org) of the same height(1.75m) as Oswald (States, 1964)"
but that starting is of a 5' 7" male.



Their image of a small headed figure compared to Oswalds obvious added head

"Although a generic 3-D head would have sufficed for our stability analysis, we employed a custom-built 3-D model generated from pho-tographs of Oswald (Farid, 2009a)"

I took Oswald head and placed it over Farid head and it covers it easily as it is larger. It also looks silly on the tiny body. The big Oswald head threw off their stability study if adjusted for shadow. IOW if shifted the big head caused instability, So Farid faked a smaller head!



Rifle looks huge in tiny mans hands!!!!




When you work out the proportions its a 4.73' man.
And they say the shadow matches, so must be a shadow for a mini Oswald and not a 5'9" individual.

My study of their study shows a lack of basic foundation.
"... and the length of the rifle in Oswald’s hands is consistent with the length of this type of rifle."
This is a nonsense statement used to confuse the lack of basic foundation. Rifle is either 40.1" or 45.92"
If it is consistent then is it consistent with Oswald? NO!!
And they skirt the issue of exactly the height of the subject yet give percentages of body segments again from the pictures proportions avoiding any measurement except segments which are not equatable and measurable to the whole. IOW you can't add up their body segments as they are using the argument of balance and stability of the subject using vector analysis and a self cancelling set of values for inertia of each body segment. Sure, each part of my body always goes equally in each direction when I'm say,,,leaning, or holding a rifle.
The whole study is a whimsical look at "Can a little person hold a huge rifle and hold his balance" answer yes.

A brief mention of shadows are touched on but no stock should be placed in the single photo shadow analysis.
Farid's got a lot of explaining to do to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees and Chancellors Office.
Advertising bad science and calling it higher education is comical.
Besides the fact it should be a 36" 5 1/2 pound Carcano model M91 TS rifle is so far beyond them it makes one wonder if they are studying the same case?

Conclusion: Farid and co. should be censored. Their "paper" removed till it is reviewed for complete objectivity and soundness of concept.
December 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

I agree, Ed. But the media will STILL use the paper to prove the authenticity of the BYP's.


You know how it goes...



--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham




December 16, 2015 at 5:54 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Terry Martin at December 16, 2015 at 5:54 AM

I agree, Ed. But the media will STILL use the paper to prove the authenticity of the BYP's.


You know how it goes...



Agreed Terry
December 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Linda Giovanna Zambanini
Member
Posts: 273

Great work, Ed! You should post that under his youtube videos.
December 17, 2015 at 6:01 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Ed Ledoux at December 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/286297188/Oswald-3D-Modeling-Study
Its interesting when you read through the 3D study by Srivamshi Pittala, Emily Whiting, Hany Farid from Dartmouth and how they skirt the size of the figure. They use 1.02 meter as the rifle length and give a measurement of the pistol but skirt the size of the figure based on that 1.02 meter rifle.
Had they been honest they would not have used some metric of percentages of average body proportions
They skirt the issue of height again by only comparing the model shadow to the pictures shadow.
They use body segments but show no basis for the origin of the body which has these segments.
They say this:

"We start witha 3-D articulated human body of a genericmale (www.makehuman.org) of the same height(1.75m) as Oswald (States, 1964)"
but that starting is of a 5' 7" male.



Their image of a small headed figure compared to Oswalds obvious added head

"Although a generic 3-D head would havesufficed for our stability analysis, we employeda custom-built 3-D model generated from pho-tographs of Oswald (Farid, 2009a)"

I took Oswald head and placed it over Farid head and it covers it easily as it is larger. It also looks silly on the tiny body. The big Oswald head threw off their stability study if adjusted for shadow. IOW if shifted the big head caused instability, So Farid faked a smaller head!





Rifle looks huge in tiny mans hands!!!!



When you work out the proportions its a 4.73' man.
And they say the shadow matches, so must be a shadow for a mini Oswald and not a 5'9" individual.

