The Backyard Photos: Ring Transposition and and LHO stance
+10
Bogmanoc
greg_parker
Mick_Purdy
barto
Ed.Ledoux
steely_dan
Phil Dragoo
Vinny
StanDane
MrScrambledEgg
14 posters
- MrScrambledEgg
- Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-08-09
The Backyard Photos: Ring Transposition and and LHO stance
Sat 11 Aug 2018, 10:27 pm
First topic message reminder :
I’ve been interested in the Oswald backyard photos off and on for many years. Recently due to having too much time on my hands I decided to take another squizz at these iconic fakes.
I had read somewhere that in one of the photos Oswald (or at least the supposed Oswald) is shown wearing a ring. So I’ve always known that 133C shows the figure wearing a ring on his left hand. You can imagine my consternation therefore while taking a squizz at 133B, I discover that Oswald is shown wearing a ring on his right hand. WTF?
Well its been several days now I and no matter which way I look at the photos and scratch my head, 133C always shows the ring on the left hand and 133B always shows the ring on the right hand. I therefore thought that I had better run this past the bright fellows on this forum for another opinion.
It seems to me as if the compositing artist has flipped the negative of the body thereby placing the ring on the right hand side. Then perhaps he had to finish up 133B in a hurry for some reason and left a few items outstanding.
Additionally, if you look at an enlargement of the truncated fingers in 133A there is a visible ring mark on the ring finger. It looks as if the person posing for the camera has now removed his ring and the negative of the body has then been flipped over leaving the ring mark on the right hand. So in summary we have:
133C ring on left hand
133B ring on right hand
133A no ring on either hand, but ring mark on right hand
In my opinion this ring transposition is pretty much fatal to any chance for authenticity the photos may have. The question is therefore: why hasn’t this rather obvious problem been discussed before? I spent a long time looking up what exists of the backyard photo literature and came up with nothing.
Surely for example the late great Jack White would have seen this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that Jack never looked at 133C in any detail. I found this quote in Jim Marr’s book Crossfire (2013):
“Furthermore, in recent years White discovered other problems with the backyard photos. In one picture, the tips of Oswald’s fingers appear to be missing as does one end of the rifle’s telescopic sight. White claimed this was due to sloppy airbrushing on the part of whoever faked the picture. In one photo, the figure can be seen wearing a large ring on his right hand, yet the ring is missing in the other photos.”
In his 1990 video “Fake”, White describes how he is able to discern a watch on the left arm in 133B, apparently oblivious to the fact the watch is completely visible in 133C.
I'm afraid that I cannot get this site's image posting feature to work however these photos are readily available on the web.
I’ve been interested in the Oswald backyard photos off and on for many years. Recently due to having too much time on my hands I decided to take another squizz at these iconic fakes.
I had read somewhere that in one of the photos Oswald (or at least the supposed Oswald) is shown wearing a ring. So I’ve always known that 133C shows the figure wearing a ring on his left hand. You can imagine my consternation therefore while taking a squizz at 133B, I discover that Oswald is shown wearing a ring on his right hand. WTF?
Well its been several days now I and no matter which way I look at the photos and scratch my head, 133C always shows the ring on the left hand and 133B always shows the ring on the right hand. I therefore thought that I had better run this past the bright fellows on this forum for another opinion.
It seems to me as if the compositing artist has flipped the negative of the body thereby placing the ring on the right hand side. Then perhaps he had to finish up 133B in a hurry for some reason and left a few items outstanding.
Additionally, if you look at an enlargement of the truncated fingers in 133A there is a visible ring mark on the ring finger. It looks as if the person posing for the camera has now removed his ring and the negative of the body has then been flipped over leaving the ring mark on the right hand. So in summary we have:
133C ring on left hand
133B ring on right hand
133A no ring on either hand, but ring mark on right hand
In my opinion this ring transposition is pretty much fatal to any chance for authenticity the photos may have. The question is therefore: why hasn’t this rather obvious problem been discussed before? I spent a long time looking up what exists of the backyard photo literature and came up with nothing.
Surely for example the late great Jack White would have seen this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that Jack never looked at 133C in any detail. I found this quote in Jim Marr’s book Crossfire (2013):
“Furthermore, in recent years White discovered other problems with the backyard photos. In one picture, the tips of Oswald’s fingers appear to be missing as does one end of the rifle’s telescopic sight. White claimed this was due to sloppy airbrushing on the part of whoever faked the picture. In one photo, the figure can be seen wearing a large ring on his right hand, yet the ring is missing in the other photos.”
In his 1990 video “Fake”, White describes how he is able to discern a watch on the left arm in 133B, apparently oblivious to the fact the watch is completely visible in 133C.
I'm afraid that I cannot get this site's image posting feature to work however these photos are readily available on the web.
- Ed.Ledoux
- Posts : 3360
Join date : 2012-01-04
Re: The Backyard Photos: Ring Transposition and and LHO stance
Fri 26 Apr 2019, 8:21 am
Quite right Mick.
All thanks to the Secret Service' Sorrels
We thank him in kind.
Ed
All thanks to the Secret Service' Sorrels
We thank him in kind.
Ed
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum