Back Yard Photography

I'm having a hard time concentrating post-surgery. I have a high pain tolerance, but I'm still on the meds partially because my nose still feels like I went a few rounds with Mike Tyson. A lot of damn jangled nerves in a small area connected to everything else. Hell, I thought I could make a meme of Doyle and I can't seem to finish it yet. As soon as my head clears, I'll put something together on this for presentation to Marina.

In a telephone call between Marina Oswald and Harry Livingstone on July 3rd 1992 , Marina said that she did not take the BYP with the stairs to Lee's right.


H.L.: The back yard photographs that you took?

M.O.: Yes.

H.L.: You did take some pictures, but....I think you told Larry Howard that you were standing underneath that stair way. Rather than... 

M.O.: In one position was the stairwell behind me.

H.L.: Yeah.

M.O.: And then we moved in front of the house. And the stairway was on the right from me. 

H.L.: Where it is now in the camera? In the pictures.

M.O.: I don't know, is it on the right or the left? It was on the roght from me and on the left from Lee.

H.L.: In the two different points of view. 

M.O.: Yes, What points of view or...? Two different positions.

H.L.: Yeah. So...

M.O.: 'Cause he told me to wait and then got something.....(inaudible).

H.L: In the photographs we have, the camera is facing the stairway, the stairs are to the side but behind Oswald right?

M.O.: No, that could not be. That picture I didn't take.

H.L.: You did not take those pictures?

M.O.: No.

OK. It's time to put this together. Help me reset.
 
Ed asked for a flip book, re this GIF image I put together a month ago:

 
 
Also, some bullet points ostensibly to explain/point out the anomalies in the pictures. Anything else? What should this thing have in terms of bullet points and things to highlight? I'm inferring this flip book should be hard copy plus electronic reachable via URL?
 
I could do the electronic part as a YouTube video which would be easy for anyone to access.
 
I'm still a tad sore but getting better now. I just need some guidance (project specifications), especially from Ed and Greg. What is our desired outcome? What are we trying to accomplish?
 
Thanks.

Thanks Stan for the above. I need visuals like this, the right side of my brain demands it. Thanks to all for making the case for alteration in the BYP's so crystal clear.

Good stuff,Stan.

I've decided to make a YouTube video featuring the BYP GIF, first. That way I can distill it down into the essential points, and in addition to the visual images and text, I can add audio as well. Very short, sweet, and to the point. Tweak and perfect, then if we still want to make a hard copy flip book, I can do that as well. 

This will cover a little more ground in less time than the "Wrong Way Shadows" video. When I'm finished (day or two), I'll post the link for review/comments in ROKChat for those who have access and when it's a done deal, I'll post for all to see.

Working on the video today. I got it pretty much chunked out, but I'm struggling with my own issues. I tend to always try to add enough information for a video to be standalone. That means sufficient background information. So what I'm finding myself doing is covering some of the stuff in the "Wrong Way Shadows" video. In a way this is quite similar, except in this one I use the overlays as in the GIF. I still got to do the narration. It's looking to be 6-8 minutes which is a hell of a lot longer than I wanted.

Anyway when I get it done I'll post it in RChat for comments. Maybe after I do this, I can pare it down bare bones. Then provide a cheat sheet to guide someone like Marina. I don't know.

Calling it a night. Still not 100% yet.

Thanks for all your hard work,Stan.

The video is up on RChat for those who have access. When we're happy with it, I'll make it public.

Stan

Lego's never lie. Finally photographic proof the photos were faked. Child's play really.

From the Blunt Archives
Digitals by moi

Stan,

i think others here have gobs more expertise in this area than I do.

I would like to see some of the work done by Terry and some of the work done by others on the measurements of objects. 

There is also a suggestion that the shrubbery is different in the "originals" to some of the later attempts to replicate despite allegedly taken on or about same date. Suggestion is that state of shrubbery in "originals" fits better with October, if memory serves.

Sorry if this has come a bit late.

greg parker wrote:Stan,

i think others here have gobs more expertise in this area than I do.

