Back Yard Photography

First topic message reminder :



The Most Incriminated Man In the World. 


All fun aside the new CTKA article was pointed out by Bart.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP4.html

One point made was, 
30) If the backyard photos were faked, it means that all items within the photo were deliberately chosen by the forgers. The odd inclusion on the Oswald figure is then the pistol. It invokes the Tippit slaying, but how could the Tippit slaying be anticipated months ahead? Perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated event.


Was slaying of Tippit with an automatic pistol changed to match the picture of a revolver. More likely they knew LHO had purchased a pistol in Fort Worth.  

Or were the photos composited onto an empty backyard photo after Tippits murder thus the need for a pistol wearing murderer.





When you examine the photos the shadows under the stairs do not change yet the shadow of LHO does, denoting time between images.
This would lend credence to Oswald's being composited onto a single image. See images below.



Again the stairs shadow is the same, note its appearance on the blanket etc. yet the "oswald" shadow has changed implying time between photos.

In fact the shadow of the rifle is at a different angle than the holder of rifle in second pose.

Of note is the bag or sack, or "blanket" possibly used to carry the rifle to the location, under the stairs by the post. Possibly a connection to the baby blanket later claimed to hold a disassembled rifle. 



In this image is a black 'thing' sticking out of the fence known as the black dog nose. It is likely light leak from the compositing process.


No black sports shirt with two white buttons was not on clothing inventory of LHO.

Do the black pants look like dress pants or more like work pants?


Do you think these are black dress pants?  


Please respond to the questions raised first, then we can expand the post to other areas of the BYPs.

Cheers, Ed

Ed,
I dusted off the time machine and sequenced the same date and times (March 29; 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, and 2:28. Geolocation: West Nealy St) to have a look at the shadows of the steps on the stringer of the stairs, as you asked about.

There is surprisingly very little movement of the step shadows compared to the movement of the wire shadows. This is because the wires are far from their shadows so the angular movement of the sun is amplified over that distance as compared to the very short distance from the step to the face of the stringer. There is an ever so slight movement, but it's not perceptible. With the figure of Oswald the figure/shadow distance is somewhere in between and accordingly, the movement of the shadow of the top of his head on the picket fence is greater than that of the step shadows and less than that of the wire shadows.

The following is an image essay describing modeling work I've done in analyzing the power line and LHO figure shadows in the back yard. 


Here is the model on a Google map. It sits on the Neely house. A feature of Sketchup is that one can geo-locate the model. As a result the shadows in the back yard can be generated for every minute of daylight on every day for the entire year.


Here you see the model closer in. I've replaced the google map with a green grass ground cover, but the geo-location is the same. Note the wires hanging in the air as if by magic. It's the wire shadows we care about, not the poles.


Above we have the wires as they were back in those days. Today they are in a different location, on poles further away from the house. 

All of the dimensions in the model are careful approximations based upon the google map scale, and upon photos showing apparent ground level changes, typical floor to floor heights, typical door heights, and stair construction technique observable from the variety of photos available on the internet. I do possess the types of construction knowledge needed for purposes of making these kinds of inferences. That said, the model isn't perfect. But it was useful for making a point in studying the back yard photos.


Above is at 2:25 PM on March 29, which was when I was able to get a decent match for shadows close to what we see in BYP's. One thing I struggled to get and never did succeed was a decent correlation between the post height and LHO's height. Could be my fault, could be something more suspicious, but I know this issue has been brought forward by others in the past.


Side view with some critical dimensions (again 3/29 @ 2:25 PM)


This is sequencing one minute at a time. I was amazed to see how far the shadows traveled up the pole (six inches) in just three minutes. Also note that as predicted by Steely, the head shadow goes UP the fence too, but much more slowly than the wire shadows. The speed of the wire shadows is due to the distance and elevation of the wires. These shadows are traveling toward the horizon faster than all the ground based shadows are. Point of order: Terry Martin gets the credit for the original discovery of this shadow anomaly.

