The Backyard Photos: Ring Transposition and and LHO stance

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.

Is 133A tilted?

 

As previously discussed, Jack White in his HSCA testimony refers to the verticals in the background as the vertical axis of the backyard, but does not make himself very clear on this point.

 


 

In his “Fake’ video, White shows an image of 133A that has been detilted to make the staircase poles vertical. Again he does not discuss anywhere in this video that he has detilted the photo, although a number of detilted images are shown.

 









 

 

On the Internet there are to found a number of detilted photos which use the staircase pole(s) as the vertical, such as this ‘Copyright CORBIS’ photo, which I originally assumed was the original. This suggests that at one time it was common knowledge that the staircase poles represented the vertical axis of the backyard.

 



 

 

The Life Magazine cover shows the staircase poles almost vertical. This suggests that the editors were aware that the poles were the actual vertical in the image and have adjusted the original photo somewhat to comply with reality. This results in this image of Oswald having an odd lean backwards on the magazine cover.

 



 

 

This diptych of a person standing in the backyard seems to me to have been done to show that the staircase poles are the vertical axis.

 



 

 


The photo appears to be contemporaneous with the late 60’s or early 70’s as the house next door to the Neely St house still exists but the shrub has grown somewhat. I believe that photo has been taken from an angle to show that the staircase pole is aligned with the (presumably vertical) next door house fence boards (as shown by the red arrow) and thus is highly likely to be vertical or nearly so.

 

During the 60’s probably hundreds or even thousands of people traipsed through the Neely St backyard, cameras in hand. It would be good if there were to be some contemporary photographic evidence still available of plumb lines held against the vertical elements in the backyard. Perhaps Jack White has something like this in his archived notes. Barring this I believe, to use a popular Warren Commission phrase, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the staircase poles are likely to be vertical axis of the backyard.

 

In my next post I will try to calculate the amount of the shift of the center of gravity along the ground plane if the photo is detilted. This is the distance from the center of gravity to the ground x the sine of the tilt angle.

Here is an estimate of the tilt angle of the 133A. The number is shown on top of Oswald person's left shoe and is 2.73 degrees.

In order to calculate the shift in the center of gravity projection along the ground, we also need the distance between the ground and the center of gravity of the figure. Since Farid provides no numbers, I have estimated the distance by measuring a blow-up of Figure 5(b) and comparing this with Oswald’s known height allowing for shortening due to Oswald figure’s bent knees.
 
 


I measured the total height of the blow-up as 124mm, 72mm for distance between center of gravity and ground.
 
Farid discusses the foreshortening of the Oswald figure’s height in his earlier 2010 paper “A 3-D Photo Forensic Analysis of the Lee Harvey Oswald Backyard Photo’
 
Farid applies an earlier less sophisticated model to the photo and determines that the foreshortened height of the Oswald figure is in the ratio 40.186/44.8. This is the ratio he has calculated by 1. fitting the model to the photo and 2. stretching the model to its full height. Since Oswald’s height was 5’9” or 69”, it follows that the height of the figure as shown in the photo is 69 x 40.186/44.8 = 61.89” or 62” in round figures. This shortening is quite a lot so I’m not surprised Farid doesn’t actually provide the foreshortened height value in the paper.
 
 
 
Therefore the distance between the model’s center of gravity and the ground is 62 x 72/124 = 36”.
 
We can calculate the shift in the center of gravity projection by multiplying this distance by the sine of the tilt angle 2.7 degrees, which is

36 x .0471 = 1.7”
 
If you combine Farid’s fudge with the feet with this value it’s clear that projected center of gravity is now close to, on top of, or outside the boundary of the feet. This means that the Oswald figure is unstable. Even if you don’t take into consideration Farid’s fudge the figure is very close to unstable.
 
The following figure is purely an estimate based on the distance between the center of gravity projection and the feet boundary estimated to be approx 2”
 

it follows that the height of the figure as shown in the photo is 69 x 40.186/44.8 = 61.89” or 62” in round figures. 

That's about the same as other methods have shown. FWIW.

