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

Finally got through to NARA re; the CE749 Negative.

Will find out sometime around the 7th November if I can get a copy of the negative done. I'll keep you posted

There you go, crack open another 6-pack of Fosters and the world looks rosey

"There was another rifle in the building."
Oswald said he saw it...

as opposed to the two others warren caster had, a 30.06 and a .22.

Hmm. Thx Mick

It's at this time the negative known as CE 749 could have been damaged.

Mick_Purdy wrote:

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. . . . The Dallas Police were the culprits. . . . The small picture was reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown to me. . . . Since I have been photographed at City Hall, with people taking my picture while being transferred from the office to the jail door, someone has been able to get a picture of my face, and with that, they have made this picture. . . . I never kept a rifle at Mrs. Paine's garage at Irving, Tex. . . . 

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Mate, I wouldn't put too much faith in "the last words of..." piece by Mae Brussells. Not for total accuracy anyway. One quick example: Fritz never claimed that Oswald blamed the police for fudging the photos.

Here is what he said in his report:  he had been photographed here at the City Hall and that people had been taking his picture while being transferred from my office to the jail door that someone had been able to get a picture of his face and that with that, they head made this picture.

From Fritz's testimony

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the photograph and he said someone else took it. It wasn't his picture at all. He said someone in the hall had taken his picture and made that photograph.
Mr. BALL. In other words, he said the face was his face but the picture was made by somebody superimposing his face?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; yes.
Mr. BALL. He denied ever having lived on Neely Street, did he?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he did.

Mick_Purdy wrote:An internal FBI memo dated February 25, 1964, generated as part of the FBI’s multi-city investigation into the leak of backyard photo 133-A to the media, describes an interview with Jerry O’Leary, Jr., a reporter for the Washington Evening Star. O’Leary confirmed to agents he had arrived in Dallas on the evening of November 22, 1963 and “advises as follows: Deputy Sheriffs and Dallas Police Department detectives, he believes, arrived at the Payne home in Irving ... O’Leary understands that the officers started searching, Mrs. Payne objected, whereupon they told her they would get a search warrant. O’Leary thinks these officers took photographs back to the police department or the Sheriff’s office which they obtained in the Payne residence from Marina Oswald. O’Leary says he believes the photograph carried by “Life” on its 2-21-64 issue was among those taken by the police. 
O’Leary says that either late the night of 11-22-63 or the morning of 11-23-63, he saw a copy of the photograph in the hands of a police officer” (FBI DeLoach to Mohr 2-25-64)


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



And this exchange between Michael Paine and Liebeler from the WC hearings;

Mr. LIEBELER – Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?

Mr. PAINE – They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.

Mr. LIEBELER – Were you able to?

Mr. PAINE – I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.

Mr. LIEBELER – By the what?

Mr. PAINE – By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.

Mr. LIEBELER – What did you identify the place as being?

Mr. PAINE – The Neely Street address.

Captain Will Fritz during his interrogations with  Lee Harvey Oswald, the following is from around noon on Saturday November 23: 


“Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 a.m. At 12:35 p.m. Oswald was brought to the office for another interview with Inspector Kelley and some of the other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of his holding a rifle which looked to be the rifle we had recovered. This picture showed to be taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the back yard ... Mr Paine had told me about where Oswald lived on Neely Street. Oswald was very evasive about this location.”

Not sure I'd invest too much faith in any of this either.

"O’Leary understands that the officers started searching, Mrs. Payne objected, whereupon they told her they would get a search warrant. O’Leary thinks these officers took photographs back to the police department or the Sheriff’s office which they obtained in the Payne residence from Marina Oswald."

Official story was no objection by Ruth on the Friday --- until they began taking stuff belonging to her.

They made sure they had a search warrant on the 2nd day. 

I could be wrong, but on the 2nd day, the photos were just about all they took? O'Leary makes it sound like the photos were all they took on Friday. If Ruth objected to the search at the outselt on Friday, then there should have been no search until they had a warrant.

Officially they found the photos. They were not handed over by Marina - who we know through Marguerite was paranoid about a separate photo which she destroyed on the Saturday.