I would like to see some of the work done by Terry and some of the work done by others on the measurements of objects. 

There is also a suggestion that the shrubbery is different in the "originals" to some of the later attempts to replicate despite allegedly taken on or about same date. Suggestion is that state of shrubbery in "originals" fits better with October, if memory serves.

Sorry if this has come a bit late.

I'm not following you exactly, Greg. Would you like to see a detailed series of measurements of things and objects in the BYPs, including reference standards to show how the measurements were made? Also, does the shrubbery question boil down to whether it was appropriate for the shrubbery in the BYPs to look the way they do given the time of year the photos were said to be taken?

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:Stan,

i think others here have gobs more expertise in this area than I do.

I would like to see some of the work done by Terry and some of the work done by others on the measurements of objects. 

There is also a suggestion that the shrubbery is different in the "originals" to some of the later attempts to replicate despite allegedly taken on or about same date. Suggestion is that state of shrubbery in "originals" fits better with October, if memory serves.

Sorry if this has come a bit late.

I'm not following you exactly, Greg. Would you like to see a detailed series of measurements of things and objects in the BYPs, including reference standards to show how the measurements were made? Also, does the shrubbery question boil down to whether it was appropriate for the shrubbery in the BYPs to look the way they do given the time of year the photos were said to be taken?

Sorry Stan,

was reading a post from you from last year and thought it was recent (where you asked for input for a video). I should bow out. Too distracted at the moment.

Here is the shrubbery argument.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25517-backyard-photo-observation/?tab=comments#comment-393659

Here are the dims of the rifle as according the feebies.
Thanks to Blunty.

Good bits Bart!

This from a 2017 article by BBC paradoxically saying faked photos are becoming the norm, yet claims the BYPs pure as snow.
Ffs!

"They found that the shadows in the scene were consistent with a single light source, with the shadows on his face accounting for the appearance of a broader chin than that in his mug shot.

They also found that his posture was plausible given his centre of mass and the way he was carrying the gun, and estimated that the length of the rifle in the photo, after accounting for perspective, was 40.186in (101.2cm) long, less than an inch shorter than the length reported by the manufacturer. In all, the researchers couldn’t find any evidence of photo tampering."

A parse of the above gibberish would be a help.

The shadow that differs on his neck was avoided.
As was a simple 14 degree head tilt between photos yet a similar nose shadow.
40.2 is supposedly the length of the rifle in these photos according to official sources.
Bart just supplied the official length of C2766.
What on earth are they saying about their perspective measure of the rifle at 40.18 inches being less than an inch shorter than manufacturer reports???
Smoking the Dartmouth Gold eh Han man?
.02 is less than an inch so is a billionth of an micron, why the glibness.
Adding hypothetical lengths to reach a near match, bravo
I'm not sure but Big Green is a lil blue lately.
Ed

Credit Stan Dane.

Just an observation here after sending myself cross-eyed over the past few days studying this material.

In my humble opinion the camera position in CE134 or 133a (RHS) has moved closer to the Oswald figure than in CE 133c (LHS)

This can be seen when we look at the block of timber attached to the background post atop of the Oswald figure's head in the photographs. It would appear the figure is roughly in the same position, although it's possible that the Oswald figure in the right hand side picture 134 has moved forward too.
Please disregard this if this has already been addressed.

Uncropped WCHCE 133a.

Shadow anomaly #9



Should we see such a straight leg shadow when pants do not readily make a straight edge.
The pant leg notch is not represented in the ground shadow.

#10
Shouldn't there be shadow on body/arm from rifle.

Cheers, Ed

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Shadow anomaly #9



Should we see such a straight leg shadow when pants do not readily make a straight edge.
The pant leg notch is not represented in the ground shadow.

#10
Shouldn't there be shadow on body/arm from rifle.

Cheers, Ed

It does look odd. The shadow almost gives the appearance of being painted on, doesn't it...

Brilliant Stan.
Translucent paint applied to a large format neg then all taken though the IR, to be traceable to LHO.... (eventually)
Recreation photo has the indentation in leg shadow





Cheers
Ed