So this leaves us with two possible conclusions: One, the photos are faked. Two, LHO moved closer to the camera within the time span of only several minutes between shots. Let's see how we must move LHO in this model in order to render a similar shadow change as observed in the BYP's:


Here it is at 2:27 as that time looks most similar in terms of wires on the post. I'm focusing here on the bottom wire shadow and ignoring the fact that the upper two wire shadows are much higher on the post in the BYP's. The point stands either way. LHO is now way too far forward of the wire shadows on the ground. He is even taller compared to the post. (For those who are interested, the field of view setting for the perspective views is 30 degrees).


Here are the dimensions and time stamp for the preceding view. The difference in distance from LHO to the fence is now 12" further from the fence.  

Thus eliminating the possibility that LHO moved closer to the camera, my final conclusion is that the photos are apparently faked.

This is of course reposted. It is Jake's work.

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.


Credit Bart Kamp

Credit Stan Dane.

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

Jeff Carter Part 1-3 
"A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs"

Jeff Carter Part 4.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-4

Jeff Carter Part 5.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5

Ed; you wrote,


Not if that exact Carcano wasn't used and pistol was an auto. That would be eerie but not persuasive in my mind. But lie to the public that its that rifle in the photo and that pistol in the photo and case is guilty as charged. They lied to match the crummy BYP imo.


100% agreed - that's exactly what they did. 


So, if as Greg has alluded to before now the Tippit murder was a spur of the moment Disturbance call then did someone just get lucky by having the figure in the BYP wear a hip holster with a gun (Note not automatic) either 8 months or 2 depending which timeframe we go with according to the Dallas equinox  out from the Kennedy assassination? The rifle in the BYP looks like it's the 36 inch model - the one in the archives is the 40 inch from memory.


Or was that just the framers due diligence? Gun on the hip - Carcano rifle in one hand and communist literature in the other. Like you say, all that needed to be claimed to nail him to the cross was that he had a carcano, a gun and the commie rags all in the one pic- Bam!
So they covered all bases, The murder weapons (even if the Tippit murder never happens it's still game on) Leftie rags etc

Jake_Sykes wrote:Ed,
I dusted off the time machine and sequenced the same date and times (March 29; 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, and 2:28. Geolocation: West Nealy St) to have a look at the shadows of the steps on the stringer of the stairs, as you asked about.

There is surprisingly very little movement of the step shadows compared to the movement of the wire shadows. This is because the wires are far from their shadows so the angular movement of the sun is amplified over that distance as compared to the very short distance from the step to the face of the stringer. There is an ever so slight movement, but it's not perceptible. With the figure of Oswald the figure/shadow distance is somewhere in between and accordingly, the movement of the shadow of the top of his head on the picket fence is greater than that of the step shadows and less than that of the wire shadows.

AMAZING!
That shoots down any of those shadows then.

This is very useful Jake.
A great job!

Cheers!!

Thanks Mick!

We'd still have a Texas Theater Theatrics to go through. The planting of a gun on him or using it to kill Lee and claiming it was used to try to kill Maurice McDonald.
Theres that clown show arrest where he's never charged with assualting Nick or attempting murder of Nick, and so on.

There is the pistol Lee admittedly bought in Ft Worth
Which makes sense both photo wise and evidence swapping.
38s werent unpopular.
I dont know that anyone can tell me the photo's pistol caliber with a straight face.

Theres that clown show arrest where he's never charged with assualting Nick or attempting murder of Nick, and so on.


Too true that, if it was all legit and went down the way they say it did then he most certainly would've / should've  been charged with attempted murder of Nick the Dallas cop. But in all their confusion they must've let that slip eh? I don't even think he was charged with resisting? WTH. Way too busy with other stuff - like finding photos, creating incriminating stuff out at Beckley etc.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

Jake_Sykes wrote:Ed,
I dusted off the time machine and sequenced the same date and times (March 29; 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, and 2:28. Geolocation: West Nealy St) to have a look at the shadows of the steps on the stringer of the stairs, as you asked about.

There is surprisingly very little movement of the step shadows compared to the movement of the wire shadows. This is because the wires are far from their shadows so the angular movement of the sun is amplified over that distance as compared to the very short distance from the step to the face of the stringer. There is an ever so slight movement, but it's not perceptible. With the figure of Oswald the figure/shadow distance is somewhere in between and accordingly, the movement of the shadow of the top of his head on the picket fence is greater than that of the step shadows and less than that of the wire shadows.

AMAZING!
That shoots down any of those shadows then.