As for Mike's claim of seeing the photo to identify the location on Friday - that too seems wrong. His memory for dates and times was all over the place in his testimony. So much so that he was corrected on dates more than once by his questioner. No reason to believe he was any more accurate here. In fact, it was Saturday that Oswald was first asked about Neely St, not Friday. 

Apart from all of that, there seems to be no logical reason to hide that photos were found n Friday.

I can't recall if there was other evidence pointing to Friday and I know we've been back and forth on it, but after reading the testimony and the Leary claims, I think they were both mistaken.

The only way I can spin O'Leary's claims into anything suspect, would be if Marina gave the cops the photo of Lee holding the shotgun inscribed to June -- this inspired faking some pics using a photo from March of the backyard to paste someone in holding the weapons and papers and with Lee's head pasted on.

They then gave the Minsk photo back to Marina on Saturday when she went to visit Lee and told her to destroy it and not to talk about it.  Not sure how likely that it is but it makes sense of O'Leary's statement, allows for the faking of the photos using the actual planted weapons, and explains why Marina never spoke about the photo she burned and flushed.

Excerpt from:

REPORT TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS U.S. CONGRESS--HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THE OSWALD BACKYARD
PHOTOGRAPHS
By Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, Dr. Ronald Francis
School of Photographic Arts and Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology
The Oswald Backyard Photographs
This text refers to three views of Harvey Oswald in his backyard holding a rifle and a
newspaper in his hands as shown below. Three different views are available in the
Commission archives along with a single negative. Low quality reproductions of the
three positive images are shown below along with a better quality reproduction of one
of the views. The one negative available is of 133b and it is not shown here but it was
invaluable in connecting the camera that was supposedly used with the extant negative
as described below.
133 a




511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include strong pincushion
distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas
and loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies are made, and
possible detection of imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion
was much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on
the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald camera
without the supplementary lens. Since there is no wide-angle effect when two dimensional
photographs are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate
variations in the shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable
as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses many technical problems, any
one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination of the
photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce the three,
backyard photographs of Oswald.

It was possible to make copy photographs - ie use the imperial Reflex camera to take copies of pictures from a high end 35mm camera.
Yes, this would pose a challenge to the forgers but it's possible nonetheless. The HSCA and it's panel of experts in this area could only maintain it was their belief - their opinion, that the copy photograph process was not at play here.

It may also come as a surprise to some that digital image processing was available in the early sixties. All of these previous studies are over 25 years old now. Well all except Hany Farid's masterpiece off deceit.  It needs a fresh look at using today's technology

IMick_Purdy wrote:Excerpt from:

REPORT TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS U.S. CONGRESS--HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THE OSWALD BACKYARD
PHOTOGRAPHS
By Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, Dr. Ronald Francis
School of Photographic Arts and Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology
The Oswald Backyard Photographs
This text refers to three views of Harvey Oswald in his backyard holding a rifle and a
newspaper in his hands as shown below. Three different views are available in the
Commission archives along with a single negative. Low quality reproductions of the
three positive images are shown below along with a better quality reproduction of one
of the views. The one negative available is of 133b and it is not shown here but it was
invaluable in connecting the camera that was supposedly used with the extant negative
as described below.
133 a




511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include strong pincushion
distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas
and loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies are made, and
possible detection of imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion
was much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on
the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald camera
without the supplementary lens. Since there is no wide-angle effect when two dimensional
photographs are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate
variations in the shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable
as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses many technical problems, any
one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination of the
photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce the three,
backyard photographs of Oswald.

It was possible to make copy photographs - ie use the imperial Reflex camera to take copies of pictures from a high end 35mm camera.
Yes, this would pose a challenge to the forgers but it's possible nonetheless. The HSCA and it's panel of experts in this area could only maintain it was their belief - their opinion, that the copy photograph process was not at play here.

It may also come as a surprise to some that digital image processing was available in the early sixties. All of these previous studies are over 25 years old now. Well all except Hany Farid's masterpiece off deceit.  It needs a fresh look at using today's technology

I’ve always thought it was interesting that the HSCA photographic panel specifically mentioned unexplained anomalies (“irregular, very fine lines”) in Oswald’s chin area - the exact location that many suspected showed evidence of fakery - then proffered no less than four mutually exclusive bullshit theories and concluded that the BYPs were genuine. That’s basically throwing shit at the wall. 

The HSCA explanations for other features on the photos are often unconvincing - but the panel admitted they had no idea what caused the chin lines. That fact alone warrants a reexamination of the photos with modern technology, IMO.

REPORT TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
     ASSASSINATIONS U.S. CONGRESS--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 
                                   THE OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS
 
 
         By Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, Dr. Ronald Francis School
         of Photographic Arts and Sciences Rochester Institute of Technology
 
                        The Backyard Photographs




(509) 22. Could the negative of Oswald be a copy of a composite print rather than an original photograph?
 
(510) The undersigned copied a photographic print with the Oswald camera, using a +4-diopter supplementary lens over the camera lens, to demonstrate that it is possible to make a copy negative that has characteristics of an original negative including edge markings, scratch patterns, variations in centre to edge sharpness, pincushion distortion, and consistent grain patterns (fig. RIT 22-1 A and B). For this type of fakery to be successful, it would be necessary to use a large format camera with a good quality lens for the original photographs to avoid introducing graininess, scratches, unsharpness, or distortion at this stage. Also, any alterations would have to be made on large photographs so that retouching or discrepancies could be concealed.
Furthermore, the Oswald camera would have to be available to the person making the fake photographs and it would be necessary to calculate a combination of supplementary lens focal length and original print size to obtain an in-focus image of the desired size with the fixed-focus camera.
 
(511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas and loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies are made, and possible detection of imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald camera without the supplementary lens. Since there is no wide-angle effect when two dimensional photographs are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses many technical problems, any one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination of the photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce the three, backyard photographs of Oswald.

A BYP re-enactment version I had not seen before. From the 6th fl museum.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29175/black-and-white-photograph-of-a-man-with-rifle-reenacting-th?ctx=4651f97c1838a737329fbe47c669b0bd5d5c08c5&idx=1017

barto wrote:A BYP re-enactment version I had not seen before. From the 6th fl museum.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29175/black-and-white-photograph-of-a-man-with-rifle-reenacting-th?ctx=4651f97c1838a737329fbe47c669b0bd5d5c08c5&idx=1017

Thanks Bart,
I'd seen this before, but one has to ask why would the FBI reenact this photo on the FBI HQ rooftop. This whole BYP thing had them in a spin. It's the same pattern over and over. Silly stupid reenactments to prove zero. All theatrics - no substance.

Has anyone ever tried any of the techniques postulated for faking the photos and then having them examined by presumed experts in photo fakery to see if they can be detected?

The issue has been raised that the gusty winds of the day the photographs were believed to have been taken in March 1963 would have resulted in differences in the position of branches/leaves in the background vegetation between the photographs. I thought about this too but it’s possible that the backyard was significantly sheltered from the winds and the vegetation is relatively small so the branches tend to be stiffer and the movement is much smaller and thus, not discernible in the photographs.

On a side note, if the photos are genuine and were actually taken in March 1963 as part of an effort to frame Oswald for a planned JFK assassination, it tends to cast doubt on the assassination being motivated by concerns of a US withdrawal from Vietnam. From what I can gather, the first conception of a possible withdrawal was in May, 1963 and that was because it was thought the efforts to shore up South Vietnam were going reasonably well. It was only over the summer with the Buddhist crisis and subsequent loss of confidence in Diem that things went decidedly south.

lanceman wrote:

"On a side note"

What the hell does any of that have to do with any of that?

Just a thought:
In the simplest of terms, Oswald was always in and out of various "Pro/Anti Cuban Commies For Mommy Club" (FPFCC etc) where he was positioned to be visible so as to be vetted by whichever groups he was sent to , to infiltrate / look into for intel.