My study of their study shows a lack of basic foundation.
"... and the length of the rifle in Oswald’s hands is consistent with the length of this type of rifle."
This is a nonsense statement used to confuse the lack of basic foundation. Rifle is either 40.1" or 45.92"
If it is consistent then is it consistent with Oswald? NO!!
And they skirt the issue of exactly the height of the subject yet give percentages of body segments again from the pictures porportions avoiding any measurment except segments which are not equatable and measurable to the whole. IOW you can't add up their body segments as they are using the argument of balance and stabilitiy of the subject using vector analysis and a self cancelling set of values for inertia of each body segment. Sure, each part of my body always goes equally in each direction when I'm say,,,leaning, or holding a rifle.
The whole study is a whimsical look at "Can a little person hold a huge rifle and hold his balance" answer yes.

A brief mention of shadows are touched on but no stock should be placed in the single photo shadow analysis.
Farid's got a lot of explaining to do to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees and Chancellors Office.
Advertising bad science and calling it higher education is comical.
Besides the fact it should be a 36" 5 1/2 pound Carcano model M91 TS rifle is so far beyond them it makes one wonder if they are studying the same case?

Conclusion: Farid and co. should be censored. Their "paper" removed till it is reviewed for complete objectivity and soundness of concept.

Ed,


You done good!

This should be officially recognized along with Terry's power cable shadow. Include Gregs background work on the photo's provernance too and together it smashes the notion that the pics are authentic.

I ain't holding my breath.
December 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Mick Purdy at September 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM

It doesn't really matter what any of us think really, when the reality is that Lee cannot be 5 feet tall.

The Backyard Pics are faked because of that. We have a known quantity. I just want to learn a little more about why and how.....

Lee isn't 5 feet tall, and he sure isn't standing in this yard.

But say a youth ordered a rifle, mail order, has it come to his parents PO box, kid has a key and checks mail after school, rifle arrives, slip for package goes into PO box, kid checks box, takes slip up to counter,_____________________________ ...... Fill in what happens next.

Then a picture set is made.
Is this pictures of a youth holding the magazines he 'ordered' his pistol and rifle from?
Was this to be used by congressional committee to halt mail order weapons?
Did Lee take the pictures of the youth holding these items?
Does not seem like Lee would do that, unless to help keep kids off carcanos.

Was this even the same rifle and pistol in evidence? Sling was rope then a leather strap, rifle length changes, pistol does not appear to have same grip shape.
Backyard photos are exculpatory in the case for Oswald holding the rifle/pistol/papers associated with an assassination. Just holding a similar rifle is in of itself not a crime. Yet LIFE (whom I say has the other negative) uses it as a hit piece on Oswald.

Papers give it away too as you cant hide the Sportsmen type magazines with a too small Worker or Militant.
So the Worker and Militant were adjusted to fit over the larger media. Thus leaving a noticable difference between fictional and factual.

The power lines shadows movements. Belie the fake and how physics work

The stand-ins height.

the stair shadows and stairs appear exactly the same, yet camera and sun movements.

And so many more easily spotted and proven cases for Back Yard Photo Fakery.

All those whom think these are real home photos taken by Marina have not been paying attention the last 52 years.

January 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915















--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




January 6, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Nice pics!
Rope sling and all the riifle differences are there.
Lee's watch was busted and Marina gave him a bracelet when they moved from Elsbeth.
Size of this mini Lee is hilarious!
I wonder whom left prints on these negs.  Touch DNA testing anyone?
January 7, 2016 at 6:47 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

These are from the North Texas Uni
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




January 7, 2016 at 8:55 AM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Background straightened.  Note the strange angle Oswald is standing.


photo os byp_zpskhyiw1xa.jpg

January 7, 2016 at 10:52 AM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Thank you Ray!
What program did you use to straighten background?

Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.
January 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

   Ed Ledoux at January 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM

   Thank you Ray!
   What program did you use to straighten background?

   Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
   He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
   He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

   All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
   Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
   Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
   The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

   It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
   It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
   Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
   Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
   Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

   This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.

Ed, I originally used Gimp to correct the perspective as here.

photo Back yard photosCE133Aperspective_zpshb3oewgs.jpg

The photo I posted yesterday  was just rotated by a couple of degrees, again in GIMP,to straighten the verticals out.  Both photos show that Oswald was standing at an impossible angle. IMO
January 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Good to know!
Thanx Ray.