This is very useful Jake.
A great job!

Cheers!!

So, can we determine if the figure in the backyard photo moved either forward or backward from the camera between shots or if the camera moved forward or backward....or a combo of both?

We need to establish that - yes? With regards to the figures shadow and how it behaves in relation to the picket fence. Right?

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:It is fascinating to think that whoever snapped those backyard photographs of the figure in the backyard holding a Mannlicher Carcano rifle and a gun in the figures holster did so with incredible foresight. These photographs were taken either in late March early April or in September sometime according to the Dallas equinox. To think it's possible that a photograph was taken at either of these times of a man holding these two weapons who would later be accused of two murders, one with a Carcano rifle and the other with a pistol is mind boggling. Whoever planted the two weapons had to have knowledge of the BYP's IMO.

Not if that exact Carcano wasn't used and pistol was an auto. That would be eerie but not persuasive in my mind. But lie to the public that its that rifle in the photo and that pistol in the photo and case is guilty as charged. They lied to match the crummy BYP imo.


Or Gary and Friend/s are up to their elbows and they used that BY for pictures of them goofing around probably using papers Lee had left at Marina's or she got from mail. 

BYPs are doctored on Friday and police slip them in to the inventory on Sat. 

Walla!  Lee in BY w/weapons! 


Works best if Lee was photographed holding a child in the yard... nothing surreptitious. Just like other photos Lee is posed in. Lee visits holds baby,  and a picture is taken as Marina recalls.

Then there can be an grain for grain swappable section of the image.


Lee may have admittedly had a pistol, but it was not an untraceable weapon if so by mail ordered. ie bullet will have distinguishing marks unlike the throwdown piece used on Tippit. Also weapon will be traceable back to mail order.

A hand gun bought from someplace (and someone Lee may not readily incriminate) in Ft Worth 

many months ago was not traceable it appears.

No gunshop records or documents of a Pistol being bought in Ft Worth at such an establishment 


were entered into evidence.

That may not be because they never existed

But I digress.


So, were balcony baby pics before or after BYPs?

Same roll, to finish it up? Setting sun?

Or early/afternoon sun in Sping?


Were they the start of the film roll to get used to camera, settings and so on.


So no roll of film. or stitching roll back together to get timeline???

Only a negative? 

..cut and made into a slide?

No roll of film with balcony baby pics to be able to say roll 7 pic 6?

just cut up negs? or slides or what have you.

Did drugstore machine cup up the roll? and what about non-drug store processed prints!?! 

Were there just full rolls of film, and prints/with clipped negs laying about at Ruths garage in the "seabags" no partial rolls missing 3 frames per se??
Does anyone see where Im going with this?

If so drop me a line at Box 9...

GOOD NOW LOOK AT ALL THREE BYPS SHADOWS ON STAIRCASE.



CAN A CAMERA MOVE AND STILL CAPTURE THE EXACT SHADOWS?
IDK ...

CAN TIME PASS AND THESE SHADOWS PERSIST...
 
JAKE? 

IS IT POSSIBLE THESE SPECIFIC SHADOWS CAN LAST SEVERAL MINUTES IN SITU?




Cheers, Ed

All good points Ed,

can we take a closer look at the figures shadow and how that moves onto the picket fence? Did the the figure move? Camera? or was the shadow movement on the picket fence the result of the transition of time between shots?

That's assuming of course that the pics were snapped in the order attributed by the WC - C B and A

CE-133C. Unsure whether this is the Stovall or Dee's / White copy. Verticals adjusted slightly.

CE - 133C - No adjustment.

CE DEM - 133A. Uncropped.

CE - 133A, CE - 133B, CE - 133C.


Note where the feet are positioned in 133A compared to 133C. Also note the power line shadow comparison between 133A and 133C. Has the subject moved toward the camera between shots?


CE - 133A Crop of feet and power line shadow.


CE - 133C crop of feet and powerline shadow.

Mick_Purdy wrote:CE - 133A, CE - 133B, CE - 133C.


Note where the feet are positioned in 133A compared to 133C. Also note the power line shadow comparison between 133A and 133C. Has the subject moved toward the camera between shots?


CE - 133A Crop of feet and power line shadow.


CE - 133C crop of feet and powerline shadow.