New orleans is a fantastic example of that for a few reasons:
1- name, picture, story...interview at the radio station... Ladies and Gentlemen, The LHO Show...
2- it shows us that he was being specifically and deliberately sheep dipped.
3- it didn't have any use in the JFKA/Warren Omision because he looked like a credible commie and not a lunatic.

The backyard photos could have been just that and have nothing to do with the JFKA in  advance..
"Hey Lee, we need some photos for an advert in the back pages of "Americanized Cuban Gent"...
"Defector looking for fun and games...Likes Bowling and High Powered walks in the park."
Whatever...

The idea that these were faked on the "day of " is not impossible but highly improbable...
It's more likely that they were taken for/as a part of something else and happened to be laying around.
And I'm not saying thay aren't fake either...

Take the Civil Air Patrol Photo with Ferrie.
IF Ferrie had been in as a patsy as well, that would have been COMEDY GOLD for the "planners"...
"Here, look! the two guys from CUBAN GENT magazine who killed JFK are at a Dude ranch in WW2 Cosplay!!"

Oswald was already being "cut out" for these 'other things'...

In closing my long winded rant I'd just like to point out that historically these things are hit and run and not as well planned as the James Bondage films would have us believe.

I'm working on an essay/Op Ed about "why Oswald?" that I will post here when it's done.

Some believe that the BYP were taken in September or October based, I believe, on the foliage evident in the background vegetation. The most popular theories for the reason JFK’s assassination include his planned withdrawal from Vietnam, his peace initiatives such as the June 1963 speech and Limited Test Ban Treaty and the financial scandals involving the TFX aircraft. None of these issues were on the radar in March 1963 when the photos were supposed to have been taken.

Further, Oswald was not hired by the TSBD until October.

I don’t know about you but after looking at an aspect of the case in depth, I like to back up and see how it (may) fit into the bigger picture.

I also think it’s likely the photos were made for some other purpose. If they are faked, as Oswald suggested, by superimposing his face on another body photographed in that location, then the issues of the impossibly awkward stance and many of the incongruous shadows would go away. Unlike alterations of the Z film, it would seem that someone well versed in photography using equipment available at the time could try to duplicate a similar forgery and see how successful it is to do so.

lanceman wrote:Some believe that the BYP were taken in September or October based, I believe, on the foliage evident in the background vegetation. The most popular theories for the reason JFK’s assassination include his planned withdrawal from Vietnam, his peace initiatives such as the June 1963 speech and Limited Test Ban Treaty and the financial scandals involving the TFX aircraft. None of these issues were on the radar in March 1963 when the photos were supposed to have been taken.

Further, Oswald was not hired by the TSBD until October.

I don’t know about you but after looking at an aspect of the case in depth, I like to back up and see how it (may) fit into the bigger picture.

hmm...how many eggs did they use in that cake I wonder?
WHO CARES.
There are the candles

foliage...time of day. pointless minutiae. test band treaties and Buddists...what are you rambling about?
Where? When? Why?
This is thread humping frottage et moi of the worse kind on your part....

The photo did it's job of putting Oswald in a window with a rifle 'he owned' and on 10th and Patton with a pistol 'he owned'.
Thats what it was there to do. was it fake? Maybe, maybe not.
doesn't matter. was that his rifle? we don't know 100%
"Is that a real poncho or a Sears Poncho?"
It got where it needed to go and did what it was supposed to do.

An Aside:
Here is the bigger picture simplified..
Dulles, Cabel and Hoover HATED the Kennedys.
All of them had the resources to pull this off.
They also had the assets.
The same assets came up with poisoned toothbrushes, poisoned wetsuits etc. for Castro until the target changed.
THEN
Some smart guy, MONTHS before (Tampa, Miami etc) decided "Hey, what about the old sniper in a window gag?"
Some other smart guy when "Great..lets look at the expendables we have in each area and let the shots fly."
and in the folders for Vallee and Oswald and Lopez were all the profiles and pictures, already there...
you are looking at three or four photos.

This isn't John Le Carre... It's Dullez, Jane Edna Hoover and the DPD under Cabel and co.
Not NSAM 263.

Lance, you wanna do something useful and fun?
Look into the Trade Mart in Dallas that day.
If Dealey had been an abort, He woulda got it there.
Go see who that Patsy mighta been.

this thread is about the photos, not policy, not cold war attire or poisoned toothpaste.

one last thing"
"None of these issues were on the radar in March 1963 when the photos were supposed to have been taken."
again, pointless...

Kennedy was the issue.Period. There were other things he was doing that pissed them (CIA ETC) off before he was elected.
Go rabbithole that stuff.
1- you don't seem to understand how these things work so you are trying to connect a donkey to a rocket.
2- outside of "some people believe" and "the intenets sayz" there are academic and historical records of the why and who and you are rambling about how a photo is connected to X.
it's not. it's a piece, not the whole puzzle...

stop humping. start reading.

All my best,
Big G

Garn G wrote:I'm working on an essay/Op Ed about "why Oswald?" that I will post here when it's done.

Look forward to reading it.

And speaking of reading...

start reading.

What are your recommendations?

Greg, Lance

Didn't mean to be harsh...

By "start reading" I meant simply research in general.

(Not to threadjack but)
The Oswald Op Ed thing is in the works. mostly editing and sources.

No problem. What I was getting at was that the evidence in this case is so fucked up by incompetence, deliberate obfuscation as well as twisted by well-meaning researchers trying to buttress their own theories either way, that a multitude of theories have emerged and it would be helpful to identify those that are logically inconsistent.

If the backyard photos were forged on the afternoon-evening of the assassination by using a picture of Oswald’s face taken while in custody, wouldn’t the cut on his right forehead and the swollen left eyelid from the struggle in the theater need to be hidden? How easy is that to do?

lanceman wrote:If the backyard photos were forged on the afternoon-evening of the assassination by using a picture of Oswald’s face taken while in custody, wouldn’t the cut on his right forehead and the swollen left eyelid from the struggle in the theater need to be hidden? How easy is that to do?

It would/could have been airbrushed out if that were the case.
I don't know how much I trust the "day of" story though...
here's why
If they didnt turn out or looked really fake, the entire story they hinge those photos on falls apart.
And as you mention , the day of story falls apart because he had facial injuries.

The photo editors at the Dallas newspapers and wire services  all airbrushed detail on  Ruby's gun in Oswalds guts for example because when it ran in the paper it would have been invisible. ( a problem with early PMT printing...)
I can't post a source here or links...
So could they have been rushed over there? possibly. But I doubt that it would have been from a mug shot taken at DPD.

Stovall could have done it.
But that leaves a lot to chance on the day.
That also rules out day of.
The CIA processed the Z film at their Kodak lab for the briefing boards and they could have done it...but that wasn't in Dallas. so...

I'll post more in my upcoming giant Oswald ramble.
( Nealey St as a safe house etc...)

Its just interesting that of all the things the DPD/WC would let leak out is Oswalds comment..."Thats not me".....

and yeah I totally agree, it's hard to pick the pearls out when its surrounded by so much pigshit.

an example:
"Remember there are Two Oswalds..."
-Richard Belzer
LOL

Here’s a thought that’s “out there”. The Dallas police had a photo or photos that they obtained though a confidential source or perhaps outside the bounds of a warrant. While they were sanitizing the chain of custody to get them added as legal evidence, they made a doctored copy of one, perhaps not too well done to get Oswald’s reaction, rattle his cage or perhaps get a confession.

By recording Oswald’s objection that the face was altered, they also get him to implicitly accept that the firearms and location are genuine. The Dallas police would want to use this technique as soon as possible before Oswald got  a lawyer.

Pending convincing evidence by someone with some indication of photo-interpretive expertise, I accept that the photos are genuine, taken in March for some intrigue Oswald was involved with at the time. While the critics point out supposed anomalies, I can’t be sure those are not subject to my own optical illusions. One of the most prominent critics of the photos also vehemently insists that the Apollo lunar landings were faked based on his interpretation of the photos.