With reference to the above pic of a young man holding a rifle in the Neely Street backyard, the man is Australian actor Daniel Webber, who played Lee Oswald in the Stephen King mini-series 11.22.63. So, the pic of Webber would have been taken during production of the mini-series, so I estimate around 2015 sometime.

Phil Hopley wrote:With reference to the above pic of a young man holding a rifle in the Neely Street backyard, the man is Australian actor Daniel Webber, who played Lee Oswald in the Stephen King mini-series 11.22.63. So, the pic of Webber would have been taken during production of the mini-series, so I estimate around 2015 sometime.

Thanks Phil. That is very helpful. His IMBD bio states he is 5' 81/2".

Can someone who still has any appropriate software, measure him using the known measurements of other items?

If he comes out at about the right height, we know the measurements already done of the real BYP using the same software and the same known measurements must also be right (and therefore proving they are fakes, given they show Lee to be far too short)

greg parker wrote:

Phil Hopley wrote:With reference to the above pic of a young man holding a rifle in the Neely Street backyard, the man is Australian actor Daniel Webber, who played Lee Oswald in the Stephen King mini-series 11.22.63. So, the pic of Webber would have been taken during production of the mini-series, so I estimate around 2015 sometime.

Thanks Phil. That is very helpful. His IMBD bio states he is 5' 81/2".

Can someone who still has any appropriate software, measure him using the known measurements of other items?

If he comes out at about the right height, we know the measurements already done of the real BYP using the same software and the same known measurements must also be right (and therefore proving they are fakes, given they show Lee to be far too short)

My swag.

In a panel at Sundance Film Festival, series writer Bridget Carpenter mentions that she and the cast were able to visit the Neely Street location in order to re-stage the famous photograph. You can see a quick glimpse of this in the full-length trailer, as Oswald’s wife Marina snaps the shot. A more detailed look can be seen in an interview with James Franco (skip to :36).
Although the scene appears early in the eight-part Hulu series, the cast and crew reenacted the photo on their last day of shooting. They really wanted to make sure they got it right, Webber told BI.


Says he is 5 foot 7 and change, not 5' 8" and a half, that is wishful thinking.

"Australian actor, known for playing Lewis Wilson in Marvel's The Punisher and Lee Harvey Oswald in 11.22.63. He used to be listed as 167cm in the Australian Showcast Casting website, although Daniel himself gave his height as "5'8" and weight as 70kg (154 pounds) in a magazine article."
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Daniel-Webber-6870.html

167.00 cm = 5′ 5.7480″
Subtract an inch of slouch ...the 5 foot 4+ measure is quite possible.




We are correct and still vindicated.
King and Webber work for us.
Cheers,
Ed

"They really wanted to make sure they got it right, Webber told BI."

But did they get it right



Cheers, Ed

Cheers,
Ed

Thanks guys. Can we test Stan's figures by using the known width of the papers - 11"?

 "Can we test Stan's figures by using the known width of the papers - 11"?"

Assuming they got that 'right' as well, ...perhaps.

Can we compare the post height, width etc. for a baseline?
Ed

greg parker wrote:Thanks guys. Can we test Stan's figures by using the known width of the papers - 11"?

Someone to independently verify this would be nice, but we're damn close.

Thanks Stan and Ed!

Wowza Stan,
In comparison Oswald looks giant next to the actor even though he is but a few inches shorter ....
I came up with a similar result.



I think this could be the root or crux of it.
Someone while faking 133a/b and sizing Lee into the image made an error, mathematically screwed the pooch... but is still an error, not optical(?) or perspective...The 133 Lee's are too short and the guy playing Oswald on tv is even shorter.
There I've summerized the argument as that's about the size of it.
Ed

Something is wrong with these photos. Period. If they look like faked photos, walk like faked photos, talk like faked photos….
 
Over the past year, I've been scanning boxes of old family photos to preserve them for the future. There are a large number of them from the 1940s and 50s, from my side of the family and my wife's. All B/W. As I was scanning some from the 40s during the War showing my grandfather, my dad and my uncles, I realized that in none of the pictures did I see anything that looked weird, such as people standing in Leaning Tower of Pisa poses or midget looking guys holding giant M1 carbines, etc. (I had earlier been doing some analysis of the BYPs so I had had that on my mind.)
 