Of course Hany Farid would argue some nonsense computer generated figure holding a larger heavier rifle could just balance ,,, if his left sock was wet... bollocks. Ray is right, the lil guy would probably tip over backwards if holding a 36" Carcano.
January 8, 2016 at 6:34 AM

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

   Ray Mitcham at January 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM

       Ed Ledoux at January 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM

       Thank you Ray!
       What program did you use to straighten background?

       Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
       He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
       He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

       All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
       Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
       Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
       The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

       It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
       It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
       Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
       Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
       Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

       This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.

   Ed, I originally used Gimp to correct the perspective as here.

   photo Back yard photosCE133Aperspective_zpshb3oewgs.jpg

   The photo I posted yesterday  was just rotated by a couple of degrees, again in GIMP,to straighten the verticals out.  Both photos show that Oswald was standing at an impossible angle. IMO

Does this assume that the camera that took the photograph in the first place was held perfectly level?
January 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Could be for several different reasons, Smee. The print could have been made by tilting the printing table, whilst printing.or the camera could have been tilted slightly.

Whichever it is, the stance doesn't appear  to be tenable.
January 8, 2016 at 7:21 AM

Michael Cross
Member
Posts: 1

   Jake at September 7, 2015 at 12:57 PM

       Terry Martin at September 7, 2015 at 12:17 PM

       One thing I was looking at was comparing the BYPs to the image of the site four years later (thanks, Smee!)


       I wondered what the discoloration lines on the ground were and the newly posted image made it clear: electrical lines running overhead.



       On the left and right are the BYP images from the start of the thread (the third image doesn't show the feet well enough) and the central image is the one taken March 30, 1967.


       On the left image the three shadows of the wires lay beyond the pale thing on the ground (whatever it is) and the right hand image shows the first line is now well beyond the pale spot. By my estimation of the travel rate of such shadows, it appears there is a fifteen to twenty minute passage of time from the first to the second.


       Now, what's really odd about this passage of time is that it means the Sun was traveling from behind the photographer to a position more over the head of the person being photographed. The weird thing about this is that the shadow of the figure holding the weapons does not fall onto the base of the fence in the left hand photo (just like in the central frame) but in the right hand frame, the shadow falls on the fence.


       This latter fact means the Sun was traveling in the opposite direction than the other shadow would indicate. If Lee's shadow has shifted toward the fence, shouldn't the shadow of the lines overhead also have shifted in that direction?


       Unless my grasp of spatial mechanics is twisted around backward...



   I think you're right about the contradictory advancement of the shadows. All suns rays are parallel, not like from a point source (light bulb). If his shadow gets longer toward the back of the yard, then the wires move toward the back of the yard also, not the other way. The question becomes is his shadow shorter (consistent with the wires moving toward the front of the yard) but now he's standing further toward the back of the yard so that his shadow falls upon the base of the fence anyway. Upon studying the feet realtive to the post and the "pale thing" I think the answer to that question is definitely no.

What's happening in Ozzie's shadow in the right side of the head/neck/shoulder area?  Something lying on the ground? Notibly absent in the center/recreation photo.
January 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

I have not listened to it yet but I just came across this and thought I'd plaster it in this post


1978 HSCA Testimony of Sgt.Cecil Kirk ~ Director, Mobile Crime Laboratory, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9gvqfcjgg


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk.htm
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




March 19, 2016 at 2:53 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Another version from JFK.hood.edu

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/Pictures-Maps/Item%2002.pdf
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




April 1, 2016 at 12:21 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




April 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Jack White and his findings, quite interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MHlzSixqgM
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




May 5, 2016 at 4:50 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Between Ed, Greg, and Terry and others - I think there is enough here to sink those BYP as fakes. Taken a long time to arrive at that - but I think its a safe bet now. Amazing!
--

"If you torture the statements, affidavits and the evidence long enough,

it will confess to anything you'd like"

May 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




May 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




May 18, 2016 at 12:31 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

It is somehow fitting that, four colums to the right, is the notice of the death of BRAVE NEW WORLD author Aldous Huxley.
May 18, 2016 at 12:50 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Transparencies... Hmm Photo story is very interesting Bart!