The stance is different, which may have entailed shuffling forward/backward/sideways.

If that happened, I think the photographer also moved slightly. But I would stress here strongly that this is the opinion of a half-blind layman.

Instead of the feet, a detailed study of the body and powerline shadows intersections may be more beneficial

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Instead of the feet, a detailed study of the body and powerline shadows intersections may be more beneficial

Ed, agreed. But this is just as important in my opinion. It can help to establish the figures shadow behaviour on the picket fence. 

This has been discussed before but I still believe it is important. It can help determine the actual sequence. Or at the very least it can help me better understand the powerline shadow theory.  Consider theses recent posts as if I'm just thinking out loud.

Note the camera between shots tilts upward or downward depending on the sequence. That can be proven because we have  CE 749 Neg 133C and CE DEM 133A both of which are uncropped.

It does appear  the BYP subject moved closer or further away from the camera depending on the sequence.

The gap between block of wood on the rear post and the figure's head changes between shots. If CE133C was taken first then it would be my opinion that the subject moved slightly forward toward the camera for shot CE133A.

It also could explain why the shadow on the picket fence might have moved off it in CE133A.


CE 133A


CE 133C

greg_parker wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:CE - 133A, CE - 133B, CE - 133C.


Note where the feet are positioned in 133A compared to 133C. Also note the power line shadow comparison between 133A and 133C. Has the subject moved toward the camera between shots?


CE - 133A Crop of feet and power line shadow.


CE - 133C crop of feet and powerline shadow.

The stance is different, which may have entailed shuffling forward/backward/sideways.

If that happened, I think the photographer also moved slightly. But I would stress here strongly that this is the opinion of a half-blind layman.

Yes the subject moved. Camera tilts as well either upward or downward depending on the sequence. Possibly a slight panning of the camera to the right (Camera right)

The uncropped evidence consisting of CE - 749 NEG 133B and CE - DEM 133A prove the camera was tilted which resulted in  more headroom in CE - 749 NEG and is evident in CE - 133C Stovall and Dee's / White


CE 749 NEG 133B Uncropped.


CE DEM 133A Uncropped.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Instead of the feet, a detailed study of the body and powerline shadows intersections may be more beneficial

Ed,

If the powerline theory is to hold water we must surely have to determine if the subject moved between shots - Yes?
I want to desperately believe the theory works but surely we have to test this, and I would think showing whether that subject moved between shots is critical in reaching any conclusions - Yes?

This may also be showing my ignorance of the theory so I apologise to Terry and Jake if this has been sorted.

Mick,
I see nothing wrong in anything you've said and I agree it's critical. I came to the personal conclusion that the subject did not move sufficiently, if at all to account for the change in where the head shadow meets the fence. However, in the face of the inevitable challenge that will come from anyone who does not agree and will say the subject moved, I am unable to definitely disprove such an assertion, which is what is required for this analysis to gain traction.

Jake_Sykes wrote:Mick,
I see nothing wrong in anything you've said and I agree it's critical. I came to the personal conclusion that the subject did not move sufficiently, if at all to account for the change in where the head shadow meets the fence. However, in the face of the inevitable challenge that will come from anyone who does not agree and will say the subject moved, I am unable to definitely disprove such an assertion, which is what is required for this analysis to gain traction.

Jake, many thanks for the feedback. As you know I'm going through the subject of the BYP's and I was keen on including the theory in my analysis of the topic.

My observations so far have left me thinking the subject moved forward towards the camera.
The camera also tilts between shots and pans slightly camera right or left depending on the sequence. Clearly in CE Stovall 133C the shadow of the figure is on the picket fence and in the other two photographs it has moved off the fence or vice versa depending on the sequence. Did you establish the sequence of the shots?

I think the feet in 133A have moved toward the camera and to support that the gap between the block of timber on the post in the background just above the figures head shortens from the photo CE 133C.

But it's also important to note that the powerline shadows do move quite a bit between shots.

It does appear  the BYP subject moved closer or further away from the camera depending on the sequence.

The gap between block of wood on the rear post and the figure's head changes between shots. If CE133C was taken first then it would be my opinion that the subject moved slightly forward toward the camera for shot CE133A.

It also could explain why the shadow on the picket fence might have moved off it in CE133A.


CE 133A


CE 133C