What we have here is fakery. It didn't even have to be good fakery. Just good enough to eliminate a problem. Because when you control the levers of power, you can say pretty much anything and get away with it. And compel others to stay with the program.

Until people wake up. And it's time people started waking the hell up.
 

That ghosted image in the above does not look right. I know what the member is trying to say that he's trying to get the 5-9 LHO in the BYP and trying to prove the subject is too small in the originals.

But the ghosted one looks way too big. I think what people are forgetting here is there is perspective you have to factor in. Sticking a person from another photo into a second photo does not prove that the person in the original is faked.

We are inching closer and closer to resolving this matter once and for all. Fine work Stan and Ed. I think in the not too distant future we might have definitive proof that the BYP133a is a fake.

JFK Case,

welcome.

"Sticking a person from another photo into a second photo does not prove that the person in the original is faked."


True that, but I don't think that's the point here. It's the height of the figure that matters, there are known factors within these photo's, so we are able to determine with some accuracy the different real life measurements of most of the variables at play within the pic.


One being Oswald's height. We know with some certainty that Oswald was 5' 9" tall. We know that the worker newspaper had a width of 11", and we know that the rifle being held by the Actor is the 40" model MC rifle. Armed with those measurements we can determine the actual height of the human figures in each photo.
The Math just doesn't add up in this case.


There has been a lot of study done here behind the scenes regarding the BYP's and all I can say is we hope to have some of the results of that study available shortly.

Mick Purdy wrote:JFK Case,

welcome.

"Sticking a person from another photo into a second photo does not prove that the person in the original is faked."


True that, but I don't think that's the point here. It's the height of the figure that matters, there are known factors within these photo's, so we are able to determine with some accuracy the different real life measurements of most of the variables at play within the pic.


One being Oswald's height. We know with some certainty that Oswald was 5' 9" tall. We know that the worker newspaper had a width of 11", and we know that the rifle being held by the Actor is the 40" model MC rifle. Armed with those measurements we can determine the actual height of the human figures in each photo.
The Math just doesn't add up in this case.


There has been a lot of study done here behind the scenes regarding the BYP's and all I can say is we hope to have some of the results of that study available shortly.

Exactly Mick.

If either dog had bit them Stan, I believe they'd be a bit more specific to the animal control officer.

The Back Yard Illusionists moved on quickly after showing the photo to Lee. He seemed to call their bluff.
The BYPs are a testament to the religious nature of the accusers. They would never question the magician, that'd be rude.

Does not a simple measurement rule out authenticity of the BYPs trick photography,... if not why not, do we need a phd in photo analysis to measure a known object? If we do then these are certainly special photos where physical metron is uncertain.
As when a conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy, when facts demonstrate their were two or more people conspiring to commit an act, thus we have but to find one unnatural element of the photo to impeach its genuineness.
The height of the accused is not malleable nor is the papers or rifle.
There are no perspectives that account for the diminutive vertex, no amount of lean of slouch, no acme algorithms necessary.
So does a ruler lie when laid atop these images?
Asking for my best friend (woof)
Ed

PS
Stan it is perfectly honest to place a 5' 9" Lee in that image as that is what the image maker was claiming with their own rendition.
PPS
Lucy Fry is 5 foot 9.
She wears a three inch heel and Daniel a nearly two inch. Difference should be two inches.

"do we need a phd in photo analysis to measure a known object? "


No we do not Ed. We have been extremely accurate in our measuring I'm tipping. But when we hold that press conference showing that these pics were forged I'm hoping that a person with a few letters after their name will be sitting along side us with irrefutable proof that the dogs bite was always bigger than it's bark - Woof. Once an error analysis is done on this by the person with the letters the house of cards will tumble.

That is our appeal to authority Mick.
Remember math doesn't require anyone special to use it. We are only verifying our results with a XYZ to placate the masses.
Our claim stands that the man pictured either can not be Lee or Lee was superimposed into an image.
Our proofs can be checked by Pythagoras himself.
But they are Self Evident.
And on this we stake our reputation and shows we are not barking up the wrong tree.
Cheers, Ed

PS, Mick its akin to a clearer pic of PM.
We don't need it... 'they' do.