May 18, 2016 at 11:18 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Fort Worth Star Telegram

But creator is:Jack White




_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

steely dan
Moderator
Posts: 1013

   Barto at July 2, 2016 at 8:20PM

   Fort Worth Star Telegram

   But creator is:Jack White




Badgeman is in the top right corner, Barto. Brian told me. He likes Jack's work.

July 2, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Returning to Terry's contribution about the telephone wire shadows.

He correctly pointed out that the shadows show, by their positions on the stair-post, that they moved about six inches up the post (C133C was first C133A last). See photo.


photo BYcomparison_zpsxib5ko2m.jpg

The top line is as the top shadow in C133A

The lower line shows the positon of the same shadow in C133C.

The stairpost is about five feet six long. The shadows of the cables have moved about a tenth of the post. (i.e. about 6")

For the shadows to move six inches, the sun must have set by about 4˚.

It takes the sun about twenty minutes to move to  this  position.

In twenty minutes, the azimuth of the sun moves by about 5˚  (See NASA sloar positon calculator.)

If the sun moved that amount, then the shadows of the fixed objects in C133A should also have moved.

They haven't. (Note the shadow of the stairpost in all three photos is exactly the same.The shadow in C133A should have moved behind the stairpost.)

This is impossible.








July 5, 2016 at 6:25 AM

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

To add to the above.

If the sun's azimuth moved about five degrees west, then the shadows of Oswald should have moved East (as we look at the photos) They don't.

This together with Terry's comment that the shadows should have increased in length (C133c to C133A) due to the sun setting seems to show that the photos were faked.
July 5, 2016 at 6:42 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915


_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




July 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM

steely dan
Moderator
Posts: 1013

   Barto at July 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Did you get this from NARA, Barto?. Me and Brian Doyle find it credible.
July 7, 2016 at 2:03 PM

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

A sharp eye will see that the hair is long at the neckline, which means...
July 7, 2016 at 2:24 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Banjo woman!


_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald


Lee Farley

Wow!  She's a stunner, Bart.  Do you know her?  
If you do can you pass my mobile number and facebook details along?

July 7, 2016 at 2:30 PM

steely dan
Moderator
Posts: 1013

Sarah Stanton?......i wonder as i wander...

July 7, 2016 at 2:54 PM

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

It is certainly an odd shaped purse she's holding...
July 8, 2016 at 8:24 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915


_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




July 12, 2016 at 1:47 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915







_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




July 29, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald


July 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM

Ed Ledoux, 9/1/16
THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS !!
Proof the back yard photos are not genuine impromptu Oswald and Marina family fun photos. They are faked to incriminate a man whom did not own a rifle.

Cheers, Ed

Thanks again to all involved on this historic thread.
Terry you the man!
Ray, excellent analysis of the data.
Stan, Bart, Steely, Mick, Jake, Paul, Greg and everyone,,,
what a team!

Cheers! Ed

When it comes to team work, no other group involved in JFK research can match ROKC. Period.

Word to that Hasan!

We have proven Fake Back Yard Photos. No room anymore for doubt.
We have shown there is no trail of evidence, for the planted weapons.
We have weapons in a fake photo purported to be the murder weapons.

Let me be clear.

There is no way this is coincidence.
The Neely neighbors I tracked down sticks a knife in this whole deal.
The work Greg and Lee, Hasan and ROKC did on this despite Gilbride shenanigans. 
A different couple with a child/children was living there.
Attempts to pin the Neely location on Lee with a old Bakery paystub the Feds and Cops played games with not even showing the item/s to the owner of the receipt whom did live there previously.
My tracking him down stuck another dagger in the tale of Neely.

Now ALL of the commissions, police and FBI evidence is in question with regards to Lee Harvey Oswald.
They Framed Lee...and lied about everything.

Power Line Shadows moving the wrong direction are but one bit they missed and Terry and ROKC hit.

Lee had no weapons to stage a fake photo.
Lee had no photo lab equipment and could not use JCS to make fake photos.
The police department has a few questions it still needs to answer... if it can

Why wear the broken wrist watch Lee replaced with the bracelet from Marina while working at JCS. (EDForum: Watch List)
As I've shown the BYPs having a wrist watch instead of the stretch ID band is another nail in the coffin of these fake photos.

If it was just a November 22 mock up to scare Lee, why not a bracelet?
Someone involved knew Lee when he wore a watch, before or while at Jaggar Chiles Stovall...

Since Terry has proven beyond "a shadow" of a doubt these photos back ground is separate from its subject, we must re-examine all aspects associated with them a new!

Cheers, Ed

Ed LeDoux wrote:Why wear the broken wrist watch Lee replaced with the bracelet from Marina while working at JCS. (EDForum: Watch List)
As I've shown the BYPs having a wrist watch instead of the stretch ID band is another nail in the coffin of these fake photos.

If it was just a November 22 mock up to scare Lee, why not a bracelet?
Someone involved knew Lee when he wore a watch, before or while at Jaggar Chiles Stovall...

Interesting, Ed. Look forward to seeing where this goes.

Thanks Hasan.

Could be an incompetent crime lab tech didn't get the memo.
See #5
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62255#relPageId=90

They checked the watch for residues. Obviously gun shot residue.
They found no appreciable residues.

Whom doesn't find this weird?

This watch was broken, Marina states was most likely before the move to Neely and ID bracelet was purchased while still at Elsbeth, and while Lee was working at JCS (Jaggars-Chiles-stovall).
Der. 4/6/64
MARINA OSWALD was interviewed at her place of residence,
629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Texas.
She was questioned further concerning the silver-colored'
bracelet, which LEE HARVEY OSWALD had given her following his return
to Dallas, Texas, after his trip to Mexico. She said this bracelet
was very similar to a bracelet which LEE HARVEY OSWALD wore. His
bracelet had the name 'LEE' engraved upon it . She stated she believed
OSWALD purchased his bracelet about the time they were residing on
Elsbeth Street, or perhaps during the time they rented a place on
Neely Street.
She recalled OSWALD's watch had been in disrepair and,
instead of having the watch fixed, he bought the bracelet and wore
it in place of the watch. On a previous occasion, when OSWALD's
watch was in disrepair, he had had it fixed at Leonard's Department
Store in Fort Worth, Texas. This was at a time when they resided in
Fort Worth.
She believes OSWALD was working at Jaggars-Chiles-stovall
at the time he purchased the bracelet.
MARINA said she does not know where OSWALD purchased the
bracelet which he presented her. OSWALD did not say he had purchased
it In Mexico. He presented it to her within the first hour after
they were reunited following his trip to Mexico. She recalls seeing
a bracelet very such like the bracelet which he gave her in the
Woolworth Store at New Orleans.
She did not like the bracelet and never wore it.
COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1844


Lee's Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall employment was from October 12th, 1962 - April 6th.

I find it odd Lee would not buy a silver bracelet in Mexico,
...had he been there. As Mexican silver is what Mexico is known for and sold for cheaper prices than equal bracelet in the US.

It is most hilarious the news media falls all over itself when Farid and Dartmouth study a single photo and declare everything legit. Nothing shady there!

Where as we showed ALL THREE ARE FAKE. PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT!

yet nothing but crickets for this finding. I feel great pity for the media. Truth is dead. Cartoons hold more commentary value. than their corporations opinion.

Glory follows virtue as if it were its shadow." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

They wanted to see if the watch was worn for the General Walker attempt

They failed in that incrimination.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20Study%20Groups/Misc-SG-006.pdf

Hasan Yusuf wrote:When it comes to team work, no other group involved in JFK research can match ROKC. Period.

Hear hear!

Watch vs. Bracelet

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/House%20Select%20Committee%20On%20Assassinations%20Cips%20And%20Inventory/HSCA-JFK/HSCA-JFK%2062.pdf

check out that whopping rifle butt